"Defendor" (2005) - Movie Review

The attraction of nerds towards comic book and super heroes is direct correlation of how the fantasy world is a playground for being in control and do unrealistic actions. Like any other escapism, superheroes provide that realm and in “Kick-Ass” it came close for an ordinary person to suit up for misguided heroism with comic book splash on screen. “Defendor” was released half a decade before Matthew Vaughn’s film with rightly cast Woody Harrelson as the titular character.

Director Peter Stebbings said that none of the studios did not want to touch it while the actors and agents were all after it. Understandably so because the idea on paper would have been such a gold mine for an actor to sink deep and get concrete performance out of the troubled character of Arthur Poppington and his superhero Defendor. Arthur has problems, obviously. He had a bad childhood with a mother (Charlotte Sullivan) leaving him to his grandfather to take care. The film begins when Arthur as Defendor crosses paths with an undercover dirty cop Dooney (Elias Koteas) as he is ill treating a hooker Angel (Kat Dennings).

Arthur recites his story during a psychological evaluation to Dr. Parks (Sandra Oh). While he should have been apprehended for several times (most of them him ending up beaten to pulp), he is there for assaulting a nobody guy owning a dry cleaners. If you have half the sense of movie formula, this part is easily solvable. “Defendor” is driven to find the non-existent Captain Industry which he might have picked up from several of the non-popular comic books he shelters in the basement of the construction facility he works. He has great friends because Arthur is a good guy in heart. He is sweet to most of the people and one such is Paul Carter (Michael Kelly). Paul goes above and beyond in helping Arthur and the explanation we get at the end for his actions comes off haphazard and contrived.

“Defendor” exists in a half baked comic land. It has the cops, criminals and people who are real with problems that carries deadly consequences while the script treats it like a comic book without the elements of it. Stebbings attempts to draw parallel to the world we live in by plugging the comic book scenario of good versus evil. The evil empire of course exists and “Defendor” uses it while struggling to come in terms with the characters. What was Arthur doing before he met Angel? He is forty something adult and if he has been dealing with this vigilante character for all his life how come he managed to escape notice till now? Or if this is a recent trigger, why now?

Woody Harrelson is a capable and the right actor to provide the variations Arthur needs going from a naive and shy construction worker to a naive and more confidently sounding Defendor. The comedy in this story which is supposed to be dark ends as early as Defendor is caught by the cops at the start. Beyond that it is neither a sad and moving tale of a mentally affected man nor a full on mash up of superhero in real life. “Kick-Ass” took it to another level splashing blood and guts making it a R-rated comic book film which it was supposed to be. This earlier attempt on that suffers from identifying itself on where it wants to be.

Kat Dennings comes off as the damsel in distress while milking money for drugs from Arthur. Their relationship that develops into something meaningful are summated with nice background score and montage sequence. There in itself is the inability to create a relationship to convince us. Dennings beyond her efforts to present a character never convinces me as the druggie hooker. Here it is perfect on the work she puts out in Angel or Kat but there is an underlying problem in the way she carries herself that quite does not nail the character for me. Nevertheless she does her role dutifully.

Peter Stebbings film is neither terribly boring nor effortlessly dull but uneventful. The plot with a real drug lord Radovan Kristic (Alan C. Peterson) comes off more as an unnecessary distraction than an aid to the story. Harrelson’s presence with good supporting cast stumbles comfortably into predictable plot lines with an end to suck tears out of dry eyes. “Defendor” is absolutely a great material on paper or when you summate it with the premise and it does not fail but it does not succeed as well. It simply exists unresolved.

"Shame" (2011) - Movie Review

The internal struggle in a human mind especially of men when provided with the director who precisely knows what he is handling dissects through an actor who precisely knows what he is being handed achieves excellence. Martin Scorsese knew when he handled Robert De Niro in “Taxi Driver”, Abel Ferrera knew when he handled Harvey Keitel in “Bad Lieutenant” and Werner Herzog knew when he handled Nicolas Cage in “Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans”. Steve McQueen did it with Michael Fassbender in “Hunger” and he repeats it with the same actor in “Shame”, a character study that provides sadness as a state of mind.

Brandon Sullivan is the handsomest New Yorker any woman would not hesitate to smile and fall in his laps. His problem is the inability to connect with them. For a relationship to achieve its completeness, it cross overs the physicality and survives it and with Brandon that part is tainted with guilt. Not that any of us are spared of guilt when it comes to sex but Brandon’s goes beyond the moral guilt the norm of society has confined in open secrecy. Brandon is a sex addict.

How do you embrace a character like this? Michael Fassbender embodies this person with bare hands and wears the skin of this beautiful entity filled with regrets and melancholy. He is groomed not because he grooms himself but he is the kind of person who gets out of shower with sharp clothes, clean shaven and hair combed to perfection. Yet within that devastating confidence is the underlying sorrow and most importantly a shy man. He has made a place and status for himself in a company. He closes deals and is a regular compadre for his boss David (James Badge Dale). David tries too hard with woman because he knows it works on many. Brandon simply stands and notices. Beyond his natural charm and enigma, he appears to communicate what he can do to satisfy a woman sans words. It is a natural phenomenon to see him get a girl his boss tries to sleep.

Brandon is the man’s man which means all the men would beg to have his ease in getting women to bed. As much as he can woo a woman effortlessly, his needs or his addiction do not wait for the mating rituals. He pays for sex when he can and rest of the time he numbingly watches his laptop with moaning sounds. He masturbates in the middle of day in his office rest room. He is trapped and though it is hard for us men to get that, “Shame” is every bit painful and saddening of this man going through that motion of not being able to get a hold of things.

In this comes his sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan). The chemistry both of this have speaks beyond words and emotions. It draws the history amongst these two which are nothing  but scars of painful memories. Sissy has a different kind of trouble. If Brandon is unable to find a simple connection with the opposite sex, Sissy is sucker for falling for every man she sleeps with. These two have an unspeakable past that are carried and performed with angst, love and tearing emotion by Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan.

Brandon desperately tries to make a reach with his colleague Marianne (Nicole Beharie). They go on a date and the differences are imminent but the chemistry is evident. They have genuine conversation and he leaves the night without even kissing her but desiring for a second date. The very next day he tries to combine his addiction with connection.

Along with performances that are pure artistic excellence, Steve McQueen’s presentation is daringly beautiful. His first shot of Fassbender lying naked covered precisely his private parts might fool its audience only to be immediately presented the nature of material we will be dealt with. He treats nudity and sex as an essential part of the presentation wherein it carries a purpose in conveying the psychological and physiological presence a character or the scene has to say. In “Hunger”, he made art with feces on the wall in the most horrific prison and treated the material with a blunt honesty that can rip your skin apart. He brings the same to the polished and shiny city of New York. The glass windows showing copulation in open air as Brandon walks through wondering whether his actions can be looked less guilty. Or the gorgeous fellow passenger in a train that crosses her leg in such a way and smiles in a particularly suggestive fashion. McQueen sees the unseen and brings that out naked to our eyes.

McQueen fills the screen with shots that resonates mood of prolonging sadness and overflowing emotions. The jazz song by Mulligan’s Sissy is one such that echoes deep level of human psyche in the way she sings and the reaction she gets from Brandon. Before I began watching “Shame”, I had a predisposition that McQueen is going to treat sex as clinically as possible which he does but near the end when Brandon plunges into continuous orgy, he presents a person painfully satiating the inner itch and engulf himself in abysmal melancholy which is beyond something I would have ever expected. “Shame” takes the fundamental instinct of human emotion and makes us see it as an addiction which is hard to do wherein all men think is sex. He does that with a man who appears to have everything he needs but the emptiness he is left with every step of his action to quench his inner thirst is frighteningly awful.

"Iron Man 3" (2013) - Movie Review

After seeing what Shane Black can do with Robert Downey Jr. in “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang”, it is a “duh” moment to see his name for “Iron Man 3”. Iron Man series are neither a hit nor a miss for me. It elevates just enough above mediocre to make it the summer blockbuster people would like to get a good deal for. Iron Man rides on Robert Downey Jr. who has effortlessly carried this franchise with his egomaniacal Tony Stark with crisp sarcasms and wit. He does not forgets to bring that out here.

Shane Black’s writing and directing brings the memories of “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” though he is well known for Lethal Weapon which are faint in my memories. The film takes lot of inspiration from the style of “The Avengers” that did not hesitate to poke fun at its heroes and acknowledge the idiosyncrasies of them. With each of the Iron Man films, Stark improves his toys and makes it far more cooler and effective. I bought into it without qualms as the advancements we make in the simple things we see day to day are equivalent to what Tony goes. If a guy with that mind has time and money, it is nothing surprising to see him invent these machines that can do spectacular things with amazing ease and power.

