Knowing

There has to be something about Nicholas Cage that makes him one of the most preferred actors of all time right? How else do you think he keeps getting roles? I would seriously like to meet Mr. Cage to understand it from him someday. And no matter what the role or story there is, there has to be enough and more opportunity for him to get his most dull and expressionless face to the fore. I would have loved to use the word constipated but I think I have used it too often and run the risk of you guys calling my writing trite and lemme guess – Nicholas Cage :):):)

Knowing is yet another movie which Nicholas Cage is making a habit out of in terms of a story line. It is similar to Next which I reviewed sometime back if I am not mistaken. The difference here being that the protagonist doesn’t know. But a girl 50 years before hears voices and writes down numbers on a sheet of paper. One thing is for certain though – she is not extremely pleased to write them and wants the voices to stop.

The numbers are considered as her class assignment and buried along with several other assignments by the school administration. Today, it is opened and the sheet with the numbers finds its way to Caleb Koestler (Chandler Canterbury) who is the son of MIT professor and physicist John Koestler (Nicholas Cage). John figures out that the numbers mean something and that something is not too pleasant. The chase so begins.

Yet another movie that should be restricted to Television viewing. The special effects are not too great per se. And if the intent was to generate some fear in the minds of the viewer then that fell woefully short. Not much of acting on display as such. All of it was just average at best. There was no character per se that needed to be emphasized on since the concept was a bit over bearing. The most important character would actually be the girl Lucinda (Lara Robinson) who hears the voices first up.

The story is strong and different and had loads of potential. But the execution leaves a lot to be desired. Alex Proyas is not the most inspirational director. He is best known for 2 dud movies at the box office – I,Robot & The Crow. Knowing was probably a tad better than his previous attempts but only a tad. It probably shows that he has an extremely slow learning curve and not much of a future in Hollywood unless he starts showing some progress really quickly. Honestly, the overall package is not horrible. Watch it but don’t expect too much is the only message. 5 on 10 is what I would give it.

Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3391554329/

Cellular

The concept is one that is really hard to believe. But as you watch the movie, you get a bit carried away with the continuous thrill and the well directed chase sequences that pepper the entire movie. Cellular is an average thrillers which the boys will lap up like fodder and the girls may or may not be too excited about. It is an edge of the seat drama in almost the truest sense of the word. But mind you all of this doesn’t mean that it is a well made movie. The action sequences over power the plethora of errors that are all over the movie.

Jessica Martin (Kim Bassinger) is your average everyday mother who is extremely concerned about the well being of her only son Ricky Martin (Adam Taylor Gordon) – yes her son’s name is actually Ricky Martin (ROTFL). Anyways, she is a teacher at the local school but in secondary school. Her son’s concerns are oriented around how his mother will be in the same class as he will be in the next year. All of that is soon to pale in comparison when unidentified gun men (and a gun woman) barge into her house and kidnap Jessica.

Although they smash the phone in the cellar where she is held, our heroine manages to get some wires together and inadvertently connect to Ryan (Chris Evans) a good looking but not good for much bloke. Ryan takes a little bit of convincing but decides to focus on getting Jessica freed from the clutches of her kidnappers. Hard to believe that there would be someone like that in today’s day and world no? Guess it wasn’t the case in 2004. Where most of us would have hung up the cell phone especially when we are running a girl friend’s errand, Ryan believe in some social service. But that’s what gets us most of the excitement I guess and therefore warranted.

Cellular cannot be held up there for performances of any kind despite Basinger’s pouting and crying repeatedly over the phone. There is not much of a cast anyways to be held accountable for acting. Even Jason Statham is an action hero and not an acting hero but it is definitely interesting to see him in a negative role. The only person one can expect something from could be William H Macy who is as focused and solid with his execution as always. Someone who can always be depended upon.

Overall, Cellular is quite an enjoyable but brainless action movie. There is enough to keep people interested for an hour and a half. Definitely worth watching when it plays on Television. 6 on 10.

Watch the trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2-wO0kG8as

Ekk Deewana Tha

There is something too arty farty about most Gautham Menon movies or is it just my imagination playing tricks on me. Something that tells me that the man is one of those eccentric, unpredictable directors who makes movies really slow under the pretext of calling them good art. Something to the extent of saying that each frame should tell a story and therefore the audience should be given time to absorb it and so on and so forth.

Arre bhai – agreed but that doesn’t mean that words should have space bars between them even when you are speaking… or does it? Gautham could save at least 30% of screen time if he just stops asking his actors to put an emphasis on a pregnant pause after each word that they speak. Ekk Deewana Tha is no different from his other attempts to date. In fairness, the pauses are required in some of his movies but EDT does not fall into that category at all.

Ekk Deewana Tha is a remake of the Tamil movie Vinnaithaandi Varuvaayaa (Will you cross the skies for me?) which Gautham himself made a couple of years back. It tracks the story of Sachin (Pratiek – who prefers not to use his father’s family name anymore – not that it is getting him to act any better) who falls head over heels for Jessie Joseph (Amy “look how gorgeous I look in a saree” Jackson) at first sight.

