"Get Busy Living or Get Busy Dying"- Andy Dufresne, from "The Shawshank Redemption"

"The Iron Lady" (2011) - Movie Review

2012-01-21T15:34:00.000-08:00

The utter failure of “The Iron Lady” is due to one quintessential thing in any film requires, direction. Director Phyllida Lloyd loses that in blunder on being unsure about what to do with the screenplay by Abi Morgan. “The Iron Lady” is a spectacular waste of Meryl Streep’s breathtaking portrayal of this powerful woman. For starters it assumes that Margaret Thatcher in her old age is dealing grief with hallucinations of her dead husband Denis Thatcher. Now if it had some credibility through the means of basing it on a book and the medium taking its own version, I would have not been completely surprised but to make things out of thin air and in which it does not aid the film in any possible manner seems to be shocking in taking this route.

Meryl Streep exemplifies in saying that attention to detail does not come alone in make up to make a real life character but the mannerisms and the miniscule concentration on the way she tilts her head, gives a daunting look and the stature brings that person alive on the screen. Here she does the old Margaret Thatcher grieving for her husband played by Jim Broadbent and she is unable to cope with the reality of the condition the life cycle puts one through. She is in a dark house and anyone will be depressed out there. You do not leave an old woman there to ponder on the loneliness. Not definitely someone who had the authority and power to rule a nation with conviction now in deep need of aid to leave the house.

The film is series of flashbacks while she is desperately struggling to overcome the need for Denis to be around. She finally decides to get his things out of the house and that causes further wave of emotions. This might lead to believe that there will be some conflicting arguments and incredible support from Denis during those tough times of being the leader of the country. The director does not even shed a minute light on the struggles she would have gone through to be the lone female battling the male dominated government. And to support this woman in her journey and battle, Denis would have been the much needed supporting husband in those circumstances. The film leads that way but has Jim Broadbent playing baseless scenes as hallucinations than when he was alive.

What “The Iron Lady” also misses is the desperate and crying call for a strong supporting character. A performance to accompany Streep’s immaculate display. We see prospects as mentioned above in Jim Broadbent who of course gets wasted, then comes Airey Neave (Nicholas Farrell) who gets killed just when we get to know him and finally is Geoffrey Howe (Anthony Head) whom we do not even know the identity till he gets bullied and yelled by Thatcher. The scenes which had some flesh in it are when young Margaret (Alexandra Roach) grows up seeing her dad give great speech to inspire her and when young Denis (Harry Lloyd) asks her to marry him. That is the story I would have liked to see. Growing up to have that inspiration and then to pursue it against a society and to find a man to share that passion and get support through it. Instead as the film’s take on old and dementing Thatcher, it suffers the own peril of being unsubstantiated.

I was excited to see this film because one of my all time favourite film “The Queen” carried a strong take on a strong woman living through a life no one can ever see or understand. She fights through the authority despite her own authority on the matter. Then we see her worst side, the better side and the best too. Finally we empathize with the life she was thrust despite the wealth to grow in a sheltered world. I can see similar evolution of character in Margaret Thatcher, even more so if you ask me.

What was the intention out here? Even take the title for instance and that does not get much justice. If some angry and loud justification for the tough policies and the decisions in Falklands War she orchestrated was enough, then that is a blunder as well. The much talented and the brilliant delivery of Meryl Streep gets thrown out in a shabby arrangement of the biography. Even my beloved music director Thomas Newman cannot provide his best under the circumstances. “The Iron Lady” not alone foils the Oscar nominating and possibly winning performance of Meryl Streep but potentially set the bar on someone else recreating this tale to grave. I wish I am wrong in that front as I would very much love to see a better film on this personality.

"Haywire" (2012) - Movie Review

2012-01-21T15:31:00.000-08:00

Only Steven Soderbergh can get Michael Fassbender, Ewan McGregor, Bill Paxton, Channing Tatum, Michael Douglas, Antonio Banderas to star alongside retired mixed martial arts fighter Gina Carano and in the meantime get few of them to be ass kicked by Carano as well. “Haywire” is nothing but a pure thriller, Soberbergh style. Though I expected little bit more of a novel treatment from the man.

The film is a short, tight and precise thriller that goes on without brakes. Gina Carano appears to sharpen her eyes with a devilish knife that scorches nothing but clarity of certain authority over her opponent. She can either simply bring them down hard and raw or bring them down hard and raw and kill. We see her beat the hell out of Channing Tatum’s Aaron and in series of events you will see her beat the people to pulp whenever they are in her way.

From such a great director even the silliest of plot would bloom into a visual extravaganza. Either it becomes a certainty of laying out a character for the film to associate to its central character as in his previous “The Informant” or become a complex of behavioural analysis in presentation and simple things in “The Girlfriend Experience. Here “Haywire” while having the unique quality for a thriller does not get that fulfilling feel of watching a Steven Soderbergh experiment.

Despite that complaint, Gina Carano’s Mallory Kane crashes through the screen with presence and then puts down the men responsible for being trapped and cornered. She of course owes an obligation to the audience and to Scott (Michael Angarano) whose car she is riding to getaway on to explain the details of the misfortune she was put into the private sector contract business. We learn her boss Kenneth (Ewan McGregor), Aaron of course and the Barcelona job. We hear the unknown motivation for Kenneth’s machination to put her to ground. In those stories we see her working her magic through stunts, immense running, sword like speech and execution.

Soderbergh has been the modern wave director breaking convention in ways one could have never even anticipated. He takes on experimental movie making and projects that bring in actors who are not actors and actors whom we cannot imagine playing these kind of roles. Look at “The Informant” wherein he got comedians Patton Oswalt, Joel McHale and Tom Papa to play serious characters and more importantly how they excelled in those roles. Then he brought porn star Sasha Grey to be part of a thorough exemplary film making of depicting human connection and physical relation towards the opposite sex.

And how can I forget “Bubble” the most off beat independent film one can find with people who have never acted to give another subtle presentation of human relationship and instincts. In “Haywire” that is one of the reason we are in wonder to see these stars come by and portray quite simplistic characters. I think I was expecting more out of this oddity than a tight bound thriller. In fact I was able to see one small revelation to be unnecessary which is Mallory’s dad (Bill Paxton) is in on her ploy when Kenneth arrives at his place. The following scene could have done plenty well on its own without knowing that. I believe the fact of that standing out loud and clear made teeny tiny disappointed.

So “Haywire” is not the best of Soderbergh’s film but as his several other not so great films is a thoroughly entertaining one. The actors have wonderful time playing these characters and clearly participating in the hand to hand combat Carano engages them. Gina Carano is undeterred in this role of Mallory which does not resemble Lisbeth nor the regular array of femme fatale. She does her stunts and the camera swerves and angles in directions that for a regular eye goes unnoticeable but carries a presence of this director. Despite my qualms I love the fact that Soderbergh can get these stars and mainly bring in unexpected talents from unrelated sources to his screen and make them bring their best. For that and the non-stop no mess thriller, “Haywire” kicks, punches, claws and get you engaged to leave the hall happily with a smirk.

"Point Blank" (Language - French) (2010) - Movie Review

2012-01-19T18:36:00.000-08:00

“Point Blank” does not wait a moment to screw around. It has a mind of a organized person and completes the film in a beeline. That makes this formulaic, predictable and done-a-million-times action thriller into an enjoyable high adrenaline, at times touchingly emotional film. Fred Cavayé directs with absolute energy. Hesitation is not what you would get in his screenplay which he co-wrote with Guillaume Lemans.

Samuel Pierret (Gilles Lellouche) is that innocent person filled with good and bubbling with prospective future with his pregnant wife Nadia (Elena Anaya). His life will of course take a turbulent turmoil because he rescued a man at the hospital. He is a nurse aide and he will soon be a nurse or doctor. The man he rescued is Hugo Sartet (Roschdy Zem) whom we see escaping from couple of madly motivated thugs when the film begins. What results is Nadia is kidnapped and held as hostage unless Samuel frees Hugo. This is how simple the story begins.

Soon enough there are cops, good and bad, very clearly identified work through the maze of buildings, windows, public places, elevators, escalators, train station and the police station itself chasing for these two. This French film cannot escape the comparison of “Tell No One”, another high octane yet emotional action thriller where the hero runs like hell. Gilles runs and jumps and the film does justice to chase scenes not with ridiculously impossible stunts but logically genuine choreography executed with sense and care.

“Point Blank” is the most ordinary plot I could think, yet it works it like a professional. We assume Sartet is good at start but he is ill fated for Samuel, then we see another side of him but we are not sure. Characterization is the least bit of attention in films like this but the actors here truly believe in them and bring out a faith in performing it even amongst the maddening stunts. Hence we not alone root for them but associate closely with their perils. Especially the bond between Samuel and Nadia which usually gets dissolved and compromised in the mill of entertainment becomes a caring genuine concern in the end when she is struggling deeply and in the midst of a possible miscarriage. What a careful sense of emotional balance director Fred Cavayé does that so that they do not become the melodramatic annoyance and come forth as two people in true dangerous situation and vehemently love each other.

One of many reasons “Point Blank” works is that the characters do not become mere puppets in an action flick. At the same time they do not overstep their responsibility. The balance act of this makes it a study in executing a perfect screenplay for a thoroughly well disciplined film. There is no unnecessary obligation or elongating an explanation. Everything we need to know are out there and are explained/solved instantaneously.

For all its nuances and perfection, the film offers nothing new either. While Fred Cavayé knew exactly what he was making, I think the potential nature of this terrific film maker made me yearn for more but this is not the film to discover and meander for deeper meaning. What you see is what you get. Not a millimeter more or less. You get absorbed, you get enthralled, you get to your edge of the seat and you leave with a content happy ending.

"Young Adult" (2011) - Movie Review

2012-01-18T19:18:00.001-08:00

Jason Reitman seems to find these characters who are impeccably flawed and then makes us like them for who they are and dislike them for the same. I think it is great to write for characters like this and Diablo Cody comes back with this script after her “Juno”. Here we get Charlize Theron playing unabashedly this character without holding anything. She is full on and you are in wonder how there will be a happy ending for it. Of course there is no happy ending for this. Jason Reitman as Martin Scorsese in his great films provides an insight into a character from point A to point B without any necessity to resolve or happily ending it.

Charlize Theron is Mavis Gary, a blonde in her late thirties living the city life in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Her life seems to be depressing, unhygienic and methodically self destructive. She does one thing absolutely well, that is to groom meticulously. She gets up with a hangover, washes it down with diet coke, feeds her dog with pre-made food, feeds herself with pre-made food and then stare at the computer for materials to complete a book series she has been ghost writing. In this fine day she gets an email containing a picture of a baby. This is the daughter of Mavis’ high school boyfriend Buddy Slade and his wife Beth. This disturbs her deeply while there are several other things in her life that should wake her up. The path of destruction begins as she makes up her mind to go back to her hometown Mercury, Minnesota to win her high school heartthrob back.

Mavis Gary is the person who is so aware of her beauty and develops a great level of snob, attitude and personal pride in considering every one around as the next worst thing. This gets developed in the society wherein the high school becomes a popularity contest and the winner seems to be girls like Mavis. While most of them shed those as they grow and get the reality check but others like Mavis remain connected to that land where they were regarded as goddesses. Mavis comes back to that land in the idea of reclaiming Buddy Slade (Patrick Wilson). This attitude applies to guys as well who become irritable jocks but then again they grow up to face the world in a different perspective. Buddy has clearly grown out of it. He is leading calm and happy life with his wife Beth (Elizabeth Reaser) and a new born baby. There is content that gets screamed out of him and the people who knows both Mavis and him. Yet Mavis has made up her mind and sees what she wants to see. Yes there is a perfect disaster in the works and when it happens, you cannot look at it as you thought it would be.

One of those people who advices her to pack up and consult a therapist is Patton Oswalt’s Matt Freuf. He went to school with Mavis and Buddy. In fact his locker was right next to Mavis and still she does not remember. What she remembers is that he is the person who got beat up by jocks because they thought he was gay. Now permanently handicapped and other parts that does not aid him getting close with ladies, he is the person who desperately tries to talk Mavis out of this and at the same time being there for her wherein she does not respect it one bit. Patton Oswalt once again surprises with a serious dramedy performance and he brings in the same talent as he did in “Big Fan”.

Jason Reitman somehow makes Mavis digestible despite her inconsideration to anyone beside herself. The only selfless act she does throughout the film is when she says “good morning” and offers coffee to Matt’s sister Sandra (Collette Wolfe) near the end. The fact that she is at Collete’s house says how much of her simple act gets emphasized.

“Young Adult” achieves something that is so difficult to attain which is to make a dislikable central character and then they do not even make us like her and at the same time does not instantaneously hate her. We feel sorry for her as many does in the end of the film. The fact that Mavis can still treat people like dirt is because the society has elevated her beauty to that level to allow that without harm. Jason Reitman along with Diablo Cody have made it look so easy and Charlize Theron make it look so considerably damn easy. Yet what we come out of is a film that puts you how one would instantaneously react to Mavis just by looks and then by what she acts upon. You would be surprised by the contrast of our thoughts and that is exactly what the film intends to.

"My Week with Marilyn" (2011) - Movie Review

2012-01-15T16:29:00.000-08:00

The nature of a splendid female in her drama that gets so despised is what basically attracts men. The nature of men to bounce around women is the what basically attracts women. In “My Week with Marilyn” we see many of the former in Marilyn Monroe (Michelle Williams) and little bit of the latter in our main man Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne). When Marilyn Monroe was in England for the movie “The Prince and the Showgirl” to be acted/directed by Sir Laurence Olivier, a young man with dreams in his eyes and passion to be behind the camera becomes the third assistant director. In simple words, he is the bitch to every one and that is how you start your career in the showbiz. That is Colin Clark. This is the movie about him seeing the most beautiful, fascinating and understandably complex young girl.

I have not seen any of the films of Marilyn Monroe but one cannot erase their first encounter through images. That devilish blonde hair and the inviting lips with the rightly placed mole on her face would melt any one. Regardless of her being no part for that face of course apart from greatly taking care of her, she is much more than the image. From what I can learn, she embodied everything a man would lust for, love for and to comfort for. She embodied the extremity of woman in all forms and characteristics and that made her the most biggest star in the world in her times and remain so even now as an icon.

Directed by Simon Curtis, the film does the ultimate justice to her. The monumental task falls on Michelle Williams who has come a long way from when I saw her in the soap operatic television teen drama Dawson’s Creek. After that she dazzled in so many complex characters and come out with more than flying colours. Her portrayal of desperate young girl trying to find her dog in “Wendy and Lucy” and in one of the most saddest and brilliant tragedy of marriage on screen in “Blue Valentine”. Despite my unawareness of the mannerisms Monroe had in real life and in the films, as I saw Williams portray her and the deepness of this confused yet pristine personality told that this could only be her.

Alongside Kenneth Branagh as Sir Laurence Olivier, the young man Colin Clark becomes the eye for the audience. He takes the gasps along with us and brings to the front of this voluptuous woman that melts hearts as she walks, stares, moves and even when she simply stands. Even in her most utterly depressing state of mind, she is charming in her own way. Despite her little girl seeking in need of attention, she takes all in and somehow knows the players who get in are always aware of the predicament. That happens in several times for Colin Clark, who gets constantly told by others to not get in deep. But the human heart does not obey words of others let alone their own.

Colin Clark as many men in her life becomes residue of several hearts she flung around and becomes ashes of those happy days. Michelle Williams is so good in bringing that woman to the screen that we cannot even help ourselves in allowing her to be that way. But before we put the judging cap, there are facets to this magical gal who mesmerized single handedly the wide audience. She annoys Laurence Olivier by not showing up on time, forgetting lines and questioning his directorial skills through her acting coach Paula (Zoe Wanamaker) but Laurence in his private conversation with Colin says how utterly blown away he is by her elegance, charm and of course acting skills. Laurence himself is in the phase of losing himself to the age and wonders whether Monroe can rejuvenate him by just being alongside him.

There is Judi Dench as the most understanding, kind and splendid human being in Dame Sybil Thorndike. She is generous and how magnificently she supports Monroe when Olivier asks her to apologize to Sybil because of her not being punctual. May be Sybil saw herself in this young girl who is surrounded constantly by people and men. The fame is a pleasure and pain. On one end Marilyn enjoys showing off to the crowd but at the same time she is driven away by that to seclusion and ultimately to self loneliness. She yearns for attention and love but could not make up her mind. Even Colin who would love to be with her might be startled and drifted off by the insane fame that followed this great beauty. “My Week with Marilyn” does not take that for granted and shines insight into this complex being. And in Michelle Williams Simon Curtis gets the best he could ask for and we do take sides with Marilyn because she demands it and you cannot help it.

"Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" (2011) - Movie Review

2012-01-14T17:37:00.000-08:00

I wish the way the last 20 minutes of “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows” played transpired throughout the film. A thoroughly incredibly entertaining and novel climax like none other than Guy Ritchie pulls this film out of its ritual misery of continuous rather mediocre adventures of Sherlock Holmes with a commanding performance from Robert Downey Jr. and his nemesis Professor Moriarty played by Jared Harris. Ritchie employs the technique he used in the 2009 predecessor to avoid the laborious unnecessary stunt thrill one would have endured in regular circumstances. Instead we get the best mind games and we are saved of those troubles to have a stellar ending, at least for this film as the three-quel is in the works.

After the short lived romance of Holmes with Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), he buries himself in the conspiracy of several events to be linked to the one man he doubts to be the problem, Professor Moriarty. In this he is left alone as his buddy and fellow investigator Dr. John Watson (Jude Law) is about to wed Mary (Kelly Reilly). Being devastated of being left alone and the only clue that left in this investigation is the letter he stole from Adler leads him to a gympsy Simza (Noomi Rapace). After Watson weds, he bids adieu to the couple for their honeymoon but gets an invitation to meet with Moriarty. That reveals the ill fate of his lover and the incoming danger to the newly weds Watson and Mary. That destines him to crash the honeymoon party before it began in the train as he has to rescue his buddy and thereby solve this mystery once in for all.

So far so good and the adventures that takes us through the trains and towers are entertaining but not enthralling. The vital visuals come into place when they are being chased by bombs, bullets and knives at Germany. Ritchie has managed to concise the perfect timings for his killer slo-mo shots. With commendable aid from his cinematographer Philippe Rousselot, he achieves those which accentuates the danger Holmes and his crew are going through and at the same time stopping our hearts unknowingly in the process. I am a great admirer for Ritchie’s visuals and here he triumphs in the department he so well has established.

There are simple character developments. Even the demise of his only possible lover is brushed aside for action than analysis. The relationship that gets prime attention of course is between Watson and the titular man. Sherlock clearly is disapproving of his friend’s marriage as he loses him to the domestication and to continue solo on these dangerous ventures. That underlying notion guides a good ending. Yet this is not a film about the great characterizations and relationships rather the heart pounding actions and the witty lines. The former happens in dozens while the latter are spread thin. Downey Jr. dons the wit quite casually in the film that require him to and here he seems to be subdued than the first venture.

Jared Harris as Moriarty appears quite non-threateningly at the start. The real terror of him only shows up as he hooks Holmes and swings him around for answers. Yet he really comes out to play his crucial part in the end. While I did complain about the way the finale played out should have been the tone the film should have carried, I think the punch it provided is due to the mildness of the rest of the movie. Yet it would have been quite entertaining to see these both fight out those kind of battles in much more detailed fashion on multiple occasions.

“Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows” is a perfect entertainer that cannot be questioned at all. It satiates the needs of the regular movie goer without denigrating them to mere puppets and then goes further in providing some novel ending against a fodder of uninteresting sequences. The plot and the eventual unraveling of it is not spellbinding nor does it require the great mind of Sherlock Holmes. It invites Robert Downey Jr. to have fun with his parts and perform stunts of raw muscle and agility with the right capturing techniques of Ritchie’s eye. These combination with a decently combined screenplay makes this film a complete entertainment.

"Carnage" (2011) - Movie Review

2012-01-14T13:20:00.000-08:00

The feeling of being a father is something I have not yet experienced but I can see how a parent reacts when their kid is involved in a conflict. What is the stands on it? Do they stand by them even when their kids are wrong and would team up to stand against their bully or intimidator or spread the wise words of civility to resolve the conflict? Of course the obvious choice is the latter which is how “Carnage” begins as the parents Penelope Longstreet (Jodie Foster) and Michael Longstreet (John C. Reily) invite Nancy Cowan (Kate Winslet) and Alan Cowan (Christoph Waltz) but the undertones of defense and offense cannot be stronger and it bubbles and bursts into one big chaotic finale.

Surely one immediately gets the feeling of watching a play as it is adapted from one titled “God of Carnage” by Yasmina Raza who co-wrote the screenplay with director Roman Polanski. The meeting is underway because we see Longstreet’s son Ethan got hit by a stick on face by Cowan’s son Zachary in the opening scene. As they assemble to sort out this in the most civilized awkward manner, they come to realize they are not that civilized after all. Soon the ugliness of the marriage, male chauvinism and feminism springs bright and might.

Roman Polanski directs this venture which cannot have better promising scenes in the beginning. As the obvious eruption of emotions are awaiting, somewhere it goes from realistically crazy to unbelievably nuts. What drives the film are the undertones, the subtlety of insinuations and accusations both parents bring on each other. Clearly Nancy has dragged the lawyer man Alan into this meeting. Both of them at different times keep trying to get out of the place only to be stopped by each other or by the Longstreets.

Alan is in the middle of a crisis of advising a pharmaceutical company to deny allegations that their drug is causing hazardous effects on its patients. He is the sort of person who can be effortlessly rude and accepts it as his characteristics as his defense. He consistently gets phone calls which he insensitively picks up and talks leisurely while enjoying the cobbler his hosts provided him as the rest of the audience stare in absolute awkwardness.

Nancy cannot stand Alan’s detachment from this situation. She has had at it of him being outside of the family in not being involved. Then comes Penelope who tries really hard and struggling to control her anger on this whole issue as she is conflicted in her life of civility and righteousness. In between is her husband Michael, the simplest man in the middle of this seeing for what it is. He is the man like Alan in a different way.

Amongst these exists coalitions, character assassinations, name callings, blame, betrayal, issues of marriage, puking (a lot of it) and drinking (a lot of it). All in a day when two parents with lot of issues meet up right? Polanski I believe is attracted towards the gangs each of them take and under different routines. Soon enough the original issue gets away paving great deal of dissection onto the personalities of each other and their relationships. Penelope wants accountability, Alan thinks it is the way of the world, Nancy thinks Alan needs to be a father and Michael wants to cut all this crap.

That is the spine of this film where sides are taken in unexpected manner and twists are delivered in the unlikely way. It is carried on without a hiccup for most of its 79 minutes but goes berserk as the intention was in the last 20 minutes. The idea of the film is to blow this out of proportion in the ridiculous unbelievability to provide a strange kind of comedy, drama and chaos but it works against the film leaving us in disbelief.

The brutality of human behaviour is when it is shed down to its minimum in terms of survival. It steps down from community to family to couple to male/female to individuals. The film takes that step and animates it as it gets closer to the individuals. By the time Penelope is excruciatingly sobbing and screaming out of her lungs and as we feel the throat pain seeing her, we are not sure about the comedy or the drama and we are not sure about the seriousness of the film either. This of course is an actor’s dream assignment as the team of excellent cast take over this material. Of course us men would be enthralled by the simplicity and class of Christoph Waltz and by the open and brotherly John C. Reily. And I think us me will be annoyed by the drama in Kate Winslet and Jodie Foster as they elevate through their alcohol. I would like to hear what did the women think of these men and the women. When the chips are down men will be men and women will be women? May be that is the point Polanski was trying to make.

"Another Earth" (2011) - Movie Review

2012-01-11T20:10:00.000-08:00

It is a fascinating experiment to learn about the basics of emotions and consequences through the result of science fiction than the actual phenomenon itself. “Another Earth” a low key indie flick rides on this philosophy comes out more as a good exercise than a mind blowing experience. And it is always heart warming to see a film underplay the bigger phenomenon to focus on the ground level reality. Every one carries on with their life in goodness, routine and remorse despite larger things happening around them. When I read a news about the discovery of a far and light years away planet having the possibility of life a form, it intrigued me as expected but I immediately moved on to read the following news. Life as such goes on until it knocks on your door and kicks for your attention.

“Another Earth” carries this personality throughout the film and keeps the dramatization of this new thing on the sky to a simple basis. As Rhoda Williams (Brit Marling) is celebrating her acceptance into MIT there is a new planet on the sky, very similar to Earth. She drives intoxicated and staring at this phenomenon on the sky while driving does not help either. She causes a terrible tragedy of killing a family leaving the man alive. She serves four years in prison as this new Earth on the sky becomes bigger and bigger as scientists are making desperate attempt to make contact. She comes out of the prison and obviously ridden with guilt decides to work as a Janitor than pursue her dream education.

The surviving man is John Burroughs (William Mapother). A professor in music is now struck with depression. Rhoda walks to his house to confess and beg for forgiveness only to turn around say she is working in a maid service and ends up cleaning his distraught house. You see she was a minor when she caused the accident leaving her name unknown to him. But I wonder he would recognize through the booze and consistent depression that haunts him.Slowly these two begin to develop an odd form of bond.

What I have noticed in recent days is the power of being among people. There is a force we feed off each other regardless of the spoken communication we make. There is something to the nature of being social. This unexplained but obvious formula of comfort, joy and existential satisfaction tells about us. While the desire being acknowledged of the existence is one thing and us being the approval addicts is another thing I do though strongly suspect there is more to it than those. Sometimes you do not need even need to make complete conversation to get this benefit. John and Rhoda begin to get that. He invites a routine into his life which has long gone.

Rhoda also enrolls in a competition wherein a unique company offers a civilian the first ride to the Earth 2. Her childhood fascination towards astronomy might be the driving factor but there is more to it. This is a rare chance to escape the world she has failed in. There is another world similar to this. There is a revelation that makes this new Earth even more interesting than its existence. We learn that everything that happened in Earth happened out there. In short terms, the Earth 2 is photocopy of our Earth including the people living in it and the things that happened to them. That puts a new twist on things. Did Rhoda commit the same blunder out there as well ruining the family of Burroughs? If not, is there a chance of redemption out here? How do you define redemption in this scenario?

“Another Earth” fundamentally has several logic flaws once we get into the real concept of science and laws but director Mike Cahill is not interested in that. It is purely a plot driver, a really good one to put us in thinking of this scenario. Brit Marling co-wrote the screenplay with Cahill and here we see a strong promise for a sensible emotional writers. Both of them are keen on the external factors that are beyond one’s control dictating the possibility for better life on these people. The film moves at an expected slower pace. It does not have a strong dialogue except for the one where Rhoda explains to John on how a cosmonaut turned an irritating noise in space into something beyond peace. Apart from that, “Another Earth” is too aware of its indie nature and that plays against it. Nevertheless it is a much more sensible film and the simple questions John evokes are marks of a promising writer(s) and director(s).

"Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" (2011) - Movie Review

2012-01-08T18:23:00.000-08:00

What a damn methodical film “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” is. Director Tomas Alfredson adapting this novel by John Le Carre on to the screen says it is about the journey and not the destination as it has always been in these many great films. Arranging packets of information while keeping us glued to the screen is an extraordinary sense of achievement in executing the script. Putting pieces together has never been suited to address a film. With actors whom I have no idea how they grasped each of the scene’s gravity to provide this unperturbed link of story telling is a surprise to me. No wonder you not alone have the proven cast of Gary Oldman and Colin Firth but also the rising talents of Tom Hardy and Benedict Cumberbatch as well. Add John Hurt, Toby Jones and Mark Strong, you get the brilliance in the supporting cast as you get in a thorough script by Bridge O’Connor and Peter Straughan.

These are not James Bonds but office workers traveling around simply and in the constant undertone of fear. There is not much socializing or at least the socializing is a front for something else. There is no fascination of this job other than wandering gloomily on a dreary day. Smoking with a longing of what entails further in this job is what you see in these spies’ lives. The undercurrent of the betrayal, loyalty, trust and friendship are sprinkled with suspicion.

The film’s motive is to drive its viewers through a complex plot with a stunning clarity. Gary Oldman is Smiley an old spy agent who got forced into retirement along with his head Control (John Hurt). The reason being the miserable collapse of an assignment Control’s agent Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong) went into in Hungary on a purpose of getting information about a mole in the agency’s top level. Jim gets shot by Soviets and the political mess that instigated leaves the old man to die unknowingly of the perpetrator. A year later another source in the form of agent Ricki Tarr (Tom Hardy) providing confirmation that there exists a mole brings the retired Smiley to investigate. Smiley keeps Ricki’s contact Peter (Benedict Cumberbatch) and adds another trusted fellow from old days to carry on this secret investigation.

Control had his suspects on all of his spies including Smiley but the new information has taken him out of the equation there by leaving Percy Alleline (Toby Jones), Roy Bland (Ciaran Hinds), Bill Haydon (Colin Firth) and Toby Esterhase (David Dencik). By the time we arrive to the answer, we are left with a terrific exercise in execution of a perfect screenplay. The story is told with a sombre feeling all the way as if their jobs seem relentlessly bland in terms of action but terrifyingly real in terms of the consequences. Yet through all these we are constantly thrilled and provided tiny pieces of information and we are on the lookout.

There is no great dialogues of morality, loyalty and what not. What is out there are the men who perfectly know what they signed up for. Their passion is invisible in this labour but once they are in, they are in. When Smiley goes through the investigation he is emotionless. The only time even he shows signs of anger towards this mole is when he talks with the mole in the confinement of the intelligence. There are personal lives that are cut short for the job and the pain has left them pale.

The invisible characters are the key to this compelling story. There is Smiley’s wife with whom Haydon has an affair and that is not underlined but mentioned which forms an identity of its own. There is Karla, the KGB agent who taunts Smiley and their rivalry carries such a powerful undertone throughout the film. The sub plots of the story develops a sad but a strong emotional component to this whole mixture. As Jim Prideaux surfaces as a teacher in a school and the subtle bond he develops with a student, we are more intrigued on these multilayered personalities living lives amongst shadows and closed curtains.

Alfredson’s story fascinated me in the building up the blocks. The film is not on the suspense but on the procedure. David Fincher’s “Zodiac” comes to mind on how it assimilated the details rather than the actual find. The “wow” moment when the suspense unfurls is not the key to this thriller and that is not the intention of this film either. This is an exercise on providing a film that does not let you close to these characters yet you are enthralled and bored by their lives. This is bare bones in presenting the world that otherwise is mostly exaggerated and exploited in providing action and thrilling films. Tomas Alfredson provides a thriller unlike any other where the details are the angels of precise film making.

"Hugo 3D" (2011) - Movie Review

2012-01-08T13:55:00.000-08:00

“Hugo” is the best example of how can two great directors approaching a sappy material. One can invoke life out of it and the other, well, the sappiness out of it. The latter of course was the painfully sentimental “War Horse” I kicked of 2012. Martin Scorsese’s film though threatened to take the route of Spielberg’s venture gets rescued splendidly in the middle by none other than Sir Ben Kingsley as Papa Georges and the enchanting visuals and further editing by Thelma Schoonmaker, Scorsese’s regular collaborator.

Based on the Brian Selznick’s novel “The Invention of Hugo Cabaret”, this follows the titular boy played by Asa Butterfield confined in the train station at Paris. He goes around keying the clocks varying from giant to the smallest and he does that with no one noticing it. Even the most vigil and comical Inspector Gustav played by Sacha Baron Cohen with the oddity in bringing laughs from merely the way he delivers a line. Hugo watches the people who run their livelihood in the station through the gaps of the clocks amongst the minutes and seconds. One particular man’s shop has been his regular target for stealing something for his secret machine. That would be Ben Kingsley Papa Georges.

Who would have imagined that one of the greatest directors of our times especially a legendary classic one would opt for 3D that is single handedly panned down by hardcore film goers which includes this reviewer. With that skepticism as I watched “Hugo”, I was slowly getting justified of that feeling. Not that I am dead set against meagre semblance of sentiments, I am just wary of excessively manipulated one and to be disappointed by a director I admire to a great deal would have been heart breaking. But the master story teller was holding his best cards till the middle and reveals a magical experience that lays forth the reasons for everything including the spectacular use of 3D.

Hugo is the Oliver Twist kind of character. He is an orphan and is left alone to fend for himself in the big wide world. In this scenario it is the train station and Scorsese takes you through this giant fulcrum that makes it all going in the opening shot and then on several other occasions to feel the steam, the crowd and the fresh smell of baked pastries laid out amongst those with flagrance and beauty. Hugo has one thing that keeps him going which is to fix the automaton his dad (Jude Law) brought from his museum. That is the heart beat which keeps Hugo surviving day by day. Thus bringing him to encounter the owner of the train toy shop, the old man Papa Georges.