Tony Stark is having an identity crisis. The encounter he had with the Aliens and the demigods in “The Avengers” are haunting. He cannot come to grasp the possibilities of these beings but more than that is his question of defining himself to the existence a.k.a mid life crisis. Now he had those in different fashion in previous films but here he has to go deeper and see what makes him who he is and how this armour has defined him as well. What is he without it? He does not get sleep and ends up advancing several prototypes in making it better and have more of it, just in case which comes quite handy in the end.

Before the first Iron Man and when Stark was a happy go lucky dude partying and picking up girls, he as any egocentric megalomaniac would do ignores a geeky scientist Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) that results in the sort of vengeance which is old school but how they arrive it is entertainingly novel. There is a new threat to US and it is Mandarin (Ben Kingsley). Mandarin is obsessed with theatrics as he consistently transmits video threatening and intimating the next imminent attacks against the country. The reasoning is quite vague which is sufficiently convincing once we discover some twists. Mandarin wants to educate the Americans on humbling them. He does so by blowing stuff up with no evidence of any kind of device. Stark’s buddy and security fellow Happy Hogan (Job Favreau) follows up Killian’s accomplice to find it the hard way.

Shane Black fills the film with sharp humour through Downey Jr. While it was available in plenty in the previous two ventures, this one takes it on a good sense and extending it what Joss Whedon did. With the suit gone and dealing with his panic attack, it truly becomes a question of identifying himself as a person for Tony. There is never a dull moment and the real fun are these tiny characters which carry the sharp sense of humour only Downey Jr. had. The main fun in the film is the bond Tony creates with the kid Harley (Ty Simpkins) in Tennessee. He challenges Stark and bounces dialogues with him shoulder to shoulder and gets the win in the end. Their scenes are the most entertaining beyond the explosions and the crazy stunts.

The film’s effects and the stunts are choreographed with thought and care into it rather than overwhelm us with pure metal clanking. There are crucial clever decisions Stark makes that is more than an average super hero film would do. With Don Cheadle. Gwyneth Paltrow and Guy Pearce, “Iron Man 3” which centers specifically on the charms and comic timing of Robert Downey Jr. goes little further in becoming a complete film with them. Cheadle’s Colonel James Rhodes especially becomes a good punch line for Tony’s wits. Shane Black while does not take it to deeper sense does take it to territories that are done with serious nature which otherwise were left in the sidelines in previous films. The problems come off as real while Black keeps the good part of Iron Man series which are trademark one liners from Downey Jr. to its best. “Iron Man 3” is the perfect blockbuster film which rides slightly above the common fodder of super hero films but lays low below the greatness of The Batman Trilogy and gains the goodness of the fans to make it for what it is.

"The Place Beyond the Pines" (2013) - Movie Review

Derek Cianfrance’s “The Place Beyond the Pines” achieves success halfway in its duration and then over reaches for ambitious profundity that might have worked against an otherwise thematic portrait about the deep bond between fathers and their sons. Coming back after his most depressive and saddest film I have seen “Blue Valentine” this is a breath of fresh air taken for shift in the genre.

Luke Glanton (Ryan Gosling) is a man with penchant for tattoos that is self evident and has the dexterity in handling the motorcycles he rides. A stunt performer in state fairs, he is a wanderer. In one of his stops, he comes to learn that he is a father as a result of a fling a year back with Romina (Eva Mendes). His fatherly instincts for good or worse kicks in. He quits his job and becomes single minded in injecting himself to the lives of his son Jason and Romina. Gosling’s Luke resembles the unnamed Driver in “Drive” but Luke is more disturbed and short tempered than the calm and calculated Zen master in Nicolas Wending Refn’s film.

Romina has made a life with another man and she was still with him from what we could imply when she was with Luke. Her impulses are undefined which the film never addresses. She lives with Kofi (Mahershala Ali) and understandably objects the intrusion of Luke. Luke definitely has his way around in impressing Romina. His simple act of being there and beginning to discover the possibility of him in her and their son’s life is good enough for her.

Luke uncertain about his plans runs into the ever creepy Ben Mendelsohn as Robin. I always wonder how come a guy like Luke can act and exist the way he does but then I see Robin and Luke begins to become more real and present. There are actors who can quite consistently be typecasted and they prolifically provide multitude of characters in same plane with interesting flavours. Michael Shannon is one of those and Mendelsohn appear to have taken it. On one end he is the ever doozy Robin mesmerized by the driving skills of Luke. He appears to hire him just to hang out with him. Then we see the real intention of him. He recommends the bank robbery to use Luke’s skill. In his unstable devious existence, he is a pragmatic man. He knows when he needs to be out of the game. He is not devious as I say but simply sees it as a way of living. One you get away with something without bloodshed, your confidence only grows further.

The robbery sequences are done with the high octane energy without anything blowing up or being chased for eternity. It is quick and sudden as it would be in reality and becomes evident of the adrenaline in driving this. While money is the intent, for Luke and Robin, it is the rush. Money is just a bonus. Nevertheless, the survival comes in cash and they venture out successfully. Luke wants more which results in the crucial act of solo robbery going expectedly bad. This introduces to Avery Cross (Bradley Cooper) as the cop chasing down Luke.

The narration shifts to Avery at that point. Avery is the son of a judge (Harris Yulin) and is put on the spot light. That takes a turn of its own that gives Bradley Cooper sufficient amount to prove one more time that he is capable of handling himself in complex roles. Cianfrance film is the education in the paternity instinct that comes forth in us. As us adults act selfishly or unselfishly that results in the future and destiny of our offsprings. This is the job nobody have any clue of doing but are willing to go the length as it is quite crucial to leave the evidence of themselves and be judged by themselves for that. Not being a father, I can only draw distant judgments and conclusion but there is one thing that is clearer than a pristine stream of still water is the fact of how a child can change a man’s life in a dimension he never ever expected to have.

Cianfrance’s film is filled with mood and ambience. The rainy and flourishing vegetation of Schnectady, New York becomes the back ground. It goes through the town that does not carry the aesthetic sense of beauty the outskirts blooms. Unlike “Blue Valentine”, this film moves with consistent pace though that film required that to illustrate the demise of a marriage. Here it is about the psychological dilemma on the impulsive actions that has resulted in the consequences to be dealt with. There is Cooper’s Avery living with the encounter he had with Luke and the consequences of those along with his colleagues played by Ray Liotta. Ryan Gosling and Bradley Cooper come through for the role and provide those close up shots of emotional breakdowns. The film goes to the next generation to focus of Luke’s and Avery’s sons played by Dane DeHaan and Emory Cohen who play as effectively as Gosling and Cooper. This supposed material that is aimed in having a deeper value to the already made stronger case for this heroic bond. The result becomes a much contrived connection. That dampens the foundation built by the better part of the film. Cianfrance’s intention and the aim for going further with the concept cannot be claimed as something he did not execute properly but it overextends and becomes something unfitting in the whole scheme of things. “The Place Beyond the Pines” is a film that is the kind of follow up I am happy to expect from Cianfrance as there needs this range in a talented director who is ready to explore it uncompromisingly.

"Roger Ebert"

Roger Ebert was more than an idol for me and I say that not because of the fact he inspired me to write regardless of my inability in the skill and art of writing. I say that because he taught me the greatest lesson in appreciation of film which is that it is fine to love a film your idol hated and it is fine to hate a film your idol loved. It sounds so simple and rational but when personal emotions are wound towards a certain film and you are flabbergasted to see a person who utmost respect and admire despise it which is earth shattering. Consistently reading Ebert’s commentary on the films despite the fact we had more films to our likings in common, there were some heart breaking moments of his scathing review.

He wrote easily 200-300 odd film reviews a year for the past forty years that motivated personally. While my writings have reduced, the passion is still there because of his reviews. His writings which I have read the past 6 years religiously carry the great character of being personal, to the point and most important of all, honest. The man truly embraced the nature of a film and relished every drop of the detail it had to offer. He made sure his readers got the reality of what they can expect from a film. While the viewer got the crux of a film, he also gave a cross section of who he is as a person and through that we came to understand the films he likes. Whether you agree or disagree, you learned something about the person out of his reviews.

His combination of “At the Movies” with Siskel is nothing short of a classic. That is the kind of discussion, argument and fight you would have with great company and those two brought that to the viewers in much more interactive, sharp, brief yet precise reviews of films. When they agreed and admired a film, their love was insurmountably beautiful and when they disagreed and disliked a film, they would spear each other with words that are razor sharped with devilish sarcasm and wit. Siskel’s death of course marked the shows turn of events but Richard Roeper gave his best in filling Siskel and more importantly allowed Ebert to be the wise man he became out of it. I have only seen the recordings of the shows but the change in the person as Ebert is like everyone of us through the process of aging and in his case consistently blossoming.