But there are several problems on the way. 1. She is a Christian and Sachin’s family are Maharashtrian Brahmins. 2. She is a year older. 3. She has a brother who looks and behaves like a goon. 4. She has a father who is 6’ 3” tall and thinks going to the movies is a sin. 5. She has seen only 5 movies in her life and Sachin wants to make a career in the movies. 6. Sachin himself is the biggest problem of all with all of 22 years under his belt and little or no experience in matters of the heart.

EDT should have released on the Friday before Valentine’s Day and not after. It would have guaranteed full houses. I wonder why there was a delay. Gautham Sir could have been laughing his way to the bank by now. From what I understand, the younger generation had a lot of expectations from the movie. And that Pratiek has a big following. This author however believes that Pratiek is as constipated as ever. No signs of genes there. If Amy Jackson has dubbed herself, then it is a fantastic first time effort. The rest of the cast doesn’t really have much of a role to play.

On one hand, Gautham Menon uses great camera angles and has done justice to the Malayalam aspect by retaining the Mallu dialogues. On the other hand there are gross consistency errors with no attention to detail – like soft spoken dialogues on a bike or absolutely no cuts and bruises after a fight scene. And then there is the aspect of the movie being terribly slow. Rahman’s music also seems to be one of his lesser works. But despite all of that, probably the best Bollywood movie released over 2 weekends. Worth a dekko I say 5.5 on 10.

Watch the trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6b462zkgJA&feature=fvst

Tere Naal Love Ho Gaya

Mandeep Kumar is a Punjabi Director who debuted last year with one obscure movie called Jihne Mera Dil Luteya – which is a line often abused in several songs. So it come as no surprise when the title of his latest flick is yet another line oft used in several movies or songs – Tere Naal Love Ho Gaya. Not sure though if the lines from songs are helping his cause or career in any manner. I haven’t seen the earlier one but can vouch for TNLHG being barely there in the watchable criteria.

Like any Punjabi director would, TNLHG is also a loud display of flashy colours and Bhangra music and Punjabi one liners thrown in for good measure. Only this time, there are loads of Haryanvi one liners also thrown in and not just as a seasoning but I would guess as part of the main ingredients. An unavoidable situation when your lead actor is a Haryanvi and your lead actress is a Punjabi. Funnily though, in real life neither are from the community that they play and it reflects obviously in their performances.

Viren (Ritesh Deshmukh) is an auto driver in the city and finds himself in a situation where one of the better off people in the city owes him a princely some of 60 grands. This someone turns out to be Mini’s (Genelia D’Souza) father (Tinnu Anand). Mini is quite frustrated with her dad’s continuous attempts to get her hitched to locals who have nothing else to look for but her Canadian green card. So when Viren appears in a drunken state to demand his 60K from her father, she takes advantage of the situation and gets herself kidnapped. One can easily sense inspirations from the 1997 Alicia Silverstone, Benicio Del Toro starrer Excess Baggage. Everything else is fairly predictable for the normal movie goer.

TNLHG is one of the more predictable movies that I have seen in the recent past. Plus it has a 2nd half which gets quite boring and stretched out to no limit. The first half is quite peppy and reasonably made with the exception of one really corny line – “Chandrachur suna tha par yeh advenchur (adventure) kya hai”? That is the only low point in the first 60 odd minutes of the movie in terms of screenplay. Other than that it is quite bearable actually upto the interval.

I have always liked Ritesh Deshmukh’s performances for some reason. I am not sure if it is his chocolate boy looks or a sincere effort and apparent humility which helps but I guess he has come up with another sincere performance. Genelia is her usual chirpy self. Both cannot speak Haryanvi or Punjabi to save their lives though. The rest of the cast is quite flat with the exception of Om Puri.

The music is just about OK and the item number featuring our controversial starlet from across the border doesn’t quite generate much excitement. But overall definitely better than Jodi Breakers and would be my Bollywood pick for the weekend. Watch it, however, only if you have nothing better to do. 4.5 on 10.

Watch the trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU1NYZ28R8s

Ghost Rider : Spirit of Vengeance

The concept of the Ghost Rider remains pretty much the same. The only difference being that this time around the Rider knows that he is one and it doesn’t come as a surprise to him. But the rest of the cast has changed hands and the story is obviously a new one. The special effects team, I would guess has remained unchanged considering the quality and the end product. The look and feel doesn’t seem vastly different. So for those who found the build up to the Ghost Rider series (that released 3 years back if memory serves me right) to be good, you are bound to enjoy this one as well.

For those who didn’t think that the first one was remotely good movie making – avoid this one even if someone were to pay you watch it. The Devil this time under the garb of Roarke (Ciarán Hinds) has continued with his attempts to generate more and more souls. And in the bargain, he has also bought out the soul of Nadya (Violante Placido) in return for a child that he bears off her. This child is the only one who can defeat the devil and has therefore assumed paramount importance. The only one who can keep the child away is the Rider (Nicholas Cage). And helping him this time is a monk, Moreau (Idris Elba) who has more alcohol than blood in his stream at all times.