He gets a compadre as the old man’s god daughter Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz) and they form a convincing bond. She is at the age fascinated by the fantasy from the books she read though beckoning real life adventures. Sure enough Hugo has those right from the sheer amazement of getting her into this giant train station’s interior sparsely seen. Then Hugo introduces her to the films that has been forbidden by her Papa Georges which we come to know why.

Hugo is a celebration of this art medium. When Lumierre brothers invented films, they did not think much of it and saw it as a passing entertainment which again we learn from the film. And all it took was some wonderful artists to take this and paint their own to capture the attention of the audience and what we have now is something of a monster that threatens, fascinates, feeds and provides us with great films, horrendous ones and to miniatures to monumental film makers. As I think about the film, it stands more and more of a perfect homage to the work he loves rather than a sappy film about a boy finding his purpose.

Hugo has the precise execution of several actors which I have mentioned but the one that surprised me was Sacha Baron Cohen who I have not taken seriously as an actor. Here what could have become a side note of a character existing for physical comedy in the childish manner possible transforms into a reasonable and genuine person. His comedy is best not through his comical running in his mechanical leg but when he speaks to Hugo for the first time, his pure interaction with his mean and majestic dog Maximillan and his cluelessness in impressing the lady (Emily Mortimer) he has interest in. I would love to see him in better roles more than his regular but committed crazy characters he suits on in his mocumentaries and other ventures.

As the film unfolds to reveal one of the earliest film makers who was fascinated by this medium that resembled his then trait of magics and illusions, I as a film lover could not stop myself to be captured by the montage of the flash backs that are laid out. What a pleasure to purely create magic and inventing those techniques with a team and that process is what fascinates every film maker. In “Hugo”, Scorsese gets to show his fascination and then provide that inspiration to the kids who will be watching this. Even as an ardent film lover, I was not aware of Méliès and to re-ignite that legacy in the coming and existing generation who has forgotten the ancestors of the medium is the right way for a film maker to present this film. And to add the looked down medium of 3D into a true tool of reason to be a homage to those early effects is nothing but mastery. This truly has opened the eyes of the people who just put down a film for 3D alone (including me) to justify the film for its purpose and the tools that aid them. Granted that this reviewer has enjoyed few of the 3D films but I was never a fan of it. While this film has not changed the opinion of this reviewer of unnecessary insertion of 3D in films, I can give this tool as the great special effects that revolutionizes the movies a chance.

"The Descendants" (2011) - Movie Review

2012-01-07T18:22:00.000-08:00

Alexander Payne’s films always have a male lead with peculiar characteristics yet so normal. On the outset they are average Joe but as any average Joe, they have a wife, kids, concerns and issues. He dealt it with a unique dark comedy in “Election”, kicked it off smoothing down Jack Nicholson in a killer role in “About Schmidt” and gave Paul Giamatti a character to ruminate in “Sideways”. Here it is George Clooney and as his male lead in previous films, we come about to sympathize, empathize and mainly respect him. This should have been my first 2012 film to come back to my films in great fashion.

The film happens in Hawaii and that forms a background of its own. Every one wears beach shirts, appears to be happy most of the times given the depressing scenario Clooney’s Matt King is in and are always greeted by wonderful nature. The most dashing celebrity in Hollywood withers down to a regular personality. No fancy one liners or the oozing confidence of Daniel Ocean. Not even the tired yet stellar presence of Michael Clayton. If I ran into Matt King, I would think that he is a regular working guy whom I can hang out and have mundane discussion about weather and what not. I think that is the specialty of Clooney who makes most of the people think that he cannot do different roles but does these wide varieties of characterizations.

The film shows the tedious world of Matt King crumbling around him. Matt’s wife is in coma and as the film starts he is hoping for a second chance in the dying marriage he sensed before his wife got into a motorboat accident. He has been the traditional dad of working and having formality discussion with his daughters. His ten year old daughter is Scottie (Amara Miller) dealing this circumstance and ordeal of seeing her mother in the hospital and Matt does not know how to handle it. He has no clue on how to behave, react and operate around Scottie. He and his wife have good friends who help them out until he finds out that his wife’s coma is permanent and as per her wish, she wanted to be taken off life support. This gets worse and worse and he suffocates inside of the ever devastating situation.

Matt has another daughter who has cut ties with her mother and is being brought back. This is Alex played by a very confident Shailene Woodley. She is the eldest and the teenager which is a wandering situation for any dad. She breaks out the reason for her fight with her mother that turns Matt’s world upside down one more time. There seems to be no end for his sadness. If this is all looming on him, his ancestors’ land need to be sold because of the rule of perpetuities that puts them to sell it. He is surrounded by these information and decisions to be made. In between he has to feel for what he has to feel.

Payne’s films lays out the saddest of the situations in to something digestable. In the sense that the tragedy keeps getting deeper and deeper and we still smile, laugh and cry amongst those. May be because he makes it real as the life itself wherein misery does not stop the regular routines of life. You continue all those things with a crappy mindset but you continue for sure. Here the continuation is a venture of finding the man who has destroyed Matt in several manner but mainly emotional. Soon enough Matt, Scottie, Alex along with Alex’s friend Sid (Nick Krause) are traveling around to find some sense and answers into this terrible scenario.

Oh what wonderful characters this film entails. Apart from the main players, the fascinating ones are Sid and Matt’s father-in-law played by Robert Forster. Sid is the teenager boy you would not want around your daughter on the first go. Then he becomes this lovely personality whom not alone Matt comes to like but also respect. Robert Forster’s father is a prick but also a grieving father. Look at how insensitive he is around Matt and how sensitive he becomes around his comatose daughter. And how Matt’s wife Elizabeth played by Patricia Hastie lays down there and Payne paints this picture of her character through different people and form a opinion of ourselves.

George Clooney plays Matt King not as a chump but as a meaningful man. He is not awkward but clueless. He does not do stupid things to evoke cinematic comedy but behaves and reacts to empathize on his agony and laugh along the way. He makes it simpler on the screen and projects frustrating emotions with great ease. His character is constantly in confused emotions filled with anger, sadness and betrayal. Amongst these he forms a bond with his kids and in a way to his ancestors. “The Descendants” is one of the best films of 2011.

"War Horse" (2011) - Movie Review

2012-01-07T14:15:00.000-08:00

Although “War Horse” is a film for kids, it is the most sappiest and melodramatic romantic film since “27 Dresses”. Yes it is a romantic film about a boy and several others in love with this horse. I decided to be selective in my film watching after the aforementioned disaster of a film “27 Dresses” and you have to agree that Steven Spielberg qualifies as a better bet than Katherine Heigl. This film as one of Spielberg’s earliest ventures “The Terminal” unabashedly goes for the overdramatic emotional kill right from the start and never turns back.

Based on the novel of the same name by Michael Morpurgo, this is the story of course of a horse that becomes a young boy’s pet, a drunk’s stupid buy, an officer’s horse, eventually a war horse, a young girl’s substitute for pony and then becomes another horse’s friend, then solves World War - I. If it had survived its years through World War - II and several others till now, it might have calmed the energy crisis and the Republican primary.

To have a central character that does not have lines needs anchor of supporting characters and a cast to hold it steady and strong. Here they get the cast but they are put through ordeals of spurting terrible lines that would put Cruise’s Ethan Hunt in latest Mission Impossible to shame. The lovely animal is majestic and Stephen Spielberg employs a stellar coverage of its mad run only in the end instead of several other opportunities for excellent stunts.

In the old English land of Devon is Albert (Jeremy Irvine), young boy destined to be that kid who is cherubic to care for this respectful beast. His father is a war veteran and a qualified drunk with a loyal and weirdly supporting wife. Emily Watson is the lovely woman to tell the tales of Albert’s bravery and how he should give the old man sympathy for being a stupid drunk and not appreciating his kid’s hard work. The kid of course believes in this horse that every one are dead set against of not being the horse to plow the fields. You know where it is going. Against all odds it would do the job, then it would keep on doing great things while every one suspected it to. This goes on for hour and half. We get it, this horse is awesome.

As the horse shifts places going through war zone and having a bad omen of killing few of its owners, we see several characters that are put there to build something with invisible strong suits. Right from the officer who is plainly courteous and most accommodative of the boy’s zeal in keeping his horse, he sends pictures and cajole’s the boy’s early pet loss. Of course they would be reunited and make love, oops scratch the last part. This reviewer does not encourage bestiality.

I am all for great inspiring stories with justifiable amount of sappiness. Take this film “Dreamer: Inspired by a True Story” where a horse against all odds becomes a strongest one and organically gets the audience to root for it. There we had wonderful supporting casts of Dakota Fanning and Kurt Russell, but more than that are the screenplay and the story that falls through in a manner that does not decimate its audience into something of a reality TV participants begging for drama. In fact in “War Horse” the horse Joey lands up in the hands of a young girl and her grand father. Supposedly the warm relationship both of these share and the horse boosting that into another level was the agenda that becomes a non-calorie burning emotional work out.

The so-called crucial scenes that includes battle, reunion and drama are not punctuated but splashed with the ugliest paints of overly manipulated cinematography and screenplay. There is a horse race between the officers where it is a clear day and suddenly when the race begins everyone comes out of the fog. That is one such scene and “War Horse” has ton of it. And when war is happening around and wounded soldiers are in numerous begging for attention, everyone suddenly takes time to give horse a chance to find its owner. And why the heck everyone has to stand up when the animal is being brought? There is this annoying beckoning in those scenes where all the members on the screen does not have a life of their own or there is no surrounding. It is purely about these two that is pestering on your face.

I have seen films for children in animation and live action that feeds the required amplification of certain drama but also treats it with intelligence. Steven Spielberg’s film is shameless in its emotional exploitation and the medium itself is such that but in this it cannot be more obvious thus minimizing the aptitude of its audience. There could have been sensible wonderful scenes of genuine drama. Take the scene where two soldiers from opposition front come to no man’s land to aid the horse and see how blandly it gets constructed and executed. Fraternization in World War - I got brilliantly depicted in “Joyeux Noel” which provides the same emotional pay off much more convincingly and rightfully. Spielberg’s horse endures several things rummaging through mud, barbwire, bullets, bombs and mad people but I am sure it cannot endure this film.

"Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-12-19T00:00:00.000-08:00

Mission Impossible series for this reviewer has become an enigma of action clusters with buried insignificant details. The first one perplexed the hell out of me, the second installment screamed stupidity, the third one carried itself sufficiently well and here comes the fourth one. Produced by Tom Cruise, he should really believe in this franchise and mainly he seems to have too much fun doing this. Suspending everything that remotely resembles logic which is how these films are expected to be watched, “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol” delivers nothing less and nothing more. Well, a lot more in terms of world wide travel and stunts gargantuan floating through the IMAX screens.

After personally taking up running in this beautiful 2011, I have great appreciation for the sprints Tom Cruise does through Ethan Hunt. Nothing like the sprints Francois Cluzet did in the French film “Tell No One”, nevertheless Cruise runs with style, vigour and carries the kinetic energy fueling this rocket with slams and bam that would leave anyone into bag of crumbled bones.

Cruise as Ethan Hunt is picked up from rescue mission by Agent Carter (Paula Patton) and promoted Benji (Simon Pegg). As this seems to be a routine in this franchise, it begins with an Agent getting killed and here is Lost famous star Josh Halloway as Agent Hanaway. Alas there are codes that were stolen from him by a devilish and beautiful blonde Sabine (Lea Seydoux) and there is a madman Kurt Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist) ready to do the craziness expected out of these film’s antagonists. Regardless it paves way to some spectacular travel for Hunt and his team.

Joins Jeremy Renner as William Brandt to add to the testosterone for more than a handful of larger than life stunts that as much as illogical it appears makes you lose breath in the way of its execution. Starting from Josh Halloway’s jump on the back to shoot and land safely through the prison escape of Hunt towards the Kremlin high tech extraction and marching into poor Tom Wilkinson’s cameo in pitstop and to the spectacular skyscraper extravaganza in Dubai and then onto finish in India, this is nothing but an exhibition of splendid action sequences that are choreographed, performed, risked and edited with one thing in mind. Which is the primary philosophy in these blockbusters, to not let the audience pause and think. Before they could digest the mind boggling momentums of these high octane scenes, they are taken into one another piling it one after another. And in the end beyond the corniest dialogues and the predictable plots, what comes out is a happy customer for the money’s worth.

As a film snob, I would terribly object the last line of the previous paragraph but the film projects its aspiration right from the start. And knowing about the franchise, there is nothing short than what was delivered. Director Brad Bird who mesmerized with his animation “Ratatouille” jumps to something unexpected and is inviting further invitations for similar blockbusters. While action films like this are something that ought to be done like this, I would love for him to see venture out and expand his skills further in other genres.

Suppressing the movie jerk in me, I have to say I did enjoy “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol”. Say what may about Tom Cruise and say what may about his limited capability of stretching out characters in his stereotypical performances, the man works hard, real hard. And he goes out far and beyond sometimes to work some diverse characters or chooses projects that would conveniently put his acting skills to minimum and action skills to maximum while providing the stage for a better film. He did so in “Minority Report” and “The Last Samurai”. Here he is in this film, giving himself completely to the project he produced and going full on to tackle not alone brilliant stunts but to utter some terrible cliched and horrendous lines I would have hated in any other circumstances. Brad Bird tries to poke fun at those aware of its quality but it does not redeem those. Watch the film in IMAX because it is meant to be seen that way. I am not a big fan of 3D but I am terrifically thrilled for films that venture out for IMAX. “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol” clearly comes victorious in that and keeps you solidly entertained while numbing your senses and mind.

"Bellflower" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-11-22T18:53:00.000-08:00

“Bellflower” is a wonderful aspired mess. It has the images, the ideas and the uniqueness a movie maker is looked out for and gets it, almost. At the same time I think through the future to see this as the first in the many of an aspiring film maker who picks himself up in giving a complete film. The film has already attained critical acclaim for its look and feel raising it fast to the cult status but I think it has to go some way. I cannot wait what the writer/director and star of this film Evan Glodell is going to bring next but with all due respect for his creativity, this is an amateurish attempt with potential flaming out literally through the screen.

The film focuses on two friends Woodrow (Evan Glodell) and Aiden (Tyler Dawson) who seem to have no source of income but have diligence in building a flame thrower and a deadly car inspired from the film “Mad Max” and the love of their post apocalyptic chaotic world. Their daily routine involves waking among dirty clothes, riding through scrap metal store to pick up random hoses, valves and what not and then build from it. They substitute beer and liquor for water and they live life through the second. These two go to a bar where only people like them would go. No wonder they have a live cricket eating contest. There stands up a blonde with trouble tattooed on her right when we see her. She is Milly (Jesse Wiseman) who hits it off with Woodrow. There begins the end of a spectacularly failing love story.

The single most thing that keeps this film alive and kicking is Joel Hodge’s cinematography. Evan Glodell designed and built that instrument which captures colours in a manner which are so home to old films. When colour photographs came to origins which reminds me of 70s and when it is dusted through the times and weather, what we get is a nostalgia in colour. This gets transformed into every frame of “Bellflower”. You would have never seen fire and flame like this and it soothes and fluids through the eyes of its viewer. It is real and at the same time surreal. It is what makes this otherwise ordinarily messed up weird film into an experience.

Woodrow and Milly begin their date on an impromptu road trip to Texas in the hunt of dining at the most scariest and filthiest place they could think of. Through that journey blossoms instantaneous love. Woodrow as much a crazy and hipster as he can be is stunned by this beauty. She is impulsive, more than Woodrow has ever been. She takes the time in her hand, wraps it up and throws through the wind and inhales it in a heartbeat. She is deadly and delicious. She is the ultimate woman and the terrible one.

In between their blossoming love is the devoted friend Aiden. Amongst providing sumptuous alcohol, cigarettes and being the supportive partner in crime for blowing things through the air and on road, he is the best friend Woodrow could ask for. Milly’s best friend Courtney (Rebekah Brandes) is another girl sprayed on emotions throughout and wondering when a broken heart would be there to be fixed. Soon the disaster happens as Milly breaks Woodrow’s heart in the worst possible manner. As Woodrow loses himself into the depression and slowly chews and swallows in dealing with the betrayal and heartbreak, the story spins out of control into chaos.

“Bellflower” is spotted with potential brilliance. It has the characters to be watchful for but has amateur actors walk through lethargically. For starters, Evan Glodell should have distanced himself from the acting department, at least for his debut. While he could very well be a good actor, he does not pull through on dialogue deliveries. What seems to be an attempt in being realistic and natural in these two falling love becomes a comedy of bad deliveries. It does not hurt the film but does not benefit it which would have made it a much better film.

I did not dislike the film nor did I like it. What I saw is an artist with a great crew showing his unique abilities in providing a film that has visuals and presentation style that has not been seen before. It is filled with poetry and odd impressive background scores that punches through the screen. There is no doubt that Evan Glodell is a film maker and the passion of giving something new is evident. What is missing is the completeness of it and having a coherent thought throughout the film than for the half of it. The next venture of Glodell should be focusing on that and I will be fluttering with excitement to see that.

"J. Edgar" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-11-22T18:43:00.000-08:00

Clint Eastwood, that unrelenting director is a writer’s creator. He takes the material on the script and dictates what it has to say. There is not self indulgence, a style nor a narrative order to mark his signature in any of his films. It simply goes unseemly and amalgamates in to the presentation and comes out like any other good film. Even his moderately successful films have that characteristic and “J. Edgar” falls in to that as well.

John Edgar Hoover was the most powerful man to have an iron hand over the political and influential figures right from the moment he became the Director of the freshly found FBI. Played by Leonardo Di Caprio with the total dedication that is an essentiality on a biographical film, he conducts it to his best formed abilities. Written by Academy Award winning writer Dustin Lance Black who debuted strongly through “Milk”, it portrays a mysterious man coming to a world where he knew the militancy of the evolving world. He foresaw the criminal growth and the necessity to build an institution for inventive techniques to catch them, even if it required side stepping privacy and stomp on the grounds of blackmailing and hold leverage as the single tool to do what he thought of to be in the best interest of the country. As fanatics fool themselves in the guise of righteousness, Edgar is no different from those. Yet there is a story to be told on this hardened man with shadowed private life.

Eastwood gives a man who is so sure of his opinions and decisions. His certainty is followed by a fierce face and execution in delivery of his speech. He is a man judging everyone by the second and then goes onto make sure they are kept in track of their doing just so to sleep himself to peace of any iota of wrongdoing plausibly emerging in them, even in their thoughts. For a man who had nothing but trust issues, he trusts three people in his life. His mother Anna Marie (Judi Dench), his personal secretary Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts) and his second in command Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer).

Apart from his mother, the other two marks his tremendous sense of judging a character on the nature of their loyalty to him. What they saw in this unemotional, distant, coercive and stubborn man is something we sparsely see in “J. Edgar”. The film goes through his dictation to several of his Agents who type his memoir that never got published. Then Eastwood inserts the alleging details, rumours and what not into making a film of laying down the man’s legacy both objectively and subjectively.

The problem with “J. Edgar” is the unavailability of what drives Edgar to be such a hard man to defend his country. How did patriotism birthed into him and how it became a fanatic obsession on securing his country at any cost? We meet him at the end of his career not willing to give up, even to old age and then recite his story more on his growth and struggles in building this bureau from ground up.

He goes out on date with Helen right after they meet because that is what men did and for a man who is full of ego, he takes rejection from Helen in the most amicable fashion. He then makes her his trustworthy secretary and the guardian of the private files he begins to accumulate on the figures of power. He kept those with malicious intentions of keeping himself the head of the bureau because he is the best man for the job as he has convinced himself of. And to conduct his business of absolute power onto obtaining information on citizens and on the lookout for terror and invasion, there is no way he is giving up on that. Paranoid was his best hobby.

Edgar is said to be gay and his subordinate second in hand Clyde played by Armie Hammer is the closest I could think of him being portrayed emotionally open. A mother who dictated his life to the inch was trustworthy but not emotionally available for the problems and frustrations he had to endure. Edgar as a person comes off as a man of the times. Concerned greatly about his image and his presentation, he made sure his authority remained and anyone who could question it got brushed off to the sides and behind the desks. The film reiterates those known facts than to not provide any insight on him.

The interesting part of the film are his visions of bringing technology and expertise to investigations. He brings handwriting experts, wood experts and whatever the current investigative television has taken into from technology and knowledge are provided the base in how Edgar saw several decades back. With enormous supporting cast, Edgar suffers from an emotionally vacant script which is surprising to have come from Dustin Lance Black whose debut of “Milk” was filled with it. If Eastwood went for a clinical approach in leaving the motivations of this stubborn man to interpretation and have a history lesson conducted, then it is played against his film. What ticked this complicated, arrogant, closeted, inventive and intelligent man and why it ticked him? We never get to find it.

"The Disappearance of Alice Creed" (2009) - Movie Review

2011-10-16T15:20:00.000-07:00

When has ever been a clean kidnapping in films? In “The Disappearance of Alice Creed”, it begins with its perpetrators doing the chores of kidnapping, shopping for it, working for it and doing it in a fashion that can only be called creepy perfection. They do not speak to each other but then again what would they say? “Hey man, this is going to be so cool when we finish it that Ms. Alice Creed is going to love it!” Exactly!

Eddie Marsan and Martin Compston are the two kidnappers arranging the set up with such care and professionalism that if they could only put this thought on something else. Then again if you want to become millionaire overnight and are devious enough, you are stuck with few options. They get to it right away and the command Eddie’s character has on over Martin’s is not new but only Eddie Marsan can do that with a conviction. They indeed kidnap a young girl whom we do not see her face until they strip her naked and lay down in the bed they spread out to take pictures. They know what would cause not alone response but instantaneous one from her family to provide the ransom. This is Alice Creed played by Gemma Arterton.

Debutant director J Blakeson is a confident man and that is stompingly evident in each shot of this tightly packed film. We learn Eddie Marsan’s character is Vic and Martin Compston’s Danny. Danny is lean but not mean while Vic has those deadly eyes that is nothing short of pure killing. Then again Vic has an exact path of where this is going. He analyses each of these with great precision and executes them mercilessly. He is the professional in this business and Danny is new to this. He slaps around Danny to get some sense to him as he should. When you are knee deep in shit, you better keep going to cross it or you would die in it and it would be a stinking one.

The film of course reveals details as it goes along and in the event of accidental spoilers, please do not read further if you have not seen the film. Chances of holding a hostage situation under control deteriorates as the time expands. When a human factor is involved and you are not all the way in as Vic is, then you are eventually going to give in to the involvement with the victim and thereby exposing for failure in the merciless kidnapping. Such is the game and how easily J Blakeson makes us think and associate with the kidnappers is the first step of draw in he pulls on his audience.

In this game is Gemma Arterton, a terrific actress who as Charlotte Gainsburg in “Antichrist”, goes all through for the exercise. She lays there chained on hands and legs, laying naked and being humiliated. She has the toughest role in the film and she makes it all look easy. We are provided these snippets of details of the history these characters have. Almost next to nothing but strong enough to pursue the story forward thrillingly. And the beauty of it is as we are so caught up in the events and tension that happens in the apartment is that we are wide eyed only when Blakeson wants us to be on those details. Rest of the time, there are these small things that will not disappear that would get one of the characters in trouble. That damn bullet casing!

“The Disappearance of Alice Creed” is the kind of film that when it sparks the bombs one by one you are humoured and shocked by it. You circle around taking sides in between these characters and finally you have no idea where conscience took vacation in this 100 minutes. It sucks you in to the minds of these deadly people and you certainly know that Vic is the character who would not hesitate to kill Alice. But if you think Danny is the only man with iota of conscience in that apartment, think again.

I was constantly in anticipation of what is going to happen next as any thriller should be and it delivers those anticipation, not with bang but with exact measurements. In between doing so, it has these props and places that are accompanied with Marc Canham’s eerie score to exemplify that J Blakeson is the director to watch for who does not mess around when the screen play he has provides the punches that would knock you out, wake you up and knock you out again.

"The Ides of March" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-10-09T17:01:00.000-07:00

Idealism is an irony for politics. It attracts its idealist and then paints a thick reality concocted with cynicism and disgust. Perfectionism is unachievable as human and yet we look for one. We look for a bigger version than us and we see in the people who would like to govern us. Riding against plethora of miniscule subjectivities and proclivities of the wide spread country of US, the campaign personnel shed day in and day out drenched in moves, plots and strategy to make their candidate look great and the opposition bad without saying so, it is where the execution happens bloodless. Such is so in George Clooney’s “The Ides of March” which has his men and women labouring hard to get a bigger version of themselves govern them.

George Clooney is Mike Morris and who else other than Clooney play someone so charming and idealistic with the shred of doubt and mysticism in them. He has Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman) the campaign manager with a vibrant and astute young fellow in the name of Steven Myers (Ryan Gosling) running the show. Myers truly believes in his man and he stands for it. While the elephant of a doubt lurks on whether happens at all but there is always that hope and the confidence that the firm believers of ideals and prospect have that they ingest the idea of having found someone. They are not alone to look up to but clean and perfect to be the leader for every one else. While the imminent soul breaker does come, “The Ides of March” plays its card right with right calculated surprises that makes, breaks and changes its characters.

Ryan Gosling’s Steven Myers is dynamic, energetic, smart and knows his game. With his eyes reflecting several sleepless nights as the primaries for Democratic candidate is week’s away, he wanders carrying Morris on his sleeves and being the perfect right hand man for Paul. Gosling here miles away from his role from “Drive” is a talker and a thorough one. His eyes are threatening in the fear, angst, shock and disappointment when the time comes. He hardly smiles and when he does it takes effort in doing so unlike his unnamed driver in “Drive” that spills smiles when he is in love. Shouldering with Hoffman, Clooney and Paul Giamatti, he is the man for the job and he does so effortlessly.

“The Ides of March” focusses on the background we have to be there to believe it. Talk about fast paced environment which are thrown like boring uncreative lines for a company’s hiring advertisements and here you feel it in your nerve. Papers flying, people around and you assessing every word you speak and hear is a chilling plays for a young people with hopes high and prosperous. Such is Molly (Evan Rachel Wood) an intern working at Morris’ campaign who decides to make a move on Myers who of course obliges. She eases and understands in few words and drinks. Then there is the loving Marisa Tomei as the journalist Ida Horowicz knowing how to game information with the boys and play cold when she needs to.

I did mention about Paul Giamatti who is the opposition campaign manager and kindly make a note of glances and obligatory smile Hoffman’s Paul and Giamatti’s Tom sweat which explains everything the casting did right on picking those for those roles. Jeffrey Wright is Senator Thompson who will put an end to this primary by endorsing either of the candidates and both of them are fighting hard to get him. That is part of the plot in the film but the real thing comes down little bit later than that. Things unravel in twists that bring all the people who are made note in the setting filled with people to act and do things that becomes like a Mafia.

The people in the film curse as they please like a well placed word in a poem and you realize that in a day filled with careful statements and land mine conversations, when they are in closed doors, they go ballistics as to take a dip freely in the fresh waters of profanity. Clooney’s Morris is believable and shares a personal moment with his wife Cindy Morris (Jennifer Ehle) where we understand that the man respects and trusts his guts and values. Everything happens in the “The Ides of March” are not a plot placement for pulling the foundation at the end. While that happens, it happens as a strategy well placed and played making the game of politics an ugly one and a generation that are tired of cynicism but are in process of being imbibed with it. Yet they will not take no for an answer and they would go beyond their values to go for a better leader. That is exactly younger Paul Zara and Tom Duffy would have thought when they were thirty.

"Rebel Without a Cause" (1955) - Movie Review

2011-10-09T16:59:00.000-07:00

“Rebel without a Cause” is truly a film that belonged to the 50s and looses its current audience for being so. Film critic often repeats “movies do not change, people do” and it cannot be more clear on this one. The characters, actions and the interpretations vary widely enough to see a complete different film than what Nicholas Ray intended and what James Dean performed. Yet it has its core intact which tells about a generation on the cusp of having to want, feel and realize more than the previous generation who had so many worries financially and being mum that they were happy to be alive. It only has gotten further and further into generation and generation on pondering on their existence and the purpose of doing things and understanding the right thing and actually doing it.

James Dean is a teenager named Jim Stark though he looks like a college student. When we meet him as the credits are shown, he is drunk and laying on the ground playing with a disregarded doll. He is taken into juvenile police station where we also meet two other teenagers. One is Judy (Natalie Wood), clearly beseeching for dad’s affection. Then there is Plato played by Sal Mineo and man I would love to hear what the original viewers of this film thought about him. Each of them get to talk with Ray Fremick (Edward Platt) and we get where these kids are in their lives. When you hear “Why did you shoot the puppies” from Ray towards Plato, you know what you are getting into.

The introduction to these three characters at the juvenile division in the police provides a setting that you expect more of these troubled nights but Nicholas Ray has plans of things unfurling in next couple of days to learn lessons in hard way and wondering what is the teenage angst would result in. That we are still witnessing tells more about our evolving humans having a core that is beautiful and scary.

James Dean who was killed in an auto accident before the release of this film achieved iconic status through this film which has survived half a century and continues to keep going. He is throughly an actor of presence and that explains the status he achieved with very few films. He is dramatic and nowhere near as a great actor but there was the potential that would have matured to be as Marlon Brandon. Dying young is a terrible thing and we would never know what would have come off him as the times passed and films evolved.

Having the power of presence like Dean, one would not be surprised on why Plato is instantly in awe of his character Jim Stark. Jim is a kind teenager offering help, smile and snappy remarks. He offers his coat to Plato at the start which the disturbed kid does not accept but that act sticks to his soul. Soon we learn that Plato’s parents are nowhere to be there and it is his house keeper to take care of him. It is not the case for Jim who has as the norm states, loving parents. He has a car, stylish clothes to impress Judy and more but he wants his loving father to stand up for himself and then for Jim against a mother who is controlling and dismissive. This becomes the spur to the actions Jim makes in the rest of the film.

Jim’s father is played by Jim Backus with a borderline comic undertone. He is a weak man unable to maintain the heroic status Jim grew up with from his actions and dialogues. And Judy is a troubled young girl expecting the same kind of intimate affection from his father though she is becoming a woman now. Unable to express that part to his mother, she becomes a trouble of her own. She gangs up with fellow school bullies Buzz (Corey Allen) and others. The next day when Jim enters his first school day, the events lead to a tragedy.

“Rebel Without a Cause” while provides an insight into the times and the budding teenagers wanting more out of their life, it is stuck by the disconnect in the film making with the current audience. The moods and emotions shift randomly. One minute there is a loss of a life in a silly game and the other minute the couple are in love in an abandoned mansion. The greatest of all is the character of Plato. Plato played by Sal Mineo with a creepiness is disturbing and travels into the zones of derangement. While the interpretation of Plato wanting to be in a family seeing Jim and Judy as his parents, it cannot be denied that Plato is a homosexual having infatuations towards Jim. Whether this is the untold undertone Nicholas Ray went for is unknown but it cannot be more obvious. The film while does not hold up to the time is a landmark on the controversial nature of its material for that time and a life that was not fully lived in James Dean.

"Zardoz" (1974) - Movie Review

2011-10-09T16:58:00.000-07:00

“Zardoz” was played as the B-movie in my film group but it is definitely not one. It does not fit the profile of B-movie which is it is so bad it is good but it is so bad that it is Bad. Directed by John Boorman after his success in “Deliverance”, he makes Sean Connery half naked for the entire film that has no purpose other than to provide a legendary ridiculous image results in google. It is a futuristic science fiction with no science and a fantasy film with soulless imagination. Its destination from the get go was nothing other than imminent doom and it achieves that slowly and painstakingly to its demise.

There is a huge stone head that flies and there is no mechanics behind it. It simply does. It has a loud speaker voice that no one should obey but humans have become insanely stupid and beastly that they would take anything. These are mainly men who are clothed with a thoroughly flashing red cloth to cover their genitals and two lines on their torso. Now why would they dress like that? Is it efficient and how did they get their clothes because from what we come to learn they are nothing but executors of remaining souls in this world? Well I am getting ahead of myself.

Anyhow, Sean Connery is Zed one of the executors who manages to get inside this stone head which takes him into another world. In the midst of the journey he also finds a man inside this head whom he kills for the purpose of killing. He lands in this world amongst the beautiful mountains and on the shores of a scenic serene lake. There he meets the people who talks cryptic, stoic and are boring as hell. Charlotte Rampling who is savagely beautiful in “The Verdict” is dressed exposing herself but in no way attractive. Boorman stylizes his cast to bare minimum in the most unsexiest manner possible. His intention to make this world uninteresting and indifferent succeeds though boring his audience.

The idea of Boorman though is unique and has so much opportunity for exploration dies in the minds of the creator. It becomes annoying and impatient through scenes that goes into the mindless and uncreative philosophies. What is Boorman trying out here? The imagination and recreation of this world is only beautiful in its scenery than the people. These souls live an uneventful life and they act bizarre. No explanation is given in the form one would understand or even remotely entertained.