I never fathomed I would be writing to express myself about the demise of this prolific and passionate writer. Through reading his reviews, I was able to the time and effort that has made me into writing something remotely meaningful and pay my respects to this man who very simply put, loved films and had the simplest and effective tool of showing it. My ritual of checking Thursday morning on his website will be marked with an emptiness hereafter. There again he embraced the technological change that was presented from a man who evolved out of newspaper. He did not fight the age of internet and absorbed completely and used it to his effect. His writing branched out into blog inviting some angry and interesting posts inviting the same from his readers. His statement of “video game can never be an art” still draws so much tension and anger in that community but he laid down his point as best as he could. I disagree with him but he had the best and most interesting presentation in his writing which would be doing a surgery to a patient and the patient understands the need of such action. He brought in people to the table and fed the points and listened thereby prompting the discussion on disagreements.

I was always hoping ship some of the best films from my native language to him and see what he would think about it. It never happened and I never will know. This write up which can be construed as several things has no direction and I would even say has no agenda or purpose. When I heard the news through online chat from a friend of mine, a burst of sadness blanketed me. I have not known Roger Ebert personally and I am not the kind of person who generally gets moved by the death of any known person apart from humane empathy of a lost life but I have known this person through his writing. I have created an image, voice, mannerisms through that and the opinions through his show. Today I lost a friend, an ideal, an inspiring writer but most of all a fellow film admirer. I never got the opportunity to thank the man and this is the closest I can come to thanking you for inspiring, exposing to unknown and powerful films, teaching to disagree with passion and to love films as the way he did. Thank you Roger Ebert! Several great films will go unseen and missed being reviewed by you!

"A Short Film About Killing" (Language - Polish) (1988) - Movie Review

Krzysztof Kieślowski’s “A Short Film About Killing” puts right in the middle of what the title says. Two lives are taken and we get excruciating detail of that. Released in 1988, this Polish film is not a comfortable film to watch. In the first half of the film there is a wanderer on the streets of Warsaw clearly not in his right state of mind. He seem to be having an agenda and is not sure whether he is going to be a victim or the perpetrator. Then there is the cab driver with utter disregard of consideration for others. Whether he is going to be the victim or perpetrator is unsure. Kieślowski wants you to keep guessing and when the act happens, while it is obviously brutal, it tells a great deal about ourselves.

Jan Tesarz plays the cab driver and we have encountered him in one way or other. It is not the fact that they were having a bad day but somehow in their mind it is clear that the consideration for others in a society is a waste of time and more importantly an overrated act. Their conscience seem to lie purely for themselves and even their next of kin might not be on their priority list. Tesarz plays this guy with ease and makes us feel to despise him with ease as well. Miroslaw Baka is the drifter. Lean and a clear concern in his eyes for the buried sorrow is evident. Kieślowski does not tell you what it is. In his own way he wants to test the water of anarchy. There is a scene where he slowly pushes a stone of the ledge that is above a busy road. He knows the consequence and he seem to get a thrill out of it.

While Kieślowski is chronicling the day’s life of these two people, there is another person in between them. Not at least in this day he is not but he will be in future. That is Krzysztof Globisz as Balicki, an aspiring lawyer attending his interview. This is all he prepared for. His passion overflows through his speech and the affinity he has towards the justice system is jubilant. He is with hopes and dreams of making a huge difference in the society and mainly the law he has studied, mastered and worships. He has to explain the reasoning for his zeal and he does not provide in great speeches rather in broken but meaningful explanation. Most of the times when someone is overwhelmed with that enormous admiration and humility of the profession they are aspiring, it ends up in fumbling words. Nevertheless he makes it out to be the lawyer.

Now to the first brutal exercise of the film. Herein the cab driver and Jacek the drifter are there. One of them kills the other. The intentions are unclear at that moment but that does not matter. All we know is that a life is being taken and the information we know of each is both important and trivial. Important due to the fact that those are the only things we know of them and as a viewer we are forced to make judgments on that. Trivial due to the fact that those are not good enough reasons for a life to be taken. Look at what Kieślowski does out here which is to begin the debate that whether there is ever a right reason to take a life in that predetermined fashion.

The second part of the film is the execution of the killer from the first part. Of course he is being represented by the passionate and compassionate lawyer Balicki. Sufficient time has passed by from the time of killing through the point where the decision has been made to execute the killer. Balicki is deeply disturbed and feels guilty of letting his client down. This is the worst failure wherein the resultant of Balicki’s effort is the loss of a life. Despite the judge assuring him that he did everything he could, there is nothing a soul would need that would calm itself down on this kind of burden.

Sławomir Idziak’s cinematography is not alone key to the film but is the innovative technique that would not have passed on for the times this film was shot and released. He not alone provides a sepia tone that adds nostalgic sense to all kind of simple pictures but he blurs and un-blurs the object in and out of focus that adds another layer to this film. The city is decaying in a way and the characters with it.

Kieślowski takes you through the systematic execution of the killer that is as brutal, visceral and questionable as the first half. The comparison is what makes the “A Short Film About Killing” such a morally effective film. The first part of the film becomes the judgment to make on the second part of the film. Is there a good justified kill especially when it is premeditated in such a fashion? There is no iota of doubt in the brutality and the beckoning punishment of that crime in the first act but Kieślowski and the passionate supporters of anti-death penalty question whether venturing similar act of brutality on the perpetrator makes it right to close the book on that chapter. Kieślowski of course leaves you with the thoughts and debate but the scenes leading up to both the killings are what makes this film something beyond a regular feat of vouching for one or the other.

"Side Effects" (2013) - Movie Review

Steven Soderbergh can do a world of difference to a catatonic plot. The appreciation and respect Andrei Tarkovsky gets for his excruciating details for portraying the minutiae of regularity in emotions and events should properly and rightfully presented to this great director. The disappointment this reviewer had with Tarkovsky is known but I have an understanding for the people that admire that classic director. What I see in the simplistic yet punctuated grandeur of Soderbergh’s style might have been the similar experience those viewers perceive and endure to be satisfied. Steven Soderbergh said to have decided to retire from films, a decision he has consciously made in order to change direction to another form of art at the age of 50. This act in itself tells about a man who has a clarity in understanding of his objectives. I will miss his films but I sure hope he comes back sporadically.

Here is “Side Effects” that brightens the glossiness of the modernity and then dulls it by the brownish tin it bodes through its cinematography. Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara) is a sad woman and the recent release of her loving husband Martin Taylor (Channing Tatum) from prison does not alleviate it either. After serving time for insider trading brought down the glorious life of Emily. She has managed to go through with that ordeal but the depression gets the better of her. One fine evening she hurriedly goes through and sincerely commits her first suicide attempt by driving directly into a wall. Enter psychiatrist Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law) who has the charm and kindness any psychiatric would beg to have. He reads into this clearly and persuades her to visit him on a deal that Emily visits him regularly. With the history of her depression with her previous psychiatrist Dr. Victoria Seabert (Catherine Zeta-Jones), she agrees on that deal.

Emily is taken through the trial and error of the pills. Soderbergh gives a world where the understanding of human mind and emotions are unpredictable. To that the current trend of pharmaceuticals provides happiness with of course cost of the supposed side effects. Emily goes through multitude of these. While this is happening, Dr. Banks is in the process of enlisting new patients on another experimental drug. Through these Soderbergh provides a scary situation of how we rely on experts especially to achieve happiness and how those experts rely on trial methods and pharmaceuticals and fellow doctors to guide them. This while is no different from a treatment for a physiological problem is even more complicated than that. The modern miracle of science have made the study and behaviour through the mechanics of a human body accessible and solvable. Yet the mind is riddle of its own. “Side Effects” gives a chilling reality of this consistent unreliability in that and how the world of pharmaceuticals, psychiatry and the media circus around it.

Soderbergh goes deeper into this subject when Emily’s new prescription of Ablixa results in a fatality due to its side effects. This shakes the foundation of the life Dr. Banks has and suddenly rattles everything on the study of medication that are prescribed to treat mental illness. Just as you are exposed to this current affairs of psychological treatments, Soderbergh turns this into a thriller that you soon begin to doubt and become paranoid as Dr. Banks.

Jude Law follows his performance with the director following “Contagion” and he is the psychiatrist we would love to have. A trustworthy face and a kindness in his voice makes it all good even when he would provide the sweet nectar of death. His Dr. Banks navigates from a sensible doctor building a life with his family into a paranoid man determined to unlock the cause of the decline his patient has caused through the drug he prescribed. Rooney Mara plays the victim out here whom we are in constant sympathy and confusion. Catherine Zeta-Jones as Emily’s previous psychiatrist wears her hair and dress that comes off both as a strong woman who can shoo away any kind of accusation with perfect confidence with a calculated cruelty.