Ghost Rider : Spirit of Vengeance is the 4th movie made by the director duo of Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor who have movies like Gamer and the Crank series to their credit. I have seen the 2nd part in the crank series and found it quite literally out of this world i.e. from a different planet (not in the positive sense). The earlier and current Ghost Rider though are very much from this planet luckily. There is, as mentioned earlier little difference in the special effects this time around. The nicer part being that the rider doesn’t leave a trail of destruction with his bike and has learnt to control it a bit more. I somehow found the effects and story of the first part a tad better in fact.

In movies of this genre one cannot really expect too much of acting talent on display. My not so favouritest of actors in the lead once again comes up with some really constipated expressions. I really cannot fault him at this skill set. It is an art that he has mastered better than most people. Nowadays all his expressions seem a bit constipated to me. Now please understand that for some reason he hasn’t impressed me to date and I am biased in my opinion. So sorry Mr.Cage. this is not personal. I am sure you are a wonderful human being but I don’t quite like your acting  for some inexplicable reason.

There is nothing much to write about so I will not drag this review any further, Lest it turns out to be as watchable as the movie. 5 on 10 from my side for this one. Not as good as the first part. Watch if you have nothing better to do. You may like the effects.

Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2284953881/

My Week with Marilyn

My whole life, I have grown up idolizing and fantasizing about one Norma Jean Mortenson and how I have been unlucky enough to be born into a generation which did not see here alive. And I am quite certain that I am not alone in this world. Just looking at photographs is sufficient for most men to feel the absence of knee caps or for that matter feet of any kind. And it really didn’t matter if you are at the bottom of the food chain or as high as the likes of JFK or in this case Laurence Olivier. The reaction that the first lady of Hollywood got from the male of any species would have been the same. So I guess it was only a matter of time to get the right script for a movie that would show the original diva in her complete glory.

My week with Marilyn is the true life story – yes indeed it is true, much to the heartbreak of most people in 1956 and even now – of one Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne). Colin is best known for his book The Prince, The Showgirl and Me. Quite aptly titled considering that Colin met Marilyn (Michelle Williams) on the sets of 1957 hit The Prince & The Showgirl where he was 3rd Assistant to Laurence Olivier (Kenneth Branagh). The story dates back to 1956 when Marilyn flew down to England for shooting the movie. A couple of weeks into the movie, she developed a serious fondness for Colin perhaps because he is the only person who seems to understand. The fondness turns into a relationship for a week with the nonchalance and the eccentricities that only Marilyn could be associated with.

Written by Adrian Hodges & Colin Clark, My week with Marilyn has been nominated for 2 oscars – Michelle Williams for best actress & Kenneth Branagh for Best Supporting actor. Another nomination I could have thought of would have been screenplay. Some of the dialogues just kill you. Like when Olivier tells Clark, “Remember boy, when it comes to women, you are never too old for humiliation” & when Olivier helplessly admits to him that, “What I see in that magnificient face is a reflection of my own inadequacy”. Worth mentioning is when Dame Sybil Thorndike (Judi Dench) tells Clark, “First love is such sweet despair Colin”. And lastly when Colin admits that, “My only talent was not to close my eyes”.

The enigma called Marilyn cannot remotely be recreated on screen but the effort put by the team and Michelle Williams in particular is stunning. Many of us would have passed out… maybe even passed away if Marilyn Monroe had kissed us. I would have been in the latter group. But Colin Clark not only stayed on his feet but went on to write a book about it. He is officially on date the man I envy the most. 7.5 on 10 for this magnificient effort dedicated to a goddess.

Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2677710361/

Carnage

Yasmina Reza is the writer of a French play titled Le Dieu du carnage. If the posters are to be believed this loosely translates to Gods of Carnage (do correct me if I am wrong). After the movie, I am eagerly looking forward to the opportunity of watching the play – even if it were to be done locally. The script itself has so much weight that even average acting can sail through with the least of worries.

And therefore, if you have a foursome of Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, John C. Reilly & Christoph Waltz, then the only words that could come close to describing the end result would be “Sheer Brilliance”. Add to that the talent of the likes of a Roman Polanski and you have around 90 minutes of unadulterated pure Dark Comedy. One that will leave you with a feeling of sheer respect for not just the cast but for Reza who has thought about a concept that is as real as life can get.

Carnage is a brilliant example of how a movie or a play can be made with just 4 characters spanning a period of less than an hour and a half in real time. The Longstreets – Penelope (Jodie Foster) & Michael (John C Reilly) are very troubled by the beating that their 11 year old son Ethan (Eliot Berger) has received from Zachary (Elvis Polanski). Zachary is the 11 year old son of the Cowans – Lucy (Kate Winslet) and Alan (Christoph Waltz). Zachary beats Ethan with a ice hockey stick after a minor altercation at the local park leaving Ethan with 2 lost teeth and a gross looking face – something that most parents will not take kindly to. After a lot of convincing, Ethan finally “snitches” on Zach. And so the Longstreets decide to call the Cowans over for a “healthy” discussion. What happens in the discussion is the story of Carnage

I was disappointed when I left Australia because Carnage was slotted for release 4 days after my departure. So imagine my glee when I saw the paper last morning calling it out. I just had to see it. Watch the trailer before you go to see the movie if you can. Its on http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2855116313/. The trailer does enough to give you a complete essence of the movie as well as generate enough intrigue to want to watch it. Superb example of what a trailer should actually be. But with a topic like Carnage I guess the job of the guy was also very easy.