As Zed enters this world he incorporates what is called a Tabernacle which is like a super computer advising on things and keeping these people immortals. They have psychic powers because Boorman makes them so. They can control Zed and bring him to his knees and make him do menial work that again is of no interest. So Charlotte Rampling is Consuella who is vehemently against in keeping Zed and wants him destroyed while his fellow immortals May (Sara Kestelman) and Friend (John Alderton) wants him for further study. Personally I did not give a damn.

There are films that explores into the arena of unexplainable and treats its viewers to the pleasures of strange world and bigger philosophies. That makes you forget and forgive the insanity and illogical actions. Boorman made a personal movie and it should have remained with himself alone. There is nothing but money and talent wasted. Nothing is funny nor sad nor anything. It is a film devoid of emotion and you create no sort of empathy or relation to the characters nor the environment.

“Zardoz” offers explanation in the end for Zed’s travel to this weird world through the stone head and the happenings on the current state of affairs which only becomes an exercise as if Boorman decided to put things in perspective for his audience. And as said earlier I did not give a damn. Bland as hell and pestering like a crazy girl friend, “Zardoz” goes into one of the top films I despise.

"50/50" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-10-09T16:56:00.000-07:00

“50/50” is one of those films that has several moments of good film but fails to lift itself beyond what it set forth for. Not because of bad direction or unconvincing performance but it is just what it is. Some films are like that and sometimes you wonder why it did not become a better film than the goodness it already attained. Joseph Gordon-Levitt has risen to take varied roles and go with the flow. He has been noticed, picked up and has established himself as an actor having an eye for better film makers including his very own website that collages several creative minds. Here he plays as the protagonist diagnosed with cancer and waiting for the time to wrap up his time.

Levitt is Adam, a young man budding into the life of regular events of having a needy girl friend (Bryce Dallas Howard) and an annoying but best friend (Seth Rogen). He has morning runs, drive, coffee and work. A pain in his back sends him for tests where he is delivered the news with coldness and detachment from his doctor. The gravity of this situation does not translate well to me. May be due to the awareness of the plot, I was more interested in what he is going to do next than the news itself but it is director’s responsibility to not make that assumption and make it a moment the audience have not seen. May be this is where it dented the rest of the film.

Adam’s girl friend Rachael is nothing but unlikable. She is given an out by Adam after the news but who would get out when they are in that situation? Rachael begins to drive him to the clinic and distance him at the same time. While Adam and Rachael did not really have a good thing going before the news, the film goes towards the change in moods but gives up quite easily as Adam’s best buddy played by Seth Rogen as Kyle finds her cheating. Though we know that is exactly was going to happen as soon as you see Anna Kendrick as the novice therapist Katie for Adam. They are supposed to be together as per the screenplay right from the get go.

“50/50” suffers from emotional predictability despite its genuineness on the screen. Every one is trying around Adam to adjust to his situation in the awkward way and Adam is trying to accept his reality. What can you tell when a person is a walking funeral? Despite their success in the treatment, whenever someone hears cancer, that is that. Dying becomes so close and extremely real. Especially when a life fully not lived. Here is Adam a late twenties guy finding the things that might question or un-question his meaning of existence and he does not even get a chance to see those.

Seth Rogen plays Adam’s friend with fine nuance I would not have expected from the comedian. He is caring but he wants what he thinks is best for his buddy than Adam himself. Soon enough he becomes to use this sickness to get girls to date. You wonder throughout the film why Adam is even friends with Kyle but you also realize they are best friends despite what you see on the screen. People are like that and we see those in Kyle and Adam.

Then there is Angelica Houston as Adam’s mom taking care of her husband who has Alzheimer’s disease. She is hysterical and frantic but which mother would not be when they know their kid has days to live? Houston’s character is typical mom and annoying but we also see her side as Kendrick’s Katie points out the obvious to Adam. Talking Katie and Adam, their moments are nice, genuine and unusually comfortable given their awkward situation. Yet in the end when things fall in place, it loses it.

I think too many things fall in place too quickly in “50/50”. There are lovely characters and easeful moments. Take it through the chemo sessions with Philip Baker Hall and Matt Frewer or the emotional moments with Angelica Houston and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, the film has heart and soul. It carries itself through but this reviewer while liked the film did not go all way in pouring his heart.

In Indian films, cancer was always used as this haphazard tool for bringing sympathy from the audience to the central character. No one can be cold seeing a good looking person puke blood. Over the years I have seen personally and heard about the cold brutality of this disease, it does not let its victims continue the conscious life the films portray and also the nature of its brutal painful treatments and unimaginably hurt to watch someone go through it. Most films do not have that part except occasional chemotherapy effects of puking and weight loss but the physical pain of it is sparsely dealt as it would affect the flow of the story line. Yes that is one of those details in this scenario to be negated for the ease of moving on the film. “50/50” deals those with soft hands as needed as the pain is known and the loss is felt. I wish it had something more and if it means anything to you, do tell me.

"Moneyball" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-10-02T14:41:00.000-07:00

Almost all the time I have the regret of not having a perfect reply or a conversation or the right scenario set up for a likable outcome in decisions and results in my day to day events as it does in film scripts. Before you say the obvious and what you think, I am aware of that and despite that you wish as you always wish for the impossible. A transition, transformation or epiphany comes through a process of accumulation and assimilation of events and thoughts in actual life. Decisions made, mistakes redeemed and simply moving on happens like that and when a film reminds that and provides that in the end, you feel part of the movie and the merging of it with your life makes the experience, an experience. “Moneyball” provides that with a scene in the end when Billy Beane played by Brad Pitt has to make a decision.

I know the skeletal of the baseball game. I have the faintest idea of the teams, players, lingoes and everything that makes that game like any other sport to have a passionate, fanatic and entertaining fans. That might amplify the experience of “Moneyball” but it does not diminish the core fundamental of the film. Oakland Athletics are small team playing in a sport that is dictated by cash like any other sports. Billy Beane is the GM of the team begging like any other person in that situation would want, more money to spend and get some star players he just lost. He sits at the table with old boys putting forth their replacements providing their own projections than a facilitation for better players. Along with Billy we realize that he is sitting in a prehistoric era. Now we know but Billy amongst the crowd realizes it when he sees the game in the eye and extracts the brutality of it. Money wins, the game is unfair in coming to terms of having a fair advantage of building a team with others. He has to go back to the cave and come back with a computer to make miracle.

Brad Pitt is an actor who consistently surprises and has thoroughly branded himself. A brand of high expectations when he chooses a film to participate. He has consistently delivered and here he does it again. This is the kind of actor the film industry needs. You see these similar characteristic in Edward Norton, Christian Bale and now Ryan Gosling. Pitt out here was in the danger being mummified like Tom Cruise but he tore through it to create an identity beyond his looks. He goes for roles that clearly has an opportunity to see more sides of him. Here he is Billy Beane, subdued, calculated and as normal as you and me. His spur of anger is even methodical wherein it is unlike the character but you can empathize with the man.

Directed by Bennett Miller, it is a film I would greatly like for to be done for the game of cricket. I hope some aspiring film maker reads this and dig this gold mine of a territory for plethora of films to be made. The behind the scene of cricket would be nothing short of a crazy drama to riveting entertainment to a bloody thriller as the game is such that. Miller out here is out for a serene experience of a film in the most nerve wracking position the main players were in for. Beane is desperate for out of the box thinking and mainly seeing through it successfully. He reflects on his life where he got recruited right out of high school by the New York Mets to jump over education at Stanford on full scholarship. We understand that he as every one of us needs a win but Miller is not for the win as Beane.

There is something more than a game or a trophy or a record. Every avenue in the existence of the world needs an invention and a revolution. Here it is through the statistical analysis of putting a team together. It seems so simple and obvious that it surprises me that they never resorted to this idea in first place. The post game analysis for any sport goes into great detail on minute dissection and they do not use the same for selecting players? I think the politics goes deeper than the numbers.

“Moneyball” has Jonah Hill as Peter Brand, the key man Beane hires to believe in this methodology. The methodology of having objectivity over subjectivity. Hill unlike his all other roles comes off clean, shy but regardless charming. This pudgy guy with an economics degree from Yale adores the mathematics of the game than the game itself. His scenes with Brad Pitt are constructed with a chemistry that does not undermine his performance nor does boast Pitt’s. Seeing “Moneyball” I was reminded by another terrific backstage sports film “The Damned United” which eyes on a man blinded by his ego and there again is another pudgy man as his right hand man helping him to see come out of the fiasco in the end. Beane is though has his way of dealing things. He sees this as a business of play and the players are investments that will be cut off as the need arises. He stays away from them to make the firing process painless but it never is.

You can tell a film is being done with great professionalism and care when the supporting characters, every one of them get their screen time with great importance and precision. Philip Seymour Hoffman has nothing to prove but he does dutifully the role of Art Lowe as the coach unwilling to believe in Beane’s method and suggestion. Then is Chris Pratt as Scott Hatteberg wondering what this second chance is all about and is in fear of failing it. The small roles in one scene is all enough. Robin Wright as Beane’s ex-wife Sharon, Casey played with maturity and adorability by Kerris Dorsey and several others which you have to see. The writing is by Steve Zailian followed by Aaron Sorkin while the original story was formulated by Stan Chervin based on the book of the same name by Michael Lewis. It is not uncommon to see several re-writes of a script and here the conversations and actions are casual in the seriousness. It is a director’s film and the writers sees through that it stays that way.

"North by Northwest" (1959) - Movie Classic

2011-10-01T15:33:00.000-07:00

What a smooth classic “North by Northwest” is? And to watch in my backyard projecting over a giant screen along with several people blanketed to survive the fall cold is something of an experience. Alfred Hitchcock’s classic drapes Cary Grant as the dashing advertising executive going for a spin into the old yet classic mistaken identity and web of conspiracies. Opening with titles shown with animation at its earliest and forming an iconic status to have those as one of its kind, the film assembles from a slow suspense into full fledged grandiose spectacle of ridiculously amazing stunts, locations and a finale that keeps you wondering how the heck they shot and how much the studio flooded their money on this venture.

Cary Grant is Roger Thornhill is a man of sleek, style and sarcasm. He is the man from that time where know Don Draper in Mad Men TV series drew inspiration to be Cary Grant. Men like Thornhill just need to be there for the women to fall all over him in a flash. What turns to be a regular business meeting, goes as it is until he gets up to telegram his mother and we learn why he wanted to make sure to keep her posted once we meet her. It is bad timing of him to get up at the same time when someone else is paged. Result, he gets kidnapped by two characters at gun point to Long Island. There he meets a classy but sneaky dude (James Mason) addressing our front man by the name of George Kaplan. Denying it does not help and they are going to get what they want out of Thornhill.

What comes after that is a series of adventure Thornhill did not sign up for. He gets forced drunk, drive drunk while escaping, enter UN, dodge people by wearing shades, catch train, board a bus, duck from a plane and finally cling onto faces of former Presidents of USA in Mount Rushmore. All this and I have not even mentioned about the ravishing and elegant Eva Marie Saint as Eve Kendell who helps Thornhill in his train travel to escape authorities. And the intriguing dining scene where Eve invites him blatantly through dialogues that are outlandishly open but unusually subtle. They spend the night as we learn slowly the game Eve plays. Who is George Kaplan? Why is James Mason’s Phillip Vandamm wants him dead? This and more gets answered as expected in the classy way.

When you watch a Coen brothers’ film, you can see that every scene has been defined, well defined and has that stamp which is not distracting but adds value to it. Here is Hitchcock several decades before going through that exercise with precision on each of the camera angles and shots. Either it is the transitioning shot from outside of train focusing on the snaky curve of this locomotive to the inside of the vessel or the aerial shot in the middle of nowhere in Illinois as Thornhill waits for to be attacked in open ground, there is a definition and an explanation that brings the appreciation in its viewer of effort being put out there for their enjoyment and for the artistic fulfillment.

Cary Grant and his suit are with us for almost every short of the film and advices men to get better suits. And his delivery that borders on being stoic is where it should be when he is comfortable even in the most uncomfortable places and side steps into animated when a man being chased by planes would react and yet he is the coolest cucumber I have seen in few of the classics I have seen. He is devilishly handsome and when Eva Maria Saint’s Eve Kendell seduces him, while we doubt her intentions, there is no doubt for a woman to fall for this man. Their chemistry which is purely sexual somehow transforms in to genuine love out of nowhere when the end approaches.

The film blows money through the noses of the statues of Mount Rushmore and sprays currency out of the biplane that dust crops. The studio immensely trusted on the name of Hitchcock and he gave them what they wanted. The writing by Ernest Lehman is the main character despite the charm of Grant and sexy Saint. Wit and sarcasm from its characters in desperate situations are home to the films of that era and especially to the genre of film noir but here it slides in with a smoothness of butter and cream through Grant and others. The plot and set up that is so overblown in many cases somehow makes it out thoroughly entertaining. How did they think this would please audience and not poke holes onto their logic? It almost wants me to say that this is the birth of huge block busters though it had characters too unlike the metal clashing stupidity that is being spit out every other year.

“North by Northwest” has one of the coolest switch from an edge of seat literal cliffhanger to an immediate happy ending. Hitchcock seems to have had all the fun he could have till that point and after that it does not seem to matter to elongate on obligations. He goes for the kill in the danger of breaking traditions and ends it even before people could digest the crazy set they pulled for the finale. I think I enjoyed more than I expected mainly due to the fact it was seen in an environment it was meant to be seen. Big screen, open air theatre and surroundings of people who were enthralled by this time capsule of a film. What more one could ask for from a classic?

"Drive" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-10-01T15:28:00.001-07:00

Nicolas Winding Refn’s “Drive” is the lone assassin film disguised as an action flick. While in real life we would negate and discard them as the creeps with little to no communication, the film’s unnamed Driver (Ryan Gosling) is filled with mysticism that invites interest and intrigue in its viewers. He is not good but resembles one, he is not bad but again resembles one. He is tacit, clear and precise. The film brilliantly features the first scene to set his philosophy and skill. He is not a rash Hollywood infected driver rather the smartest one. He is damn good at his job and he is dutifully modest except when he is driving.

Having seen Refn’s debut “Pusher”, I can say that he is a director of characters moulding the film into their life. “Pusher” might be the film wherein you can feel the central character’s predicament with no escape whatsoever and see how he wanders outside of that in the every day life trying to fix it with deliberate awareness of the end. “Drive” is nothing like “Pusher” especially when it comes to the organization of the simplest story. It exploits to the fullest extent on the medium it is on and only takes the necessary reality or provides a guise of reality in the car stunts which we have been numbed by the CGI injection.

The Driver in the film knows the cars, knows LA and knows the ins and outs and everything in between. He part times as a getaway driver and gives five minutes to his clients a.k.a robbers, that is all he can give and they can be assured he would evade any cops, on the ground, up the air and through the darkness. He also part times as a stunt man for movies and works full time for his employer Shannon (Bryan Cranston) at his garage. Movies of lone expertsmen focusses on a life of nothingness devoid of emotions, friends and social semblance. Movies of that nature makes it a point to be very pertinent of that part of their life. “Drive” has it as a background as we know that this man lives in a zone within himself.

Yet every man is as human as the next one when the heart stops a beat for a beauty and an opportunity for a social life. Such comes as his neighbour Irene (Carey Mulligan), mother of an adorable young boy Benicio (Kaden Leos). The establishment of their relation assumes the knowledge of the viewer of seeing several films. They cross path sharing an elevator. He is spectacularly handsome and she is an angel fallen from the sky. He sees her in the super market and chooses to skip the aisle away from her. He comes outside and hesitates, goes to help her smoking engine. Next scene he is carrying her groceries in the elevator with Benicio staring at him curiously. The viewers fill in the gap. That is the simplicity and the terseness of “Drive” which does not sweat on the details and at the same time does not disregard the emotional bond that develops between these two.

Look the font and design of the title - pink in colour reeking Los Angeles out of it with a 70ish outlook. It is a rare mix of glamour with stillness. Tension is in the background score of Cliff Martinez constantly reminding of the imminent violence that is going to be splattered across our face. The Driver is methodical and has a purpose in every action. Each action needs completion to the highest degree of perfection. His anger, sadness, agony, love, pain and acceptance are marked with an acknowledgment on his face. Ryan Gosling’s mystical character has a total of not more than 15-20 lines in the overall film but he uses his charm as a presence to his character. His voice appears as a monotone but has subtlety of emotions waving through it. He exactly knows what he is doing and the others don’t. That makes him deadly.

“Drive” is like the last year’s assassin film “The American” that laboriously goes through the slow ordeal of wait and patience in George Clooney’s silent killer. Both men are sad lonely people looking for love though the Driver in “Drive” has better trust over his love than the killer in “The American”. I think when you are an assassin like Clooney in that film, it comes with the package. Refn’s film is a meditation in completion and executes that philosophy of accepting life’s events for what it is and begin working through it that is imbibed by the central character.

As the story progresses into the eventual heist going wrong putting our man in the centre of blood, gore and utter violence, we are introduced to two mob bosses Bernie (Albert Brooks) and Nino (Ron Pearlman). Bernie is suave, classy with the sneakiness but also is violent when he wants to be. He shares emotions and his job comes with that territory as well. He kills with anger most of the times and sometimes with an empathy. Albert Brooks provides the strong villain the film needs for the Driver to challenge upon and we know that Bernie is capable of being successful over the protagonist effortlessly.

“Drive” might disappoint someone going in with the expectation of R-rated action with car chases through one way rash driving and blowing up of unnecessary random vehicles. But if they open their mind to this film that very well knows that it is a film than anything else, they get exposed to the R-rated violence that is out there to present the characters and the extension of their behaviour into the ugliness of the inhumane. Refn gives an unusual flick that exemplifies the possibility for an artsy presentation of a genre known for being dumb and lacking creativity be prolific and inventive.

"Antichrist" (2009) - Movie Review

2011-10-01T15:26:00.000-07:00

When “Antichrist” premiered in 2009 Cannes film festival and stirred controversy, I was crazy psyched to see the film mainly for the buzz. Then I learned the ordeal it put the audience through and heard what Willem Dafoe’s character gets brutal violence from Charlotte Gainsbourg’s character and what she puts herself through. I decided I am not going to see it and that was that. Couple of years later I start this film group and my fellow film aficionados suggest this for viewing for which I say no and they confront me of my unfairness. I succumb to the argument. And here it goes.

Knowing the extremity of this film, I have to say that I was constantly in anticipation of the horror than the actual flow of the film. That might have put a dent on viewing without reservations nevertheless Lars Von Trier's film is not for the faint hearted. It tells a story of a couple going through the mourning stages given in chapter form. In the "Prologue", we see their kid slowly walk up to the window and slip to his death while the couple are passionately making love. The film has immaculate cinematography with images capturing stillness in motion. Shot with high speed camera and an opera guiding that scene to its inevitable tragedy, you see a director wanting an art that is in between a timeless photograph and alive in motion. The current technology provides that for Lars Von Trier and he exploits it to great visuals like this.

The loss and the guilt haunts the "She" (Charlotte Gainsbourg) while her husband "He" (Willem Dafoe) sees it clinically, analyzing emotions and trying to deal it like a disease. Him being a therapist, he does the blunder of taking his wife as his patient and begins to "psychosoothe" her through exercises in accepting fear and letting her through the process of mourning. Sex that navigates through the life has pleasure, shame, guilt and love varying through it. It is complicated and complicates everything. Having lost the best part of your love while indulging in the act is an unimaginable terror. Both He and She are part of it and how can they overcome this terror? I think writing about it reveals the film’s finale of She putting He through that terror. May be that is her cleansing or an attempt in cleansing. She could have gone for suicide but she needs to feel the pain in the extreme nature and thereby arriving to the gory, visceral and unfathomable acts.

Segueing to the violent scenes, while they are what I described them, they are brief and saying it visceral might be putting it very mild. Violence with finest detail in films invigorate anger and disgust in me when is no sense for it to be out there. Especially when it is only out there to shock. And in “Antichrist” it "artistically" makes sense to have it but it is an excruciating exercise to prove a thought. Though that is how an artist goes through his/her work. Yet the process is not rewarding. I have to cite the example of seeing "The Holy Mountain" which with its bizarre and disturbing images was exhausting to sit through but the experience was unique in its wide sense and as mentioned earlier rewarding.

Von Trier initially specifies that the nature is evil and sinister. It is given through the couple’s visit to Eden, the ill cabin. As they go through talking about the process of grieving, we see Dafoe’s character transforms from being an understanding husband and an effective therapist to a righteous jerk and beginning to annoy the reeking logical conclusion he is anticipating of. Then comes the misogynistic ideas She did her research on her last visit with her son. A story in itself with characters having proper names would not have made this as controversial as it made it out to be. Assigning generic names to the character shows that Von Trier went above and beyond to say that they are representing their gender. “Antichrist” insinuates subtly and blatantly through the nature of being a man and being a woman.

I would not argue on the differences of nature between men and women. Clearly these two species despite being humans are so far apart biologically and psychologically. And in a world of men, women’s character gets dissected, analyzed and criticized to its nth miniscule sectors. Men are claimed to be simple, hollow and easy to understand it is the antonym for women. While we men are of course easy to unlock, I believe being human itself has its facets of complication and internal mechanics of mind bubbles out spurring surprises day in and day out. You can tell that from this creator itself who portrays a dark mind of his own onto the screen. To take a stand like that explicitly makes it outrageous to accept the concept of proclaiming women as inherently evil. Finally but not in the least bit less important, "Antichrist" gets daring performances by Willen Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg going through this ordeal and giving everything they have got. It is astounding and shocking to see their commitment to take up this project and journey through Von Trier's mad, twisted and dangerously dark mind.

Lady Vengeance (Language - Korean) (2005) - Movie Review

2011-10-01T15:24:00.000-07:00

“Lady Vengeance” tells about the "kind hearted looking" girl Lee Geum-ja (Lee Young Ae) who did her time in prison for 13 years for a crime she did not commit. Obvious enough she is out there to find the person responsible and get even. While the story is said in one sentence, it is a film with visual melancholic poetry and in the end becomes an odd comic commentary on how people driven by anger, loss, love and of course revenge resort to patient and shocking brutal violence and become realistically selfish and insensitive immediately thereafter. In all this is Lee Geum-ja working through her vengeance for several years and accumulating favours for her final blow.

This is the finale of the Vengeance trilogy director Park Chan-wook delivers. His “Oldboy” is one of a kind story that kept the viewer wondering what is the next violent twist this is going to unravel into. When it did its final blow, this reviewer was not convinced of the validity of the character’s action. Regardless, that is a film with cruelty doing sweet dances and stomps on the hearts and groins. Having that effect, “Lady Vengeance” by me was welcomed with caution and sudden explosion of blood and sickness. Strangely enough it goes through like a gentle stream in a fiery forest.

Park Chan-wook goes for some odd notes in flash back and narration. We see Lee Geum-ja accept her crime of killing a kid and goes through the process of guilt in the prison. With angelic appearance, she resorts for religion and then we see her transform into something else when she gets out. While we are aware of her innocence, there is still that iota of doubt lingering around in her sweet face which tells that there is more to it than her innocence. For her it is a cleansing process and it begins by cutting her finger off in front of the kid’s parents. Soon she makes visit to her fellow cell mates outside and begins to collect her favours. Sometimes it is a simple job or stay and sometimes to a stylish symbolic gun that needs close distance to finish its target. Oh yeah she wants to be close to this man and see his eyes in his last moment of death.

Much of the poeticism comes form the music by Choi Seung-hyun that adds the necessary surreal characteristic and keeps the audience be reminded on the sense of loss Lee Geum-ja carries. Park Chan-wook indulges his camera through the scenic views of a snowy town and then to some dark and deeply disturbing abandoned classrooms to show case his finale.

Overall the film dials down the explicit violence from "Oldboy" but retains the gravity of moral imbalance from it. I always resort to this excuse of being desensitized by putting myself through these films but I do have to say I watched “Drive” and “Antichrist” after this which confirms that I am indeed in the process of being desensitized. “Lady Vengeance” while meditates on the melancholy is quite simple on one thing and that is its title, vengeance.

We see the evil man Mr. Baek played by none other than Oldboy’s Choi Min-sik. He is the sick minded, vile and disturbing teacher. As Lee gets closer and closer to her moment, we learn that Mr. Baek has been watching her too. Throw a mix of estranged daughter of Lee into this and we begin to expect something usual but we are in for a surprise. Park Chan-wook sees revenge and accepts it in a brutal manner for his films. There in itself is the debate but unlike “Oldboy” his target out here is from bones through flesh and skin is a man of nothing but pure evil. He gives a clean go ahead for a conscience free killing. We still think we are going to expect something usual and again he puts in a surprising social experiment. Here we see the ugliness of humans unperturbed by the outcry of the vile nature inside of them.

“Lady Vengeance” is a poetic film and ends bloodily. The violence in it was more of a caricature than seriousness. While I was thoroughly affected, disturbed and disgusted by the ending of “Oldboy”, this film that portrays the rawness of human extremity in clean sense of them strangely did not affect me. I think Park Chan-wook’s comic presentation of the clean up of a murder and not going through the torture fest most of the horror film directors resort now a day made me to see this detached and undisturbed on the decay of human souls.

"Contagion" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-10-01T15:22:00.000-07:00

“Contagion” might be one of the few in the disaster pre-apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic film that deals it with a clinical approach and engrosses with fast moving events through characters than seeing it as a world wide event. It does not panic as the disaster films do over through media, national monuments and wonders of the world rather allows itself in key departments of interest and concentrates the drama and thriller in those corners. Directed by Steven Soderbergh, “Contagion” has wide array of casts playing simple to major roles each carrying their weight to put together this heavy mass of a film that ticks for a time that never seem to end.

Said with a grim outlook as it is and hopelessness, the film is Sodebergh’s seamless mixture of stylish presentation with a clinical perspective. The first target of this lethal virus is Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow) returning from her Hong Kong trip sick, coughing and ready to collapse. En route indulging in adultery too. Her husband Mitch Emhoff (Matt Damon) hurries up to the hospital with her dying instantaneously and then before he could even sense the shock, he gets back home to find his step son succumb to this virus. This is the beginning of a really bad day for the planet.

“Contagion” is interested in the reaction of the governing bodies around the world and the response to this pandemic. Who else other than the wise and controlled Laurence Fishburne could play Dr. Ellis Cheever as the head of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention? Here Fishburne brings the instant respect and trust from his stature beyond the undermining mustache. He panics inside his calmness and begins to work through his effective people. There is Kate Winslet as Dr. Erin Mears who begins to venture to the field for setting perimeters and planning a facility. These details are done with a simplicity and the immediacy these bodies will begin to assimilate their resources having the underlying scare of what are they up against.

Soon as we encounter several of the players in this whole arena of panic and anarchy looming over not because it is a zombie invasion rather the basic nature to survive. In the mix of this are some diligent scientist taking risk and working to solve this being into finding a vaccine. Everything fails and as the outbreak reaches out there are opportunist venturing with a subtle cruelty, desperate folks trying everything they can to save a few and there are idealist losing their balance and crawl for answers. Hell lies in the empty street and absolute silence. The virus takes the world out there with a speed of spreading exponentially.

Talking about the speed of its expansion, we are told about the things that are performed by humans in a day touching materials, things and what not and then touching their face innumerable times to cause this spread. Every touch is a weapon and the fear of it is more ammunition than a loaded gun. Soon people believe everything and nothing. There is Jude Law as Alan Krumwiede waiting for a moment like this to break his conspiracy ideas from journalism into something more. The idea of being right and influencing people is a power one cannot get enough of. Such is Alan who prophesied through tons of his conspiracies into this one and there is a cure he believes to have identified called forsythia and people began to hunt for this unverified drug other than Alan live telecasting his intake through his blog. There will be people to follow and minds to believe. He though asks the right questions to the Dr. Cheever and tears the facade into reality. The world is crumbling and the governing bodies have no clue on what they are doing.

Soderbergh is a master in presenting reality with a classiness. His darkest depressing setting have a powerful magnetism. Here there are so many characters spun in the daily life of this deadly disease and making progress from genuine sacrifices, fear, sadness and pain. Dr. Ally Hextall (Jennifer Ehle) is one such and while we have seen so many films that has a character using them as a lab rat for their discovery, Soderbergh makes it a mellow chanting of bad idea and makes it a serene experience in the process.

“Contagion” is not your ordinary bloody post apocalyptic movie. It is not interested in the chaos that are displayed through the media or people running around in famous spots as the world is reduced into snippets of world monuments and the crushing of it. It is interested in the people who would be directly dealing with it and then the people we will forget in the midst of our busy lives and those are none other than ourselves. He is a man of details and here he gives a clinical approach. That might detach the sensitivity and humanity element but it is every bit effective and keeps you glued. You might not be relieved or rewarded a cinematic finale but it has a sweet finish that is more cinematic and more real.

"The Debt" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-09-04T15:07:00.000-07:00

Kidnapping and holding someone during the transition from one place to another is prone to failure. You can avoid talking with them, hide emotions but when there is humanity involved even in the deadliest of spies, there is always doors for intrusion from a character devilish to kill with no mercy and exposure for the sane. Something like that happens in “The Debt” and it never materializes for a clever mind game by the Nazi doctor the three Mossad agents capture and the tangled relationship in between the agents achieves no fruition for a drama.

What works right for the film are the intense scenes on how Rachel Singer (Jessica Chastain) gets the information on the Nazi Doctor Dieter Vogel (Jesper Christensen) and then orchestrates his kidnap along with her colleagues David (Sam Worthington) and commanding officer Stefan (Marton Csokas). The scenes are done with simple precision where we exactly know what is happening, at least most of the times which gets shuddered and blurred in the shaky cam craze that comes through in today’s thrillers.

The film goes back and forth between the 1997 old agents Rachel played by Helen Mirren, Tom Wilkinson as Stefan and Ciaran Hinds as David to their 1965 incident. I think the problem lies out there where I had hard time to transfer the emotions, pain and angst of Jessica Chastain’s Rachel to Helen Mirren’s. Granted that every one of us as a person change more than the physical appearance but the part that misses out here is that it does hold good that these two are same person and they have carried this secret despite the time it has travelled.

Rachel and David have romantic inclination as the rule dictates that women are attracted to mystical characters who keeps everything to themselves. The rules also dictate that women do crazy things when rejected by their love and the crazy thing here is Stefan. This triangle which bodes to be an underline becomes a side note. Rachel now old and divorced from Stefan has a daughter who has published a book on the heroics of her mom and dad along with David. In that it is said that Rachel killed the doctor in captive while attempting to escape making her a warrior and model figure for not alone her kid but also the country. There is obviously a notable secrecy in this version and that is the drive for the 1965 story.

This is the part I liked wherein half of their mission goes well and the transportation fumbles into taking their target as a prisoner. As they force feed the monster and give him nothing but food, the patience wears off. There is no way they can transport him out to Israel and they cannot go outside as the police are on the hunt. This is the beauty of the predicament where not alone does the cruel doctor is a captive but these three within their apartment. As Vogel laughs, mocks and frustrates David and Stefan in not eating, Rachel comes like calm angel with anger in her eyes. Vogel simply eats with no question but I believe he has seen a possibility for his escape. He has broken the other two and he knows the girl is his key piece. This game plays quite well as he breaks Rachel and soon enough David. Yet there is no weight to this process. There is a missing piece that never gets placed back. Even after knowing the truth about the dark shadows in the eyes of the old agents, we feel there is something else that is not being said. I think we are not convinced, at least I was not.

Directed by John Madden, this is a remake of Israeli film of the same name. In fairness to the director, it has all the elements the film needs to have. A tight screenplay where no scene seems to be put out of place but “The Debt” lacks weight of the relationship between these three characters. Whenever there is a possibility of a completion of a relationship, it gets pulled off by turn of events that could have happened a while later giving more chance to understand the dynamics of these ties.

Jessica Chastain comes out marginally victorious despite the disconnection with the Helen Mirren’s version. She sticks to this character almost to the end but falters when she engulfs the glory that comes along with the lie. Why would she succumb to that while David cannot? She is introduced as this strong woman deeply fearful inside trying to find meaning in the life but David is the only one who seem to have the guilt and regret. “The Debt” is not technically flawed but its screenplay unfairly omits certain parts to complete these people that makes it a better thriller but an unconvincing drama.

"Tree of Life" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-09-03T16:50:00.000-07:00

Terrence Malick’s ambitious and enormous film “Tree of Life” is as much beautiful to look at as staring at a beautiful gorgeous creature. The problem is at some point of time you want to reach out and make a communication with that creature to initiate an emotion or spark to continue on. “Tree of Life” has spits of sparks and man those are glorious to be enthralled upon but it quite over invites itself and becomes a drag. A film made with pure artistic integrity, Terrence Malick brings forth images that would dazzle the audience and put serenity in the bosom of organized aggression. Yet as much as one can admire it, we are lost in the minds of the director unable to hear or listen when the credits roll.