Soderbergh in his last feature film steers the film into various territory from the world of psychiatric drugs through media hype and into the paranoid finally settling on a psychological thriller that descends on a like a convincing riddle solving itself admirably. Under his alias Peter Andrews, Soderbergh brings his style virtuoso into play where there is a constant outer layer of mild colour tone to indicate his presence. I have constantly admired his work and even in the most mediocre genre you can see his work. To create and establish a class of one’s work without a presumptuous nature is an art by itself. Here he proves that again and provides a classic homage to the genre and shuddering us in the process of the world we live in where we swallow pills like a candy.

"A Good Day to Die Hard" (2013) - Movie Review

“A Good Day to Die Hard” stoops down to the abysmal category of film making that I have a new respect for its predecessor in the franchise “Live Free or Die Hard”. At least there was some effort in being coherent. John Moore’s take on this beloved action franchise is not alone bad film making but also a display of inefficiency and lack of any respect to the character this franchise created.

Bruce Willis has given sweat, blood and flesh to this series of films and here even he seems to not care of what he is outputting. Did they even glance through the screenplay by Skip Woods which has a characteristics of a slacker disrespecting the work he has been given or did they just read it during the scene and just that “well, it is too late now”? This is bad writing at best and the fact that it passed through several hands to make it thus far on to the full blown IMAX screen shows how much of a face value they attach to the franchise.

Die Hard series gets a free pass for several things because it delivers what is expected out of it and nothing more, nothing less. Or to be precise, more of blowing the heck out of every movable and immovable objects. Plus it gives Bruce Willis with his sarcastic, condescending and snarky personality that provides the sense of humour several action heroes crave for. Here there is not a single line in the entire film that has the semblance of John McLane we grew up with. Instead it comes imposed and impossible to bear moments with his son Jack McLane (Jai Courtney).

Yes, John gets his son as a side kick and of course they have to sort out their issues amongst gun fights, punches, Uranium and dumbest Russian villains. They plunder through the roads of Moscow, jump off a construction site, play with Uranium in Chernobyl and in between talk senselessly covered in mud, blood and several brutal lacerations. None of them inventive, none of them carry any kind of weight or humour whatsoever and none of them act.

“A Good Day to Die Hard” reminded me of the horrendous lines good actors had to utter in another action franchise “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol” and the comparison cannot be more on the same scale. Both had beloved characters running for long time now along with CGI aiding in great deal for the stunts and splendid choreography of those and both suffered from a terrible screenplay and even acting. Yet Mission Impossible survived by the way it moved through the choreography of those chase and stunt scenes. It had Tom Cruise giving everything he got physically to those that erased the ridiculousness on the other departments. It kept the momentum and kinetic energy working from start to finish with a razor thin storyline as this one yet coming out without disappointing its loyal viewers and fan base. John Moore’s film loses everything including the CGI pumped steroid boosted gun fights and explosions.

It is sad to see a great franchise wither miserably. I grew up watching this and I cannot forget how glued my whole family was watching the first Die Hard. We were in awe of McLane’s character struggling through with minimal gadgets against a band of bad guys. His force was raw and his tactics were suicidal. He kept us on the edge and kept going further in Die Harder and moderately in Die Hard with Vengeance which had its own quirks and flaws nevertheless keeping its trend going. It struggled and began to fade in Live Free or Die Hard and not it has come to die in a “A Good Day to Die Hard”.

"Kadal" (Language - Tamil) (2013) - Movie Review

There has never been an enjoyable experience of watching a Tamil film in US especially  from the ones with the actors and directors I have admired. Here is Maniratnam who has been officially and unnecessarily hailed as the best director of India comes with his new film “Kadal” (Sea). It is a reckless work of movie making. With cinematography by Rajiv Menon and music by A. R. Rahman being the two most standard outstanding factor in his films, this literally sinks in and takes its audience along with it to be drowned.

“Kadal” begins at a seminary where Sam Fernando (Arvind Swami) and Bergmans (Arjun) meet in the playground. Sam we come to know through the teasing of Bergmans is from a well to do family. Why he chose to be here is never answered, discussed or debated. Bergmans is a fine student and a funny one. He tries to make the best out of where he is as he optioned for seminary to escape the poverty his family is going through thereby supporting them as well. Sam does not speak or socialize nor does he even emote anything of a liking towards Christianity. He simply sits and tries to avoid Bergmans as he might be too much fun and temptation is the worst devil. Within five minutes into the film, Bergmans commits the supposed “sin” which is of flesh and Sam as a faithful servant of the “Lord” rats him out. While I can understand the obligation Sam has, he does not hear Bergmans out and Bergmans on the other hand erupts like a volcano vowing revenge of a cruel kind to Sam. Despite the lack of characterization or justification on the actions and consequences in between these two people, I was little excited to see where this is going to take me.

The movie shifts from there and takes us through the tough life of a prostitute’s son Thomas or Thommey who grows to be played by Gautham Karthik in the village near Nagerkoil (as I can guess with the slang). When we meet six or seven year old Thomas, he is lying on his dead mother followed mercilessly being buried by his supposed father or his mom’s client fisherman (Ponvannan) with the villagers. In this comes Father Sam Fernando to renew and rejuvenate the Church and there by Christianity. He encounters the tough grown young kid Thommey and has a touching scene when he records his voice in a tape recorder. Maniratnam even at that point of poor introduction gave hope. This above two paragraph happens in the first ten minutes and after that it is a display of disaster.

The film picks up the thirty year old trend of boy meets girl and falling for her instantaneously without any explanation. The girl out here is Thulasi Nair who is supposed to be the cute and bubbly childish character giving the sort of lost childhood to Thommey. Instead it falls off just as childishly and awkwardly as it can get. Thommey becomes the faithful follower of Father Sam and thereby fishes and makes a living from what I could grasp. Do not know where he sleeps, eats or rest but he merely is there to be a character in a paper.

Bergmans character comes into the story which becomes a terrible exercise in poor form of story telling. Soon enough it suddenly becomes the battle of good and evil. In between that is Thommey, the young and upcoming individual with life ahead of him. His deviation from the “good” to “evil” does not take much nor does it involve ground breaking second act. By the time intermission arrives, we have merely witnessed some good cinematography with some songs A. R. Rehman ventures out providing some sort of entertainment. Father Sam and Bergmans are to be seen as the pall bearers of good and evil respectively and their struggle should reveal the contemplation and confusion in the young Thommey. The concept is admirable but without giving it shape and scenes that justify and make us believe in those is where this film falters beyond proportion. Bergmans motivations are random and kills for simplest of reasons. Thommey once becomes his disciple kills people and repents later and even feels for his father dying in his arms who has humiliated, insulted, discarded and abused him right from as a kid. His sudden shift in emotions are found to be nowhere. The film is a collection of those moments that are unexplained and unfound to stand upon.

Then begins the arduous exercise of the extended fight and love stricken couple followed by revelations, followed by the extended climax that brings you down all the littlest hope you ever had in this film maker and more so in the industry. This 164 minutes of severe construction on how to make a bland, boring and blatantly bad film making saddens me further. While I do not consider Maniratnam as a great director, he is one of a kind in the mix of senseless entertainers in the Tamil film industry. I have thoroughly enjoyed his “Nayagan” despite its faithfulness to “The Godfather”, I have admired his comic sensibilities in “Thiruda Thiruda”, despite its senseless entertainment and I consider his “Iruvar” as his best film till date despite being hated by many. His last venture of “Ravanan” was equally disastrous and he follows it up with “Kadal”. I can only hope he picks himself and goes back to the roots of the film making he built his career on that involved more than stunning cinematography and soothing and inventive soundtracks. Before all the aforementioned films, he began his career with “Pagal Nilavu” which is a run of a mill story about rich man in a village causing atrocity for his own good. It had Murali, Revathi, Radhika and Sarath Babu, the usual suspects in these kind of films. It also had Satyaraj as villain adding to the predictability but he gives a dimension to this character who is evil but loving towards his family. It has an ending that ends in a forced suicide which was unheard of (of course contrived from “Uthiri Pookkal”). That is the Maniratnam we need now for a better film. 

"Silver Linings Playbook" (2012) - Movie Review

Does it make me a Debbie downer if I think the happy ending of “Silver Linings Playbook” is little too happy for an underplaying movie like it? May be I am drawn too much towards the depressing drama of its first half but this as any review of mine is a discovery process than a sudden judgment. Having put a pin on that thought, it has to be said that David O. Russell’s film depends on heavy weight performance and it is being delivered in the parts it is genuine and even when they are not themselves.