There are so many categories where I would have considered Carnage for this years Academy Awards. Tough call in the lead actress category but I thought both Jodie Foster and Kate Winslet were a tad better than Rooney Mara (Dragon Tattoo). And identical thoughts for Christoph Waltz against Gary Oldman (Tinker Tailor). And most definitely better than Ides of March in terms of Adapted Screenplay. And I am going to stick my neck out here to have added this to make the list of best movies into 10 and not 9. One of the best in my list this year folks. 8 on 10. Don’t miss it. In fact watch it on screen and then buy the DVD when it releases. Collectible.

Jodi Breakers

Sanjukta Chawla, sure is what can be termed as a, “safe copy cat”. So as a story writer she surely keeps looking at the least obvious places that people would look at to draw inspiration. Can someone tell me whether she is related to Pritam (music director) in some way? How else could you explain Miss Chawla partially lifting the story of the 2010 French movie L'arnacoeur starring Romain Duris and Venessa Paradis? Unluckily for Sanjukta, L'arnacoeur aka Heart Breakers released just a few days back in this country. Luckily for Sanjukta it didn’t last for too long.

I would have been inclined to give the lady some credit for not having generated a colour photocopy of the original but the changes that she has made only deteriorated the story line for her. Heart Breakers was an average romantic comedy. With some bad changes and atrocious script writing, Jodi Breakers, finds itself a few steps away from the Bollywood graveyard. Thankfully, a few steps away and not in it.

Sid (R. Madhavan) has lost everything in a messy divorce to his money mongering wife Ira (Mrinalini Sharma). Leading his table of losses is Horny (red Audi TT convertible) that supposedly costs only 30 lakhs. With support from his friends, led by the agonizingly irritating and predictable Nayansukh Bhai Chamanlal Patel aka Nano (Omi Vaidya) he finds his feet back. He now dedicates himself to the social cause of saving people from marriages that they are not happy in. Small price to pay in lieu of a lifetime of alimony right? But what happens next is predictable – Sonali (Bipasha Basu) and full louv.

I can’t quite make up my mind on whether it was the complete absence of any form of acting talent or as previously mentioned the atrociously slapstick script that got to me. It would be safe for you to assume that both were just as bad. In terms of acting, Helen is absolutely endearing and one cannot fault her at this age. But I am sure that is the lack of cash flow that forced someone as talented as Madhavan to go down this path.

In between this entire melee of gorgeous looking bodies – Bipasha Basu, Mrinalini Sharma, Milind Soman, Pradeep Kharab, Kubraa Sait – there are a few people who show some semblance of acting. Dipannita Sharma is the only one who is not only very confident on screen but stands head and shoulders above the rest of the cast. She continues from where she left off in Ladies v/s Ricky Bahl. Sadly despite his gut wrenchingly irritating antics, Omi Vaidya will continue to have a fan following – one of the unexplained mysteries of show business.

I haven’t seen Ashwini Chaudhary’s previous attempts but I am told Dhoop was a good movie. I can’t say that Jodi Breakers inspires any confidence in me. The list of flaws would be endless and so I will sign off with my standard statutory warning – watch this at your own risk. 4 on 10. Oh yes and by the way the music isn’t too great either.

Watch the trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czJk9maek-I0

The Woman in Black

James Watkins is primarily a writer and has one directorial venture before The Woman In Black. It was another thriller of sorts called Eden Lake. But he is best known for writing the likes of The Descent 2 and a random movie called Gone (not the one I reviewed last year or the one that is expected in the near future with Amanda Seyfried). Surprisingly, all movies are in the horror genre. Must be a fetish that Watkins developed in his early years. For what its worth, the end product seems to be one that does sends a few shivers down or up your spine. So I guess Watkins has learnt quite a bit from his adventures with this genre over time.

What stands out all through the movie is the fantastic use of sound, light and silence. The music is haunting – which is what it should be in a horror movie – and really makes you get that eerie feeling. There are really long periods of time without a sound leave alone a concept of a dialogue. It builds up the suspense quite well and makes you want to grab hold of the seat a little tighter than how you normally would. Most of the movie is shot in a very dark hue with some elements of light petering in as required. Even the day time sequences which are creepy are shot with a lot of fog and diffused lighting as the case may require. So sticking to the basics seems to have paid off. Horror movies need not have dialogues right. So why waste your time on it. Focus on creating the errie and not talking about it.

But that’s where the good parts kind of end. Most the movie is vastly predictable. One doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure out whats going to happen next. So when Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) is forced to take the assignment with his law firm that takes him to a desolate place to figure out the last will and testament of a lady who has recently passed, you know that it has to be in a house or a castle that’s errie or has too many secrets. And you know that if he stays the night then bad things are going to happen to him. And you know that if he decides to investigate errie sounds in the middle of the night which involve climbing up creaky stairs and trying to open doors which otherwise don’t open – guess what, the door will open. Normal eerie horror flick techniques. No rocket science as I mentioned.

