"Biutiful" (2010) - Movie Review

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

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

“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

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

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

“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

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

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

“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

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

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

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

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.

"Solitary Man" (2010) - Movie Review

What can be a more powerful drug than the great art of manipulation? Reading a person and having that opportunity to spin them however you want is a direct energy storage for ego. Benjamin Kalmen (Michael Douglas) is the titular character of “Solitary Man” living life as he pleases when he pleases at the cost of others. He is 60 years old and does not want to be called grand dad or even dad for that matter. He is the Roger from “Roger Dodger” grown old and running out of fuel. Strange that Jesse Eisenberg comes as his short term trainee as he did in “Roger Dodger” here too.

Car salesperson are annoying helpers, most marketing people are. The best are the people who make you feel safe almost like in a relationship. They make you comfortable despite knowing the game and then you make their decision. Ben meets up with his Doctor and even in his small time gloating of his success in car sales he tries to sell the man. It is his ideology to have that transaction the way he intends it to be. The end of that scene does not go well on him as his doctor informs him that his EKG needs a more closer look at his heart. Six and half years later he is popping aspirins every morning alongside girls of varying age though only younger than his daughter, much much younger.

He has lost his empire of car dealership on an unnecessary scam and now lives off borrowing money from daughter Susan (Jenna Fischer) and trying to make that one final go at another car dealership by sleeping with women having the power to pull strings for him. That would be Jordan (Mary-Louise Parker) a single mom with a typical graduated high school daughter (Imogen Poots) ready to join the alma mater of Ben. This dealership is his last chance in gaining back to the throne but he does everything in his power to screw it up.

Ben Kalmen is a commanding man in conversations. He knows life and he knows people. He has lived by the code where he would do anything and everything he feels like to underline his presence. It does not take much for him to miss his loving grand kid Scotty’s (Jake Richard Siciliano) birthday party. Yet he is the coolest grand dad who can play video games and make the boy’s life the glorious time in his presence. That is his skill as well and the beauty is that he chooses to be irresponsible and callous towards other’s existence in spite of knowing the damages he has caused and causing.

Michael Douglas venturing in to this role sometime after “King of California” provides another kind of miserable father. He uses the charisma in this role to make the other characters fall for it but always is a wide opened jerk to his audience. Despite that we want to follow this man as he seems to dig deeper and deeper in to the abyss of hopelessness and sadness. We have seen Ben in our life where they break hope and come back for more. They are egomaniacal but enthralling when they are at their best in pleasing us. They are the people who have figured out everything about any person except their own.

Written by Brian Koppelman and he directs alongside with his regular writing partner David Levien. Ben is a great character for a film like this and you need an actor that can carry on till the end keeping his next move unpredictable. Michael Douglas is not the man I would have thought for it. It is not because he does not fit the role. In reality he is perfect but I never really saw him as a character actor with spontaneous nature in the roles he undertook despite his roaring presentation as Gordon Gekko. Yet Douglas plays his age and the character.

There are so many wonderful people in this man’s life. A loving daughter, a great grandson, a spectacular ex-wife played by Susan Sarandon and a loyal faithful friend played by Danny Devito. Look at Danny Devito whom I only recognize during the past couple of years as the disgusting Frank in “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” and here he plays the most respectable and amazing friend of Ben with a heart of gold. One would wonder how a terrible person like Ben have a friend like this. That is the beauty of any relationship which blossoms in the most unexpected places.

“Solitary Man” is a wonderful film and it has gone through thrills and gaps of movie releases in the past year. A film that has a central character with umpteen possibilities for redemption goes through those purposefully unnoticed and does not regret a moment of it. When he ruins his chances and does the worst thing possible of sleeping with his girl friend’s daughter, he comes to his daughter to confide after the break up. Even there he says it with so much conviction that it was worth it. It does not take much to come up with the title for this film, isn’t it?

"The King's Speech" (2010) - Movie Review

Tom Hooper apparently knows very well about the friendships between great men. He did so in the TV Series “John Adams” between the titular character and Thomas Jefferson. Then he thumped the big screen in “The Damned United” showing one man soccer coach Brian Clough’s admiration disguised as a rivalry towards his inspiration Don Revie the coach of Leeds United and his friendship with his long true friend his right hand man Peter Taylor. In “The King’s Speech” he formulates the relationship between a King and a common man.

Colin Firth has been like Hugh Grant for me, in the sense playing the romantic lead part to perfection without variation. And then I saw “A Single Man”. A film which exhibits the urge to achieve perfection by director Tom Ford that makes Colin Firth into a methodical man sobbing internally in total madness. The pain, the angst, the loss and the desperation have not been told with such a precision and arrangement like a photographic painting. In “The King’s Speech”, Firth is King George VI, a stammering, shy and often spewing one lined volcanic temper eruptions, he makes it all so very easy.