Jacki Weaver whom I just saw for first time as the vicious character of Smurf in “Animal Kingdom” flips back and does a lovable mother to Pat Jr. (Bradley Cooper) and a loving understanding wife to Pat Sr. (Robert De Niro). It is welcomingly emotional almost to make up for the devious character she did in “Animal Kingdom”. When you compare characters played different films by an actor and believe in their characteristics, this is the kind of feeling you begin to realize. In “Silver Linings Playbook” she gets her son Pat out of the mental health facility after 8 months of treatment for his bipolar disorder. He broke down after his wife Nikki cheated on him which led to his outrage of beating her lover to pulp.

Pat returns to home where his father is not particularly proud of him and the community he left has rushed him to categorize him as the one to stay away. This though is not about his neighbours or his past work place but about his acceptance of a problem. He begins to strategize on getting his wife back. Except him everyone knows the impossibility of such a come back but as anyone caught in the web of emotional outpouring especially with Pat’s condition, he clings on. He sternly believes that will be his true completion of coming out of this slump.

Pat Sr. is bipolar as well with his OCD and strong superstition on placing things and situating people so that his NFL team Philadelphia Eagles would win games for him and profit him as well as he is bookmaking. Despite that he seem to have been let down by his son Pat. We learn why once we identify the oddity and the adamance of discarding advice and rejecting to take medications on treating his condition. He almost makes it a habit of waking his parents up in the middle of the night when he could not deal with a situation. One such is when his frustration in not able to find his wedding video that leads to a painful scene and watching Jacki Weaver’s Delores pulls your heart out.

This makes one wonder on how Delores appears to live with these men and work out a deal with herself to hope for happiness and stability in the family. There is love amongst these people and when Pat’s brother Jake (Shea Whigham) comes along we see the best of their times. I have to talk about Shea Whigham who has mostly come across as a creepy dude more of a side note in many films but here he radiates into a role that carries the oddity he has portrayed in other films but also a caring man for his family. If you do not know him that well, go and see “Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans” where he plays as the rough and goofy customer to Eva Mendes’ character. Along with him are Chris Tucker as Pat’s best friend Danny and a talented Indian actor Anupam Kher playing Pat’s psychiatrist.

I have not even spoke about Jennifer Lawrence all this time given that her character is pivotal in the change of Pat’s acceptance and dealing with the problem. She is equally depressed as she has lost her husband and manages to have sex with random people to deal with it. She carries all the stereotypical nature for her character of being Goth, crazy and blunt but brings out a solidity in accepting it and owning it. She is completely comfortable with herself and when she sees Pat, she knows this is more than a ridiculous set up arranged by her brother-in-law Ronnie (John Ortiz) and her sister Veronica (Julia Stiles).

Bradley Cooper right from “Wedding Crashers” has tried to over come the pretty boy image and throughout that including “The Hangover”, he has not impressed this reviewer nothing extraordinary until “Limitless” where he transforms from a loafer to a thoroughly confident leader through a magic of a pill. Here he embraces this character whole heartedly and does not let the common nature of a complacent actor take over. There are nuances that are absorbed and presented. In between Robert De Niro and Jacki Weaver along with Jennifer Lawrence, he is there and rises right from the first frame through last in giving layer after layer of depth to Patrizio Solitano.

“Silver Linings Playbook” written for the screen adapting the novel of the same name by Matthew Quick dabbles the idea that a dramatic dark emotional story can co-exist cinematically and realistically. I was completely drawn in as the relationships are exposed and emotions are unravelled in its purest form. The whole thing was flipped upside down once Pat gets into a fight in the highly expected New York Giants game to have a full cast confrontation back at his home. It explodes dramatically throwing me off guard and enters into the set up of expecting a nervous showdown of a bet to determine everything. It is a classic Hollywood rom-com ending that never has a place in a film like this. As I was wondering about Russell’s departure from a thoroughly dramatic film, slowly it began to work on me making me root for this couple, family and friends. As it becomes obvious and known, while as much as I can resist and was not happy about this handling, this family needs a hug like this, in their own way.

"Animal Kingdom" (2010) - Movie Review

“Animal Kingdom” moves like a snake lurking by a corner crawling towards the viewer and bites viciously in the end. It poses as gangster film but it is a study of dynamics in a family. A family which has acknowledged and accepted that their livelihood as crime. This like few of the Australian films I have seen relies on the mood rather than movement. It focuses on the inert nature of certain characters and draws a bombastic yet mellowed down caricature on others. “Animal Kingdom” would leave you wondering and pondering on this drama and the disturbing love that is painted in the end.

Joshua “J” Cody (James Frecheville) is watching a game show as his mother is next to him overdosed on heroin. That results him left alone and to reach out to his grandmother her mother kept away from. He is taken into the family by his grandmother Janine “Smurf” Cody (Jacki Weaver). J introduces his uncles to the viewers and their relation to him and to one another. The most trusting and reliable is Barry “Baz” Brown (Joel Edgerton). Seeing him operate and exchange short conversations with J explains why J is comfortable with him. Then there is the paranoid Craig (Sullivan Stapleton) mostly due to using his own product which is cocaine. The youngest of them is Darren (Luke Ford) who is couple of years elder to the sixteen to seventeen year old J. They are either laying low or opted another crime profession other than armed robbery. The cops are onto them to avenge for their loss but the main man they are looking to kill is the eldest of them all, Pope (Ben Mendelsohn). His uncles are under the spell of Smurf. We will ultimately come to know about Smurf who is the mother that cannot and will not let go her kids. The sons though want to be with her as the interdependency of this emotional bond has more than the usual connection. She has accepted them for exactly who they are but you will be surprised on it too when you understand the origins.

The story unfolds as through J we see the play the cops begin to ploy on these men. The cops want blood as these men have taken the armed robbery into a bloody battle with no regrets. They need Pope and we are not told why but once we meet him, the why becomes our expression of “no wonder”. Pope cannot be discarded purely as psychopathic. His mannerism give you the creeps. He is not alone cunning but project a weird nature of evil. He consistently asks Darren and J to talk with him about anything that is bothering them. There is no true extension of his service for them to confide in him rather we do not really know what he achieves even if they did take his offer. The way he would look at you and your friends or your girl friend would be something that would haunt in your sleep and bug you to death on when this man is going to act upon his impulse. We see how he looks and carries J’s girl friend Nicky (Laura Wheelwright) and that is all there to it on explaining him.

Soon the cops are tired of waiting in front of Baz’s house so that Pope would surface for them to hunt. They choose another route which triggers the set of events causing death in all form to the family. Pope begins to wage war on the cops which ends up in a bloody one unfurling in peculiar fashion. In between these events is J as a bystander or unsure of his role in this family. His closest semblance of normal family is Nicky’s but he ignores that and seems to be calmly attracted to that of Smurf’s. Does he want to be like them in terms of authority and power or does he simply thinks this is the best form of emotional payment he is going to get? He does not react or emote and we are left to absorb his actions.

There is Guy Pearce as Detective Nathan Leckie, a reasonable one who as much as knows that J is the link he needs to break to get Pope and his brothers, is also in sympathy towards this kid who has his life ahead. He appears to have genuine concern more so than his partner. J survives his interrogation but ultimately has nowhere to go when Pope does the unthinkable. When J has the lock to the brothers, that is where the film takes the twisted and effective turn through Smurf. As her sons are in trouble, she begins to act in a fashion that is industrious, methodical and downright evil. The scenes of her with their lawyer and with the narcotics detective Craig worked with begins to draw the unseen viciousness that we are not really surprised to see but are alarmed at the extent she is willing to take without hesitation. Jacki Weaver provides the kind of chills that is simply unexplainable. She is the woman who does not accept the aging process that gets to her appearance and paints her face with make up that gives a feeling of a deadly lioness. She will not let her sons suffer through this and the move she makes defines the film.

As the film end in a fashion which is bloody, it also finishes off to wonder what is going to happen of J and the rest of the family. In a way there is a personal justice but it only gives birth to another circle of wasted youth. David Michold appears to find a rhythm in this story which snails its pace but the initial hour is there to give the audience the raw nature of this family’s interaction and how they see and employ J. When the finality happens, we are not stung because it is sudden rather it is the strength of the venom that seeps its devilish form through our nerves and leaves us with the bitter taste of slow death. “Animal Kingdom” is the film whose thrill and drama is not in the action but in the way it serves it as a cold deadly dish.

"Zero Dark Thirty" (2012) - Movie Review

The behaviour of obsession has a thin line of separation between insanity and determination. In this where Maya (Jessica Chastain) stands in “Zero Dark Thirty” is answered by how Osama Bin Laden was hunted and killed. Directed by Kathryn Bigelow carries this onus of handling this fresh off the pot story with her critical acclaim of “The Hurt Locker” fulfills it in her own accord. With such a story that can be withered down into overblown patriotism and righteousness, Bigelow finds a personal story than a political one. Yet it is so devoid of information on Maya.