Not much of a star cast with the exeption of that boy prodigy who got famous for playing the lead role in probably the most amazing fantasy series of the previous decade. And the vastly under rated Ciarán Hinds. Not much of a role for the rest of the cast actually but for overacting with fear in their eyes. Its not really “have to see material”. 6 on 10.

Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi385981977/

Tamara Drewe

I first saw the trailer of Tamara Drewe in 2010 on my visit down under and was so hoping that it would release before I left the country. But it wasn’t to be so. Therefore, you can imagine my surprise (actually glee) when I saw this in the discounted lot @ JB Hi-fi on my trip this time around. It was the only DVD that I picked up on my recent visit because I had consciously decided not to pick up any movies till I had finished watching all of them in my not so small collection. But an exception had to be made on this one.

Stephen Frears is another one of those directors who has an impressive CV with The Queen and Dangerous Liaisons. I have reviewed one of his movies in the past which was by the name of High Fidelity – a movie with a lot of dark British humour. Tamara Drewe is not dark at all but is British alright. But Frears seems to have not directed this with the commitment that was seen in his earlier successes. The movie is loosely held together with the lead female character who goes by the name of Tamara Drewe (Gemma Arterton) and the happenings around her which have a rather comic tinge about them – a sexually desperate comic tinge I must say.

Tamara was the local ugly duckling in the village as she was growing up. Thanks to her conspicuously large nose. Her boyfriend at that time – yes she was ugly but had a boyfriend – Andy Cobb (Luke Evans) dumps her for nasal reasons. She is the object of pretty much everyone’s ridicule. No one is obviously willing to look beyond her nose – and the extremely graphic way in which it has been blown beyond proportion would help you understand why. It is a miracle that the camera can actually show her face with that unreal nose in the picture. Basically she is not the object of anyone’s envy.

She leaves the village after school to graduate in journalism and is now writing. She makes enough for a nose job and comes back to the village to close out some property related issues. The difference being – she now looks HOT!!!! Suddenly, the bunch of people who would look the other way have their tongues hanging down to the floor. And obviously she cares a damn and continues to walk around the village half naked and making people even more jealous and the men hot in their pants.

A very watchable movie this one. Tamara Drewe also has some decent performances from the likes of a Dominic Cooper (turns out he could act even before The Devil’s Double). Reasonably edited. Solid British Comedy screenplay with a lot of underplayed humour. Worth spending some time on. But not as good as Frears’ previous attempts. 6 on 10.

Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2479556121/

In Time

It is the year 2026 and the global currency is not longer dollars or euros or pounds or dinars or rupees. It is time. In seconds, minutes, hours, days, months and years. So if you want to travel by bus for a journey that takes 2 hours to walk, then you need to pay 2 hours as the fare for your ticket. Interesting right? You are born with a time frame of 25 years in your bank. Beyond 25 you don’t age a day. But you start eating away into the 1 hour that is provided for you in your account. For anything more, you need to work. And work really hard. Needless to say, you are paid in time. All of this is recorded in a chip that is built into your left arm which starts counting down from the instance that you complete 25 years of age. It is as if a bolt of energy passes through you and your clock suddenly starts counting down from 1 year.


In all of this, there are the good guys and the bad guys. The good guys are of course poor and stay in Zone 12 and have to work their way upwards to the Greenwich Zone or something like that. Those are the rich guys and ergo the bad guys. Sounds familiar right? Same old story really. Just that the currency has been changed to time and the standard policeman has been replaced by a time keeper. No points for really guessing the story and how it will finish in about 15 minutes into the movie. So I am not really going to waste my time or your time in describing the rest of the story.

Directed by Andrew Niccol (Gattaca / Lord of War), In Time is probably a serious waste of precious time – as ironic as it may seem. It lacks anything innovative despite a track record that Niccol has of giving us reasonably interesting movies. He does give us some interesting chase sequences but nothing which is brilliant and makes you want to sit upright in your seat. Just the same old boring stuff.

He doesn’t have much of support from the cast either. Never been a Justin Timberlake fan. Guess he is a director’s actor only. Been a fan of Amanda Seyfried but she surprisingly fails miserably in this one. I wonder if this years Razzies had these 2 performances which are outstandingly bad very honestly. The support cast including the otherwise decent Cillian Murphy is significantly below par.

Overall quite a disaster of a movie which would explain why it didn’t do too well across the board. I for one managed to sit through it. But couldn’t find anything great. Therefore 4 on 10. One doesn’t need to push for an opportunity to watch it – seriously.

Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi775265305/

The Debt

Now here is a director who has successfully transitioned from the small screen to the silver variety. Afer a string of TV serials, John Madden stormed into the scene with Shakespeare in Love – and what a storm it was. Post that, he has had some low profile movies like Captain Correli’s Mandolin and The Debt which released a couple of years back. I believe he has The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel releasing this year which promises to be a laugh riot. So I guess there should be no question on Madden’s capabilities as a director right? More or less right I guess. But not the whole nine yards right unfortunately.
Firstly, I get quite peeved when directors take the path in between in case of movies which are set in a geographic region where English is not the primary language. Why then do you need to use actors / actresses whose preferred language happens to be English. To make matters worse, you get the likes of the hugely talented Dame Helen Mirren and Tom Wilkinson to speak with an accent which I am not sure is truly Israeli or Hebrew if you would like to call it that. In contrast, in the same movie, he has got the younger lot of Jessica Chastain, Marton Csokas and Sam Worthington to speak in German. So why then would Madden not consider getting them to speak Hebrew instead of English with a forced accent? I was very disappointed within the first few minutes itself. A mark of a director who is probably not brave enough and not common sensiscal.