The comparison to Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” is unavoidable as both deals with the span of the existence of the universe. Both treats the material with scathing honesty that incepts from the nerves of a creative mind on to the technological invention of art medium of cinema screen. As much as I adored, admired and applauded the work of Kubrick’s, I mentioned that I cannot sit through that film again. Malick’s venture might grow on me because as you begin to watch a film repeatedly, you begin to expect the great scenes and thereby forget the misses. Regardless this review would be the first viewing experience and what may come of tomorrow will be left to the time that advances without hindrance.

The film is not structured if you have not realized it by now. The film does not have a clear narration if you have not realized it by now. The film is not your regular movie even for an ardent movie goer, and you better realize if you are one. Malick works wonders with his cinematographer Ennamuel Lubezki. True that the technology has aided and assisted in bringing sharper images and crisp quality to the picture in these days but this film captures the picture like it is growing as the time goes by. When we visit places filled with nature’s plethora of blessing, the pictures does not do justice to that place and being there is what it really means to be. Malick’s eye through the camera gathers and violently pulls the experience out of that nature and shows it with tender and beauty. We are engulfed in a never ending poem changing scenes seamlessly.

It has actors too you know. It is a tale about relationship of a man and his boy, the boy and the man he has become, a mother and her boys and the brothers they grew up with. The man is Brad Pitt as Mr. O’brien though name does not mean a thing as I did not catch it at all. So goes for all the characters. Jessica Chastain is the mother and Sean Penn is the grown young boy. The relationship between each of the member becomes a portrait of the American family and in terms of core functionality representing human race in social existence.

The father is affectionate, a provider, tough, commanding and scathing when it comes to dinner table. He has expectations from his eldest son. He truly sees him as the extension of him. The mother is caring, angelic, tender and melancholic. She treats her kids with a compassion a mother can only have and provides the purity of affection in every step of the way. A father has his moments but when happy moments happen with her, it is true love. It brings a nostalgia in the viewer of those happy days. While we all know the nature of the bond between a father, a mother and their offspring, Malick makes it look like a news in a good way.

What is “Tree of Life” about? As a confused film aficionado would obscurely speculate I would say it is about everything. The life we live in, lived in and the future that might become. All the characters talk to god or nature in some form or another. There is confession, regrets, pain, mercy, care, trust and the everlasting love. It has family, togetherness and a representation of how different each of us are but how common the emotions we go through as growing up.

Despite these glorious emotions and relationships, by the time we hit the end roads of “Tree of Life”, we are left to be wandering not for conclusion but devoid of any more artistic appreciation of the poetry Malick keeps on writing. May be the beauty wears but by the end we are not exhausted rather left expecting more sooner. It does not overstay its invite but fails to carry on the moment it planted. It fails to connect us completely with the characters. While their memories are painted solid, it does not make us involve with them. They become a representation and remain so but not quite become unique enough to empathize with them. And I imagine adding more voices to those would have saved it but then again this is a man’s straight clear path to the work he wants to project. In that it succeeds but it does not quite carry the ache to a memorable likable scar.

"The Holy Mountain" (1973) - Movie Review

2011-08-22T20:11:00.001-07:00

Be careful what you wish for is all I could think when I was watching Alejandro Jodorowsky’s “The Holy Mountain”, a film suggested by a fellow film enthusiast in a weekly film group I have been having for the past month. This was picked under the category “Offbeat/Experimental” that I came up for the group and if I thought “Rubber” perfectly fit there, “The Holy Mountain” which was made almost forty years back redefines it with a spank on my ass. A film that is filled with psychedelic imagery comprising colours, structures, sets, blood, flesh, violence, nudity (a lot of it) and sex. An experiment that has odd elements and weird chemistries and absolute spellbinding reaction, this is a pure experience in every bit of its entirety.

Made in the early seventies oozing with peace and love, backed by the Beatles members, Alejandro Jodorowsky begins his film with a ceremony ending with two beautiful naked women tonsured and sitting symmetrically with a mystical man in the middle. If that does not set the tone of the film, I cannot think of what else would. From that backdrop we goto a deserted land where an almost naked man (Horacio Salinas) is lying there with flies covering his face and when I say covering his face, I mean in every inch of his face the creature creeps and fills in the gap. Then comes the group of naked kids and lifts him, puts him through the cross and throws stones at him. This is where I was not hoping this film would not go and it came in the first five minutes. Whenever a person sacrifices the innocence of a kid for the purpose of art, he/she loses respect from this reviewer. I am though speaking too soon as they are out there with an innocence the director wants to portray. Having survived an early scare, I was not foolish to think this was it as there were several other near misses that I wish Jodorowsky would have used his expressive creative ability in better form and presentation. Regardless, “The Holy Mountain” continued to baffle, astound, surprise, shock, humour, scare and outright take me for a ride I have never ridden before. This is a piece of work and I mean it.

The film is filled with symbolism, cynicism and revolutionary images. Watching after nearly forty years from its creation, it still has the power to shock any viewer. As this man begins to wander around the streets of the city and goes through the surrealistic and symbolistic world of Jodorowsky, we are exposed to the religion that gets sold, marketed, entertained and ridiculed. It is hailed and imbibed with phoniness. If you have not figured it by now the plot is nowhere. Dialogues are absolutely absent for the first thirty minutes and successive imageries of carnage and sex are casually thrown around to instigate and challenge the viewer to continue watching this film. As the film hurls through those and finally lands up where the wandering christ like man ends up in a tower that lowers down a hook with a bag of gold, we meet the person the film began with. He wears a black robe with a hat covering his face entirely.

He is revealed as he begins to speak to this hobo. This is where the film takes a turn for the best. Given as a god like figure, the man or alchemist as we come to know played by the director himself, begins to provide synopsis of the most powerful people in the current world the man needs to know. This is the part we are humoured and entertained. There is the industrialist mainly a cosmetics manufacturer, a toy manufacturer, president’s financial advisor, an architect, a weapons manufacturer, an art dealer and a police chief. Each of their background reflects the time the film was made and the perspectives most of the seventies contemporary folks had in mind. While the story continued through each of them, my thoughts ran the judgments of this director who was taking the much despised self righteous route most of over the edge hippie culture took. That kind of overenthusiastic hypocrisy is annoying but when Jodorowsky shows the art dealer’s art work and the “Pantheon Bar” where a man deludes himself of LSD and other crazy drug before the group ascends the Holy Mountain, I was impressed by the balance this mad director had in his film.

“The Holy Mountain” has the most stunning imageries. It has symbolism, surrealism, absurdity, contemporary art that would bring shame to the current art forms and the daring nature of experimental film making. Its creator had the most naked form of artistic integrity that he simply denies to accept to satisfy any kind of audience. Even the most fantastic and admired directors of all time are molded by the environment and limited by the ambience they grew and live upon. Alejandro Jodorowksy’s world is not that at all. He tears the screen and splashes it with imagination, weird disturbing ones and then tender beautiful ones. Then he paints poetry and laughs with his mockery.

Having praised, disappointed and offended in parts and pieces, this reviewer would not sit through this experience again. As much as there are spellbinding photography, location and oddity in this film, the taste of this reviewer comes into place. Fortunately or unfortunately I have a certain liking to a certain common feed of films that beckons multiple viewings. Few of those might be called as offbeat but nowhere near as that of “The Holy Mountain”. While I wish Jodorowksy chose other pictures, paintings and presentations for some of the depictions, he carried those with a certain sense of moral responsibility which I can acknowledge but not agree. “The Holy Mountain” can be said as a film that would shock and awe anyone forty years from now and that is a compliment and a caution at the same time.

"D.O.A." (1950) - Movie Classics

2011-08-08T20:06:00.001-07:00

How can you not be excited and fascinated by the tagline “D.O.A.” poses? “A picture as excitingly different as its title!” Mark the exclamation and you know what I am talking about. There are few films I get really pumped and this one got me for two reasons. One is the aforementioned catchy line and the second one is the plot that reminded me of a terrible film “Crank”. With that I sat along with my friends of the film group I arranged to be immersed into the cheesy, oozing 50ish classic film noir filled with lovable bad acting, some cool shots of San Francisco and a sarcasm that cuts through like a samurai sword.

Frank Bigelow (Edmond O’Brien) walks into a police station to report about his own murder. Confusing, isn’t it? Now in the realms of trailer and wikipedia filled world one would know about this kind of hype and plot but in the 50s when advertisements were through cheesy tag lines and pure selling factor of a poster, this opening sequence would have brought everybody to be alert right away. The film immediately goes back to flashback as Frank is preparing for his vacation to San Francisco from his town of Banning, California. His secretary/girlfriend is Paula (Pamela Britton) as it has been time and again taught by several “Mad Men” episodes, secretaries = obvious affairs. She is annoying the crap out of him with affection and as my friend was saying in a bipolar fashion. The reason being his immediate vacation to San Francisco. He departs as a man from those times would irreverent towards a woman’s perspective and opinion.

As he checks in to the hotel there are random beautiful women walk by him and the back ground cue for it is next to silliness while also marks a sense of how the film makers want to be sure of the nature in which Frank was ogling these women. It is ridiculous to hear those crazy sounds of obvious comedy but also symbolize the period in which this was made. Frank begins his charade of finding debauchery through his fellow members of the hotel where they invite him to a club, a jazz club. The festivities and the scene of jazz is shot with brilliant nature. The artists involved are animated and are enjoying their performance while the crowd frenzies around the packed room with noise, cheer and disturbing dances. As Frank settles in a bar stool he shifts his perspective towards a lonely lady on the other side of the bar. He goes to her and leaves his drink. Bad idea. A simple switch a route of his drink by a strange person lands him to finish his night earlier as he wakes up feeling weird about himself. You know what happened to him. The film begins with a new thump on this mystery of who poisoned him. He has little time to leave as he confirms with couple of doctors.

The plot that follows would have to be too complex but the idea is for this web to provide varied location and shady characters. As Frank is wondering how to spend his final day(s), he wants to unravel the reasoning for his sure destiny. He is a man with nothing to lose and he goes gung-ho to get his answers. He picks up short clues, long roads and quick hideaways to find the person who did this to him.

Director Rudolph Mate draws a perfect noir with a right tinge of overblown drama from the writings of Russell Rouse and Clarence Greene. There is immediacy in the acting from Edmond O’brien and Pamela Britton in their romance which truly is made to be an annoyance rather than an expression for true love. And then there is wit and sarcasm dripping through the screen from O’brien’s Bigelow who goes through random places and run through the streets of San Francisco to get some answers and die in peace and regret.

Almost every character is filled with dark shades and Bigelow failing to listen to their entire story before hurrying up to the partially built up clue he made of is entertaining. To understand the original nature of dark wit in terrible time is when he goes to extract information from a photo studio. There as the owner of the studio is getting bribed for information, the man explains the nature in which he conducts business and see the response Bigelow is making which is nothing short of cynicism and dark humour. These are the scenes which makes “D.O.A.” come out of its known cheesiness.

“D.O.A.” has genuine funniness and the obvious silliness of the time in which the movie was made. Yet it carries the pure formulation of a classic noir threaded, knitted and decorated with care and perfection in its own way by not alone the director but from every bit of the actors in good and bad acting and dark shadows of cinematography by Ernest Laszlo through the crazy lines of its screen writers. And from this the film truly has evolved from the eyes of the viewers more than the makers themselves.

"The Taking of Pelham One Two Three" (1974) - Movie Classics

2011-08-07T15:48:00.000-07:00

“The Taking of Pelham One Two Three” is that classic genre of thrilling films 70s and 80s were good at producing out. The characters in it are restless, casual and a charm that exhibits a characteristic of being both put up and natural. They had that going for him until the CGI took over the industry and brought this genre to its knees. That is the reason maybe when I watched “Payback” with my brother, it seemed nostalgic or more so original. Seeing this film draws me back to those films despite the minimal quantity of movies I have seen from this time.

Having seen the remade version of this with Tony Scott’s fast editing going through Denzel Washington and John Travolta having fun in playing these characters in the modern world of mediocrity, the original seemed fresher. This indeed is a methodical and cold nature in which a group of men led by a menacing Englishman Mr. Blue (Robert Shaw) takes over the subway train Pelham One Two Three. This addressing of Mr. Blue later became Tarantino’s homage in his earlier film “Reservoir Dogs”. On a regular busy day in New York train network arrives these men and board at different points and take over the train. They corner themselves up and as much as we know that there is a plan of getaway from this trap, we are curious as to how.

Walter Matthau is Lt. Zachary Gerber giving tour to Tokyo Metro directors on the station they are successfully running. Gerber is everyday man, dreading the presence of foreigners at the same time courteous to show them around with cynicism and sarcasm. His colleagues are panicking on the situation they got into when Gerber gets into the mix with quick response. There are no dramatic back ground to accentuate the situation nor does there are crazy run around in the nerve center in head quarters. People panic but naturally and Gerber responds in a hurried calm fashion. He seem to have got the rhythm of Mr. Blue and vice versa that they both acclimatize quickly and begin the negotiation. Mr. Blue is on the upper hand. He has hostages and he needs money and he needs it immediately. He promises to kill one passenger per minute delay in the arrival of the money and he is damn serious about it.

The movie works with a pace creeping into the screen with conspicuously. Gerber communicates back and forth with the fellow Lieutenant Garber (Jerry Stiller) on the happenings outside and then to Mr. Blue. Directed by Joseph Sargent, the film takes the story outside of the train and command center onto the politics and the NYPD involved in the mix. The Mayor (Lee Wallace) who is being manipulated, bullied and nearly man handled by a strong and powerful Deputy Mayor (Tony Roberts) though he seem to be the man of making decisions. The desperate attempt of the policeman riding with the ransom money going through the busy streets of the city shown with a serious urgency and sudden vanishing of emotion in that whole scene. These are few of side plots that gets the film a tone and voice that is missing so much in the thriller genre involving action, pace and intelligence in current days.

“The Taking of Pelham One Two Three” is precise in its presentation and utterly serious about the stakes involved. Do not be fooled by the lack of back ground score or obvious dramatization because Mr. Blue is capable of anything and we see him when he executes with chilling clinical nature. Then again he is annoyed when a killing is done unnecessarily. For him there needs to be a purpose for an action and it should facilitate getting a point or to a means to the end, that includes killing. This surgical nature makes him a terror to the hostages around which brings to the hostages who behave, act and react to the situation calm followed by panic, confusion and eventually to submission.

The smartness of Gerber comes at the juncture when it matters. There is no way out when Mr. Blue places his demands and has the situation completely under his control. Gerber waits for the opportunity though he does not make it know. It is his nature and the instinct which kicks when he tackles the situation of money coming late to the station. He acts and saves lives with a flick of a switch. Dealt with a sincere film making, “The Taking of Pelham One Two Three” is the classic the genre deserves. Films like this “Marathon Man” and “Three Days of Condor” reminds me how thriller was once upon a time.

"Rubber" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-08-07T13:42:00.000-07:00

Calling “Rubber” bizarre, weird or absurd might be putting it mildly. Quentin Dupieux’s film is the most ridiculous, experimental and unexplainably engaging film I have seen in a very long time. Told with an unforgiving nature of experimentation, this is a film which might even question and test the nerves of a very serious movie goer. Yet it has an odd element attached to it that keeps it funny for most part and evokes an underlying statement from the observer than the presenter.

It has a killer opening. A man in a remote open land stands holding a bunch of binoculars. A cop car comes and makes it a point to hit each and every chair which has no place of being there. A man in uniform, comes out of a trunk, knocks the driver door, gets a glass of water and gives out the ridiculousness of cinema and its absence of reason to its property and presentation to us the audience. He then dumps the glass of water stating the obvious that we will be witnessing one such. While we are thinking he has been addressing to us, he actually has been addressing to a group of people to whom the ridiculous man provides the binocular as they try to see the live film in front of them happening at a distance though not so far away from them. This is “Rubber”.

Amongst the rusty hot sands lays a sturdy tire. Dead, unmoving as any rubber tire would be, it suddenly begins to move. It gets itself up and begins wobbling around falling, picking itself up and moving on with no purpose. It encounters inanimate objects and shatters them with its power of vibration or the spectators name it as psychokinetic powers. What it goes with its journey and the people it meets and explode are irrelevant then why bother watching this film? Well, you have a very solid question out there but the madness to this method is inviting. Dupieux has both a point to make and to lash it out into threads of thin air. When you expect that the spectators of this freak show are going to draw some sense, he stuns you by making them behave in the nature of the film’s chaos.

“Rubber” has one concrete thing going on which is the cinematography and Quentin Dupieux takes that job along with editing. It angles through the tire’s perspective which spoofs crazy psycho thrillers and low budget horror films. The strangeness in “Rubber” soon throws you off even with the complete awareness of the conscious frenzy Quentin puts through. Soon enough you are both drawn away and towards it simultaneously.

The idea of having no point to the presentation might annoy or might even offend certain moviegoers as there are effective ways to do that in a much more entertaining and meaningful fashion. Instead Quentin goes for the extreme and he is right about it. Any other manner in which he would have made it the way audience would have wished might make it another flick that pokes fun of this genre. He wants to stand alone from the crowd and if it means to be standing alone literally shunning his viewers, then so be it.

The actors in this film vary from very good acting to terrible performances. Stephen Spinella does a stellar job of believing in this narrator, presenter and participator while Daniel Quinn steals the worst performance as the motel owner. Even in that I am not sure whether Quinn’s performance is intentional or not. Nothing can be concrete about a film like this.

There is no way I would be able to watch “Rubber” again but I might definitely recommend it to any one. They might hate me or adore me or plain and simple stamp me as a crazy goose with further odd movie taste. Regardless they would have gone through an experiment that can only called an odd journey of a presentation of nonsense, comedy, non-existing statements, existing agendas and simple madness with crystal clear imagery.

"Crazy, Stupid, Love." (2011) - Movie Review

2011-07-31T14:42:00.000-07:00

“Crazy, Stupid, Love.” is a big tease. Not that it promises through the good cast and fails it rather has well developed, well acted and well executed scenes put as a pit stop throughout the film giving hope and after hope and succumbing to dramatization. It is an independent rom-com for dummies and that is insulting to the audience in a way. The complex phenomenon of love is the center of this family drama that soars high and hits the bottom with sufficient ease is that there forms a rhythm that might be mistaken for consistency.

Cal Weaver (Steve Carell) is the middle aged man formulated by the cookie cutter for suburban well to do person who forgot to be interesting. His wife Emily (Julianne Moore) asks for divorce in the middle of a dinner date and this unexpected outcome of a perfected boring marriage astonishes him. His reaction is to compress, suppress and tighten the hate, frustration and anger inside him only to come out through his eyes. The ugliness of this break up skips fast either through time or the film makes it appears so that Cal moves out and pantomimes in a club to himself on the man David Lindhagen (Kevin Bacon) broke up his marriage. His sadness is taking control of him as he is desperately looking for a soul for empathy.

In comes Jacon (Ryan Gosling), a charming womanizer annoyed and little saddened by this adult hitting rock bottom with loudness that he offers to help, to relive the manhood he has lost long back. The make over begins and the film utilizes the comedy of this transformation. Gosling as usual is in control of his character who oozes and drips confidence as he walks by to take total control over the beautiful girls begging to be dominated. Carell as Call and as regular chump is of course startled and amazed of seeing the legend every one talks in films and books. You know where this is heading and it is exactly where it is going. Soon the roles reverse, the love finds, the meanings blossom, happiness and sadness looms and merry around as it is pleased by the screenplay of Dan Fogelman.

“Crazy, Stupid, Love.” is a good film and discusses the complexity of this emotion ever evolving and never getting old as the age progresses. In fact it is more important to rejuvenate the romance in a relationship especially life seems ordinary. Cal’s thirteen year old son Robbie (Jonah Bobo) is in love too with the seventeen year old high school girl Jessica Riley (Analeigh Tipton) who then is infatuated towards Cal. Robbie profusely expresses his love to her and of course Jessica squirms in uncomfortableness. Time and again the idea of “not giving up” for soul mate is brought up though it borders to stalking and creepiness.

Oh there is Emma Stone too as Hannah, the girl who likes the idea of a sweet man in her boyfriend to build a family than actually loving him. All these people are woven by the obviousness of the emotion and fighting to deal with it. While this sounds inviting and juicy enough for the people to be inherently dysfunctional when it comes to expressing their feelings, it dives in the unnecessary overblown drama. Directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa have a good cast and a good story that gets the magic it needs but it seem to be obligated in satisfying the petty expectation of an audience looking for easy settlement through awkward speeches in a crowded place and series of punches and group fighting.

You know the film has more potential than it actually projects whenever Steve Carell and Julianne Moore talk about their son and when Ryan Gosling and Steve Carell have a reasonable adult moment in dealing with the tough situation concerning each of their characters. It seems to be the nature of the beast in the stupidity of romantic comedy for a scene staged for a huge group of people present to witness the drama happening in a family. Why is it such an important theme to have an audience during a personal moment? Out here Cal interrupts his son’s depressing speech in the graduation and makes it into a lecture in love. He could have done it in person instead the screenplay makes his son and himself to be unnecessarily emotional. “Crazy, Stupid, Love.” has few moments which make up for the entire film but it is a talent wasted in vain. That is a shame.

"Cowboys & Aliens" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-07-30T15:06:00.000-07:00

“Cowboys & Aliens” is the second film wherein the ridiculousness and the popularity of the title outweighs the film itself. The first one is the obvious “Snakes on a Plane” unseen by me. Directed by “Iron Man” fame Jon Favreau, the film is exactly what it says and in that unabashed marketing ploy works in its favour, at least for the most part. Having Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford and Sam Rockwell does not hurt either though their talent can be well employed and spent on other reasonable and productive ventures.

My exposure to Western films happened lately and have been thoroughly enjoying them ever since. Even when Coen brothers “True Grit” went mumbled and unheard into the mouths of Jeff Bridges, the mere atmosphere of unforgiving sun, the unshaven men and the dirt that sticks inbetween those stubble creates a strange poetic attraction in to the darkness and resolute nature of these men’s unlawful and lawful missions of that time. Surely “Cowboys & Aliens” benefit from those with a thumping opening scene of Daniel Craig as the nameless man dismantling some resistance with power and blood.

Most of the Western begins with a nameless stranger entering a town and this one follows the suit. There is the mysticism to this usualness, the irony of that predictability is one such that has this genre running forever. I think I will never get bored of seeing it and so Jon Favreau already had me in the start. As we get to know the townspeople starting with the mysterious gal Olivia Wilde as Ella and Sam Rockwell as the do good and naive Doc, the plot gets to the eventuality intersecting Harrison Ford’s Colonel Woodrow and Daniel Craig’s nameless man getting the wanted man’s name of Jake.

When they are in the midst on the cusp of a gun fight breaking, in comes the flying machines from nowhere and strings people into their machine. Startled, confused and wondering what the heck is happening around them Jake’s metal bracelet becomes the defeating weapon they would come to depend on. As they begin to venture on to rescue the people that were captured by these aliens, the film goes through the regular fodder of a Western and brings in the aliens when there is a need for action and common enemies for these people.

With the previews and marketing campaigns in the current days, a film can generate a buzz purely by those techniques. Handled as a business venture, it has evolved into the nature of launching a product and selling it. Here the sell is half done with the obviousness of the name on what exactly to expect out of it. And with the previews, it reiterates the further obviousness and the audience bite into it. With so much given away the least expected is to fulfill those giveaways. The mind game of this slow revelation works in the favour of the film.

While we know that Daniel Craig can make one hell of a beat up and tough James Bond, here he toughens further and becomes the iron hand of a man in Jake. A man chiseled in his physique and determination through his eyes stands tall and different carrying the film’s stature. Harrison Ford comes in and joins it for the fun of it and shouts here and there to add some old school lessons in adventure and action. Throw in good natured Sam Rockwell and Olivia Wilde as the love interest for Jake, you have the recipe for a moderately successful entertainment.
The aliens are as usual mindless, disgusting, gooey and portrayed as nothing but beasts. How come they are so great at creating cutting edge technology far beyond the time and minds of the humans and shun away the nature to have a sense of negotiation? That is least of the concerns even in a serious science fiction film and in a film like “Cowboys & Aliens”, it does not really matter. All the audience are in need of a thrill and the motivation to plough through these creatures with no mercy and no guilt.

There are several films obvious enough in their title and previews and few of them go beyond the judgments and come out with clever entertainment. One such is “Zombieland” and you can see how the actors were having fun shooting it. Here as much as the campaign works, there seems to be not much fun going on nor does any kind of effort in terms of creativity to put an unexpected spin. It is not all fun but it is honest in what it plans to provide. It is like seeing a good salesperson work and sometimes despite the product is unnecessary and not useful personally, you buy for the hard work of the skills in the person. “Cowboys & Aliens” is that product.

"Captain America: The First Avenger" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-07-30T11:13:00.000-07:00

“Captain America: The First Avenger” has some thought process going into it. I can give it that but that is where it stops. Unlike the thoughtless comic hero films that are spitted out these days, Joe Johnston’s film has a character with a feel and punch to him. As a desperate man trying to prove himself that he can do more for the country than help load scrap metals in testing times of the World War II, Chris Evans is reduced my computer graphics into ultra skinny Steve Rogers. He never gives up and ultimately finds a scientist to give him a chance. He takes it and later becomes Captain America.

The title and the character name cannot be cheesier enough. It reeks and drips of patriotism on steroids but when the times are tough and there needs a symbol to get money in bonds, Uncle Sam can use some boost to get some funds and kill Nazis. Stanley Tucci comes as the good scientist who committed a mistake of injecting a super boosting serum to Johann Schmidt (Hugo Weaving) creating super monster of an already developed monster under Hitler’s command. Hearing the accent of Hugo Weaving I was wondering whether Werner Herzog voiced for him to overcome the difficulty of overcoming an Australian accent. Alas, it is indeed Weaving imitating Herzog to the syllable. That it adds a certain madness and weight to his villainous Schmidt does not hurt the film.

Johnston as said earlier gets certain things right and adds sense to this otherwise mundane script. Growing off as being tamed and beaten by the bullies, Rogers gets a chance of a life time in becoming a warrior. A super soldier gaining stronger muscles in couple of minutes without hitting the gym and jump higher, run faster and act quickly. His astonishment should be nothing short of exuberant except he has to get in action right after he gains this power. Chris Evans is the perfect choice for Captain America but not sure whether he pulled of the puny little kid from Brooklyn. Despite the graphics shrinking him, Evans face gives off his original form in stature and acting. Evans is a cool cat in doing easy roles and pulling it off without trouble and he does suit in rightly so in the suit but cannot be Steve Rogers.

Marvel Studios is building and aligning these characters to provide the biggest bonanza of upcoming “The Avengers”. With numerous characters flooding that film, I cannot imagine Captain America getting much light over Iron Man and team. Yet I would be curious to watch that mainly because Joss Whedon is directing it and you never know Chris Evans can do as he surprised me a little bit pleasantly in the much neglected “Push”.

Now a day it is more about how much you can show in the expense report to publicize and market it. Joe Johnston’s film though has that report to brag about, all the action scenes are nothing short of mediocre. The film that builds up early characters in Stark Industries owner Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper) and bringing the story to the present time and world, fails to connect those characters to the audience. The need and angst for Steve Rogers to keep doing what he wants to do goes unnoticed. Not that any of this super hero films go for the details or layers of character but the work the writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely appeared to be interested in those and rather does not translate well on to the screen.

For the grandeur, hype and spending, “Captain America: The First Avenger” is indeed a sliver of cut above the rest of steady state exercise in the comic film industry. Whenever I see a good actor spewing cheesy lines with an expression of not enjoying that moment comes forth in a blockbuster, my soul dies little inside. And we have that in Tommy Lee Jones out here as Colonel Chester Phillips. Though he is not as pathetic and terrible as Dennis Quiad in “G. I. Joe”.

"Army of Shadows" (Language - French) (1969) - Movie Review

2011-07-28T19:46:00.000-07:00

“Army of Shadows” while seems like an aspiring film about the sleeper group against the Nazi regime misses its mark quite a bit and having made three years after the riveting and scarily realistic “The Battle of Algiers”, Jean-Pierre Melville’s supposed master piece loses us right from the start. It comes back to some spellbinding chilling moments in the end to scoop us off but the flaw of the overall film looms well enough to leave me unperturbed. Despite that, it does have an eerie mood in presenting these players behind the curtain depending solely on the secrecy and executing their plans.

The film begins with its primary character Philippe Gerbier (Lino Ventura) being brought in the camp by French police marking the beginning of Nazi occupied France. Well mannered, stunningly elegant and suave is Philippe who instantly identifies the capable and the incapable in the camp. Before he could plan an escape with a fellow inmate, he is transferred where he improvises the situation to play in favour. We see the life outside he begins to pursue with his clan of soldiers hiding in the dark and living under constant threat of being betrayed and fall into the hands of German to be tortured and ultimately die a slow miserable death.

Melville’s film goes through the hardship with cold hands when they have to execute a traitor with no mercy whatsoever. So when the Nazi regime occupied it is like any other occupation and the need for resistance is self explanatory but the hardship and the detrimental sacrifice and violence these characters carryout goes with silence. What were they thinking when they are brought to the ditch of violence to fight for their freedom? Was their philosophy disturbed by this dreadful work and living in shadows? There are voice overs explaining the plans and the skill of their fellow soldiers but there seems to be a page torn from those monotonic recitations of the daily labour of fighting for freedom.

They recruit a young man Jean-Francois Jardie (Jean-Pierre Cassel) curious, talented and ultimately in for the thrills from the get go. He is specifically ensured that his family ties are limited. He has an elder brother living a meager life of surviving in this cruel regime. The film reveals a surprise of how much each member takes their secrecy to their heart which is when “Army of Shadows” got me upright. There we see a commitment unlike any other where tight lipped means what it means.

Slowly but surely we get to know each of the key parties involved in this resistance. There is Felix (Paul Crauchet) a trusted and effective right hand man for Gerdier. There is Mathilde (Simone Signoret) an iron lady with the smartness and bravery to carry on the onus of taking harsh decisions and desperate measures to see the feasibility and effectivity of a mission on the job. Her rescue mission to fetch Felix is one such where there is nothing but practicality. There are no heroic ventures but pure reality of executing a plan.

“Army of Shadows” could have skimmed off a major portion of the film and get right to the resistance’s actions. Not because it has lot happening but the precursor to arrive there does not add any value or point. I love a film when it drains the time and then rewards you with the need for doing so. There is a poem in a silence and the slowness in the way a mood is set and carried on. And I am sure that is the objective Melville went for. Unfortunately it evaporates the interest out of the viewer and by the time we get to the meat of the film, it has detached its view so far.

Every moment of this film reminded how great “The Battle of Algiers” was. It took its sweet time to establish its territory too but the raw nature in which the film slaps you is nothing short of brilliant. It provides the sense of human decay in the midst of struggle for higher purpose for the future of a country. What is wrong and right gets a shade in its true form and we are struggling to take the sides and justify the end, means and what not. “Army of Shadows” is the perfect title and it stands by it but it does not shed the light into the minds of its soldiers.

"Conan O'Brien Can't Stop" (Documentary) (2011) - Movie Review

2011-07-16T13:31:00.000-07:00

My first visual of Conan O’Brien was sometime during the grad school days when his late night show was going on in the background in a friend’s television and his comedic entry to the stage. His buffoonery entrance did not impress me rather annoyed a little bit. Then when I visited the NBC studio 3-4 years back, I saw his studio and for some reason triggered to follow his show. From there on I have been a straight up Conan fan. While I like Jay Leno’s act, Conan O’Brien has always been very grounded in his comedy. There is a simplicity to his jokes. And his attitude to acknowledge his falls makes it even more funnier which made me appreciate his comedy a lot more. He is phenomenal especially in his interaction with other people which fascinates me. He is the man he appears on the show. “Conan O’Brien” Can’t Stop” is the behind the scenes documentary of his “The Legally Prohibited from Being Funny on Television Tour” wherein we see him at his highs, lows and everything in between.

Being exited from the Tonight show seven months after he took over it caused him hurt, pain and anger. The exit money was tremendously huge but it is not about the money. What exactly went down rode along for days in the media and laughing war between the hosts. Now with nothing in prospect and the future of his career in question he begins the tour. The film begins with few interviews of the man but the real movie begins when the tickets for the tour sells off rapidly. The ultimate fun begins when the crew hits the air and road.

He is bitter and his props for fun, tease and taunt becomes the people around him. His personal assistant puts up with those mainly because she knows her boss is going through tough times and he is a good man outside of this. He is hilarious and an entertainer throughout his daily life. I was watching an entertainer in a show during my visit to Wisconsin Dells. An old guy with the talent for simple juggling and odd tricks, most of his act involved him talking giving a partial standup. I deduced this about the man that he is the entertainer not on the stage alone but in real life. That is him and this is not an act. So is Conan O’Brien. A man determined to make all his conversation a comedy, a one liner and to induce laughter in the person conversing with him and around him.