The film chronicles the hunt but it is unlike one would expect. It is viewed through one woman’s single minded determination on finding this man. We see her as the young talent with nothing stopping her lands into the CIA force in a remote unknown location for interrogation with her colleague Dan (Jason Clarke). We see the water boarding in its true form that has been not dealt with any other film. Maya is queasy about this and one would expect her to be sympathetic or question this, Bigelow provides a stunning reality. She is there for the job and this is it. There is no right or wrong but the job that was assigned or ordered to her is done. If one perceives this as pro-torture, yes, the government at that point allowed this but blaming Bigelow for the portrayal seems silly.

The film unflinchingly takes this story into a raw docudrama not allowing emotions. It is an exercise for Maya. Is it a passion or does she enjoys the thrill? We do not know. All we know is she wants to reach the end of the investigation in pinning this man. There is no hint of her personal emotion in it. She goes through the details and begins to look for anything. Every word from the people they catch are analyzed, doubted, re-doubted and they take what they think and execute in a sense of gamble. In a way every move is a gamble. Fragments of information that are provided under extreme circumstances that carry nothing but desperation are used to link something or someone. It can only be imagined how many routes that they took and how many times they had to come back to the drawing board only to revamp the whole process to another ordeal.

In this film that exhausts you with the manner it navigates as there are smallest remains of human connection but rightfully so. The politics in this investigation are not punctuated on the procedure rather it punctuates on Maya’s restlessness. When Maya enters the team in Pakistan, there is a sense of the new bee acting too fast and too hasty for her role which is slightly shown in the smiling disapproval of her colleague Jessica (Jennifer Ehle) before it is discarded for the importance of the story. Then we come back again to see how the times have made them good friends. Things like those are what are surprisingly effective in giving minute semblance of humanity to the otherwise machine like Maya.

Jessica Chastain has been praised highly for her portrayal as Maya and in all honesty she does not have much to do than to follow the clinical script of Mark Boal. There is no denial in her pitch perfect performance but this film is about the details. You seem to see so many but are provided very little in term of information. The breaks they make which are again taken forward by presumptions, guesses and gamble are nothing short of the realism the actual events have unfurled. The way in which Maya figures out the idea of look alike brothers and how they narrow down the location of the compound but tracking cell phone signal are the high energetic scene which are grounded in reality.

The supporting roles are provided in snippets which spurs raw comedy. You cannot stop smirking when Mark Duplass as CIA analyst Steve sarcastically repeats what Maya told in her confidence in finding the location to a roomful of higher CIA directors. And how Chris Pratt as one of US Navy Seals explains his choice of music before he goes for the raid. Bigelow finds a unique tone in those characters that offers even a realistic touch to the sense of humour. Jason Clarke and Jessica Ehle are the predominant characters who are as Dan and Jessica respectively comes forth to the help of Maya when she needs it. Then there is Kyle Chandler as Joseph Bradley, CIA Islamabad Station Chief who is both appreciative and wary of Maya’s obsession.

But the completion of the film’s success is how the raid is presented. With the first person effect of greenish night vision goggle painted over the screen, that is the most thrilling action sequence I have seen in a long time. To the authenticity of the film on representing the actual events, all I can say is there is no proof or possibility of recreating this but in that 15 minutes of presentation, I was in and I was there and I was absorbed as a viewer on the believability of it.

In all this, Maya’s determination is rewarded and what can you make of it is of your own. I am glad this was not made into a political statement nor as an undercurrent for bigger things. It does but those are in background rather than front line material. Whether killing Bin Laden brought justice is something the film leaves you with or what did it bring Maya? It is a completion of a project in a different plane of emotion for her. For us looking for justice for the actions this man masterminded, we are confused because time does crazy things and you do not know how to react to this. For an exercise that is provided with very little emotion, it tells a lot when it ends with teardrops.

"Life of Pi" (2012) - Movie Review

It was quite difficult to escape my brother not mentioning about the book “Life of Pi” through my brother. It is ironical that this review follows my staunch stand against the separation of books and movies. In all fairness, this is only to point out the familiarity and the exposure of this reviewer to this material. “Life of Pi” directed by Ang Lee is a crowd pleasing film which like any crowd pleaser relies on its audience to forgive the minor flaws. For me those flaws bring this otherwise spellbinding film into well, movie with flaws.

“Life of Pi” is the kind of one liner that does not take much to invite a person into the movie theater. It narrates the great survival story of  a boy named Piscine Molitor Patel a.k.a Pi as he is trapped in a lifeboat with a tiger. This narration is provided by Irrfan Khan as the adult Pi to a curious writer. It truly is an intriguing story as it begins the Once upon a time... following it up rightfully with the details of profound curiosity than an obligatory screen write. I was pleasantly surprised as they did not hurry into the crux of the film. It begins with how his name brought nothing but ridicule and how he manages to sway away that successfully.

“Life of Pi” exemplifies the effectiveness of storytelling on how to make a one line interesting idea into an interesting film. Piscine curiously approaches belief and god in various forms through various religion with an openness that is neither naive or ignorant. Especially growing in a region like Tamil Nadu where questioning god or even furthering curiosity in any other religion besides the advice of their parents is new. In this environment is his father (Adil Hussain) who we initially suspect to be the run of the mill strict parent. Here though it is different. Despite his short screen presence he is an impressive character who comes off as the right combination of an arrogant atheist and pragmatic father. He is bemused by his son’s adoption of several religions but lets him be with snide remarks to prompt questions. He is appreciative of the nature that he has surrounded with through the Zoo he manages but knows his limits which he gruesomely teaches to Pi. Pi’s mom played by Tabu offers the right amount of sentimentality that requires the balance Pi needs in this family of an atheist dad and a religious mother.

Of course the success of “Life of Pi” relies heavily on the pristine visual effects that resides on the line of fantasy, reality and cartoonish. The stillness of ocean is one thing that resonates throughout the film. As Suraj Shara as Pi begins to wrestle this ferocious tiger Richard Parker, we are exposed as him on the possibility of the slightest attack of those huge paws to succumb in wounds and starvation. The CGI that was used in “Hugo” by Martin Scorsese reminds how well the master used it as a character. Ang Lee could not go on that context but he employs it as the right tool as that of a brilliant cinematography. That aids this film into the surreal yet realistic look.

Pi and his only companion Richard Parker begin to co-exist. There is a brilliant scene wherein Pi successfully evades Richard Parker from the life boat and then lets him realize how inter dependent they are. The monstrous being begins to acknowledge the fact. The animal and survival instinct kicks in both Pi and more so in Richard Parker. The part “Life of Pi” suffers is its constant meandering on trying to reach for the philosophical question on the existence, belief and trust in higher power. The way it is contrived in the end to choose for an answer weighs down a story that relies solely on the human endurance.

This reviewer despite his stand believes that a film that handles even the complete opposite of someone’s belief and perspective with a wiseness and natural inclination of the story loves it. Clint Eastwood’s “Hereafter” comes to mind where the central characters ability to see the other side of life brings him nothing but pain and trouble yet that becomes the connecting factor in the end. Ang Lee could have done this without any kind of obligation to answer or even deal with this in the end. It is a story about how you can find a firm and strong emotional bond with some being that is there to kill you in desperate situation. It does not require a physical balance to measure the weight of that emotion into something invisible or even for that fact logical. What begins to build up as a great film maintains the incredible nature of its presentation to its hold but unfurls it when it comes to conclude it. The best ending for these films are the open ended poetry it leaves incomplete. Ang Lee’s could have been one such.

"The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey" (2012) - Movie Review

I am open to any kind of films in multitudes of genres but for some reason the genre of fantasy never really intrigued this viewer. I believe the idea of CGI entirely taking over the element of pure art did not sit well with me. It is a double standard given the fact that most of the films are made possible by this technology. This has made me to skip conveniently the Harry Potter and the The Lord of the Rings series. I did see the The Lord of the Rings on a lazy Sunday after noon but much of it resembles trying to recollect a boring dream that are represented only in fragments. Here comes “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” which is nothing but boringly expected journey. I think the “unexpected” part is only for the Hobbit character and not the audience.

Peter Jackson directs this supposed epic adventure which takes phenomenal time to even begin. We are thrown into the home of Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), the titular character. Thus comes Gandalf (Ian McKellen), the be all and know all for these films. He chooses Bilbo to host a party he clearly does not want and becomes the first act that is nothing short of director’s own fantasy and admiration for the book it is adapted upon. The fans of the book might enjoy this but as a movie it is nothing but a huge laborious overblown piece of scene that extends on and on and on and I can only speak for myself but I seriously wished to break every single plates on these dumb characters.