But the performances and the story line more than make up for this really bad call from Madden. There are 4 key characters in the entire movie. Rachel Singer, Stephan Gold & David Peretz who are Mossad agents sent to East Berlin to track, capture and bring back alive one Dieter Vogel. The 3 agents are played by Helen Mirren, Tom Wilkinson and Ciarán Hinds in the current day i.e. 1997. In 1965 which was the time of the assignment they are played by Jessica Chastain, Marton Csokas & Sam Worthington respectively. All 6 have performed quite exceptionally I must say. Even Jesper Christensen who playes the sinister Dieter Vogel is brilliant.

What takes the cake though is the premise of the movie which is one of an assignment that goes horribly wrong and how the 3 agents deal with the consequences of the same not only in the immediate future but over a period of 30 years. Will they get any retribution whatsoever? Or does the failure get the better of them? Mind you, Mossad doesn’t take too kindly to failure – or so we have heard. A very different spy story. Exactly the type that audiences would lap up. Put it on your must watch list @ 7 on 10.

Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1506057497/

The Good Girl

This one is actually 10 years old this year. And I had a feeling I had seen it but could not recollect. About 10 minutes into the movie it all started coming back to me. And so did the reasons for not recollecting the movie. Considering that it was exceptionally slow and bordering on a bit loose in the head in terms of Jake Gyllenhaal’s character. But having committed to it, and not having reviewed it (which is an important reason for me these days to watch a movie ), I decided to stick to it and fight my heavy eye lids on my return flight from Brisbane to watch The Good Girl. Turns out that it was my immature self which found the movie to be not so great. It wasn’t a wasted hour and a half at the end of the day.

From a casting perspective, I would always have cast Jennifer Aniston in the role of Justine Last, a 30 something check in clerk at the local “Retail Rodeo” store. She has the “goody two shoes” aura about her coupled with “girl next door” looks which make her the ideal candidate for the role of a woman who is exceptionally frustrated with her marriage to Phil Last (John C Reilly). Phil is a painter by profession and basically lounges around at home after a hard day’s work and doesn’t make himself useful in any way. Another example of perfect casting. John C Reilly is so capable of playing the loser role that I sometimes think he has been typecast into such kind of roles for the rest of his life. Phil has another loser friend Bubba (Tim Blake Nelson) who gives him company in doing nothing.

Enter the mentally disturbed, Holden Worther (Jake Gyllenhaal), who has renamed himself form his birth name of Thomas after being inspired by Holden Caulfield. He is exceptionally frustrated about how the world doesn’t let people be what they actually want to be and helps Justine bring to life exactly the same emotions. The only difference being Justine is not wonky in the head and young Holden is half way there. But sparks fly enough for them to have an affair and get Justine seriously thinking about running away from the small town that they are in and start a new life.

The performances all round are very good and in line with the characters that the actors are supposed to play. A very young Jake Gyllenhaal exceeds himself surprisingly. However, director Miguel Arteta (6 ft under; Ugly Betty), could have added some amount of pace to the movie. He took the small town laid back life a bit too seriously is what I thought. For the not so regular movie goer, it could be a challenge in parts to sit through The Good Girl. But overall, a good effort form the entire crew for this 6 on 10. Watch it if you are OK with slow movies that take time to build up.

Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi519242009/

Dream House

It would not be wrong to suspect that Daniel Craig and Rachel Weisz (oh you broke my heart Rachel) kindled their romance on the sets of this movie. Considering that they got married in 2011 and started seeing each other as confirmed from most sources around December 2010. So I think it is safe to assume that Dream House indeed was the Dream come true for one of the more popular Bonds in the world to date and also the reason for a million hearts (including mine) breaking. *sigh*

But having said that, the million hearts breaking would not be the reason for Dream House not having done too well @ the Box Office. One would have expected a deeper story line from the likes of a Jim Sheridan. I mean, one look at Sheridan’s resumé and you would not have a question about the capabilities at all. There are at least 6 Oscar nominations there. Ergo, it would not be unfair to expect a movie that was definitely better than quite most released last year. However, I guess age and fatigue catches up with the best of us and it has with Sheridan.

Somehow, Dream House, never really grabbed me by my shoulders and shook me up as I would have expected it to. It takes a few minutes to settle in first of all and once done, it takes about 5 minutes for someone with reasonable intelligence to start predicting the next scene or 2. The predictability being one part of the reason for disappointment, the other being the not so great performances from the entire cast. I could imaging Craig and Weisz being more focused on each other but will someone please explain to me what is happening to Naomi Watts as the days go by? She seems to be getting more and more jaded by the movie. The support cast doesn’t add much value either.