The understanding of someone stammering does not help in controlling the impatience of the listeners. The brain has been programmed to listen to an uninterrupted speech, especially a public one. If someone translates the train of thoughts, ideas, opinions and passion into wrecking it in serious pauses then the immediacy in judging them incapable is unavoidable. Being in a royal family and often to address people King George before being the King did not have much of a choice. More the pressure more the stammering and he is constantly being bullied by the physicians. Time for something radical and unorthodox. Otherwise there will be no spiciness in the story, isn’t it? In comes Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), a man of pencil thin stature fitting his suit with justice and speaks and conducts in a free flow like his speech.

Geoffrey Rush might be remembered as the man in the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise but I remember him in “The Tailor of Panama” a simple man playing the players around him with finesse through meticulous speech. As Lionel Logue he understands the nature of the help one asks wherein the healing of the speech wounds lies deep in personal corners. Unfortunately being in a royal family advises to withhold that part to any outsiders while Logue expects that to be the fundamentals of working on improving the speech of King George. Unsuccessfully he settles to treat the problem as a mechanical failure than a psychological issue.

Both Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush devote in their characters. Firth needs to forget his conscious nature to not stammer and embody the full effect of this frustrating and agonizing problem into him. Rush needs to not over do it in his animated dramatization of this colourful and cheerful character. While the film is indeed about the battle of fighting this problem of stammering for King George VI, it is about a man coming out in the open of the society and learning to learn the art of confidence. Born as a superior and taught so, King George has more to be embarrassed and ashamed to admit. To not convey himself properly to his people he questions his ability to govern them.

The life of royal family is as much as flamboyant and luxurious it appears to be is also one of the closed and contained public prison. The resemblance of a private life and one’s wish evaporates and all is left is the expectation of the several nameless entities counting moments to judge and crucify. In between these millions are the most basic problems of all, family. King’s wife Queen Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) is supportive and authoritative while his brother King Edward VIII (Guy Pearce) choose to mock his brother when he wants to win an argument. His father (Michael Gambon) sees it as the mistake of him rather than a disability. Among these pressures the man has to rise and rise in the worst of the times the world has witnessed among depression and war to name a few.

“The King’s Speech” has one classic great emotional moment when King George comes by for a drink to Logue’s place after his father’s death. Great acting comes when there is an unconditional and involuntary empathy of feeling from audience. When King George disappears and off comes Bertie to his teacher and friend Lionel and confides in him, that is where the symphonic synchronization between Tom Hooper, Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush blossoms the core of this story. Danny Cohen’s cinematography makes no mistake in capturing those close faces of these two men at that instance and provide that brilliance without disturbance. “The King’s Speech” is no “The Damned United” but it is a damn good film.

"Tron: Legacy" 3D (2010) - Movie Review

“Tron: Legacy” is a shallow piece of work in the field of science fiction but as a visual spectacle it truly paints the screen with breathtaking races and laser colour forms and is nothing short of brilliant. This film is the sequel to the 1982 “Tron” unseen by me. It takes you to the inner world of a program, literally. Directed by debutant Joseph Kosinski, this is a film that kept me charged and thrilled for its unique experience of digitized motor races and disc throwing fights and baffled me with the extent in which it shamelessly empties any iota in having characters or story. The result is “Tron: Legacy” in my fact book comparison lines up in between the lowest in the scale “Avatar” and highest in the scale” 300”.

Jeff Bridges is Kevin Flynn, a successful software engineer turned CEO of a prosperous company ENCOM. Flynn was digitally sucked into a system and his digitized form built the empire in the hopes of having a perfect software. Unfortunately all the software engineers know that there is no perfect software. The program form he created Clu (Jeff Bridges made young by graphics) does not understand that and begins to become the villain for the screenplay written by Adam Horowitz and Edward Kitsis.

I learned that there were not many explanation given about the physical body sucked into a virtual world in the 1982 film which I can live without. Sometimes a phenomenon has to exist to provide clever plot points and elevate the film being the stepping stones to a productive and convincing science fiction experience. “Inception” will be a recent example where they do not go about the actual technology but use it as a tool. “Frequency” is another film that comes to my mind which employs the communication of past to the present and somehow evades the paradox on a surface level. “Tron: Legacy” is not one of those films.