Then begins the “unexpected journey” which of course Bilbo has no intention of participating but he will, otherwise there would not be a film. He is supposedly this mild mannered character who is been asked by the Wizard Gandalf to rise to the occasion. Bilbo along with these clan of dwarves begins his journey on helping them to reclaim their kingdom from this monster. They go through a long journey that involves of course great nature scenic routes, mountains, weird kingdoms and weird creatures that exist with no explanation. They are judged by their looks and the originations of that are unclear. 

Let us forget about all that and see this film for the purpose of entertainment, shall we? The visuals are breathtaking that goes without saying. The technology has made it like a simplest thing in the world that the audience which includes me have now taken these thing for granted unless there is a punctuation to it. Granted that there involves great number of people working their sweat to pour out the imagination on screen but that simply does not make one to like a film. It takes solid content with some ridiculous labourship in the way it is put together. Peter Jackson’s film lacks the human soul to it and becomes a grandeur fantasy exploitation. It feels like watching  videogame played by someone else that is not even remotely tempting.

It gives you clear picture on the performances if I have not mentioned it for four paragraphs. Then again I would not blame the actors as the writing is simply absent. Films like these that depends upon one liners to keep them alive are next to nothing and  hence the characters are purely cartoonish through CGI. We do not even get to know the crazy twisted names of each to even appreciate and admire their bravado.

It is assumed that you have read the book to appreciate the non-explanation of characters, world and anything that would educate the audience. I am sick of people trying to compare, expect and appreciate a film based on book mainly because both are separate medium and has to be seen for what it is. A book should stand on its own for what it is and so does a film. Now one cannot put aside the material they have read. but when a film is being watched, it should grow its legs, stand, dance and become an entity of its own to show the world what it is. “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” expects you to read the book and goes on its business of elongating a simple story into not one but three films. I will reserve my judgment for the next two films but I have a fair idea of what kind of “unexpected journey” that is going to be.

"Django Unchained" (2012) - Movie Review

I never learn to not watch the trailers because how much it destroys the true experience of seeing a film for the first time. At the same time I cannot help myself to not watch a trailer truly because of the itch I have to view few glimpses to prepare myself. Whether I would have enjoyed “Django Unchained” more than I did because of this would something one would never know but it drew me to the film with more curiosity and expectation. There is no denial in having that for any Quentin Tarantino film but here I saw Leonardo Dicaprio unlike any other films he has ever done. Not since his brilliant performance in “Whats Eating Gilbert Grape?”. Not that he has not done any good films but him as an actor has not differentiated beyond his standard mannerisms. Here he transforms in to this dubiously charming character whom we cannot stop to wince and wonder at the same time. 

Who would have thought that killed by a bullet can be splashingly violent as Tarantino makes it to be? Gunshot historically had the convenience of showing it fired than actually showing its damage on flesh in Hollywood. Few films of course have portrayed that for what it is but here Tarantino takes it up and close. Blood splatters all across and flesh explodes along with it to paint the kind of sick picture “Kill Bill Vol. 1” did. Nevertheless that is what Tarantino wants you to experience. The man has a weird fascination with violence but shows it for what it is. His honesty can be mistaken for judging him differently but he always shows it for what it is. His presentation both glorifies and sickens violence. “Django Unchained” is no different.

Django is played by Jamie Foxx with an attitude. He is the slave that gets freed by a generous, noble and a dangerous German bounty hunter by the name of Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz). Dr. Schultz claims to be a dentist comes riding his stage coach with a huge tooth dangling on top of it and there is the evidence of the simplest objects Tarantino can use to maximize his point. We cannot stop giggling when it dangles and it offers a dimension to this oddball character of Dr. Schulz. Christoph Waltz who terrorized in this director’s previous venture of “Inglourious Basterds” becomes our favourite man out here, even more than Django as the movie unfurls.

In the times of slavery, Dr. Schultz despises it and rescues Django for his own personal gain. He is on the hunt for the Brittle brothers who also took Django’s wife Broomhida (Kerry Washington) and sold him. This becomes a sweet deal for Django as he gets to avenge and collect money in the process. The two form a great bond over these killings and Schultz offers to help Django get his wife back which leads to the thumping performance in the film. Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). The introduction of Candie is the most violent scene of the film that shows the Mandingo fight (Wiki tells me this never existed in the times but Tarantino uses it to portray the cruelty to the slaves in its most animal and gruesome form) which is betting on the fight of two slaves with their bare hands. Talk about death of humanity but here it skins its and pours hot oil and sprays salt and pepper over it. It only is followed by further despicable acts of Candie towards his Mandingo fighters.

The film surprisingly tones considerably on swearing for a Tarantino film but amplifies to the level of deafening one’s ears by the use of the “n” word (I expect the forgiveness of Louis C.K out here for not using the actual word). Yet it only reflects the time the movie was portrayed and the sickening characters that yells out like a punctuation. Is it inconvenient to hear it? Yes, but it is true to what is being presented and I am fine with that. It is like any swear word and Tarantino rightfully uses it to his film.

While I enjoyed “Django Unchained”, this is definitely not the stellar movie the director has come up with. Somehow the unpredictability of him vanished and the simple conversations turning into complicated arguments are buried. There are few instances of his writing at its prime and there are unique shots that adds the kind of beauty one would soak themselves in witnessing the beauty of a director’s love of certain angles and objects but Tarantino fails to impress us all the way through. What is left is a good film by a great director who seems to have been complacent with the idea rather than the execution. 

“Django Unchained” has the presence of Samuel L. Jackson coming as the overly theatrical and little bit annoying Stephen who is sheepishly loyal to Calvin Candie. His performance neither carry a sinister approach nor is it funny which falls to the feet of Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance. Even DiCaprio’s delivery is at times crippled by some ordinary writings of Tarantino. As everyone, I have a high regard for the director and here he seem to have side stepped into mediocre for his standards. That does not take away the fact that “Django Unchained” is a good film. Just that it aspires to be great and it only aspires.

"Lincoln" (2012) - Movie Review

Steven Spielberg who can swing from one end of spectrum of saturated sappiness to the other end of brutal reality, provides an ultimate balance in “Lincoln”. As much as this is a grand project on his end to lay out the iconic man from the history in precise nature of cross section into his personal and political arena, it is once again Daniel Day-Lewis giving a performance that is nothing but pure transformation into a figure that no one has ever seen and are only laid out through books. Right from the moment Daniel Day-Lewis as Abraham Lincoln begins his speech, it took less than a minute for me to completely forget that it is an actor portraying a role into seeing the historical figure alive and delivering his tone and smiling authority. That is a skill I cannot even fathom of understanding.

With the strongest foundation as Daniel Day-Lewis leveraging this project, it is still a challenging exercise in laying out the man in the most crucial juncture of the history. Spielberg does not go for the biography rather goes for the most critical nature for Lincoln himself challenged politically and personally. The film chronicles the events that became the fulcrum for the 13th amendment abolishing slavery being passed in United States House of Representatives. 

The film’s chronicle of events in the eventual passing of this law tells the sweats that needs to be laid down on speeches openly and in clandestine to get things done and passed long. Here is the leader who has been praised and exemplified for his character in the American history and to him being treated for what the time dictated him to be is only a prime example of how much the times have changed but the game of politics exists afresh and alive. The greatest of our leaders had to always stand in the juncture of not two roads but multiple roads and select one, divert and divulge for the road to success. 

Lincoln is tired but his wiseness and mild wise cracks. He is leading a war that is taking the whole nation onto its knees and in the midst of it he knows the criticality of passing this law. His adamance in executing this at the worst juncture of civil war scares and annoys his office but he plans for the worst which is that if he loses the war, the Emancipation Proclamation would simply be discarded and even if someone in future takes upon as him to do the right thing, the days that leads upto it would have only assimilated more innocent souls to humiliation, pain and death. All this are on the face of a man struggling to wonder the nature of the field he is playing in. Or he knows it and is simply fed up in fighting it the way he wanted to. He goes all in.

“Lincoln” as any film would relies on its supporting actors. Granted that Lewis alone can carry the weight but that might have become cumbersome and mainly lose the focus on the actual screenplay. David Strathairn as Secretary of State William H. Seward establishes how a friendship and associate has to co-exist that hurts and compliments each of those roles. Then there is Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens who lends a strong supporting hand to Lewis’ Lincoln to work out the logistics in passing the bill. Tommy Lee Jones has been a serious man in his roles and here he is brought upon for the right character that delivers the power and nobility the role beckons him to.

There are several other players that might require a paragraph to themselves but the key is that each of those adds a layer to this amazing individual. While Spielberg has thoroughly disappointed in overflowing his sentiments in “The Terminal” and excruciating “The War Horse” but here he appears to reserve his sentiments just enough to provide a view that is entertaining, enjoyable and truly inspiring. His calculations in moving several coins at once and play with words to provide to escape through the loop holes of technicality expresses how being smart pays off for noble causes.