He mentions that right on the day of the last episode of the Tonight show, he began planning this tour. 44 shows around the country and he begins to breathe the show. We see him formulate an idea and conceptualize through the writers and perform with his full capability. He is nervous, tense and focussed right before the first dress rehearsal and exhausted after it. He lays on the couch drinking water after every show and we are drenched in his sweat. Then after five minutes he goes to meet the fans outside. Sign the sheet, take pictures while the camera falters due to the inability of the operator of the device. He holds the smile forever and heads back to the dressing room. He is frustrated and has a love/hate relationship with the tour and meeting the fans. He does not want to disappoint a fan and at the same time it dries him out and wonders why he has to do this.

“Conan O’Brien Can’t Stop” is not so of a statement or propaganda on the man’s case and his disappointment with Leno and NBC. It contains the emotion towards it but it is more about the man living through the applause and thrill of standing in front of a crowd. This is his job and he has to do it. This is his drug and this is his cure. He does not care how good he is but feeds off the enjoyment of the audience. His audience is available 24 hours in and around him. That drives him to push through the day and wake up for a kick ass morning. That the title makes sure to deliver and movie backs it up with the evidence.

While this tour was happening, he was also in the process of selling his show to other station. The concept of uncertainty is troubling and I can tell it from experience. Not that world is going to fall apart but the bother remains. It is an itch that cannot scratched and it drives you to insanity. People deal with it in different ways while Conan did it with burying himself in work. His workaholism becomes his way of surviving the ordeal and he succeeded admirably. Directed by Rodman Flender, it is entertaining to see the man behind the stage, in the dressing room and his interaction with his crew. It is moving at times to see him aggravate himself and swallow through the anger. It is funny to see him picking up his colleagues and co-workers. One thing I would remember is I would never ask him to have a picture with me when I do meet him some point in my life.

"Horrible Bosses" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-07-10T12:05:00.000-07:00

There cannot be a review which cannot mention Kevin Spacey reincarnating Buddy from “Swimming with Sharks”. I remember that film vividly like yesterday and I remember the scathing review I gave for it despite its terrific film making by George Huang. Here is Spacey again in similar role as though Buddy has grown older, meaner and violent in Dave Harken though this time around the comedy of it overcomes it.

“Horrible Bosses” is the one of the funniest films I have seen in a very long time. That does include “The Hangover” and why is three good beings deciding to kill their bosses for their evil nature tops that post debauchery clean up? It has more to do with the plethora of cast put forth by Seth Gordon. It has Jason Bateman as Nick Hendricks who can do the lovable normal comedic guy still chilling enough to provide a dark edge to it. There is Jason Sudekis as Kurt Buckman having the gift to charm ladies and simply pull of subtle references as he walks by carrying his SNL talents. And finally is Charlie Day from “Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia” playing the nicest guy Dale Arbus of three and the audience along with his buddies do think that he does not have a horrible boss in the voluptuous and seductress Jennifer Anniston as Dr. Julia Harris. With Colin Farrell transforming himself as both disgusting and ugly as Kurt’s new boss, this film comes up with surprising performances after “Tropic Thunder”.

So these three buddies have the horrific and evil managers making their life miserable and cornering them as much as they can to pop them out. The film is a perfect set up and there is not much of predictability rather than unexpected acts and random cats jumping around. The scenes with Bateman, Sudeikis and Day are nothing short of fun. It is not the regular combo wherein there is an always “stupid” character running around making mistakes while the others fall into that trap and complain and wonder about how horrid they can get in messing things up. Here everyone takes equal share of blunders in the most hilarious fashion and this is the best part, sticking to their characters.

Contrary to the Bateman fans who witnessed his performance through “Arrested Development”, I saw his capability in one of the worst films “Smokin’ Aces” as the sky high lawyer coming in for hardly five minutes and mesmerizing the screen with his performance. I would like to see more of that than the less of his normal avatars. In “Horrible Bosses”, while he does not pull a rabbit out, he is seamless with his co-stars working the magic along. Clearly the chemistry between Sudeikis and Bateman stands out but then again Charlie Day and Sudeikis rope each other sufficiently well. Thus providing a balance force between these two without even making the audience see through it. It works tremendously.

“Tropic Thunder” is the last film wherein I could not stop myself from laughing hard in a theater. There Robert Downey Jr. provided one of the best performances greater and tougher than a dramatic role that should have earned an Academy Award but sadly as it goes for comedy films, it was snubbed. While “Horrible Bosses” does not have great performances it has these numerous casts providing their best in the very short time. Take Jamie Foxx with the oddest and coolest invention of a name for a gangster in a film playing against and for stereotype. Jennifer Anniston going mean, ruthless and a sexual monster towards Charlie Day’s Dale is another treat. All of them mix and match in a way that appears like a lucky coincidences.

The writing by Michael Markowitz, John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein provides that platform that holds the film upright and endure it with the flavour of delicious comedy it was written with. I have always admired the idea of a comedian acknowledging their joke that did not work right in the act. Somehow there is a redeeming quality to it but more than that it paves way for the non-working joke segueing for a better joke. Thereby it also creates a bond between the person and the audience in enjoying it together. This technique I have only seen and observed in Conan O’Brien and rarely do I transfer that to films. “Horrible Bosses” has those acknowledging factor that gets the audience into the screen and have fun with the guys doing funny mistakes and working their way out in much dumber means.

“Horrible Bosses” might be termed as the run of the mill crude comedy and lined up with those in the past yet it has immense quality to it. It knows its jokes and the cast knows it better and put a spin on it where it clicks at all the right places. Despite the roundabout predictable nice ending, the film directed by Seth Gordon is absolute fun film and a wonderful collection for your film library.

"Midnight in Paris" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-06-23T19:44:00.001-07:00

My best friend wishes he lived during the beat culture and when peace, love and free sex were the mantra. He should watch “Midnight in Paris” and can empathize with the main character of the film. Gil Pender (Owen Wilson) is a successful screenwriter trying to redeem his soul selling to Hollywood by writing a novel. He is in Paris with his fiance Inez (Rachel McAdams). Gil absolutely adores Paris as it is close to his heart when great writers spent peaceful time in this creative catalyst of a town, Paris. Now here he is and he cannot stop praising the beauty of the streets and the cafe’s, the presence of these artists and literary geniuses in a different time. He is going to get more than he asked for.

Woody Allen churns out films every year and it seems that he has an eternal fountain of creative process working in his head. Including this film I have seen three of his works, all recent and the diversity and presentation is so far apart and yet so effective. In “Vicki Cristina Barcelona” he provided three women, one man and a kind of twisted romance in the most amicable fashion. Then he gets Larry David being pretty much his manifestation in “Seinfeld” and “Curb Your Enthusiasm” into a comedy and a statement of the culture and society. Here he comes with a pleasant journey into the heart of this beautiful city known to have nurtured the greatest of writers in the bosom’s of its cobble stoned streets and rainy bridges.

Gil cannot believe that he is in Paris and desperately seeks an empathizing soul to share his enthusiasm in landing out here. Inez is more to be interested in the showy and classily snobby pseudo literate geek Paul Bates (Michael Sheen) who reeks of shady condescension starting from the way he maintains his beard. Gil goes through this relationship in a denial being dominated and questioned by his future in-laws. In a much enjoyable wine drinking session he opts out of dance to walk through the streets drunk. He lands lost in a step way when the bell tolls to midnight. An antique car finds its way and there are cheery people get him inside the vehicle to continue on an adventure I was not ready and expect to happen.

What happens in that midnight of Paris and the upcoming nights will not be revealed out here in this review but all I can say is that it is a writer’s wet dream. Woody Allen obviously has a greater understanding of the feeling like any passionate artist would. While any of the creator’s work is semi-autobiographical leaving some form of themselves inside one or several characters and in this film Allen channels all his fantasy through Gil.

While I am not well informed or curious enough to explore those great writers of the times when they loitered the late nights of this city to expand and explain their creative significance to themselves, “Midnight in Paris” has Owen Wilson exuberant with the cheerfulness of a young kid fluttering around in the aim of immersing into this extraordinary adventure as a writer. And knowing the nature of these writers clearly would elevate the enjoyment level of this film to a different level, it never does hinder an ordinary film enthusiast to miss out on lot of things.

“Midnight in Paris” is the kind of film which puts the audience at ease and lets them relate with concept on the joy someone would have in a fantasy in a personal sense but casually. Owen Wilson gets joined in this festival with Kathy Bates, Adrien Brody, Alison Pill, Corey Stoll and Marion Cotillard. It becomes a homage, ode and a dream that of a writer in the perfect city for that to happen.

I have refrained myself considerably in this review to reveal next to nothing plot as I would like for the viewers to be surprised as I was and go with the flow as the film does. In the current movie going experience the idea of finding a film surprising has phenomenally reduced and for a film like this, it is more than required to conceal the plot revelation as there lies the complete joy of experiencing a film. It is not ground breaking but you will understand the importance of knowing it first hand when you see it.

"Super 8" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-06-12T14:35:00.000-07:00

I remember the hazy memories of watching “Goonies” and the bits and pieces of “E.T” and it is not strange that those are brought back in me watching J.J. Abrams’ “Super 8”. Not alone he places the story in that era the films mentioned came out but also provides a sci-fi that has great kids adventuring through the little town of Lillian. With Kyle Chandler coming off from “Friday Night Lights” to give a composed performance not replicating Coach Taylor, “Super 8” becomes a nostalgic experience and an entertaining one.

There are perfect emotional setups as the films begins with Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) losing his mother to an accident and his father Deputy Jackson Lamb (Kyle Chandler) is the generation dad that had no contact with his son as his wife is the house manager. He is now a single dad lamenting his loss and being tough on the front. The relationship between Joe and Jack needs resolution. Then there is Joe’s best buddy and a passionate director at such a young age is Charles (Riley Griffiths). Joe is good for make up taking his artistic skills from his mother and Elle Fanning as Alice comes to the childhood crush to work on the summer film Charles is making.

The production unit begins their important scene on the railway station and it was enthusiastic to see Charles work his people up as a demanding good director. I wish I could be like him and make use of everything and anything around to add production value. But then again when a train derails, an unknown creature escapes and US Air Force swarms over this little town, Charles gets any director would dream of. A series of perfectly made unfortunate events for movie making!

This reviewer has long forgotten of a kid’s adventure story (yes, I have not yet seen the Harry Potter films) and to see it being shot with a shrewdness of Abrams makes up for that lost opportunities. So far Abrams has directed the box office hits “Mission Impossible III” and “Star Trek”, both of which were evident that these subject matter however cheesy and preposterous have been gets a life supporting system to wake it up. He surely seems to have mastered the art of adding human emotions into blockbuster mindlessness. There is just enough seriousness and gravity in his past films that it takes this fodder of Hollywood haphazard exercise into something meaningful. “Super 8” gets more of it than his previous two ventures.

Like M. Night Shyamalan’s “Signs” which I was not a big fan of, the film keeps this creature that gets loose of the air force train hidden and out of focus. Suddenly the dogs disappear and engines from all the cars vanish. Added to that the Sheriff of the town absconds leaving Jack in the middle of people’s complains in waves and the Air Force shutting him down of any information. In between he has to deal with his wife’s loss and with the man whose shift his wife took to succumb to the accident.

Noah Emmerich comes as the secretive and egomaniacal Colonel Nelec. Again it is so predictable of his character but Abrams somehow breathes life into these known people seen in previous films. The main strategy he employs is getting these gang of kids to be those kids looking for adventure and trying to make things bigger than them in the small little town. Then there is Elle Fanning coming with similar talent as that of her sister in a much mature and cute performance.

Yet it is Joel Courtney, Riley Griffiths, the goofy little fire mongering Zach Mills as Preston and the protagonist in Charles’ film Martin played by Gabriel Basso along with Ryan Lee’s Carey that take away this film from the hands of adults. They are at the genesis of teenage year exploring the limits and spurring rebelliousness. Their dorky character lands up in teaming within themselves and be in the midst amongst the greatest moments in the human history.

“Super 8” pays off emotionally that does not require Sam Mendes or Paul Thomas Anderson to be involved but is not vacant as that of Michael Bay. This balance it has with the precise amount of drama, loss, love, adventure and science fiction provides the smoothest ride for a very familiar road. Its stand against 3D definitely works in its favour and the IMAX helps out the larger than universe in a small town environment. And the kids make it all entertaining and “Super 8” will be played not far from future to be the perfect Sunday evening film.

"X-Men: First Class" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-06-06T18:37:00.000-07:00

For all the above average mediocre fun the X-Men series have presented, Matthew Vaughn makes it up in “X- Men: First Class”. A thoroughly entertaining prequel in this series it takes a step above those in presenting James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender as Professor X and Magneto respectively in their young glory days and why they are the way they are.

As much as I would generally dislike the obligatory introduction scenes from the main characters’ child hood, Matthew Vaughn sets up that tone from these two main characters that become their core nature of their personality and grow with them unperturbed. Charles Xavier is a kid who graciously accepts a young girl Raven (Jennifer Lawrence) in his home as he realizes that he is not alone in being different. There is an ingrained sense of compassion in this person and he grows to be James McAvoy. Not so much for Erik, the young Magneto who is under the cruel torture of a Nazi doctor to move a coin by his power or Erik’s mom will be shot in front of him. Soon we realize the revenge transforming him to the man he will be. Despite the outcome in these two characters the film treats them as young men in the same predicament approaching it in different ways. Both become great friends learning wisdom and differences in them. Their bond makes this film a better one than the rest of the films in the series.

The film intelligently takes the historic incident to its plot and deviates it just enough. In the edge of cold war becoming a real war, the diabolic Dr. Schmidt who shaped Erik for who he is, is now Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) and is in the process of launching his plan for world domination by invoking a nuclear war between USA and Russia. His beliefs in him being mutant and the idea of human’s predictable reaction of fear and hatred motivates this grand scheme of known plan. Erik is in the pursuit of knocking down the Nazis in hiding waiting for the opportunity to get even with Sebastian. Meanwhile Charles is at Oxford expanding his knowledge and living with his foster sister who is going through the angst of not being herself and unable to find a balance in her life.

After Charles and Erik meet up in confronting their common enemy, the strength of Charles is laid out and given how he models these mutants into using their power effectively and more importantly wisely. Charles is the ultimate good but also naive in the way the world is going to turn out on them. Erik knows the truth as he has witnessed the worst in the humans through the holocaust and cannot wipe out his cynicism towards these predictable personalities. Yet both of them join hands in working with the CIA to get Sebastian’s evil plans foil.

They begin to assemble a team of their own to battle the evil. The recruiting process not only provides fun to the audience but you can see how these two people are enthusiastic in finding these mutants hiding in plain sight. And there is a superb cameo who delivers the one “f” word allowed for a PG-13 efficiently. They find young kids on the cusp of being decimated into permanent identity crisis and rescue them. There is a CIA scientist with a large foot identified immediately by Charles and that is Hank (Nicholas Hoult) who empathizes with Raven. But Erik sees the struggle in Raven and always in the lookout for opportunities to remind her to accept herself for who she is. Easy for him to say being Michael Fassbender.

There is beyond a doubt some splendid work from James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender in providing these comic characters the very much needed characterization. While Fassbender is my personal favourite as he provided performance of a life time in “Hunger” and easily incorporates the young Magneto in this film, James McAvoy somehow excels him. McAvoy has always been the stereotypical nice guy including the bloody “Wanted” but here he exemplifies this noble character and balances him in between idealism and reality. The friendship between him and Erik is truly believable and when the time comes on choosing their path it is little heartbreaking to see these two depart. Knowing the eventual rivalry in the future, it reminds us how friendship can spring from different places and depart at the same.

Matthew Vaughn resurrects this lukewarm series into much more than it would have ever anticipated. While this is not the best comic book film, it is a much better film in providing actors believing in their role and the belief their characters hold. They do not become a caricature in a formulaic comic book film and enhances into something more. Matthew Vaughn’s screenplay alongside Ashley Edward Miller, Zack Stentz and Jane Goldman have their moments of wisdom especially the Zen like advice Charles provides Erik in using his power to maximum and to perfection. While “X-Men: First Class” is no “Batman Begins” or “The Dark Knight”, it is definitely better than the overrated “Iron Man”.

"Bridesmaids" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-06-04T13:20:00.001-07:00

The world behind the curtain of the opposite sex may be is too scary for a man like me. I remember the shock of seeing the complaining session in “It’s Complicated” for five minutes and I get to see the full session in “Bridesmaids”. The whole film is a witness to a wreck methodically performed by Kristen Wiig as Annie. It is a funny film but somewhere in the middle I felt a little guilty for laughing at a character who clearly needs therapy. Despite the horror of seeing the craziness existing in the realm of women, “Bridesmaids” has the talented Wiig who co-wrote this film along with Annie Mumolo.

Annie (Kristen Wiig) is in her late thirties and is going through a rough patch in her life. She lost her bakery to the recession, became a sex buddy for an excessively confident and arrogant Jon Hamm and now has to sink herself into the misery of being the maid of honour for her best friend Lilian’s (Maya Rudolph) wedding. Lonely, broke and neurotic, she is trying to be happy for her friend and gets a rival who subtly and brilliantly orchestrates to snap the best friend job from Annie. That will be Helen (Rose Byrne).

The marketing campaign in making the title look like a women’s version of “The Hangover” is silly as it is mainly about Annie and her insecurities. The film is raunchy stretching its limits to shock people which is surprisingly funny and left me unscathed. What bothered me as the movie progressed was the temper tantrum and drama Annie begins to pull at every step of the way. While the feelings of her being down and dealing it are true and I am sure it depicts the part of women that I am not aware of, it was little disturbing to laugh at the emotional expense of a seriously messed up person. It goes from laughing to awe in crazy disappointment towards Annie.

Regardless “Bridesmaids” leaves you with some great laughs and some amazingly interesting male characters. Jon Hamm is hilarious as the jerk who simply wants a sexual relationship with Annie and nothing else. He is direct, blunt and a super ass about it too. And then there is Officer Nathan Rhodes (Chris O’Dowd) an Irishman being the nicest guy to Annie. Their scenes have more than chemistry if that makes sense. He is super macho person with such a humility. He firmly believes Annie’s skill as baker needs to be revamped and needs to be continued as a passion. He is gentle, sensible and not the obligatory man figure the standard rom-coms spits out.

Maya Rudolph and Kristen Wiig in few of the SNL sketches I have seen provided ample evidence that these women who would stretch beyond the realms and boundaries of what is expected out of women and men. Their physical comedies are a hoot and they go 300% on the job at hand. Here both of them respect that it is a different media and then ice their talents from SNL into perfect situations that require that talents. Kristen Wiig especially leaps from supporting comedic role to center stage giving some serious emotional performance on the way.

There are other bridesmaids beyond Annie and Helen. One that is equivalenced to Zach Galifianakis in “The Hangover” is Melissa McCarthy as Megan, Lilian’s sister-in-law. Megan while is used as the object for fat jokes and total inappropriateness (beyond the regular stunts), her character gets redeemed when she punches a reality check into Annie on to her spiraling life of self pity and pathetic cry for sympathy. Ellie Kemper from “The Office” as Becca has little to nothing to do or punch lines to pull to keep us remembering her along with Wendi McLendon-Covey’s Rita as the mother ready to let loose.

Director Paul Feig embraces this side of women going all in and standing toe to toe with the men’s raunchiness is another door to further films that might or might not be better than this. The resolve for the happy ending is uncomplicated and the redemption for Annie is not overblown either. What the journey provides is some series of set ups for Annie to loose her screws steadily and in the meantime learn some life lessons on avoiding dramas.

"Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-06-04T13:18:00.001-07:00

Johnny Depp is desperate to breathe life into this franchise and it is gasping for breath. When the extended and elongated two sequels that followed the first installment came, the graphics and the adventurous sea fights were the highlights for this reviewer. By this fourth time around there is not much to expect than series of Captain Jack Sparrow’s tilted walks, permanently inebriated speech patterns and lot of ocean to look forward to. Yet there is an obligation by this reviewer and thus I did so for this fourth installment.

The main star of the franchise is back for some more adventures, searches and confusions. They are in the hunt for the “Fountain of Youth” and why? Because to introduce two new characters with big names, Ian McShane and Penelope Cruz as Edward “Blackbeard” Teach and his supposed daughter Angelica who is also an ex-lover of our beloved Jack. Blackbeard has complete control over his ship and is a bad ass when it comes to sea in looting and plundering ships and wealth on his ways as would any pirate would aspire. As with magical powers comes predictions and prophecy. One such states that Blackbeard will be killed by a one legged man and hence the hunt to keep his heart beating.

Apart from my laziness in writing reviews lately, when I began writing this piece, all I could think of is what are the things that I can talk about to even say it is not good? That being said and the thrive to earn bazillion more dollars from this franchise, director Rob Marshall takes up the job from Gore Verbinski and does not go for the complexity his predecessor went for in these ventures. He understands this business concept and with cooperation from Johnny Depp as the major asset would fulfill any moviegoer that are looking for antics of Sparrow and some special effects fireworks.

Incidentally the first “Pirates of the Caribbean” was the very first film I watched in a theatre after I came to US. I was rudely introduced to the concept of not having intervals which I grew up with. This caused additional dislike towards the film but when I later watched on a relaxed weekend, it did its job. It had its tactical Johnny Depp working his character and making him repulsive, comic and unusually likable. After two more films, Captain Jack Sparrow is no longer those and has wore down considerably. Sometimes it does surprise me why would he even take up a venture like this as he has been quite intelligent though whimsical in his role selections.

There is a side romance plot between a mermaid and a missionary which does not have any kind of depth or even the glossy shallowness sometimes a better movie good do over. Ian McShane is purely here to have fun and I am sure he had lot of it but the movie became from an entertainment into an ordeal for me. I skipped “Fast Five” coming so close to watching it. It was a personal conscience playing and discouraging by not paying one more ticket for this intolerable festivals of sequels of chasing cars. Strangely it got so many good reviews. I now keep kicking myself why did not I watch that and skip this. I ended the previous film with the note “And every soul beckons this one be the end of this chain of Pirates of the Caribbean” and I seriously wish they do.

"Thor" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-05-08T15:41:00.001-07:00

Seeing IMAX 3D for the first time in Peoria, “Thor” is something to watch for in that technology. What a treat! I along like several others have been against 3D and I still do believe that it eats away the core nature of a film a little bit but watching “Thor” in 3D and mainly through the beautiful technology of IMAX I think there are films that beckons to be viewed in this format. Yet the truth remains which is whatever the magnanimity the brilliance of science and technology might bring the art of telling a story has to be the crux of any movie going experience including a blockbuster like “Thor”.

Opening the gateway for ridiculous blockbuster films that serenaded the preview for this film, “Thor” is sometime better and most of the times mediocre road the superhero films tend to take. Thor is played by Chris Hemworth who has imbibed the gym within himself and shaped into a rock giant. He lives in this magical world of Asgard, far far far and far away from Earth and other “realms”. Here magic happens because, well it happens. No reason or explanation other than the fact that of it being the source for plethora of larger than universe action sequences and backdrops.

Thor is arrogant, cocky and immature as any superhero with crazy powers would be. His father is Anthony Hopkins as a one eyed Odin, King of Asgard. As Thor proudly walks to accept the Kingdom from his father the blue skinned monsters Frost Giants (sounds like a delicious delight from Diary Queen!) sneak into steal the WMD of their world called the Casket of Ancient Winters (sounds like a classic dessert in a fine dine restaurant). As the ferocious young warmongering mind of Thor takes his allies to teach the Frost Giants a lesson, he gets a lesson of his own from Odin to be banished to the Earth for breaking the peace and prosperity that exists between Asgard and Jotunheim.

That gets you to the origins of Thor coming to Earth. The film maker are not so curious about the world of Asgard which is filled with sparkling bridges, golden structures and powers that makes nuclear weapons a water gun. Of course they are worried more about the rambunctious and irresponsible giant kid. That is indeed the reason we as the audience are out there but little do they care on providing some form of idea on this magnificent world of Asgard. For instance what is the day to day life of an Asgardian? Or for that fact the Frost Giants whom at the end Thor realizes are another race with innocent lives? The ridicule from the readers on this reviewer is well aware but for a superhero film to be greater than the genre itself, you got to go above and beyond. Even the “Iron Man” which proves merely a thriller and funny than a great superhero films has some grip on its ambience and characters. “Thor” does have those but aims low on several occasions.

What redeems the film out of the mediocrity is the last act wherein our beloved hero begins to understand the nature of leadership, wisdom and sacrifice. The plot with his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) provides a good revelation and his aspiration to please Odin makes complete sense in putting together this piece in nice order. The romance between Thor and the gorgeous young scientist Jane Foster played by Natalie Portman is there just enough to not become a distraction and exists for some sort of obligation which I am happy to fall for.

The build up of these Marvel comic characters to formulate the 2012 “The Avengers” paves way to bring S.H.I.E.L.D agent Phil Coulson (Clark Gregg) and does so rightly. The real wonders of this film is the glorious backdrop of Asgard given by Cinematographer Haris Zambarloukos and the great team of graphics. It is grandiose and flawed but it is more about witnessing these structures that is both poetic, glossy, boisterous and magnetic. Take the Bifrost Bridge leading to the gateway of traveling to other realms and the road to it glitters like spongy diamonds.

Directed by Kenneth Branagh, “Thor” is considered and written by many critics as the right entry to the blockbuster and many claiming it to be a far better superhero film. True that it provides good entertainment and is an inch above the fiascos of this genre films. Apparently the standards of this genre has gone down considerably wherein people like Chris Nolan are the only ones taking it to phenomenal heights of realism, thrill and profundity. Ranking for what it is “Thor” is a fun film with some soul in its titular character but as a general scale for good films, it is average at its best.

"Leaves of Grass" (2010) - Movie Review

2011-05-02T20:15:00.000-07:00

Odd needs a definition after seeing “Leaves of Grass”. A film that never comes under any convention and takes a ride that goes with total unpredictability at every step of its way and comes out with a mystique of its own. What did Edward Norton see when he read the script written by director Tim Blake Nelson? Is it the in depth philosophical references and the esoteric nature of Bill Kincaid or is it the simplicity in the pot headed Brady Kincaid who is as much as brilliant as his brother succumbing to the land he grew up? How could you approach a subject like this and produce a performance out of it? I believe that is where Edward Norton distinguishes himself in taking odd films in odd characters and rolls on with it. You might not possibly fall in love with it but you know you have never seen anything like this before.

Bill Kincaid and Brady Kincaid are identical twins living separate lives. Bill is a professor in philosophy and has a promising career awaiting in Harvard law school to frame his own course and content. What a pleasurable post it would be for a professor? Brady is living in Little Dixie, Oklahoma and has built the most sophisticated and pure form of modern agriculture through hydroponics for growing weed. He built up a hefty amount of debt from a drug lord (Richard Dreyfuss) in the process and he is given an option to either pay back or expand the business, neither of which he does not want to do. This brings to the turn of events to use his brother as a ridiculous alibi for his crazy plan.

There is a plot and there is no plot. There is significance and there is insignificance to its details. There is a poetry and garbage. There is confused mix of everything and you have no idea what you are getting into. The treatment of the material is organic. It has a simple set up and ordinary people behaving in their defined ordinary manner. Only here it is a pot headed grower is in his out of mind attempt to get out of this fix as he is expecting a baby. Seeing Billy and Brady you can say how each of them opted out to be who they wanted. Billy knew too much in the early high school years to get out of this place and be consumed by its eccentricity. Brady embraced it with full heart and is left with debt and troubles. Their mother (Susan Sarandon) brought them up influenced by the culture of 60s. Talk about dysfunctional family and you get a true to the bone enactment out here.

Billy is the sophisticated and feared professor. He is lured back to Oklahoma only to find out he is the coin in his brother’s plan. He meets a beautiful and smart woman Janet (Keri Russell) from his child hood and is charmed by her erudite in literature and philosophy. His life before this film would have been solid teaching with student crushing over his handsomeness and not able to afford any time for himself. Here he is forced to smoke pot and let loose to not dwell on those conventional drug trip but to let Janet to him. Despite the fear of his home town taking his life away, he is liberated and free in the tricky situation he was tricked in.

Brady is the other side of the coin and he is every bit of Billy in mind and soul but is completely messed up in making decisions. He loves his brother and his family. He takes life at its face value and takes it as it was given to him. His buddy Bolger (Tim Blake Nelson) is loyal and this duo work in a weird sense of rhythm and understanding. They are what they are and nothing else. They are regular humans and every one is in their sanity but the choices and decisions define the uniqueness of failure and success. You would know which part Brady is.

I have so many questions for Tim Blake Nelson on what made him to write and direct this film. Resembling much of Coen brothers storytelling it still goes way away from them. Coen brothers in their films have a distant agenda of something. Either the mood or the way of life or simply the characters dissection in a surgical manner becomes their backbone. In “Leaves of Grass” it wanders with no purpose and here and there it lays the seeds of thoughts and profound realizations. It talks religion, god, existentialism, narcism, greed, desperation, betrayal, violence, hatred, comedy, tragedy, romance and everything in between.

The experience of watching “Leaves of Grass” is nothing short of weird and unique. It invites the viewer in the assumption of simple plot of mix up and then becomes into this monster of a chaos. People begin to do things unexpectedly expected and violence erupts from unknown corner. Tragedy cruises through with ease and all of a sudden you have no idea what you are watching. It might either irritate and confuse its audience or beckon for another viewing like this reviewer. The undertone of this film is subtle in unexplainable ways and I cannot possibly explain what made me like this film and what will make you not like this film. I think that is the beauty of this picture that stands there as a philosophical statement leaving its readers in a little confused state. It might be a germination that grows up into an epiphany or simply rot in the ground. Regardless, you will be infected.

"Handsome Harry" (2009) - Movie Review

2011-05-01T19:14:00.000-07:00

Before we go any further into the review of “Handsome Harry”, can I say how majestically handsome Jamey Sheridan is? No wonder they picked the man for the titular role of this smooth and classy film directed by Bette Gordon. It has a rare nature as the several scotches and wines the characters sip in the film. You know how it is going to taste but it is the joy of sipping it for real makes it something unique in this common occurrence.

Harry Sweeney is living in a small town and gets a call from an old navy buddy after thirty years he comfortably forgot. Tommy Kelly (Steve Buscemi) is dying and he needs to speak with Harry about the horrible night where the two along with their friends in the navy did to a guy named David Kagan. Harry begins his journey to meet his navy buddies who were there during that night nearly killing a man. This will be his search for forgiveness and you know where it all leads to. Nothing surprising out here yet there are actors and the mood Bette Gordon sets that goes like a smooth drink.

Harry played by Jamey Sheridan is unquestionably magnetic. Looking like a stallion he commands an upper hand even before he speaks but he is a regular man with regular moves and regular regrets. He begins meeting his friends and in that drunken night of hate and rage he questions who threw the armature on David’s arm and crush it. The night they want to forget gets a visitation for real and outside of their mind. This blast from the past is not a happy reunion.

Soon we learn the obvious nature of the act they bestowed upon the poor man. David made a pass on Harry and evil birthed upon him through this mob. I can still remember a dark incident from my past that involved similar situation and bunch of kids having no idea other than getting an opportunity to show their bravado beat a confused kid. I will be honest and say that I was disgusted about the kid to make a move on a guy but somewhere in that time I knew that the kid did not deserve that and now this film brings up those crazy past. Everyone has grown out of it and I cannot honestly say what they think about it but I can only be thankful that the kid did not get hurt as bad as David in the film. Rage and hate are such a violent thing that the damage of it can never be undone. Whatever the life everyone would lead that incident would be there and nothing can be done about it. Life still though goes on. Harry’s life and other’s did go on. Harry is a divorced man with a son he cannot talk openly to. Life does go on.

Harry visits Peter Rheems (John Savage) who instantly remembers Harry and is so excited and cannot wait to boast his success to him. He invites Harry to his new home with his wife Judy (Mariann Mayberry). There they share a drink and a memory. Peter tells the time they went to Acropolis and how several years back he went there again. He says how he began to think “Me now and Me then” and that part is one hell of a scene performed by John Savage with a nostalgia and decades of regret, pain and forgotten dreams in small sentences written by Nicholas T. Proferes.

Harry then visits William Porter (Aidan Quinn) a professor who has erased that past he served in the navy and denies any claims of that life he lived. Harry begs for twenty minutes and at the end of it William asks whether he wants to come for dinner and Harry replies that it appears twenty minutes is the life span of these reunions. He then sets off to meet Gebhardt (Titus Welliver) who is a born again Christian trying to forgive. He is too wise to know that the talk Harry is expecting and takes him to a golf course than a drink in his house. Their conversation reveals little bit more into the state of Harry. “Handsome Harry” has these one off sudden lines and mystic that brings past like a delicious rum. I keep referring this film to the sweet bitter taste of alcohol and you will understand once you see it.