Kevin vanished one fine night and the only logical thing in this illogical film is that he got stuck inside that world. Son of Kevin Flynn grows up to be Sam Flynn (Garrett Hedlund) yearning for his dad to return and finally giving up. He grows up to be an extreme sports guy jumping off buildings and messing up the board of directors during their launch of product of his father’s empire. As the film would not make any sense without Sam getting into this world, the filmmakers need no persuading to make Sam getting into his dad’s old arcade game center and finding out the secret office. He gets in.

Then begins the excellence in treating the audience with stunning animation and effects. It is perfect imagination, if you can call perfect imagination of a digitized world as a blend of electronica and games. Sam gets dressed up with a disc on his back which is like a fingerprint of his identity in the system. That disc can also be used as a deadly weapon to attack his opponent in a game.

While I was being enthralled by this presentation, I took my memory back to “Avatar” experience on how spellbound I was to see this amazing technology opening doors and revolutionizing the film industry. During that film it lasted for 30 minutes and eventually I began to see past the technology and find a good film. It never was found. “Tron: Legacy” does not have a good film either but I have to say it with a guilt that it kept me going through its ridiculous screenplay. Much like “2012” I was awed by the graphics and it had a knack to make it a thrill ride of a unique kind for that time it runs. Even in this unabashed nature of screenplay being a guide to graphic effect filled fights, there is subtlety in their subconscious honesty. Or I conveniently made myself see the other side when the foolishness happens.

“Tron: Legacy” as my experience with “2012” while had me entertained has to be slapped to provide a satisfaction for the confused artistic integrity of mine. As a science fiction it flunked miserably. There is Quorra (Olivia Wilde) who rescues Sam from the midst of a fight and takes him to his father Kevin. Sam never asks who or what she is and why is she along with Kevin in a remote out lands. Jeff Bridges’ Kevin Flynn is aged and they have dinner. Quorra expresses emotions. Does it mean the virtual world is similar to real world? Or how can a program exit out of the system and exist in real world? There can be forgiveness in the plot and logic for any film if it survives the time without reminding of its stupidity. The risk is higher when it is a science fiction as the quest of reasoning grows proportionally. “Tron: Legacy” is a beautiful presentation with some great musical justice done by Daft Punk but it falls into the abyss in giving a film without content in it.

"The Fighter" (2010) - Movie Review

“The Fighter” does not break grounds in a real life story making its way to the screen. It even lays out the plot details snipping out the crucial scenes from the film to its trailer giving me more reason to avoid trailers. What it does though is bring up Christian Bale, Melissa Leo, Mark Wahlberg and Amy Adams at their wondrous best. That makes all worth it to watch David O. Russell’s “The Fighter”, the film based upon the real life events of professional boxer Micky “Irish” Ward (Mark Wahlberg) and his older half brother Dicky Eklund (Christian Bale).

Paul Thomas Anderson’s “Punch Drunk Love” features Adam Sandler as a grown bottled up in his emotions and fighting his place in the family and himself against his numerous over powering sisters. Add those sisters along with a crack addict Dicky and a controlling mother Alice (Melissa Leo) to the mix, you get Micky Ward stuck in the middle of a family doing emotional massacre with foul loud noises and smothering him in the name of love and affection. Even his fighting style is controlled by them. His family is all he knows and he hits rock bottom in boxing when Dicky and his mom lets him get in a ring with an opponent 20 pounds heavier than him. He needs breathing room.

Micky is played correctly by Mark Wahlberg wherein he does not emotionally express on his frustration and runs on a swinging balance of love towards his brother. He has the whole stereotyped Hollywood protagonist life story written on him starting from getting his daughter Kasie (Caitlin Dwyer) a better home. He needs to win fights and he is giving up. He meets a rough and tough bartender Charlene (Amy Adams). Charlene in her own way resembles his family members except she takes the other stand of firing Dicky and Alice from Micky’s fighting team.

“The Fighter” is not so much about the winning of fights. It is the regular pedigree for the movie’s title but the real story is in the drama of this family where love has been conditioned and nurtured into a different form of control game. It is not that they maliciously wants to ruin the career of Micky or provide destructive plans for failure but it is more about their belief that they are making the best decisions at their full capability towards the interest of their kin. This denial and ego makes them this hideous characters coming down upon Micky with no understanding whatsoever.

Charlene is the rational mind and the killer coin to check mate this wrong moves of Micky’s family. She obviously becomes the enemy. In this crazy mix of people is one genuine man by the name of George (Jack McGee), father of Micky and husband of Alice. He ofcourse as Micky is outnumbered both in number and authority by the women in the family. He though tries his hand to find the best for Micky.