“Lincoln” thus becomes a Daniel Day-Lewis film but as Paul Thomas Anderson who utilized the man’s power to his presentation of his material, Spielberg absorbs the performance and weaves a historical film that plays a terrific political thriller and offers insights on the backgrounds of the influential times and the influential law. It is a difficult play to do those without breaking the tension. There are obvious reasons one would want to watch “Lincoln” but there are two other very strong reasons that requires to watch the art of film in the name of Daniel Day-Lewis and Steven Spielberg. 

"Skyfall" (2012) - Movie Review

One’s life has films as a tool to reminisce the traditions and nostalgia by shining light on to the screen scattering those pieces of memories. James Bond has been the fascination world wide and the pieces for me as a kid witnessing this secret agent who has the license to kill appeared to do absolutely nothing but use the gadgets he has been provided and enjoying while doing it by seducing the most beautiful women effortlessly has merely become a trend than admiration. As much as I was entertained watching this iconic agent use the smartest of tools at the most appropriate time, there has never been a sense of grit and value to this franchise as a representation as an art or even simply as a good film. I was too young to remember Sean Connery and too given up by the time Pierce Brosnan dazzled mildly in “The Golden Eye”. The Bond I saw was Roger Moore who was more as a sneaky agent than a man that needs character definition. The films that was made with him were a procedure that had few precise goals for the audience - entertain and fantasize. There has been no doubt that those films of his had an impact in the way I watch films but the migration from a fantasy to a well made film never happened till “Casino Royale”. Daniel Craig might be the best Bond I have seen and it was evident in it despite a lackluster presentation in “Quantum of Solace”. Now here comes “Skyfall” directed by one of my favourite director Sam Mendes that is unlike any of the Bond films and treats like a story than a rundown ritual.

“Skyfall” would be described by many of the critics as yours truly included as refreshing. Not in the way Daniel Craig presents himself nor in the way the action scenes are shot. It is the story that for once treats the agency and the head M (Judi Dench) as an entity making tough calls that resulted in burning the agents that sworn to protect the country. Many films has the tag line and a deep voice in trailer saying “this time it is personal” while “Skyfall” might be the first film to live by it and deliver it with such a conviction.

As the opening scene unravel the traditional action sequence that results in Bond getting shot, “Skyfall” assumes that audience are not dumb while simultaneously feeds their fantasy world of expectation in fast paced action sequences and quick movements in to the plot smoothly but not sneakily. M’s MI6 gets cyber attacked by the mystery man whose sole purpose is to disintegrate and challenge the leadership of her. Bond comes back from the dead to protect her and in the end it becomes a stand off that is unseen in Bond films.

With spectacular cinematography by Roger Deakins, Mendes pens the story of “Skyfall” with a thrill that is familiar and fresh. It is marginally inventive, subtly funny and always right to the point of moving forward. Before you know it, you are in the middle of a finale that sometime feels like to have more to it only to be ended in the right way it could possibly have been. It rarely has a gadget and the raw combat skill that made “Casino Royale” such an invigorating experience is back with some thematic and poetic shot by Sam Mendes along with Roger Deakins.

The elements of standard Bond presentations are all used. Ridiculously overblown stunt scenes only that in Mendes’ hands it becomes almost logical, breathtaking travel to far away lands and populated city of Shanghai only that it becomes a fight in the shadows and silhouettes Deakins’ cinematography that gets used in tense films that takes itself seriously. And then there is Javier Bardem as the rightful opponent for James Bond walks a fine line of not mimicking Heath Ledger and not becoming a complete joke. He is funny in a sense that we are equally disturbed and empathize with him. We understand his motivation for revenge and when he finally gets an opportunity to put down M, his action tells so much about the relation between them that we begin to sympathize. We are also worried what would become of our man who appear to follow similar path as Bardem’s Silva. Ralph Fiennes and Naomie Harries provide the kind of support that are exposed and explained just enough for them to reappear to have more in future.

If “Casino Royale” provided the right opening for Daniel Craig establishing himself as the perfect choice for Bond, “Skyfall” has established a ground for something beyond the franchise has done for the past 50 years. It is mildly beginning to humanize this man and in the process pays homage to those tradition of fantasy and fascination that made this franchise something beyond a regular spy. The next movie is going to be very critical in picking up what “Skyfall” has left off. It either can go back to the old traditions or pick those up and invent something new for itself. Until then though, let us relish “Skyfall”.

"Seven Psychopaths" (2012) - Movie Review

Every one aspires to pen a similar screenplay like Tarantino after he splashed the screen with odd discussions and cranky mishaps. There is so much obsession in writing for these sociopathic characters. The control and the powerful sarcasm that is like a stand up comedian but with fear peppered on them. These characters are like a drug to a writer. I know I penned my incomplete screenplay which was few pages with nothing but tough guys screaming, yelling and cursing in the most inventive way possible. Only now when I read it back, it sounds terrible. Martin McDonagh’s screenplay is not. Not in a million years.

Even when the film begins, it has cameo by Michael Pitt and Michael Stuhlbarg discussing the oddity of being shot in the eyeball. McDonagh’s film is bound to grow on you once you think about it and then see it again. Telling a story is telling someone else’s version of it which eventually got morphed into a story only resembling the semblance of truth. There is absolute creativity and there is inspiration from the things that happen around you. Marty (Colin Darrell) is a screenwriter who is in dire need of a screenplay. He drinks wine, beer, whisky and everything that has OH in it to bring in something out of the story he is seeing around. It becomes a story telling of a different kind.

“Seven Psychopaths” is everything the formulaic gangster/gritty/bloody/violent film the aspiring film makers begin to provide. It has the simplest things that would not matter to someone becoming the plot prop for bigger events. Here it is a cute little Shih Tzu dog. Marty’s friend Billy (Sam Rockwell) steal dogs and return it to its owner in few days to get some money out of the deal. Christopher Walken is his accomplice Hans who is the kind old man returning the dog. In Los Angeles where there are high end luxurious pet hotels, this would definitely happen and there is a simple ransom job out here. Billy steals a Shih Tzu of a maniacal mob boss Charlie (Woody Harrelson) that becomes the hunt for these three people and that is the plot in a single line.

If you believe that single line is all it driving this, you might be mistaken terribly. What McDonagh does is that he is spoofing all those films that have this kind of plot but spins it around in a fashion that is silly, clever, dark and in the end very moving. “Seven Psychopaths” has dry moments but comes about with some creative elements that is philosophical and stupid. It becomes the way the characters design the movie to be. I know it does not make much sense but believe me when I say that it is as close in comparison with one of my top ten films “Adaptation”.

To play this film and get these cast is the first perfect job. Getting Farrell, Rockwell, Harrelson and several others to partake in this is one thing but to extract this sort of performance from Christopher Walken is unlike any other. He is a gentle old man and then he has this undercurrent that he can snap any moment. We are in complete accord when he says he is not a man of violence but at the same time are on our toes when he is around these whacky crazy people. He fits in with them and yet he stays in the middle  with a solid head and keeps every one guessing simultaneously. Walken gives one of the most mature performance bringing his experience in this field and using his mannerisms and facial expression into this film. Tom Waits gives an intriguing cameo and be seated after the credits roll for a final impressive scene to finish it.

“Seven Psychopaths” had its dull times which appeared to try too hard and trying to bring the absurdity in the silliest things but when you look back from the end of the story, it makes all the more sense. There is an integrity Martin McDonagh’s script, direction and assembling those have in providing this. It constantly marches on towards an end and even one of the characters is so pumped up to get to the end scene, the shootout. It has become such a fascination in the upcoming films and Rockwell’s character symbolizes it.

McDonagh’s previous film “In Bruges” is another mastery in screenplay and brought odd decency in the darkest places of misdirected souls and concrete ones. He conducted that film with some heavy punctuation and you know that he does not shy away in introducing a complete new character right in the middle of the film and make them dictate the rest of story. The man has a command of his writing and here he appears to let loose but you begin to realize the creativity at its best. He begins the film to be taken over by the character. He performs himself as an actor through this sort of writing which was done immaculately in “Adaptation” and here it is done on a completely different style, still effective.

When the film ends with Walken narrating the Vietnamese character’s story, I was left with an odd sense of satisfaction, unexplained emotion and could not help but laugh at the same time. Here is a Writer and Director who provided a film that is a screenwriter’s dream and director’s aspiration for satisfying themselves but also provided an artistic presentation if you can follow what I am saying. In a film that has so much violence and is glorifying it at certain places also reveres the concept of peace, chaos and most importantly the art of storytelling. A touch of brilliance is evident in this and at the end of writing this, I am more in love with the film than I was while I was watching it.