Despite some wonderful acting, writing and the mood, the film does not go for the skyline. But this is the kind of film that would have been drowned into chaos with such an attempt and I can see the path Bette Gordon took. Seeing this I remember one of my favourite films “Broken Flowers” by Jim Jarmusch with Bill Murray trying to find the woman who mailed him a letter informing that he has a son and how his journey goes to the serious relationships he had in his womanizing life. There it was more about the enigmatic, funny and profound settings of the director and the end that made a strange emotion to its viewer. In “Handsome Harry” there is the open suspense of how Harry sees his life and the lies he decided to live upon. The end is polishing and suave. And I had nothing much more expected from this film yet there is a yearning. May be I was subconsciously expecting more from a film that knows its characters and the ambience. Either way check out the shining men reliving their dreaded past through handsome Harry.

"Easy A" (2010) - Movie Review

2011-05-01T14:04:00.001-07:00

Seeing Emma Stone in “Superbad” for first time, all I could think of is how this is one another teenage actor that will be stereotyped in several upcoming films. She kicked off all those notions in “Zombieland” with a knack for working her beauty into timed comedy. Here in “Easy A” she takes the lead and goes through it like a veteran actor. A tale which would have been otherwise tamed into a teenage soap opera turns into a heartwarming comedy.

Emma Stone plays Olive (what an interesting name for a movie character) a high school girl looking for an identity. Despite her notable beauty she has somehow missed the train on popularity. Her best friend is Rhiannon (Alyson Michalka) and Rhiannon appears to with Olive predominantly to look shiny amongst unpolished shoes. The film begins in what is a webcast by Olive confessing to her side of the story. She begins how a simple lie in escaping a camp trip with Rhiannon brought to the place she is. In a faint attempt to continue her reason for not going to the camp, Olive lies saying she went out with a guy and had a one night stand. This of course happens within closed doors of women’s room but an open one for gossips. Enter Marianne (Amanda Bynes) overhearing this conversation. How can I say her type with political correctness? I cannot. She is a Jesus freak.

Within hours the rumour mill churns this and spits out to several mile radius around the campus. Olive despite the lie begins to like this new formed attention. People know her name and the idea of being watched and noticed is a drug like no other. Ask the reality show participants. But the reputation is not something to thrive for and the gang of Marianne gets in a tiff with Olive that gets her in detention. There she meets up with her closeted friend Brandon (Dan Byrd) and that leads to amplifying the reputation to next level. Before she knows the formed lies spread phenomenally while the unformed truth circulates amongst other students who wants to be associated with Olive’s reputation. She becomes a prostitute for fake reputations.

Through these serious steps of life director Will Gluck cruises through like Disneyland. Emma Stone is his girl who can bode those guilt and declining self esteem into lovely humour. Of course there are some snippets of astounding supporting roles from Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson as Olive’s liberal, free, hippie and yuppie parents and Thomas Haden Church as Olive’s favourite English teacher Mr. Griffith. Along with Lisa Kudrow spraying some of her talented charm of goofy wicked humour to provide the greatly needed cast for this film.

Olive parallels this course of events taking inspiration from her reading exercise “The Scarlet Letter” and do not worry as they give a crash course towards this fast paced impatient FB generation that includes me. She stitches “A” in her new scintillating edgy costumes to symbolize her pursuit of standing tall in a high school society of ostracizing and judging their fellow students. That adds a good touch and may be even make some of the people to reach out for the literary work.

“Easy A” has all the flavouring of a boring romantic comedy but takes inspiration from the classics of John Hughes 80s teen comedies. It refers to it and fantasizes on those romantic actions of the boys in it. What more than a classic romance than John Cusack holding the boom box? John Hughes indeed has set the standards very high for the teen boys and there are not many to follow those. There is one like that though in “Easy A” and he is Todd (Penn Badgley) who is a gentleman passionately dressing up as ridiculous school mascots and has nothing but non-judgmental crush on Olive. Even beyond my cynical brain he comes out well.

Emma Stone is now consecutively proving that she can take sensible scripts where she is not alone used for a stereotype but a brain and humour that comes along with it. She can be cute, attractively obnoxious, silly, sexy and a dork with no trouble. That is saying something for someone portraying teenage beauties in several films. Will Gluck provides a better film in romantic comedies with a cautionary tale as Tina Fey did in “Mean Girls” of course with a kick and fun to it.

"The Company Men" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-04-23T13:43:00.000-07:00

The pragmatic thing about “The Company Men” is how they do not take a strong stands against anything because this is life and it has its uppity ups and bottomless downs. We breed and bring our little representations to the world for the matter of existence and evidence of ourselves. They grow up, study or do not study, participate or rebel, goto college or wander in the streets and continue their existence and leave evidences. Majority of them end up in a cubicle on what began as an industry built by hands now ended up in keystrokes into numbers. Security has been the cornerstone for success in anything and with that being disturbed tragically in the recent economy dump, “The Company Men” goes on multiple levels in the food chain and their reaction to this situation. This is a pulse on the health of the current system and it is going through some terrible times.

Bobby Walker (Ben Affleck) gets fired from a job that promised him his mentor’s position. His mentor is Gene McClary (Tommy Lee Jones) and he appears to be waken angel in the devil’s chambers. His best friend and boss Jim Salinger (Craig T. Nelson) has succumbed as the staple CEOs to the greediness of the market to make a merger successful. He hires the female version of George Clooney’s character from “Up in the Air” and she is ruthless as she has marketed herself to be. Sally Wilcox (Mario Bello) is the axe Jim uses and you can always find someone to do it as you do for any job. Another level above the ladder of Bobby is Phil Woodward (Chris Cooper). Old, rusty and afraid, Phil knows he will soon be next. This is the sample of several individuals who went through the tough times and some still are.

There are risks to be taken in life and life to be given to things and those things not necessarily will pay you back. Sons, daughters, brothers, sisters are all out there and shine out and rust down based on the times. Bobby is back home devastated and begins grilling. What do you do the day you get fired? I do not know. I am not sure how I would react either. The level of uncertainty that exists in my stay out here bothered for a while. Now I am just tired of being that way and have gone back to the old ways. Taking one day at a time. But I still have a job and income to continue this luxurious life. Bobby does not have that luxury anymore.

The simpleness of the “The Company Men” is its key to get in this mind of the country that appeared to have survived and is surviving on a false foundation. Bobby was earning six figure salary, been driving an expensive car, living in a house that can shelter dozens of people and last but not least support a family. His wife Maggie (Rosemarie DeWitt) understands what it means. She begins to cut corners and ask Bobby to be realistic on the situation they are in. Bobby has lived this life for a thorough number of years where not getting the right shots in the golf has been the only tough times. Here he is shoved with the real one. He struggles. There is Jack (Kevin Costner) brother of Maggie who is the good old American despising companies like Bobby’s and always has a knack to make a dinner table conversation into a political statement. He is though good at heart and helps his brother in law.

Then is Phil, looked as a dinosaur weighing the company and several others. While Bobby has an able support and sense from Maggie, Phil appears to not have those. He goes south and then further. He sees the world has moved on with the next generation and forgotten to acknowledge his slump. Even a desperate attempt from his buddy Gene cannot pull him out of this downward spiral. His outlook is another perspective some of the people took and I do not want to be in that zone. But what can a 60 year old executive who began his career from work shop do when the baby he helped built kicked him out of the door and left him there to starve? It is hard to pick oneself up when the age has slowed you down and comfort has pampered into the minds. He bites the floor pretty hard.

Gene built this company with this friend and colleague. Somewhere his friend got sucked and bought himself into the magic of leading king’s life as CEO while Gene went along for the ride but has residues of conscience left from the time they were simple men. He has an affair with Sally which is a side note than a side story. Still there is something that says about both of them. Gene has the guilt but not the ultimate push to do the right thing. He is too old and too tired and too rich to do something like that.

Written and directed by John Wells, “The Company Men” is a sad story said with a composed perspective. Stability is what we all want. Hell I go out of sorts when something outside of the routine begins to happen and these are people who have given their heart, soul and life to this organism. I am though in the generation wherein company is clearly a non-human entity and understood in that manner. Another wonderful strength of the film are the actors. Some of the best supporting casts do a subtle role with simplicity of a terrible situation. Nothing gets punctuated or overblown in the film thereby carrying a tone that provides a tragic lesson with soft gloves.

"The Conspirator" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-04-22T14:21:00.000-07:00

Courtroom drama in films has certainly brought cynicism in this viewer. Especially on the new ventures of that genre in current films. I have not witnessed the thorough threatening entertainment Jack Nicholson provided in “A Few Good Men” in a long time. Nor have I witnessed a lawyer’s trouble with himself on the edge of justice as it did to Paul Newman’s character in the cinematic classic “The Verdict”. Robert Redford’s film though interesting and informative does not get its place on the shelves with the aforementioned favourites of mine.

Redford’s previous venture “Lions for Lambs” was critically panned but I admired it and mentioned it in my yearly reference to better films. His balance in the patriotism and the way of expressing it by different individuals intrigued me. In “The Conspirator” he asks us to look through the eyes of a confederate through the eyes of the union. Mary Surratt (Robin Wright) a Southerner and a confederate sympathizer is charged with conspiracy for killing President Abraham Lincoln. She had the members of the confederate staying at her boarding place. Her son John (Johnny Simmons) is nowhere to be found as he was the one bringing John Wilkes Booth (Toby Kebbell) the assassin of the President to her house. As the country sets upon its eyes of revenge towards the old woman there is Senator Reverdy Johnson to provide fair trial. He is played by Tom Wilkinson who invites respect by just being casted and he recruits a young man Fredrick Aiken (James McAvoy). Aiken served as a Captain in the civil war and gets to defend the woman the country hates.

The drill is the same. The defending man beckons to not believe in his client and as the movie progresses he slowly becomes drawn to the possible innocence of his client. Even Redford knows that the time is different but the plot is the same. The backdrop is the place where this film depends upon. Here we see the face of evil in the victorious union. They are angry and they need blood. To represent that side of darkness is Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton (Kevin Kline). As the opposite of diplomatic Senator Reverdy is warmongering Stanton or so it is put forth by Redford. We see Stanton’s justification on going to lengths to make sure Mary Surratt is punished. This is done with perfect execution in acting by Kevin Kline that pulls us to the pendulum of dilemma of where law resides when the country is in war but it is just too late.

“The Conspirator” is a good film but not a better film. It is a victim of its genre but I am not going to take it as an excuse either. The public awareness of this reviewer’s dislike towards horror films is known but there are good horror films which I like. Redford of course lines up the best cast as he did for “Lions for Lambs” and gets their best. James McAvoy especially does the role with a thorough understanding of his character. He is idealistic but knows the imperfection of the system and tries to work so hard on it to get his client some time in the biased court appointed to crucify, burn and bury Mary Surratt.

Robin Wright plays Mary Surratt and she gets the lethargic lines penned by James D. Solomon. I could almost predict her lines and mine gives an illusion of being better. There are re-enactments of the witnesses testifying which provides no purpose than to give a visual witness for the audience. It should have been left to picture it ourselves as it was for the court and crowd. It merely adds buffer time with no interest to the viewer.

You may think I am slamming “The Conspirator” more than it deserves. Believe me that it is a much better film than several other mediocre ones but when a film has the perfect cast, an able director and a room for exploring the nature of extreme differences resulting in deadly behaviour, it has set itself for a dramatic and impressive film. Robert Redford does not hold the command he held in “Lions for Lambs”.

Regardless of the mediocrity, the film portrays how easy it is for to be angry and blind. More frighteningly it portrays how wise and able men like Stanton can strongly justify their act of revenge with a righteous feeling within them. It also states how people having strong differences in the way things are run sympathized and expected the same right as the one fighting for it. The cliched adage of “History repeats itself” again becomes true in the scary way of how time, technology and treatment changes but the character of people remain the same in trying situations both good and bad.

"Win Win" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-04-16T14:06:00.000-07:00

Charlie Sheen has completely ruined the meaning of winning but “Win Win” brings back the word to its rightful place and plants the feeling of winning in its audience. It has a thorough understand of it because its central character Mike Flaherty (Paul Giamatti) has not tasted it for a while now. He has a successful family but a failing law business and a more failing wrestling team he coaches in the local high school. Thomas McCarthy goes mainstream and though it appears indie. You should see his last two films and you would know what I mean. May be because this has more reason to be cheery than the previous two films which had a poetic aura of slight happiness in deep sadness.

Mike is the Joe somebody with a cute family. A loving wife Jackie (Amy Ryan) who always knows when her husband has something bothering him though do not nag him to death about it. The point in which Mike is shown in the first shot as he runs through the trail to be overtaken by two young guys. He stops and just sighs. He needs desperate win in his life. Now he is not going through something different from us and that is exactly the reason it makes it all the more involved.

He has a colleague Stephen Vigman (Jeffrey Tambor) who also is his assistant coach for his losing wrestling team. Then there is his childhood buddy a wealthy recently bitter divorced Terry (Bobby Cannavale). Terry is played by Cannavale providing another flavour of charm and cuteness he did with McCarthy’s debut film “The Station Agent”. In any other film he could have been the jock and antagonizing character but here he is a good souled man trying to deviate himself from his personal fiasco in marriage.

“Win Win” could have been the cliched sports inspiring film. It had its goals set when the kid Kyle (Alex Shaffer) enters the life of Mike. It would step up to end in that major game to resolve the emotional and superficial problems of the characters. Yet it does not. Kyle has bleached blonde hair, tattoos in his back and an eerie terse response that goes with all this. He fled away from his Mom in Ohio and comes to stay with his grandpa Leo (Burt Young) he never met. Leo is suffering from dementia. He is the client of Mike whom Mike conveniently played the system to be his guardian so that he can put the old man in a retirement home the state planned to put in anyway and get the commission for taking care of him.

Kyle is a teenager and a spooky one but we come to understand him and see him at his best in the sport. He becomes the encouraging factor for the life surrounding Mike. See it is not alone Mike who needed a win but the people associated with him. I have been recently participating in decently competitive sport for fitness and fun. Being in it made me remember how it was to win something. During my college years winning a music competition meant the world. Not to be known or popular but simply the feeling of being basked in the warmth of achieving gets you up, running and kick the hell out of anything. While I have immersed myself into several of those brainless sports film against my brother’s passionate hate towards that, “Win Win” is the film which truly shapes it up inside of you.

This is Thomas McCarthy’s third film and he goes for merrier ride than his previous two films which I think is an information than a statement or criticism. He has a knack for lonely souls and he knows the happy souls who can kindle the vacated happiness in those solitary people. Mike is a family man with simple life and making ends meet. To him as like others including me being ultimately control of something. In the living ritual of furthering social existence it appears that the feeling has long gone without even leaving residues of its existence from the school days.

Ultimately “Win Win” is a film that takes sports as a backdrop for its front story. Alex playing Kyle becomes the sudden hope for the whole team of Mike. He plays Kyle with an easy casualness. When he plays his first match, he asks Mike to slap him on his headgear which becomes a routine and there you would see that he has more control over what is going to happen than any of the others in the room yet he is unbelievably cool about it. He is a fascination for many who aspire to achieve the best of the things in their life and he makes it look so easy.

Finally there comes Kyle’s mom Cindy (Melanie Lynskey) out of rehab and has all the judgments in the world shed upon by Jackie. We are revealed sparse information of the scenario Cindy, Kyle and Leo are in. Leo was not a great father from what Cindy tells while she has not been a great mother for Kyle and in between them is this young kid. He becomes Mike’s family and in the end when Cindy accepts a deal with heavy heart we do not despise her but understand her with a judgment. That is the beauty of McCarthy’s films wherein there are not branded bad people but humans doing small and huge mistakes to regret, repent and redeem.

"Blood Simple" (1984) - Movie Classics

2011-04-11T19:18:00.000-07:00

Oh what a deadly noir thriller is “Blood Simple”? A threatening style of visual extravaganza in every shot Coen brothers and a stellar cinematography by Barry Sonnenfeld leaves you breathless and in shock after the drop of water hits you in the forehead leaving the credits rolling. Made in 1984 the blood is still warm and it is weird I am saying this but the violence in “Blood Simple” has a sensible taste. It does not glorify it but the realism in it somehow sheepishly charming and brings a visceral sense to the term “chill the bones”.

Set in Texas with an affair, a sleazy dangerous husband and a sleazier deadly investigator to make this a style that blossomed into several films of these two directors. This reviewer has been quite vocal in how the works of Coen brothers despite its technical finesse is full of emotional void and I think I am beginning to understand their sensibility in that form of presentation. They treat human beings with a clinical approach wherein conscience and emotions are nothing but sanitized instruments to cut through the skin. Here in their earliest work it is evident and it took this film to teach this reviewer on their purity in the style.

Frances McDormand is Abby, wife of bar owner Julian Marty (Dan Hedaya) and lover of Marty’s worker Ray (John Getz). Marty knows this and hires Loren Visser (M. Emmet Walsh) to kill these two for a prize of ten thousand dollar. The set up to this place is calculatedly lethargic but looking back it carried the same pace as it did during the deadliest scenes of thrill, fear and scare in the film. The gravity in the scenes oscillate it to make it appear taking a slow route but the energy is equal. What immense care these two take in making a shot work. This is a work from two extremely picky and OCD creators making sure the objects in each scene is placed at a particular angle with a certain shade and camera to project it in a measured distance.

“Blood Simple” has four characters and they are all creatures in a jungle. Ray and Abby are supposed to the better of this beasts but in reality they are the root cause of this situation becoming something else. There are words seeded in minds that sprout but not blossom as obvious suspicion. It becomes a small nudge in a character acting or believing in the direction one would not expect.

Loren is the sleaziest of all and begins to play an ugly game. He crosses Marty and does it bastardy clever way. Ray assumes more than he should which leads to the first classical scene in this film. There are no dialogues for a solid fifteen minutes and the grave violence in those fifteen minutes does not involve chases or fights. It has such a heavy nature to the entirety and the cinematography draws a dark photograph in every step it takes along with the scene.

“Blood Simple” is pristine art and the creators of that art are crazily precise. Rarely there are films that immediately strike you that they have not wasted even a single shot in the film. Feelings like that come from multiple viewings of a beloved film. You will realize the miniscule things in each scene and you wonder that without this scene there is no film and that goes on for the entire movie. To get to the point takes patience, time and great appreciation for the work. This gets then and there right after the film ends.

It is a surprise to myself that I have come to absolutely adore this work of Coen brothers. There is beauty in the ugliest scenarios in this film and there is thrill around everywhere. Not the kind of thrill where a cheap trick of jumping in from out of the screen but a sincere and honest sense of thrill that pumps your heart without even feeling it.

I know that I have not explained not even a single bit about the characters or their conscience battle but that is the sole reason “Blood Simple” is terrific. It is a display of fear, betrayal, violence and miscommunication at its best. It has actors leaving everything to the director and the magic is real. I can go on and on about several landmark shots in the film but those will be spoilers for someone who have not enjoyed this feature and I would not want to steal away that from them. This is class film making and Coen brothers have finally won my heart with one of their very early films.

"Hanna" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-04-10T15:08:00.000-07:00

It may be the zillionth time this character of bred assassin is filmed but to develop a hardcore soulless soldier will live through for next hundred years. Why does there always is a rogue agent or a director in CIA going for further clandestine questionable experiments and actions? “Hanna” though does not delve on the morality and other things that is picked up as a dragging human element in this inhuman state of merciless killing and execution. It concentrates on its stronghold. A very solid magical and surreal experience of a stronghold that lifts the film far and beyond through this ordinary tale of assassin chased around in that fated territories for the thriller director’s fetish through the European countries.

Something of similar visual tint was the under appreciated film “Push” which had a unique sense of clever screenplay with strange people in a stranger environment that got this reviewer interested. Director Joe Wright though perfected it in “Hanna”, a tale of a young girl brought up by her father in a forest living like a caveman. Eric Bana is Erik Heller and has been preparing Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) for a relentless running and endurance to last for three triathlons. She hunts, fights, swims, jumps and kills without an iota of hesitation. That makes her a potential target for Euro chasing Bourne kind of film. She is but it branches out of Matt Damon’s confused man and keeps it to the minimum. Add some complete rendition of The Chemical Brothers for the back ground score, you get one perfectly played aesthetic thriller.

The people in this film are soulless pseudo psychopaths. The kind these films rely on. They dispense human lives for their survival partly because their world has to have these damages. Hanna brought by an assassin spy agent provides that reasoning while Cate Blanchett’s Marisa is simply the “witch” Hanna has been trained to kill. Marisa outsources her work to Isaacs (Tom Hollander) and his strong sidekicks. Every one kills not with a passion but with a blank soul. If they are in the room alongside someone they will die either by them or someone who are about to kill them.

The best thing about the film is their knack for not going into explaining the character’s actions. They all act upon their survival instincts and everything else is a blur. Hanna of course becomes ready to face the world to kill her target Marisa. Erik leaves for their home while Hanna is captured as planned by the CIA. She kills the first person who calls herself as Marisa and escapes the highly secure CIA facility somewhere in Morocco. From there she goes through Spain and ends in Germany to participate in the final showdown. In between she meets a free souled family where she finds a solace in getting some taste of the real world and family.

“Hanna” is nothing but ambience. It has settings like “Alice in Wonderland” amongst the demons and angels. Her objective is defined from the birth and that is all she knows. She sees everything for the first time and experiences for first time. Her excitement and exuberance is mixed with fear and suspicion. She finds a friend in a teenage girl Sophie (Jessica Barden) and her family. Sophie’s mother (Olivia Williams) is still in the hangover of sixties going non-judging on a lonely white girl wandering in different countries while her husband (Jason Flemyng) has his doubts though does not want to be a part of it.

Saorise Ronan dedicates herself as Matt Damon did in the Bourne series with immense physical ordeal. She runs like a maniac and constantly wakes up to dangerous chases and bullets. Cate Blanchett develops an ordinary role into a complex battle of guilt, pain, angst and survival without speaking a single world. She goes to contact the past and each encounter puts a struggle into her heart on the personal opportunities she did not take and the mistakes she has to cover with blood. She is in every way the grown up Hanna and is fascinated by that.

I will not go into the mumbo jumbo of plot reasoning of why Hanna is stronger and without fear. All those are silly details that sets up this beautiful script for some excellent chases with thumping soulful sounds from The Chemical Brothers. I am not a great fan of electronica but as it does in Bourne series, it works the cardio rhythm with a synchronized love. The chase especially through the containers is something that sticks with you.

Stunt as choreography in musicals is an art. To set up those sequences in a format which promotes the energy and a mystical emotion of the characters is a task that gets overlooked in many films. Here there are several and promptly used. Take the combat sequence Erik does with the agents in the underground station where it appears to be a single shot with some high pumping killing. It keeps you gasping for breath and leaves you with a great experience.

“Hanna” begins with a slow note and ends on a ridiculously high note. Tom Hollander’s Isaacs with bleached blonde hair is creepy, scary and funny. While I mentioned the feeling of “Alice in Wonderland”, it is indeed a real world fairy tale homage to it with punches, bullets and blood. It brings out Hanna in the most honest fashion not to be funny but to be genuine. She is asked about her mother by Sophie’s dad and she says she passed away. For the question of how, she replies without any mockery or self aware as “three bullets”. Saoirse Ronan is thorough in her acting with a discipline and Joe Wright brings out a sort of ingenuity where these kind of films does not even fathom of presenting. “Hanna” is artistic, surrealistic, metaphorical and keeps your heart beating like a thorough workout.

"The Lincoln Lawyer" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-04-09T15:48:00.000-07:00

“The Lincoln Lawyer” is so busy in setting up the intelligence of smart lawyer that it forgets the core part of a court room drama which is the swing of conscience and the emotional conflict with one’s belief system. The great films and the corny ones usually consist of an obligation in the personal war the key takers of this justice system they carry along. Either they are highly toned righteous fighters for the prosecutors or the brilliance in working in the system for the criminals, the trade off in this trade has been dealt in films with the eye for the right and the wrong regardless of the loop holes and whatnot in this system.

Matthew McConaughey’s Mickey Haller is swift, smooth and in a way sleazy. He is not charming rather a good looking dude who drives in an expensive ride dealing with the criminals in the way they have to be dealt with. He is a show off knowing that favours run through from top to bottom. While he can be cocky and mistake a court personnel’s name, he can come back and hit them with proper dealings to get his client’s bumped up in the proceedings. He can also work his magic with the public prosecutor to work along with him to post pone a case since his biker client can pay him for his work. He can mess you up if he wants to with linking the right people to do all the wrong things. He is that good.

He is divorced unsurprisingly from Marisa Tomei’s Maggie and has an amicable relationship with her that consists nothing but flirting and extracting information. “The Lincoln Lawyer” based on the novel by Michael Connelly has the perfect elements for a great court room drama but is vacant of any relatable experience of philosophical battle in its central character. Mickey is particularly requested by a young rich man Louis Roulet (Ryan Phillipe) for he is in a mix for what looks like a set up for extracting money of this man. A prostitute claims to have been attacked by Louis and now with criminal charges Louis wants Mickey outside of their company lawyers. Is it because Mickey is good at what he does in defending or is there a catch? Of course there is a catch.

What great supporting cast this film has? Marisa Tomei, Willam H. Macy as his trusted private investigator, his bondsman John Leguizamo, Josh Lucas as public prosector and all are spread across in a not so thankful roles. The battle between Haller and Lucas’ Ted Minton are laughable while there is nothing but sexual attraction that exists between Maggie and Haller. The only possible side we could have seen of Haller was through William H. Macy’s Frank Levin who gets whacked even before we get to know him.

The plot is clever on how Louis plays around with this boasting defense lawyer and plays him without any trouble. What is cleverer than that is how Haller comes back placing his coins on correct places. We almost see his tactics until it gets executed yet there is no smirk on our face on how this man pulled this off. McConaughey’s Haller needs more than disheveled hair, vodka and sweats to prove his stress level. Take my beloved film “Michael Clayton” wherein George Clooney’s titular character goes through the worst day of his life and yet he remains clean but makes us feel his internal pressure. His body language without any gimmicks resonates with pain, guilt and stress.

Seeing McConaughey’s faint attempt to bring some gravity to the seriousness of the situation in the film, I was reminded of this same actor playing something similar character of nature in “Thirteen Conversations about one thing” and how he worked the guilt and internal struggle with precision and dedication. He may not be the best actor in the business but he is capable of bringing out something like that and to see him sleep walk through Mickey Haller is little painful.

Regardless of the rants of this reviewer you will find “The Lincoln Lawyer” entertaining and has a brain. Director Brad Furman uses his main actor’s looks and talks to substantiate the presence of this person exist purely in the film. Working on the screenplay of John Romano it has the right ingredients to make a good Sunday not so brainless flick but lacks the great flavour these kind of films comes with.

"Blue Valentine" (2010) - Movie Review

2011-04-03T15:39:00.000-07:00

“Blue Valentine” makes “Revolutionary Road” look like marriage made in heaven though there is a significant difference in the presentation. Sam Mendes film had a societal statement in the domestic disaster while Derek Cianfrance’s film just concentrates its entire energy on this domestic failure with surgical precision. For anyone planning to watch “Blue Valentine” I have to say that it is a sad sad film but I also have to say that you will be watching one of the best films of 2010.

Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams are Dean and Cindy. We meet at their day they begin to destroy this marriage to its brutal pieces with the ugliness it carries. We also reminisce their road to their wedding where Dean was a charming young man and Cindy a young woman enthralled by the presence of his charisma and being treated literally like a princess.

Derek Cianfrance approaches the film with what I would call as intimate presentation. Intimate not alone in their love and sex but in their disintegration of the union. I have not fallen in a wholesome love and I have not gone through a complete legitimate heartbreak but if I do then it will be the scathing sharp blade “Blue Valentine” takes and cuts up the pair. At the end of the film when I witnessed this disaster I cannot help but tell myself the pain on these couple but sometimes that is the best thing in this horrendous situation. The worst thing than this is when there is a kid involved unable to differentiate this as her perturbed innocence of unconditional love for both the parents still remains ready to be slaughtered. There is Frankie (Faith Wladyka) the adorable young daughter of Dean and Cindy.

Shot in the purist form of indie film format, it combines two mercurial performances of the year. Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams go deep into the shattered dreams and burned hopes. They act out the misery with the grotesque nature it would bring in a marriage falling apart with its ups and downs. The day begins with their dog missing and Cindy hurrying through the morning to her hospital while Dean plays around with Frankie nurturing his inner kid. He begins his morning with a beer and works for painting company. He is completely content with the life he has chosen. Cindy does not.

They have adult discussions but goes to the land where each of the party makes sense in their own perspective. And then we see their high points in the past. Dean is the rugged young man coming to Brooklyn looking for work and landing up as hard working labour for a moving company. He is sweet, nice and utterly romantic as though every nook and corner there is a lovely lady waiting to see his act. It is not put up but it is too good to be true. He decorates an old man’s room just moving to an elderly home. He sees Cindy visiting her grandmother and plants the seed.

“Blue Valentine” is stubborn in giving a totally honest film regardless of the horror that happens in a terrible relationship. These are two people who began their life with nothing but unadulterated love and now are in this juncture of life where they make their effort to stay close physically and emotionally floundering. Cindy finds their missing dog dead by the roadside and both decide to leave their kid at grandpa’s house while they mourn for this lovely creature that represent their marriage. Dean suggests a night out of immense drinking and crazy lovemaking. Through the steps of that day right from meeting her ex in a liquor shop and then seeing Dean react to it we are close, up close and unavoidably on their face as they behave and pour dirt to the coffin of their marriage without a tombstone. Each navigate between being an asshole and a bitch with a perfect sine wave in timed frequency apart from each other.

What is so beautiful about a film that portrays a failure with so much care? Derek Cianfrance presents what every great directors sweat themselves to give the audience, an honest emotion. Does not matter whether it is happy or sad or erratic or crazy. It comes down to making the audience empathize more than sympathize. And Cianfrance gets two truly dedicated actors going above and beyond to symbolize that pain with a bloodied rose.

What can you say about Dean and Cindy? Were they great when they met? Were they completely swept by the love that unabashedly has rooted into the minds of current individuals growing up in the environment of sitcoms and hopeless romantic films? Was the unplanned pregnancy regardless of who the father was a good enough reason to tie the wedlock? What is that so much evident in the past of Dean and Cindy that they are making a mistake does not come through within them? The judgments of these kind Derek Cianfrance brings forth in his film question this institution with a fear and disgust like no other. Yet you know deep down inside that the happiest moment these two lived were indeed their best. The ultimate question is whether those memories are worth the hurt? You never know till you take a chance.

"Source Code" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-04-02T14:50:00.000-07:00

Sometimes a preposterous set up is what you need for a great science fiction and it happened spectacularly well in “Knowing” (of course hated by many). Here comes “Source Code” another mumbo jumbo with quantum physics and what not with paradox written all over it that makes it good ride but struggles to create the emotional waves in its characters. Directed by Duncan Jones who enthralled me with his debut “Moon” who brought back the old school science fiction with a minimalist approach.

It is “Groundhog Day” for Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) or more like Groundhog 8 minutes. The film begins in a train where Colter awakes amused, confused and trying to get the sense of reality. He does not have a clue how he got there. He wakes up in front of this charming young woman (Michelle Monaghan) and is being called Sean. Before he could figure out the situation the train blows up waking him up in some kind of cockpit in a space shuttle resembling “12 Monkeys”. A military personnel Colleen Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) appears through a screen and provides little information on what is happening to Colter. It appears to be a simulation and Colter has 8 minutes every time he gets into this world. Within that span of time he has to find the bomber more than the bomb as this all appears to be not real. This would help Collen and team to find the next series of bomb threats looming.

Colter is of course in disarray and dismay as the details in the nature of reality he temporarily lives is too good to be a simulation. Duncan Jones appears to aim for multiple things out of this well funded second project. There is the human connection Colter is begin to have with Christina and immediately saves her in his second attempt. Then there is the whole mystery of Colleen and the nerdy scientist Dr. Rutledge (Jeffrey Wright) keeping the details from Colter. The latter part is intriguing but the revelation of the details almost becomes too easy to happen and the former part somehow misses beyond the good chemistry between Gyllenhaal and Monaghan.

“Source Code” is an intelligent film and a well made one with the way Jones moving on almost too hurriedly. While I am a great fan of keeping things short and simple sometimes when there is a meaty plot with some crazy possibilities to make the audience think and work their way out, I would enjoy the process of providing details over the top. “Inception” is the obvious example but the ridiculously messed up “Primer” and the cult classic “Dark City” comes to mind. Jake Gyllenhaal races against the time but he appears to be too relaxed despite the facial tension his dense stubble carries.