Christian Bale as the laborious actor he is does the physical demand his character demands. He is lean and comically irritating. He is gloating on the victory he had fourteen years back towards Sugar Ray and prides on being the person to put his home town Lowell Massachusetts on the map. He knows his stuff but he is coked up and lives a life of trashy existence. His mother conveniently acts oblivious to this charade he puts up. All he needs is a moving comic song from him to forget the crappy things he does with his time. Melissa Leo and Christian Bale share several scenes together and they sparkle with performances. You see how two good actors can shine each other with just being there sharing the screen.

Thankfully the fight scenes are shot with ultimate real punches. It is boxing looking clumsy which the technical person can say as the rhythm but as a spectator it is the closest I have seen a boxing in a film comes to real life. It is not thrilling or motivating yet has a power to it when the moment of explosion happens. “The Fighter” comes through as one of the good films of 2010 due to the actors and the lengths each of them goes through and accommodates each other in providing the space and time to extract the best out of each other.

"I am Love" (Language - Italian) (2010) - Movie Review

Luca Guadagnino’s “I am Love” treats the film, its characters and the subtleties in it with nothing but pure and unadulterated tenderness. It takes up a family, a really rich upper class family in Milan, Italy and slowly unravels the mystic identity burial of a foreign soul. This is Emma played with a daring artistic passion by Tilda Swinton who constantly surprises me with her wide portrayal of complex women.

Being married and leaving everything right from the tiniest possession to the valuable relations to her mother and father and enter a strange place with the only known face being her husband is a terrifying thing for a woman in traditional Indian setup. Similar experience has numbed Emma who is originally from Russia. We do not infer it in the initial family dinner celebrating he father-in-law’s birthday. Guadagnino does it with precision. The house keepers work with hurried fear mingled with respect and love to the family. No one ill treats them but you do not want to find out the hard way. The Rechi’s family assimilate and the story is theirs but the social status becomes an entity in the film.

Grandpa Edoardo Sr. (Gabriele Ferzetti) announces his retirement and predictably assigns his son Tancredi Rechi (Pippi Delbono), the husband of Emma as his successor for the textile company. But he adds a twist by making his grandson Edoardo (Flavio Parenti) another successor as well. Edoardo or Edo is the golden boy in the family as we hear everyone speak of him coming second in a race. He comes smiling and acknowledges that and yet wins everyone’s heart. In this Emma sits and she is very much accepted and belongs in the family. Yet there is something unfitting about the presence of her in the family. We learn.

The man who said to have beaten Edo in the race is Antonio (Edoardo Gabbriellini) a chef by profession. He comes by sincerely and gifts Edo a cake. After few months they become thickest of friends given the nature of their liking to similar passion and Antonio is the kind of person Edo would admire. He is gentle, humble and cooks one darn delicious meal. As their friendship thickens Emma goes through two notable instances which rekindles her buried senses and directs towards Antonio.

Emma finds out that her daughter Betta (Alba Rohrwacher) is a lesbian and then a casual line from one of her sons saying whether she misses her home, Russia. This line of thought wakes her up as though she has learned to subconsciously forget it. She does impulsively acts but begins to think. This thinking process mixes up in our minds without any notice. We know the direction of the story but the treatment of it is organic. She is a great cook as well and tasting Antonio’s food gives her an orgasmic experience. There is nothing more further one needs to convince Emma in pursuing this affair.

Emma en routes San Remo where Antonio plans to open a restaurant business with Edo and follows him to stumble upon him. The eventual consummation of them defines Guadagnino’s style. The sudden upheaval of passion between them is not their first act rather it is shown as a blurry image wherein we are not sure whether it happened. Dreamy with erotic poeticism, Emma and Antonio begin meeting and make his place their love nest.

When this is happening, Edo is facing with his values being challenged and wondering whether his grandpa’s facade of caring for people is unmasking or his dad’s attitude is masking the original intentions of his grandpa. He is confused and betrayed by this and we all know where this is going. The story of an affair is such a cliche but here it blossoms into a being in the film. We confide and empathize the feeling of Emma but when it disrupts the family, we begin to dislike her. For a good reason the director keeps the emotional bottling of Emma a guessing game. When she confides with Antonio, we realize her frustration but when Betta gives a sign in the end, it all becomes clear.

“I am Love” is an exercise of treating a simple story with great care and precision. Tilda Swinton not alone surprised me with speaking Italian but how truly and methodically she embodies this strange character to represent, Emma. On the simple outlook of the family and in her ease with moving around them, Emma is very much an Italian but when she begins to doubt and comes out of it, she no longer is an Italian or even a Russian. She simply comes to term the changes she got herself thrust upon for so many years. “I am Love” is a piece of impressive direction but it is more of great acting by Tilda Swinton.

PS: I would recommend you to watch “Michael Clayton” for which she won the Academy Award and “Julia” wherein she portrays a thoroughly disgusting and dislikable character.