There is no doubt that I liked the film but somehow the love I develop rethinking and playing it back in my mind did not come out of “Source Code”. Drafted with some thorough planning in the script that rarely pauses snaps its fingers and gets the audience going on. After the third attempt Colter begins to get the feel for this world but consistently fails as he is battling with his own predicament of his existence.

The film brings tons of questions which does not provide great answers opens up the world of possibilities in the film’s multiple worlds. It does not go for the home run in giving that nostalgic experience when you leave the theatre witnessing a wonderful plot, perfect execution and cannot wait to go back to see it all over again.

In the current flow of mindless films in the name of murdering science fiction it is indeed an appreciating welcome change to see “Source Code” but with that promising beginning comes soaring expectation. Writer Ben Ripley has a tight screenplay but should have eased up a little space for developing more connection within the characters. Duncan Jones proves that he is a capable director even working with a script written by someone other than him. He has showed great variation in scale and presentation between his debut film and this one and this film assures that he can provide better films in coming times.

Very soon into the film we are exposed to the concept of alternate realities and the quantum physics thrown around effortlessly. Doing that invites nothing but strong paradoxical elements leaving unanswered minds. In that “Source Code” keeps at bay and leaves a door open with an interesting happy ending. But happy ending is not all a great film needs and in that it falls short.

"Paul" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-03-27T13:25:00.000-07:00

An alien who has become more of cool human in the process of living in the Earth for some time now combines forces with two nerds for a ride back home. How does that sound for a premise? “Paul” is exactly that and Seth Rogen voices this CGI generated space dude. I think if they put up some funny looking alien make up on the actor itself and eliminated the CGI it would have been more energetic. Nevertheless CGI helps in lot of fast motions and invisibility stuff he pulls off making it a compromise for this hilarious road trip buddy film.

Greg Mottola the director of “Superbad” and “Adventureland” recruits the best in business of comedy. He gets Nick Frost and Simon Pegg penned script for starters and then get them to star in it. Then comes Jason Bateman, Kristin Wiig and Bill Hader to finish off this flick which has nothing but promises for great laughs. It takes a strong leftist opinion given the subject but does not take itself seriously enough to stamp it as an agenda.

Graeme (Simon Pegg) and Clive (Nick Frost) are two Englishmen taking a road trip through the Area 51 after completing their dream destination at Comic-Con convention in San Diego. Their travel is interrupted by a road crashing incident revealing the egoistic wise ass alien Paul. Clive faints while Graeme acts as if everything is fine and this is not unusual to see an alien talking fluent cursing English. That does not matter as this character will be the central play for so many laugh riots through the cross country adventure to make him catch his flight back to his home planet.

It is one of those road films where random chaos makes a fun ride but lately it has become a tore down routine. Films that could have made a real connection or real fun never comes itself on understanding what it wants. “Due Date” is one such example which despite its moments becomes mundane in providing too good to be true settlement in the end. “Paul” never takes itself seriously and almost resembles a marijuana drug trip than anything else.

It meddles around with Darwinism against crazy Christians and guess who wins and who is made fun of? Of course when there is an alien coming from a distant planet, you do not have much of an argument out there. And if you have the power to heal, become invisible by holding breath and transform the knowledge through the palm of your hand, you definitely know the winner of this great debate. Paul voiced by Seth Rogen is a hoot providing some unusual gigs. With Simon Pegg and Nick Frost the best buddies continuing their reign from “Shaun of the Dead”, “Hot Fuzz” through this one have no issues being the nerds and flair their bromance for each other.

Jason Bateman is such a cool actor. Any role he takes he fits in like a glove. Take it the blood sucking heartless boss in “Up in the Air” or the cool dude in “Juno”, he truly is the next door neighbour to be friended for good times even when he is a Federal Agent chasing the alien down. He is the MIB and is rightfully accompanied by two aspiring side kicks Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio. Hader and Truglio have been the best men to rely on these comedies wherein their support is as much as crucial as the main elements of the film and I am waiting for their main venture to employ their skills on central stage than being backstage characters.

Kristin Wiig does yet another SNL kind of parody on the Christian fundamentalists and then transforms into cursing free spirit to become the love interest for Graeme. As similar to being in SNL, she can go full on and willing to jump in the wagon and take us till we laugh crazily at her antics. Here she invents some awesome combo cuss words which requires to have a great imagination in itself to pull off.

“Paul” is convincingly hilarious because the fun is real. This is a fantasy world for the geeks and they are not alone heroes because of the script making them so but also because they make it on their own terms. Riding always on the wings of some goofy lines of Seth Rogen’s Paul, the film never suffers of a dull moment and even in the cliched sequences adds its touch of comedic bliss. While the film will not be taken serious like many under appreciated comedy films, “Paul” is very capable of becoming a cult film gaining DVD and Blu Ray popularity to be living like a legend.

"Sucker Punch" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-03-26T16:05:00.001-07:00

Zack Snyder should be a video game designer than making “Sucker Punch” a hollow non-emotional film existing under the false pretenses of fantasy that fails to connect miserably with its audience. It has the glorious visual design of Snyder who won my heart despite the cliched and senseless violence in “300” and mistimed a miniseries to be a long film in “Watchmen” and now comes very short in settling for a low blow. He goes with the whole free the mind and invite imagination to the nook and corner of our brain and expects miracles as that he did from his special effects.

Many have tried and failed in providing the modern black and white outlook with tints of colour in the current cinema. Even the talented Steven Soderbergh could not invoke a life in “The Good German” and Snyder begins the film in this mode. Emily Browning plays Baby Doll that young actor from one of my favourite films “Lemony Snicket’s Series of Unfortunate Events” is still a young girl with naive looks and bleached blonde hair. She steps wrong again in this role after “The Uninvited”. She is sent wrongfully to an insane asylum by her step father after her mother’s death to be lobotomized so that the bad man could have all the wealth.

In comes the asylum creeping with neatly dressed orderlies and crazy girls lurking around to attack. In that is Carlo Gugino in another thankless role with a distracting and annoying accent as Dr. Gorski. And poof - Baby Doll is in the midst of a brothel run by the creepy orderly now manifested as the cruel and deadly boss of this place. The crazy girls are still crazy in a way and are gearing up for their dance numbers under their show coach with the stupid accent, yes, Gorski again. When she is asked to dance she stands still and as the formula of second attempts awing the crowd suddenly everyone glares in surprise and we never get to see Baby Doll’s dance because poof! she is transformed into this digital world of feudal Japan, World War - II battle zone and a train destined to destroy Gotham City, or something like that. If you think this is about the confusion, it isn’t. It is more about the denial to the audience in learning anything at all about Baby Doll and her crew.

“Sucker Punch” as Snyder’s previous films is made to be watched in a theater. I appreciate the man for that who uses the medium and recommends people to watch it in the way it is supposed to be seen. “300” or “Watchmen” in a TV screen as a first viewing would have been cruel and disgrace to the makers of those films. Snyder’s this film is the same but the charm and mind blowing experience of visual extravaganza is shoddy, unclear, loud and soon becomes obnoxious as we are not driven for these girls to complete their “goals”.

Baby Doll is deeply disturbed by the life’s events that has led her to end up in this particular place Snyder has created. Her mother’s death followed by the accidental death of her sister are good enough to get caving sympathy for this young girl. The world’s Baby Doll transforms does not reflect her character. That is one of my many attempts to read her mind. The threatening world she escapes from which most of the tenure of the film is the brothel does not pose a grave danger as the girls talk. Abbie Cornish, Jena Malone, Vanessa Hudgens and Jamie Chung are attractive girls running around sexy and that is all Snyder shows about them. The scary boss Blue (Oscar Isaac) is not scary enough nor charming enough for these girls or Gorski to follow his regime’s orders.

Baby Doll through her mystic dance transforming technique to dissolve into this magical fantasy world gets some bullshit one liners from actor Scott Glenn who always has this one last thing to say (sigh) and horrible will be a light word to describe every one of those mistimed, misfired and moronic dialogues. If a teenage girl’s imagination is so bad than it is an insult to the upcoming and wonderful talents in the current generation.

The end which opens up the twists that should create immense amount of sympathy towards Baby Doll would have worked tremendously if we would have known her a little bit in the dangling minds she takes us through. Instead we have a distant misplaced feeling of a girl trapped in this film unable to get out and facing lobotomy as her only choice. Zack Snyder not alone misses this grandeur film but also has convinced himself of the complacency in running digital world over emotional reality as a killer strike.

"Mother and Child" (2010) - Movie Review

2011-03-26T16:03:00.000-07:00

Rodrigo Garcia’s “Mother and Child” has women who are difficult, annoying, selfish and unarguably aggressive inside and out. And then they blossom and transform through the life they gave out and how it makes them into completely different beings by the that role and the responsibilities that comes along with it. The great fear, happiness and joy of a being growing inside of you and how it becomes something of their own cannot be even imagined. Garcia’s perspective is more on how flawed they can be and how reviving and redeeming that relationship provides for opportunities missed and grabbed by the pits and bumps of accidental life.

Annette Bening, Naomi Watts and Kerry Washington synchronize this relationship on angles that gets vandalized effortlessly by cliches and emotional cheesecakes in conventional films. Not here and not in the beautiful direction of Rodrigo Garcia who not alone provided excellent nine vignettes on women in “Nine Lives” but adapting the Israeli television series “Be Tipul” to American “In Treatment” with finesse detail on the human conditions up close, personal and threatening to yourself. Here he stretches out a bit from his short story approach and goes for a full length feature. He recruits best talents in the business to do that and cannot be more successful that this. You would also realize that Garcia purposefully makes this a mother and daughter bond than a mother and son as there cannot be more fitting full circle of life without the cycle of motherhood being passed on.

Annette Bening plays Karen a middle aged woman haunted by her teenage experience. She got pregnant at 14 and gave up her baby for adoption. Now on the road to be a spinster Karen is taking care of her mother. Their relationship has a tone and you would see why Karen is so bitter and downright rude. Karen’s baby girl is Elizabeth (Naomi Watts) a very successful lawyer laughing at the face of the society composed of family bonds. She is cut throat, exactly knows what she wants and makes all necessary nuances in discarding meaningful human relationship. You would also see why she is bitter and rude. Then there is Lucy (Kerry Washington) unable to bear a child with her husband Joseph (David Ramsey) goes for adoption and is brutally interviewed by a 20 year old Ray (Shareeka Epps). Lucy’s mother is Ada (S. Epatha Merkerson) who provides her touch of her own in giving that look and sighs to her daughter’s decisions and dilemmas.

You will see how they are connected beyond the obvious. You will also see how Rodrigo Garcia has a purpose for every actors. Each one of them even in their sparse screen presence is there to provide a view point on these women. Karen meets a very kind man Paco (Jimmy S mits) and she manages to stupendously piss off even him. And then Karen’s silence in her house goes one step down when her mother dies. Her mother was closer to her caretaker Sofia (Elpidio Carrillo) and her kid (Simone Lopez) whom Karen dislikes due to the ugly reminder of her loss. Annette Bening plays this woman and boy do we dislike her with a passion. Despite her struggle and pain we could not come to embrace her soul and we slowly begin to respect her when she admits to Paco how difficult she is. Then she blooms into a different person under the care of this noble and respecting man Paco. When the dusts settle in her dry life to spring happiness, she is reminded in one of many wonderful scenes that may be she has to look for her kid.

Naomi Watts is deadly in this role. We are introduced to her Elizabeth as she interviews with Paul (Samuel L. Jackson) and she is an open book with definite paper cuts to slash your hearts. Paul likes her and Elizabeth likes him in her own bossy distant manner. Both begin an affair and even in her seduction she conducts it like an exercise with a goal in her mind. Her neighbours are a lovely couple Tracy (Carla Gallo) and Steven (Marc Blucas). Tracy wants to befriend her neighbour which only results in Elizabeth seducing Steven. She is unabashedly cruel towards this system of family and the disappointments it presents. She becomes a tool to prove her point even if it means destroying a family. Paul surprises her in an unexpected way but the real surprise comes when she learns she is pregnant. She visits the doctor’s office where there is a tense and bitter scene with Amy Brenneman as her doctor.

Lucy played by Kerry Washington is the one which stands out of this story but soon finds its way. Lucy desperately wants to be a mother and is constantly challenged by her mother. She sticks to the goal and goes through with her hesitant husband. There is an opportunity for them in this 20 year old Ray so sharp and cuts through the crap for such a young age. She might grow up to be Elizabeth unless her mother Leticia (Lisa Gay Hamilton) has a say in it. Lucy’s adoption guide is Sister Joanne (Cherry Jones) who is also involved in helping Karen find her daughter Elizabeth. She becomes a witness to this whole story which has its crazy ups and downs. I feel sorry for her.

Garcia is a master of studying women or he makes us think so presenting them in such flawed and blatant manner. They are full of complications and full of surprises but are undeniably the single most force that can bring every one together in the most unexpected situations. That makes them the gold mine for dramatic subjects Garcia undertakes though Garcia is the only one who seems to have the knack and precision to give them unrelentingly in their honest form. “Mother and Child” is full of great performances and you would not notice it as they blend like a smooth ice cream in this perfectly put together film. There are several other small performances which makes up this beautiful film. You can always read or learn about the emotional bond between a mother and child but “Mother and Child” lets you absorb it revealing their mistakes and moments of greatness.

"Monsters" (2010) - Movie Review

2011-03-20T14:54:00.000-07:00

What can “Monsters” be called? What kind of film does it bode to be and promises to be? Why is the premise of sci-fi aliens needed for a film like this? None of these can be answered because we have been attuned to a judgment before seeing a film. We have dissected the art in genres and the expectations are made and in good director that is handled well enough to provide a better film than one hoped for. But films like “Monsters” emerge out of nowhere, unheard and then makes you wonder about the process of filmgoing. Except for the title there is not much to be known about this gem and soon as the film ends there blossoms a lovable romantic film amidst this crazy science fiction.

Written, photographed and directed by Gareth Edwards this film begins with the information that a NASA space probe collecting alien life forms gets broken and spread across the US-Mexican border. The controversial border is now declared infected zone and US has built an enormous wall to protect against the creatures that manifested out of this. The film begins with a night vision footage of an army vehicle getting attacked and exploded while we see this enormous creature looming upon for attack followed by launching of an air strike. Off we go to Mexico where photographer Andrew Kaulder (Scoot McNairy) is getting ordered by his boss to escort his daughter Samantha (Whitney Able) to US.

So what starts as a story of extreme action in between these threatening creatures becomes into concentrating on the relationship on these two people. Both completely different in their background and situation. Sam is engaged and for reasons unknown she is having trouble talking with her fiance. Kaulder we learn only later that he is a single ambitious photographer and has a story of his own personal fiasco. They travel together through the roads that are less taken and forbidden but monopolized and capitalized by people who can milk more money playing dirty games and high risks. They make it to the coast without any issues as Sam can catch her ferry to US and Kaulder can return to his work of taking tragic pictures. They party up the night before the departure. Things happen that leads to miss the ferry and take the dangerous route of penetrating right through the infected zone.

Gareth Edwards takes a foreign approach to this not so foreign backdrop. The focus so much so is on these unknown creatures is about these two odd couple. Both well aware and complete. Their silent quarrels are so realistic and in a way adorable. Their romance untold in a way I have not seen in films before. They do not hold hands or enact those premeditated and molded Hollywood yearning faces. Kaulder and Sam are there at that place, in this fictitious backdrop with a not so fictitious Mexico. The people whom accompany them are nice, helping and desperate while the business running managers do their talking to extract the maximum out of the foreigners on their no option situation.

“Monsters” is not a horror film but has thrills. It is not a romantic film though it has love. There are no obligations to the audience. We are left along with these couple and the knowledge of the creatures or their behaviour is not explained to us purposefully as it is not so much useful in the current scenario. The scenario is to see these two people reach US and nothing else matters.

Scoot McNairy and Whitney Able were real life couple (now married) and I am sure that helped in modulating those untold chemistry in unforeseen places effectively. Whitney Able is the cute blond and shows a character of a strong woman struggling to contend with difficulties up with this reality and the future that awaits her in the country. McNairy portrays Kaulder as a pragmatic photojournalist and knows Sam’s hesitation in both her future life and in between them. Their communications both silent and spoken forms the basis of this film.

The closest that I can picture to people about this film is “Cloverfield” but in that film they tried to manufacture a love story out of this beautifully original formed technique into painfully overdone and executed exercise. Here the link between these two has a beautiful tone of a melody in this scary journey. There are panic moments which are very real and tragic. But the best about “Monsters” are the locations and the scenery of this foreign existence making its way through the daily affairs. There is a pain to it and the darkness of it brings up so many emotions of this possible reality.

Majority of this film was shot guerilla style with seven people crew traveling in a van and getting the locals to act and improvise. That adds the authenticity Gareth Edwards was going for. The monsters are kept at bay when it comes to projecting details of their appearance and Edwards saves it for the last. As Sam and Kaulder witness those creatures up close and personal in a perspective I am sure many would have forgotten to even perceive when these attacks happened, it opens up the audience into an unimaginable experience. With able hands in special effects from Edwards himself and a mesmerizing emotional score by Jon Hopkins we realize what Edwards was going for in it and how he combines that great feeling with a hidden tragedy to leave us smiling with sadness. After all this I still bring up the question but with admiration - What can “Monsters” be called?

"Biutiful" (2010) - Movie Review

2011-03-20T10:50:00.000-07:00

If anyone is crazy about the new movie of Alejandro González Iñárritu that would be me and as much as I can convince myself “Biutiful” has some courageous and moving performance by Javier Bardem and the beauty and poetry Alejandro’s films carry, it did not engulf and swept away my soul. When I saw “21 Grams” the experience blew away the notion that there are certain kind of filmmaking which are not alone different but can reach to your heart and squeeze it thoroughly with an emotion you cannot overcome. I witnessed the magic of “Babel” and it became the catalyst for the obsession of mine to begin writing movie reviews. So you can see why I set such a high standard for Alejandro and while “Biutiful” is an extremely well made film, its core does not come out as a nature of a human his previous film carried effortlessly. Nevertheless this is a film that lifts itself through the time and ends in a known tragedy with heavy heart.

Uxbal (Javier Bardem) is the middle man in a dirty business of cheap labour of illegal immigrants. He works with the Chinese for resource and trades with the local construction site heads. He also helps out illegal immigrants from Senegal in setting up illegal shops on the side walks. When you have so many different people working on numerous tasks and do not understand the effort this man is gelling together, it becomes a job under appreciated in this big scheme of criminality. Having prostate cancer does not help his situation either and having a bipolar wife with alcohol and drug problems definitely not help. Get a brother who is sleeping with his wife and the cops breathing down his neck, Uxbal’s life is not alone a mess but a well designed mess.

Alejandro again wants to underline the human nature spread across the globe acting in mysterious yet similar emotions. Uxbal is the connecting spindle through the axis of these people turning each other’s lives. There are no coincidence games as it is a familiar territory Alejandro has in all his films. Here it is simply the spiraling of a man who is dying very quickly. He wants to set things straight before he kicks out of this world. The only thing he wants to set things right are his children Ana (Hanaa Bouchaib) and Mateo (Guillermo Estrella). From the outlook they do not appear to have a great upbringing once Uxbal dies. He knows that and he has to act fast.

The film is not about him racing time but his inability to even sink in that fact that he is going to die. As someone hearing those words of doom from a doctor no one can believe it till it is happening. It is always the belief of one even in the dangerous world of Uxbal that the worst things in life are supposed to happen only for others and in films. The reality that anyone is vulnerable to this chaotic world takes more than one could think of to dial in their minds. Such is Uxbal’s case who continues his life knowing the disease and wandering clueless in his chores.

He has a gift too which is to talk with the dead if they cannot leave this world. He guides them in providing that peace which in film only takes marginal significance but pays a poetic end. Uxbal’s only options in leaving his kids in good hands are their mother Marambra (Maricel Alvarez). Marambra is a walking and talking disaster. Cheery, fun and unbelievably unpredictable Uxbal reunites with her as it appears as the only option. With this the few happiest things are nothing but momentary lapses in tiniest events in Uxbal’s daily life. This film takes hold of sadness, despair and hopelessness in this colourful town of Barcelona. We become desensitized to these perils within minutes as the world Uxbal survives is nothing but disappointments.

There are two other people apart from Uxbal finding abyss and slight hope as the film progresses. Uxbal’s good friend Senegalese Ekweme (Cheikh Ndiaye) gets caught by the police and gets deported. Ekweme is separated from his wife Ige (Diaryatou Daff) and his new born baby. Ige continues her life in Barcelona as Uxbal provides his rental apartment. Soon enough Uxbal will be back out there with his kids and hope for a peaceful death leaving his kids in safe hands. That is wishful thinking.

His Chinese client Hai (Taisheng Cheng) runs a sweat shop in horrific conditions. His secret lover and associate Liwei (Luo Jin) is authoritative and wants to run things in his terms. Uxbal also has another friend of the family in babysitter from the sweat shop Lili (Long Sofia Lin). All these little characters surrounding Uxbal tells something about this man. He is a nice man in this not so nice business of exploiting illegal immigrants. The sweat shop keeps the workers in a basement all sleeping alongside tight and closed woken up by their drill master sharply at 6:30 in the morning. The sight is inhuman and Uxbal is all aware of it but goes by the way the world he manages to get by. There comes another tragedy in that hell hole and soon we begin to believe that the only solace Uxbal is going to find is in his regretful death.

“Biutiful” is about people migrating and living in a strange world to make a simple life as their home country denied even that meager existence. But it is not alone about that as it is more about a father trying so hard to make his kids remember his face and not vanish in smokes of the time. I think “Biutiful” does not have a destination in emotional closure as one would expect from this film. This is simply the life condition of a human being in that situation and acts like one will and makes the realistic best of it in the worst case of the environment. There is a hollow feeling as the film ends and that may be what Alejandro aimed for. As much as this does not live up to the standards I set up for this director, this is a film performed with great determination by Javier Bardem to portray the state of humans in a not so human body shop.

"Limitless" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-03-19T12:26:00.000-07:00

Now I know what my mom was meaning when she kept on repeating to my brother and myself that we are not using our full potential. If only she knew that there will be a pill manufactured in “Limitless” that would enable us to access every tiny parts of our brain to the fullest extent then she would have had the sons she always wanted. I am kidding, it was only me. Neil Burger’s film takes a wild spin on this stellar premise and rides on top of it without any struggle. It is not here for glory but for thrills. And thrills it has.

When you do something that you never really thought you were capable of, you are in the midst of a fear of losing it. Eddie Mora (Bradley Cooper) comes to that fear. The film begins him wandering in the city as a bum. Oddly enough Eddie accepts his failure and the blankness of his future. This they do effectively in the few scenes we get to know him when he is not at his best. A failed marriage, failing relationship, a writer’s block which surprises on how he got a contract in first place and finally he is broke too. All constitute to a finely prepared dish of destitute and despair. At the pinnacle of his misery comes in his ex-brother-in-law Vernon (Johnny Whitworth) and offers something to show his power and attitude than anything. It opens up the windows and doors inside Eddie’s brain and shatters the walls outside of it. He mesmerizes himself. This is pure knowledge ready to receive and retrieve pumping up unstoppably. He is hooked and I do not blame him.

The neatness in the technique on how they penetrate the audience’s mind with this effect makes all the difference in an otherwise very ordinary film. The camera work which begins right in the title credits zooms beyond boundaries and keeps on going. It rains words when Eddie sits for his write up and the simplest philosophy of how he is brilliant buys us into this myth. The pill does not provide super powers like telepathy or some extraordinary mind trick. It simply finds the routes to access information that has been read, seen or absorbed in his entire life. The things that are already known are readily available and it happens faster than he could even think.

Eddie obviously completes his book and attains his immediate goal. He gets out of his misery but now what? What would the smartest guy think of wanting more? Power, money? Eddie never expresses those as the motivation is obvious. He tells he wants things more than books and attacks the place where rapid soar of success is so believable and unquestionable, day trading. He is a super rock star and he steps up to meet the tycoon of the industry Robert De Niro’s Carl Van Loon. Robert De Niro convincingly, deservingly and powerfully provides a much and long awaited supporting role wherein his presence means a lot more than the character itself. This is not his greatest but this is how he rolls and it is great to see him kicking the screen.

People reading this review should not mistake it for a stamp of saying it as the best film so far. It is a seriously good thriller. It is smart enough to know its ground and play within the rules and snaps its finger to keep going on. Bradley Cooper though is not a splendid actor is a hard working one. Clearly I do not see the capacity I saw in Christian Bale and Ryan Gosling when they began their career in their earlier films. Cooper though works laboriously in building his character and for some reason I could see it without that hindering the performance. In his pre-pill Eddie Mora, he gets to the basics and goes shabby and makes us not even sympathize much for the guy because he seems to have come to acceptance with his poor destiny. Then he charms off as this intelligent power magnet going around and talking his way in and out.

In this mix is his girl friend Lindy (Abbie Cornish) who comes and goes as the script treats her to be. The film does not lose its way in romance or emotions as this is a thriller running high on highway and not stopping for refueling. It knows that their pill lasts less than two hours and hence take no risks. They conveniently leave off murder trails, put some power writing for explanation than actual reasoning but never goes of track. Neil Burger uses the fast screenplay by Leslie Dixon basing her writing off “The Dark Fields” by Alan Glynn. Burger also gets good supporting technicians in cinematographer Jo Willems and editors in Tracy Adams and Naomi Geraghty knotting this entertaining thriller.

The process of Eddie going on high and low depending on the pill intake is something I will leave it up to you to see as that is the thrilling part. But I do have to tell the part when De Niro as Carl blasts Eddie with sheer truth and anger. It is not about his control over Eddie but about this nobody rocketing his way up within months as Carl worked his butt off to be where he is. If anyone could make that grinding look entertaining and place an offer and make his audience and Bradley Cooper see him in awe, that can only be De Niro.

"The Adjustment Bureau" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-03-13T12:28:00.001-07:00

“The Adjustment Bureau” does what “Frequency” did or any film bringing unrealistic scenario as a tool to enable a better story does. It knows the capability of the innovative premise. This film adapted from the short story “The Adjustment Team” by Phillip K. Dick is a romantic thriller with the tint of lovable drama. Constructing with much awareness of the great questions the audience’s mind will bring upon, they answer it either instantaneously or it becomes insignificant seeing the lovely chemistry between this couple. It is a blissful experience to see a film taking romance with such a finesse touch and give an intelligent film in the process.

David Norris played by Matt Damon is a charmer and hence a great politician. With a million dollar smile and the attitude of youth bubbles in his presence. Yet he loses the senate election, thanks to his bad boy antics in a bar. He is devastated and practices his concession speech alone in the men’s room. Suddenly comes out Emily Blunt retaining her English accent and they strike a chemistry like no other. Close to what “Say Anything” and “Before Sunrise” did. It cannot be more obvious than this that this pair should be together. No questions asked. As usual in the hurried business movie pairs they do not exchange numbers in their first meeting and it becomes one of those moments the protagonist has to meet her again. They do. The very next day in the bus he takes for his work he sits next to the lovely and adorable Elise. The bureau has other plans though.

The premise of the film is that there are these handsome men in suit who follows a plan. Monitors their subjects and aligns the plans in the suggestion of “upstairs” to set things right in the world. Apparently we have been screwing up with the free will they have given us. In this comes David Norris the sunshine boy to step into senate and then to eventual Presidential run for a better world. As the movie rule suggests that US dictates things around the world. Anyway, this revelation is done with the capable and elegant Mad Men John Slattery as Richardson, the boss of Harry Mitchell (Anthony Mackie). Harry has been monitoring David and his family for a long time and who was supposed to not slip things by letting David and his dream girl meet up. Harry is the moral compass in this bureau and Anthony Mackie is the perfect man to do that. They do not have a choice as David witnessed the clean up crew of this bureau freezing his friend (Michael Kelly) to alter a bit of his mind to suit their plan. The band leaves David with this choice that he should never hook up with the mystery girl and continue his life not talking about their existence to anyone or lose his mind forever. Or as they call it “reset” his mind.

David asks what we want to know. Why they focus on these two people and what is the worst that could happen on being together with the love of their life? Slattery’s Richardson and Mackie’s Harry are truly unaware of that as they all are worker bees with great power to make simple moves in everyday life to change the course of life. I think this is what makes “The Adjustment Bureau” a very good sensible film as they make these bureau people a step above humans but not so much above them. They are frustrated in a more reasonable way and vent in a more usual manner. When Richardson says SOB, we can relate to his trouble and chuckle at it as our main man finds simple loopholes and emerge victorious. Terrence Stamp adds to this list of handsome men in coming as the best of the best in the bureau and he indeed is best.

What can I say about Emily Blunt and Matt Damon in working with very little time and splash their love convincingly over the audience that they are truly the perfect couple? They work literal magic as I have witnessed in few romantic films. The scenes of them sparkle with energy and attraction in its truest form. I was just talking with my brother on the splendid street walk scene in the overlooked independent arena of “Me and You and Everyone We Know” and while David and Elise do not reproduce that caliber of sweet romance in every scene of theirs, they are nothing short of spectacular in bringing out these two wonderful human beings who cannot be more comfortable in being with each other.

George Nolfi wrote and directed this film and it has the resemblance of Christopher Nolan’s structured dream world from “Inception” and yet carries great originality to the tone. I hear the background score of the film and instantly I identify that my favourite music composer is tuning this movie up. Thomas Newman not creates a signature piece to ring upon but evokes these yearning sensibilities of separation, pace and deep love in his tunes.

When I saw the trailers I cannot wonder why the men in this film are dressed up immaculately and are particularly handsome. Nolfi understands that human nature’s instant shallowness always associates angels with beauty and these people commanded by the “chairman” as they refer to has to look good in suits. But as Damon’s character points out in his inspiring and honest concession speech that altering miniscule things in the way one appears aids the chances of winning the audience. David Norris does not win the election while the “The Adjustment Bureau” wins its audience hands down.

"Battle: Los Angeles" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-03-12T13:03:00.000-08:00

It is funny when films like “Battle: Los Angeles” have the character’s name come up on the screen to introduce them thinking that they are adding some kind of reality. This is pure unadulterated Hollywood action and I mean it in a very bad way. This is worse than Roland Emmerich’s disaster films and does not even come close to the 30 pound cheese cake of “Independence Day”. This is timed wrong, done wrong and goes gloriously wrong.

Jonathan Liebesman directing this film is somewhat is the hangover of seeing “Cloverfield” which had better style and concept though lacking characters and story. In “Battle: Los Angeles” they do it almost right by not letting the audience think for most part of the film. Then suddenly they needed a closure to emotional vomit in these cheap flick and becomes an annoying crazy girl friend and the only way to get rid off her is that you have to vanish off the Earth completely.

Christopher Bertolini’s script steals all the horrible lines in the 80s war films and throws those amongst these marines. It is sad to see those said by these characters that draws so much sympathy towards them to go through with this ordeal even when you are aware that they got heftily paid. Somethings are not worth the money and to begin a career out of this film would be a suicide for any newcomers. And there are some and some more. But when you have seasoned and able actor like Aaron Eckhart take the bullet whilst escaping so many in the film, you cannot blame the kids.

If you thought Emmerich did not do justice in destroying the major cities in his films, then Jonathan Liebesman takes one city and lavishly makes it flaming and utterly destroys it just to get some personal giggles. We see the helicopter views, roof top views and personal views of dismembered and shambled Los Angeles. Despite these great feat of producing effects there is no sympathy for the city created in the film. Last year came “The Road” a beautiful darkly melancholic film treating two individuals in the post apocalyptic world and you cannot help yourself from drawing the sadness out of the environment they walk through. The Earth becomes a character that died tragically in that film and in “Battle: Los Angeles” it becomes a stale unnecessary object.

To summarize the whole film would be the following - explosion - mission - explosion - mission - sacrifice - sacrifice - mission - sacrifice - MISSION. Underline these with one of the worst cliched background war score by Brian Tyler you can save not alone money and time but the strain you would have had to endure throughout the film.

To the miniscule defense of the director I do have to say that despite the routine exercise of gun fights and humungous explosions, the movie kept it going. We do not much care for character or knowing their past but the action keeps coming unintelligently and as we have been programmed to be receptive of these signals, I went through without much opinion. Then Liebesman skips a beat to expose the sham I was witnessing and suddenly I broke out of the spell the Hollywood had us put under.

There are times when good actors lay their guards down and expose to blockbusters almost in an attempt to amuse themselves. Aaron Eckhart has done those a little early in his career before he found his touch. “The Core” would be the one I am talking about. He was a scientist and as any non-trained combat personnel in films he takes up the lead and gives it all up for the ending we know even before we entered the theater. And I wonder why he did not think that was enough? Why did not he choose some sensible sold out soul to make some reasonable film to make reasonably ridiculous money for the studio?

“Battle: Los Angeles” is not even a mindless action film rather it is an insult. I always shamelessly admit my love for the spectacularly flawed “Independence Day” mainly because it reminds me of the time I grew up watching Hollywood films in my hometown and wondering what kind of great quality films this industry churns out. Innocence at its best and may be that is the reason I like that film but I am all grown up with cynicism and bitterness and I cannot stand the sight of “Battle: Los Angeles”.

"the freebie" - Movie Review

2011-02-27T12:53:00.000-08:00

There is so much offense couples who are married or in long term relationship may take from “the freebie” because to possibly discard the idea of that thought even rise in their mind. It is also because it is so dangerous as the couple come to realize in the end to take this road. Katie Aselton that brilliant performer in “The Puffy Chair” acts and directs this film may just want you to take this as that fable but she also aligns the mind set of her audience with her character Annie and Annie’s husband Darren played by Dax Shepard.

Darren and Annie are happily married which cannot be more evident from the fact that they cannot keep their hands off each other. Yet when they are in their bedroom they realize an odd fact which is that the last time they had sex was a while ago. A while ago means a long time for a married couple wherein they have every opportunity to have sex. I know it is not how it is but the ingredients are there and both of them are not ready to cook. Damn that sounded bad but you get the picture. This all spurred from the casual yet dangerous remark Darren made in their dinner outing with their friends. One of their friends breaking up from a long term relationship decides to go wild and Darren absolutely supports her saying that if he was in her shoes, he would do the same before making the big leap in to monogamy. Stupidly honest in this honest stupidity.

Darren and Annie decide to have one night off. Anyone including someone like myself not involved in a relationship might know what kind of dangerous decision that is. Yet the generation where being “forward” and “open” (yes with quotes) is the nice way of neglecting the personal preference, we could see Annie and Darren thinking that this was the idea of the century to fix their sex life. They believe in it, laugh about it and make funny references whenever they encounter a potential target for each other. I think that would have settled the score but both decided to go into this route and each believe that they do not want to be the first one to blink.

The votes are divided on whether humans are not meant to be monogamous. I think there is a truth to it but monogamy has been the proven method for sustained happiness going and growing through the bumps, fun rides and the weirdness of mid life crisis in a better way. I think at some moment people begin to get tired of explaining their life history to many people in the hopes of finding another partner. Age might do that. The proven principle in avoiding heartbreaks has been marriage but then again it breaks apart so many times in the current trend. I think I am arguing with myself to find an answer and there is none. Sometimes you do not want to find that out either. Darren and Annie get one which is not pleasant.

Katie Aselton provides a wonderful film which has a destined tragedy. Dax Shepard whom I have seen few times paying not much attention in stupid films gives a performance that is composed in its absurdity. This couple are a great couple and there is no reason they have to worry about their sex life as everything else about them seems so synced. There is a need to find it on whether there is more to it. They are worried on whether marriage makes a stale sex life and might finally succumb to the temptation in finding out something different. The idea of permanency is scary but curious us humans are, we invite and convince ourselves in reaching out for the obvious result and think back fathoming how crazy we were to fool ourselves in these supposed logical decisions.

“the freebie” might be despised for the decision the couple makes and go through being on a high pedestal. The self righteous nature of that might annoy the audience as it should. While their discussions are slightly pestering I could see Darren and Annie in flesh and blood being the people we all are and committing the blunders we all do. Annie even gets big sister advice from Jessica (Bellamy Young) and we can see why Annie ignores that despite the truth to it.

Katie Aselton is talented and there is no doubt about it. Both in acting and directing this, she is thorough in the material she has taken upon. The killing silence and the mundane activities becoming a gift to avoid the pauses are given with a stunning horror film feel. The energy in between these two alters throughout the film and is so visible that I have to say Katie succeeds in this somewhat predictable film. Yet we are curious on what happened during that night off. Whether they are telling the truth when they say what happened makes “the freebie” a scary moral lesson in any relationship.

"Idiocracy" (2006) - Movie Review

2011-02-27T10:11:00.000-08:00

“Idiocracy” is not alone funny because of the futuristic human society devoid of anything resembling responsibility and sense but also the smartness in presenting situations in exemplifying the stupidity with absolute no BS whatsoever. Luke Wilson plays much like he does in all the films but Maya Rudolph does a far more outstanding job of Rita the prostitute. Written alongside Etan Cohen and directing the film is Mike Judge and he knows the attention span of this generation (running time of 84 minutes) and that is one of the reason he is able to emulate the futuristic society with great precision.

Luke Wilson is Joe Bauers, a Corporal in the army whiling his time relaxing in a library where work means watching TV. He is named Joe for a reason and becomes a part of an experiment to be hibernated for a year along with Rita the prostitute. Things go wrong as they are forgotten for 500 years. In this time the smart people slowly become extinct and the irresponsible and not so bright candidates breed like bunnies. Result is the state of world where every one has forgotten how to continue their life with any action whatsoever.

Joe and Rita both wake up by the crash of a garbage avalanche. The world Mike Judge creates has the perfect combination of technology making its way through in all human decisions. Somewhere in the line the people decided to trust the machines as the way of life. Resultant is a world run by machine because the humans let them to. It is not the Matrix world where the machines have the purpose of suck the energy out of the humans to exist but they let the humans waste their energy and they have focussed much on to the smallest of things they could waste on. Take Frito (Dax Shepard) the house of which Joe wakes up. Frito is in his recliner slurping a yellow like gooey liquid which can only mean Cheddar cheese and watches a TV show where the plain purpose of the famous show is to get the main character’s groin pounded in several ways. And this is the best part, the ways that happen are stupider than the show itself.

Joe is alarmed by this and an accidental I.Q test makes him the smartest man on the planet. People have forgotten to drink water and accept energy drinks as the living potion. They forgot to question anything. There is a point in the film where Joe advices to water the plants instead of irrigating it with Gatorade like liquid which has the simple tag line of having electrolytes. The people keep repeating that the energy drink with electrolytes is what the humans and plants crave for. At one point Joe asks whether they even know what electrolytes mean. And I cannot stop thinking about how we believe everything is put on label trusting the FDA and other organization to keep track of the manufacturers. Granted they partially do but as in film if they are run by the manufacturers itself, then all we are left is to substitute water with energy drinks.

“Idiocracy” succeeds because it makes you think of the possibility of this future world. As every generation goes through their life, information is not alone provided in abundance but also gets distorted. When zillions of stories emerge for one event, you have no idea which to pick and consider it history. The hospitals in this world are run by button presses and the doctors are well, not exactly doctors. What made me wonder was why do they even have a profession? Every one is gullible and believe the loudest noise. They all go through in mood swings and act upon their first stupid idea.
Joe the average person in 2005 becomes the most reasonable man in 26th century and yet he hesitates to take leadership much like every one else. The world is filled with average people and the reason to pursue something in their life becomes essential for the reason to live. The order exists based on that majority and in the future scary world of “Idiocracy” that has evaporated in to consumerism and blind belief.

The film could have been exploited in several dumb ways based on a spectacular premise and yet Mike Judge and crew think through it. They bring up good instances to remind us on the possibilities of such situation and makes us laugh and think. The best comedy is tough to produce, great comedies are ones which makes you think along with it. In this satirical film, they do not blame one part of industry or section or politics. They simply take the worst case scenario of the current situation of people’s awareness and advancement in technology and consumerism. The film rightly starts with the two couples side by side evaluating the idea of having babies through the years and that explains it all. A comedy that goes crazy on the plot device but always having a rational and logic to its behaviour throughout the film. “Idiocracy” has a cult following despite its poor distribution and there is a reason for it.

"Unknown" (2011) - Movie Review

2011-02-26T15:21:00.001-08:00

Berlin has been made famous for its police siren than anything else through the Bourne series and so does “Unknown”. Stealing he concept of “Inception”, it can be said that Bourne series can be called as one of few thrillers that almost makes you believe like a dream in that moment as realistic. The same cannot be said much about “Unknown” a film bringing Liam Neeson to repeat “Taken” which swept the box office and little bit of critical acclaim. My enjoyment in “Taken” was calculated yearning for a better execution and “Unknown” does not qualify for that benefit of doubt.

The blonde bomb shell January Jones is the wife of Dr. Martin Harris (Liam Neeson), Liz. Never trust a golden haired beauty in a film. And if she is your wife then the first thing to be done is to execute her. Martin and Liz are in Berlin for a biotechnology summit. Martin forgets his suitcase in airport and he goes to fetch it leaving Liz at the hotel. He gets into a nasty accident that leaves him in coma. Four days later he comes out of coma and wonders why no one has been searching for him. The suitcase has his identity and now without it no one in hospital have any idea who he is. He gets back to his hotel and alas! There is a Dr. Martin Harris (Aidan Quinn) with Liz . Liz claims to not recognize Martin at all.

After several chases and German accents with Frank Langella in a thankless role, the film ends with those new identities for the main characters we rooted for. The known trick for the film is entering directly into this new city with two new characters revealing easy information about them. You do not suspect much of them. We have only seen scientist being killed by the glorious villains, not pick up crazy tricks to drive madly in Berlin streets. Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra, picking Liam Neeson is the only best thing they did. No wonder Neeson fits right in as the clueless man in a strange city. It is kind of opposite of “Taken” wherein despite his stranger in a strange land he stands of being so home in it. Martin is a clueless scientist looking for answers, yelling and acting frustrated. Logic does not come into place when it is best needed.

Soon Martin gets pursued by non-speaking tough assassins. They always give enough time for him to grab something to escape or use something from the surroundings to counter attack. In this mix is Gina (Diane Kruger) the taxi driver that crashed him into river and is being pushed in as duo character for Martin. They are a good combination in car as apparently he has skills to drive rash while she can provide short cuts in downtown. Do not ask what difference it makes when they crash every vehicle in the process.

I personally believe that car chases should be banned here after unless there is a critical panel approving it in a thriller. After encountering an accident myself the belief of any one surviving the chase and walking in a straight line has been permanently altered. I can never see a crash in the same way again in a film. That does not mean I will not enjoy the chase in “The Bourne Identity”. It has just affirmed that a poorly made car chase is going to be amplified more of its faults to me. And “Unknown” has much of it.

There are obviously twists forming explanation of why someone would want to replace Dr. Martin Harris. What are they trying to gain out of it? After couple of news headlines sighting a professor and a Prince from middle east, you do not need a spy education to put things together. Anyhow, the final explanation of the identity crisis Martin has been literally put through is more than not satisfying. We frankly do not care.

Liam Neeson in a way as much as fitting to play Martin is also not strong enough to be the central man in action. All his roles have been phenomenally commanding and a confidence that throws off his enemies with a respect. Since he is not sure of himself, the film and his character for the film falters in loosing us towards being enthralled by this man’s ability to get into dangerous situations and tackle it. There are no punching combat that brings the audience to get up in surprise and energy of the capability this innocent scientist carries underneath. I am not going to say that “Unknown” kept me in the seat with time to go and so it will which is what the audience might come for it. I am not going to say that “Unknown” would invite those audience to expect “Taken” and give them nothing but disappointment. I am not going to say anything at all.

"The Secret in Their Eyes" (Language - Spanish) (2009) - Movie Review

2011-02-19T19:48:00.000-08:00

You cannot alter a person’s passion says one of the characters about a killer they are in hunt for. He is not talking about the psychopath’s passion for killing but something else which would pave way for the greatest thrilling scene in the film. This is the Argentinean movie “The Secret in Their Eyes” starring Ricardo Darin who provided some brilliant performances in late Fabian Bielinsky’s David Mamet styled con film “Nueve Reinas” and a fantastic moody noir film “El Aura”. He is agent Esposito and this is a murder mystery intertwined with drama and beauty.

A story about a murder is more about the people finding the culprit than the culprit themselves. David Fincher’s “Seven” and “Zodiac” made it clear and disturbing. The latter of those Fincher’s classics undeniably brought the whole web of people dedicating their love and life for that obsessive answer for the riddle they could not solve. Juan Jose Campanella’s film does not go into the details of the investigation. It begins with Esposito in his old age trying to make sense of his life and begins to write a novel. If a person has no family to be left to mimic his existence after his death, there can always be a novel of his life story for a final attempt in remembrance.

Esposito refuges for the aforementioned attempt. He meets up with Judge Irene Menendez Hastings (Soledad Villamil). In this process he brings out the deadly case of rape and murder of Liliana Colotto (Carla Quevedo). They never openly talked about the case. It brings sudden shadows of fear and sorrow on Irene’s face. So we go through the lines of Esposito writing his novel and we learn about the investigation. But we learn more about the belief of Esposito on the love he saw in the eyes of Liliana’s husband, Morales (Pablo Rago). In those eyes he saw his passionate untold love for Irene whom he works for.

There are sudden impulses which leads to the killer. One such is the initial break Esposito finds in the old photos Morales shows. There is this spooky, lean and creepy man Isidoro Gomez (Javier Godino) looking lustfully over Liliana in all those photos. Esposito does not need any more evidence and he goes for it making rash decisions. He tumbles and stumbles with the other superiors and colleagues resulting in spur of events that would cause “The Secret in Their Eyes” a different film altogether in this genre.

The relationship of Esposito with Irene, his best buddy and colleague Pablo Sandoval (Guillermo Francella) and Morales forms the tale of thrill, revenge, justice and existence. Esposito and Irene are ridiculously in love but unable to tell about it as Irene is well educated and comes from a wealthy family and ready to marry the society approved groom and Esposito is a hard working guy climbing his way from the bottom. Their conversations are sparked by their passion for the justice and hindered by it too.

The best of all comes between the chemistry between the men in this film. Esposito’s best friend Pablo is a drunk but has the right mind for finding the trail leading to the killer. Esposito tries his best to get his friend on right track but there are friends who you have the burden of watching them drown themselves and you have nothing else to do than watch it. Here Pablo goes on a spiral and Esposito stands there waiting for his skillful friend to be sober for a moment at least to investigate the killer.

The other one is Esposito’s drive for the case in Morales. Morales is obviously devastated and crushed by the horrendous rape and murder of his wife but has a clear set of expectation on justice. He does not want death to the killer for revenge but the proper offer of the life the killer has to provide which is the solitude and the aimless years of living in a cage. Morales’ transformation from grieving husband to a man at peace is what makes “The Secret in Their Eyes” a more meaningful murder mystery.

Felix Monti’s cinematography is nothing like I have seen. It is the most original camera work in years using the technique to capture the sense of continuity in gritty chase than a gimmick. The cleverly presented feeling of one continuous shot in the football stadium is nothing short of precise employment of the technology in the most important scene of the film. The trick in the camera makes your heart go faster making the audience run towards the culprit and gasp for breath in the process.

Seeing “The Secret in Their Eyes” reminded Ben Affleck’s directorial debut “Gone, Baby, Gone” which took similar approach towards the genre. I am not saying that both films have the same look and feel similar but the approach is similar in the style of presentation, an original one. Affleck’s film while made an impact on me, it grew more through multiple watch while Campanella’s film is instant gratification and I am sure multiple viewing would provide more. If not for anything, watch it for the football stadium chase and you would get one of the best movies out of this.

"Unthinkable" (2010) - Movie Review

2011-02-06T19:42:00.000-08:00

“Unthinkable” faces the torture interrogation with the true brutality and takes the knife right to the heart of its audience to dissect it. What we truly made of is more than we could imagine and director Gregor Jordan does not need a documentary for this. He does a stage play in this gruesome film which was directly released to DVD. Why it did not receive theatrical release is something I can never imagine but regardless of that fact it is available on DVD and instant watch in Netflix.

There is an American who is a Muslim and has planted three nuclear bombs in major cities in US. He is under the shady custody and the officials has limited time to get the information out of him. FBI Agent Brody (Carrie-Anne Moss) is brought in. A specialized interrogation consultant H (Samuel L. Jackson) is assigned as the primary interrogator. What follows is the moral pendulum swinging out of its clock and gets thrown away into the pool of blood. Whatever you think H is not going to do with the scalpel is what he is exactly going to do.

“Unthinkable” is not alone bloody in becoming torture porn but bad it may sound it is necessary in this film. Otherwise we would not even feel the iota of horrendous nature of this exercise in extracting information. Yet there are several moments wherein we as the audience tilt ourselves and think “may be there are no other options”. Agent Brody becomes that civilian despite her FBI badge. H is clinical. He not alone sees it as work but is his nature. He is courteous and has a loving family. He makes time for it. He does not enjoy this process as he would make him a cinematic villain. Samuel L. Jackson plays him with a twisted sense of straight face. He puts through the terrorist Yusuf (Michael Sheen) like a doctor operating his patient.

By now the documentaries have dissected the distraught and disgusting torture technics employed in the interrogation of the alleged terrorists. The experts in those documentaries suggest that building a rapport is the best way to get reliable and true information rather than torture leading to tell whatever they want to escape out of this pain. The director takes the time out of this and puts in a real scenario out here. They have three days.

British actor Michael Sheen plays the terrorist Yusuf with several dimensions and undertones. He knows he can take it but what exactly is taking it? The pain is not going to be less painful because is prepared for it. Or is it? I do not want to know but the idea that one can hold out boggles my mind. Nothing can prepare to the limitless evil nature of a person’s imagination to put through a fellow human being to pain. It is beyond my imagination to relate to that in persuading oneself to endure that for the sake of a belief.

“Unthinkable” never stops for leisure explaining. It knows that audience are well aware of this scenario and they waste no time in going through the necessities for a plot. It has the officials with no names standing there and order with the political and legal correctness to continue this charade H is doing in the name of interrogation. They easily change their mind as the situation changes. We are all at the mercy of misplaced morality, values and conscience as and when the surroundings morphs.

The film goes beyond the extremity when H begins to lose control of himself. He begins to go even above his non-existing boundary. While he does this work with ultimate clinical nature, he cannot fathom the failure in his work and in himself. He turns around for a moral compass in Agent Brody who now and again vacillates in letting him do and then wait for her chance to get some sanity of information from Yusuf. She is the only member in the room having tiniest bits of humanity and it is very real. That is scary sad too.

“Unthinkable” is unsettling and visceral. It does not of course answer the question but lets you through this situation where I sincerely wish none of us wants to go through. There are extents in which I would like to test my limits. Those will be for travel, endurance and happiness. The farthest I would like to test my pain will be for the aforementioned endurance and hardship for a decent cause. While those sound like I live in La-La land, sometimes those are the best anyone could hope for in the simple fantasy of regular human life. Because when you are there with a person very well determined to take this pain and give no information, what is the extent you would go to get that information? You would not want to think, do you?

"State of Grace" (1990) - Movie Review

2011-02-06T17:16:00.000-08:00

In “Donnie Brasco” and the Chinese film “Infernal Affairs” it not alone dealt with the undercover cop’s turmoil in becoming a part of the gang they are infiltrating but also how they were still able to do their job successfully. In both films the cop was a good undercover man playing the cards rightfully as though they exist to do this thing. The details of their initialization in to the gang are shortened and goes relatively fine. They are not scared by it or the film deals more so with the after math of their induction than the process itself. In “State of Grace” they show a cop who for nostalgic reasons goes back to his native Hell’s Kitchen and realizes he is not cut out for this job because he cannot distinguish between his job’s direction and his best friend’s madness.

Sean Penn is the cop. He is Terry Noonan and runs back to his neighbourhood after a set up for his background as a thug on the run killing couple of thugs over a bad drug deal. After a decade he can go back to his friend Jackie (Gary Oldman) and still pick up where they left off. After a decade he can go to his neighbourhood and hook up with his old girl friend Kathleen (Robin Wright-Penn) who is also Jackie’s sister. After a decade he can go back to his neighbourhood and become one of them without even trying. Sometimes how much ever you bury the past all it takes is the environment and people to bring it out in the worst time possible.

Jackie is his best buddy and they grew up together in this place. Jackie’s dad used to run the mob and now it is Jackie’s elder brother Frankie Flannery (Ed Harris) running things. He is not a good boss. He does not have much control over his boys and the Italians are tightening up and work on a business deal. He goes out to threaten an old man running a bar to make him buy from his supply for. The old man does not cave. Soon his right hand man Nicholson (R. D. Call) punches the old man when the compassionate Stevie (John C. Reily) jumps on him. Soon Terry and Jackie are over Nicholson. Frankie is out of sorts in the business but is desperate to run it.

Jackie if no one figures out by the first 30 seconds into his introduction that he is a loose cannon should be somewhere else. He is obnoxious and loud mouthed but loves his roots, family and friendship. He is dangerous and a drunk. Terry comes back and immediately mingles well along with Jackie and the goons. He behaves as one of them and he even forgets that he is a cop. When he sees Kathleen even the slightest shred of those evidence of him being in the job disappears. As much as he is concerned he is back to the old days.

Written by Dennis McIntyre and directed by Phil Joanou, “State of Grace” has a deep and profound story of torn loyalty and the blurry vision of one’s past in right and wrong. Yet it suffers from lifting it all the way through to its audience. It has some of the best actors perfect at their prime best and they claw it through for most of it but the impact goes without a punch. I think it is due to the nature of the character Terry himself. May be we got used to seeing a successful undercover cop in distress than a realistic cop unable to go through with it. But that is giving reasons to myself. The men in the previously mentioned films of this genre were unsuccessful in different ways. Here the character of Terry is brave enough to admit it.

Sean Penn is young and charming as Terry Noonan. Gary Oldman feats on his Jackie and is stumbling all over the place as a drunk and a man driven by mad misplaced emotions and loyalty. These are the funny and dangerous psychopaths with odd feelings about friendship and family. He is true to his nature of being in a gang and stands up for his friends.

What I liked about “State of Grace” is how the characters try to cling on to the past and deny to let go off the past life. Kathleen and Terry are two people who are trying their best to get away from this life and yet they are pulled in back as though they are asking for it. The thing I did not like about “State of Grace” is the obligatory revenge ending as though there is no way out of this. Despite the beautifully shot finale of slo-mo gun fights for the time, it could have had a real state of graceful ending.

"Serenity" (2005) - Movie Classics

2011-02-06T13:09:00.000-08:00

Having heard so much about the “Firefly” television series I immersed into it over couple of days. Here is quick history lesson on this cult following. This series like several forgotten good ones got cancelled after one season due to ratings I suppose. The people with sincere following began lot of buzz of this atrocity and tried several attempts to reinstate it without any success. Though they managed to create enough word of mouth publicity that Universal Studios green lit the film as the sequel to the series. While I did like the TV series which in itself has abundant of uniqueness in ambience and characterization, “Serenity” distinguishes as a much powerful, entertaining and a moving science fiction film.

Writer/Director Joss Whedon explains how we humans explored other solar systems with bunch of planets and moon due to necessity and making them inhabitable as we enter this world. The Alliance became the governing body providing central administration of the civilization. There was of course the opposition to this administration, the Independents. War between them resulted in a hard and tragic end for the Independents leaving them to fend in space and become scavengers. One such is Captain Malcolm Reynolds played with a timing brilliance and panache by Nathan Fillion. Mal has managed to fly high with his ship Serenity and other crew members.

As the series ended, it had Mal’s appetite for sexual tension Bonafide Companion (meaning high class call girl) Inara (Morena Baccarin) leaving the ship, a Shepherd Derrial Book (Ron Glass), pilot Wash (Alan Tudyk), his warrior wife and second in command Zoe (Gina Torres), a rather moronic muscle Jane (Adam Baldwin), a skillful mechanic Kaylee (Jewel Staite), her love interest and a doctor on a run from Alliance is Simon (Sean Maher) as he rescued his unpredictable and telepathic sister River (Summer Glau) from Alliance’s mind experiments over her. We are never really sure what caused River to be like this but we always know that she is nothing but trouble.

The film begins with the Operative (Chiwetel Ejiofor) an absolute delightful addition as the complex villain for Mal. Much like the mystical and dangerous bounty hunter Jubal Early (Richard Brooks) in the series finale, the Operative is philosophical and carries the role of a Samurai (with the obvious use of his sword as his prime weapon). Acceptance is such a beauty in human existence. Acceptance of oneself regardless of their nature is what makes a person at peace despite the horror and pain he or she may cause on others. The Operative is the man assigned by Alliance to find River and kill her. His character is highly successful in most parts in the film.

Despite a low budget the film has abundant great visuals. The titular ship gets a thorough make over in look and feel from the TV series. The first entry into the vessel through the cockpit and Mal walking through giving a short tour talking with the crew members puts a physical believability for this ship. Wash and Zoe are still married and Mal is still hiding his feelings for Inara and he is on for a job. Having provided home and hideaway for Simon and his sister, Mal takes River on a job in the lieu of getting aware of her psychic and ass kicking abilities. That job in itself is a high octane chase.

The film has many other spectacular chases, stunts and moments of surprise. It has all these futuristic people being so human and so unpredictable. The flair of Mal has been his impulse and the quick thinking in shooting people. Take the encounter he has with the Operative who comes with an utmost respect and truce to settle this capture of River. Mal being Mal does his thing and in the end it is so evident that the Operative can kill Mal without any hesitation and yet Mal survives. Of course Inara helps him but that makes us choose Mal to be our hero and develop a thorough respect for the Operative.

The Alliance though claimed as this authoritative administration has managed to run this civilization sans the carnal and blood seeking cannibals Reavers for most part peacefully. As with any political administration Mal is against them and having fought in the war the feeling is only obvious. At the end of the war he has given up any hold on remote sense of clinging on to a value and rides the space chaotically and as pure as a scavenger might. On the other hand is the Operative, quite smooth in his lethality and a firm believer in the intention of Alliance’s need to have a sin free world. The film never falters in distinguishing these two beings. Both are charming, elegant and capable.

I loved “Serenity” for several reasons. One for being the most entertaining science fiction film and second for having no reservation towards obligatory scenes. The love interests never hinders the movie and is there for a reason. The movie has some best lines. Especially a great one from the pilot Wash as he flies through the war zone. More than a good film “Serenity” is a memorable one as it ends. We earn for more. In spite of the TV series being a good show, I could not see how it cultivated such a fandom to follow. I think they would have felt something like what I felt in the end of “Serenity”, the need for this adventure to continue.

"The Art of the Steal" (Documentary) (2010) - Movie Review

2011-02-02T18:01:00.000-08:00

One’s Will is the wishful thinking of wishes within his or her bounds with the legality binding it. It holds immense value starting from the best plot twisters in nutty and cheesy films to the real life scenarios. I have never seen any one question it because it is the last sign of respect to the dead or rather they are not there to argue about it. Albert C. Barnes made his with clear indication of what needs to be done with this billions of dollar worth arts in his private art mansion in the suburbs of Philadelphia. What became of it is “The Art of the Steal”.

After the art exploration and manipulation dealt in the street art arena in “Exit through the Gift Shop”, this is another piece of documentary questioning the value attached to the priceless master works. But beyond the beauty, poetry and the experience of these arts Albert C. Barnes immaculately preserved and cherished, the film talks rather rudimentary principles, one’s right towards their property. Here the promotion of greater good and the expansion of the secret treasure of arts were used to hijack these to the city center.

I for one cannot dictate the standard or definition of a painting. Some possess those appreciation like I do for films and I can relate to it. The experience of certain piece around an atmosphere makes all the difference. In a multiplex ruled world I have subconsciously forgotten the rarity of the presence a building could make. Yet I could see clearly the theatres I grew up watching films in. Now I complain when Ebert’s film festival happens in Virginia historical theatre with blocking views. I have been comforted and while I choose the astonishing screen presence of the current multiplex, I still respect and admire the beauty of those old theatres. Barnes’ art mansion is like those theatres and he desperately wanted that to be that way for all his arts for eternity.

Albert C. Barnes from the video footage and the commentary that accompanies it comes off as a strict, terse and a strong man. Adamant and stubborn, it is his way or no way at all. His way was to safe guard the sanctity of the art he possessed and wanted the people to cherish it the way he wanted it to be. I can see how he pissed off people including his near and dear ones. The film is not so much about that side of his character rather his pure sense of love towards the art he possessed. Also his demand of enjoying it the right way.

As Barnes angers the people in Philadelphia and around, he knew that the legacy he is hoping to create after his demise might be affected a great deal. He knew it being a big time capitalist himself. He planned his will and laid strong terms such as no way to sell or move or any kind of sort of his art properties. When you write something like that it is supposed to be iron clad in the eyes of law. You would think so. After his death in 1951, things were in place with an able successor but the eventuality was merely postponed.

“The Art of the Steal” of course argues for keeping this invaluable arts at its long living place. It of course goes all in for supporting that and taking the view of Barnes himself against the establishment. I was constantly divided in the reasoning of moving or not moving these arts. On one hand it is Barnes’ wish to keep his property within his walls and not spoil the experience by making it an exhibition which is considered selling out for him and the purist art world. On the other hand it is an international treasure which has been put in confined spaces and not at the easy access for the public and comes off as selfish and closed minded. This vacillation of the opinion despite the movie’s lack of objectivity resonated strongly in me. The people of the establishment genuinely believed in bringing the art to a much wider audience and for the greater good of the city. I can completely see that. As a public reading news about this I would not hesitate to take their side. Yet what the film offers is the fundamentals of human existence which is to respect the properties of one even after their demise. Especially after their demise.

Directed by Don Argott, as any good documentary, the film has a clear set of agenda and provides it in a convincing chapter format. It helps as an audience to follow through the time and genuinely understand the politics behind the acquisition in the name of art. Beyond art it is about one man’s wish being dragged in the dirty game of politics and in the end concludes so tragically in the eyes of this film’s makers.

"Exit through the Gift Shop" (Documentary) (2010) - Movie Review

2011-01-29T18:04:00.000-08:00

Art is a chaotic experimental effect on people’s sociological reaction towards it. People desperately try to find a stable and concrete understanding of a piece. Ignorance might be looked down upon on not receiving that cryptic message. For me it is simply an experience and not much to make of it. The factor of money in anything justifies the fame and a casual art seeker might not see the blockbuster sell out art from a critically acclaimed one. It is all opinions and relative perceptions. “Exit through the Gift Shop” is not alone a witness to a social experiment but also puts through the viewer through it after its over.

Graffiti has brought a judgment of low form of art in this reviewer. No reason than its mere existence in rundown places. But the idea has fascinated me and the cleverness has brought chuckles. Here the film directed by a purist street artist Banksy provides the life story of Thierry Gutta, a French immigrant in Los Angeles. A man with disheveled hair and a solid resemblance of Ron Jeremy invites judgments from the people he meets. Beyond the appearance he follows everywhere with a video camera to add to the creep factor. The obsession to film the details of his life takes him into unpredictable arena of street art.

Thierry got the entry into this strange art form through his cousin nicknamed Invader who pastes and paints tiles of space invaders in random places around the city. Thierry is fascinated by this and these arts pasted in darkness and secrecy needs a witness and that witness becomes him with his camera. He shoots everything and becomes integrated in the process. He comes back to LA and begins collaborating with the well known artists. One such is Shepard Fairey. A young man mildly surprised and suspicious on this new character tagging along to film these adventures of art vandalism.

The first art show I went was in Seattle. There were paintings that meant nothing and there were which like poetry brought in a sensation. I did not make much of it than to say that I visited an art gallery. After couple of years, I went to Denver Art Museum. I truly experienced modern display of art of an unknown kind. Lavish use of colours and daring images making statements getting personal interpretations. All those arts are a reflection of the viewer. You see what you want to see and becomes a personal statement. The true meaning of it which did not occur to me that time happened after the phenomenon of Thierry Gutta went through in this documentary.

Thierry Gutta is not a skilled artist. He was not born with great abilities to move his fingers to sketch detailed and collaborative arts. He obsessed over his instincts and impulses to film these people. He admired and adored them. He worshipped Banksy who remains a secret artist. He gains his trust and blessing. But the people who met Thierry did not make much of him. May be that is the sole reason they let him into this world.

While Thierry does get inspired by these artists, there is something bothering even us as an audience in his sky rocketing success in the end. He does not come across as a talented individual to pull off something like this. I think it is more than that which is he removed the method from the method in madness. He wandered off crazily and made a buzz and hype that structured the stardom to his show. He pulled the screens off to show that despite talent there is programming of people’s expectation in media and publicity. That sociological statement stunned the street artists who were thoroughly against it. The pure nature of their untainted and anti-capitalistic art got dragged into the dirty game of publicity.

“Exit through the Gift Shop” directed by Thierry’s mentor Banksy is not a disgruntled attempt but does a smooth and swift job of the startling nature in which Thierry got into this world as an observer and soon becoming a participant and a star. Even I was not expecting that. It appear to bring back faint memories of “Man on the Wire” in the way the street artists lurk around in dark to express themselves. The film is not about the journey but about the opinion we form of this person and this world. The film has so much interesting pieces to it and it never brought those goose pumps but when it got over I cannot stop thinking about the perception of art.