The movie is intended to be a thriller and does achieve the objective in parts. But unfortunately doesn’t build up to a great finish like a thriller should. Will Atenton (Daniel Craig) is a successful editor with a leading publication who decides to quit his job in the city and get back to his family. The reason being he has not been able to spend enough time with them. As much as he or they would like to. And he does get back to them to their immense happiness. But only to realize in a matter of a day or so that he is probably not Will Atenton. And with all the neighbours staring at him as if he is a ghost from the past, it doesn’t take much for the audience to also put 2 and 2 together either.

Somewhere I think Sheridan lost the plot by making it a bit too obvious. There was no element of suspense. One would expect that in a movie of this kind. Nevertheless, I was a bit disappointed in the end. 5 on 10 is my rating. Downloadable watch.

Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi64658457/

50/50

Now this I really wanted to catch up with ever since I saw the trailer. 50/50 is the story of a 27 year old young man called Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). He can easily pass off to be a nerd of sorts. Prim and proper at all times. Doesn’t smoke. Doesn’t drink. He makes sure that he works out every day almost. Keeps himself fit and fine at all times. He is a good looking bloke to be fair. So what if he is a bit nerdy. So what if he has obsessions about cleanliness and OCDs about almost everything that his life should be. He is the one with the good looking girl friend. Rachael (Bryce Dallas Howard) seems to be reasonably ok around him.
Adam is very close friends with Kyle (Seth Rogen) who is your usual horny 27 year old (one can only assume his age since he hangs around with only Adam) and is always looking to get laid. He is the diametric opposite of Adam in terms of everything. Smokes, Drinks, Drives, Fools around, has the most unkempt look about himself and has an apartment which looks like a bachelor pad if I have seen one. Kyle hates Rachael and is looking for ways and means to get her out of Adam’s life with little or no success. Adam stays away from his parents – mother Diane (Anjelica Huston) and father Richard (Servge Houde) who suffers from Alzheimers.

So whats the big deal about this entire shebang that I just took you through? Wheres the story? Well, you see Adam has just been diaganosed with cancer. Hmmmm. That of the spine. Ouch. And his chances of survival – 50/50.

50/50 exposes the brittle nature of most of our relationships in our day to day life in a very humourous fashion. The pain and the fun that Adam goes through along with those who are closest to him is just beautifully represented by Johnathan Levine – a newbie director with not much to his credit to date. And to add some more fun, he goes about showing how Adam deals with what could be the last few days of his life in more or less “bucket list” fashion. And how he builds a relationship with his 24 year old therapist – Katherine (Anna Kendrick).

A few drawbacks also though. Anna Kendrick and Seth Rogen should get really worried about how they are getting typecast. Anna in the hyperactive, edgy individual kind of role and Seth as the disgusting unclean young bachelor kind of role. Anna more so because she seems to be the more talented of the two and also has an Oscar nomination to protect. Anjelica Huston is good as always and so is most of the support cast. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is at his ice cold best through the role and continues to raise the bar. A very enjoyable dark comedy of sorts. Worth watching. 7 on 10 is what I say.

Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3408305177/

Midnight in Paris

If it is Woody Allen then it has to have the Oscars against it. Especialy in the category of Original Screenplay. He has received 15 nominations for Original Screeplay to date!!! And if you haven’t seen Woody Allen movies you would be tempted to now. If you have, then you would not be surprised with this fact. The capability to create a story line and then pepper it with humour that can best be described as acidic is an art that the 77 year old has probably mastered better than anyone else. Lets face it. There cannot be a badly written Woody Allen movie. It is possible that people may not understand it because thanks to the layers that Woody has put in it but it just cannot be bad. I am a huge fan and Midnight in Paris has done nothing to harm my position.

The other nominations have been in the categories of Direction, Art Direction and Motion Picture of the year. I also think that Owen Wilson has been overlooked for the acting Oscar simply because he has this slapstick non serious image about himself and not because he hasn’t acted well in this one. Somehow I think Owen Wilson is cut out perfectly for the Woody Allen type of care a damn humour. The nonchalance that he gets to the screen is just apt for playing the part of a writer who is not cutting much ice in his relationship with a supremely rich girl whose family doesn’t approve the relationship one bit. And it gets even more convincing when he starts imagining that at the stroke of every midnight, he gets picked up by a vintage Peugeot and meets all his idols of the early 1900s. An era that he is fascinated with and wants to be back in.

Woody Allen has a knack of surprising most people with his casting. And for the first time I see Rachel McAdams in a role that is quite unlike her. One in which audiences would resent her and not look at her as the girl next door that she always plays. And she essays her role with ease. Which is even more surprising. Proving to us inadvertently I presume that there is a lot of serious acting acumen that hasn’t gone on display yet.

I don’t need to comment on the capabilities of the likes of Kathy Bates (Gertrude Stein) or Marrion Cotillard (Adriana) who really have nothing to prove to anyone of us lowly mortals anymore. And the support cast in any Woody Allen movie is always superb. Somehow I think all of these guys just get into a groove that is most natural to them and were waiting for Woody to actually show it to them that they are capable of performing this way. Woody himself doesn’t play a role in this one and the eccentricities are conspicuously missing. But he more than makes up with his humour. Deservedly in the top 10 movies of the year. Watch it. 8 on 10.

Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi853581081/

Bridesmaids

If you look at the nominations for best original screenplay in this year’s Academy awards you will find that Bridesmaids shares space with the likes of Margin Call, The Artist, Midnight in Paris and A Separation (foreign film). Makes me sit back and wonder why actually. I mean, it was a good fun storyline but had too much of crappy scenes and over the top segments for it to be called really up there. I thought the likes of Rango for e.g. was much better. What stuns me even more is that Bridesmaids has been included in the Best Screenplay for even the BAFTAs. Now I think I need a serious relook at my understanding of screenplay. It was just a simple straightforward regular semi slapstick comedy with some decent dialogues thrown in. I personally believed that it was nowhere close to being Oscar league.
Lets then go onto the performance of one Melissa McCarthy. This one for my money’s worth takes the cake yet again. She shares the space with stunning performances from Bérénice Bejo (Artist), Jessica Chastain & Octavia Spencer (Help) & Janet McTeer (Albert Nobbs). Am I seriously missing a point here? So we are saying that the over the top slapstick antics of McCarthy are superior to the sincere solid performances from the likes of Chloë Grace Moretz (Hugo) or Shailene Woodley (The Descendants). Both performances far superseded McCarthy and were from less than 18 year olds – which cannot be the reason for the Oscars ignoring them. Need to get my fundas cleared.

Bridesmaids is definitely a very enjoyably flick. So don’t get me wrong on that count. Just that it is too tacky for Oscar nominations. There are truck loads of consistency errors. The performances are honestly quite average. There are moments in the movie which make you laugh out loud due to the simplicity of humour which is yet so well spoken that one cannot help but acknowledge the effort. However, several movies through the year have done a much better job than Bridesmaids and it is disappointing to not see their names on the list.

Director Paul Fieg hasn’t directed too many features other than the reasonably well known Unaccompanied Minors. He hasn’t exceeded himself or raised the bar significantly. If anyone stood out for my money’s worth they were Kristen Wiig in the lead role and Rose Byrne who for my money’s worth was much better than McCarthy. One need not have looked too far to find a performance that was better. Nevertheless, worth a DVD Rental. Enjoyable definitely. 6 on 10.

Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi4215119129/

Martha Marcy May Marlene

And before I lose the tempo to write about art house cinema, let me get the review of Martha Marcy May Marlene also out of the way. Not that I hated the movie in any way. It was a decent movie to say the least but it just too difficult to write about. By now, you would probably know that I am more of a mainstream cinema person and that Art House Cinema doesn’t mean much to me. Why would you show long drawn shots of roads and highways with absolutely no sound for 10 seconds or say when doors take 10 seconds to close and the camera continues to focus on it till closed.

Never quite understood why directors would, in the name of art house cinema, show random stuff with no meaning or bearing on the movie’s eventual end or story line. It is the director’s whim more than anything else. Sean Durkin seems to be one such kind of director with little or no experience in mainstream cinema which would not come as a surprise. There are so many senseless sequences or instances in 4M that after a while it really gets to your nerves and disappoints someone like me who specifically looked out for the cinema hall in which this was playing because I missed it in Melbourne.

4M is the story of Martha (Elizabeth Olsen) who is in troubled relationship with her sister, Lucy (Sarah Paulson) and decides to run away with her boyfriend Max (Christopher Abbott) to a place in rural USA. She finds herself in a weird farm like place where the show seems to be run by a scrawny ugly looking man called Patrick (John Hawkes) who one can only assume is the boyfriend’s elder brother. Where everyone sleeps in one room with about 7 or 8 mattresses thrown in. Where the men have their dinner first and only then will the women eat. Where the men have stuff that is more filling and the women make do with soup. Where the women are expected to do multiple chores during the day like farming and cleaning and doing the dishes and cooking. And you wonder why the hell would a city girl want to be here?

This love thing makes one do crazy stuff I say. More importantly, what is the big deal about this story in the first place? Is there anytime that this story will get a bit exciting? It doesn’t. It gets weirder with the minute. With some random scam involving more sexual overtones (and I was watching this after Shame which had everything that I had to see). And other than what I had seen earlier in the day, I also managed to see non consensual intercourse also in 4M. Rounded off a largely productive day on that count at least *yawn*. A little bit of a split personality angle thrown in is the only excitement I guess.

While the performances were decent especially when the schizophrenia angle creeps in and finally Olsen is expected to act and not stare at the screen with a single constipated expression. She does a better job in her other avatar. No one else in the movie actually who has anything great to report about. And watch out for the ending. It may make you tear apart your hair in acute agony. Disappointing. 4 on 10 only for some decent performances and a story line which had potential. Mind you, this is purely my opinion. Imdb seems to think otherwise and has scored it @ 7.4. Guess I didn’t get the movie.

Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1493409049/

Shame

This one is going to be a really tough one to write. This and the one which will follow. A movie called Martha Marcy May Marlene. Both movies which promised quite a bit and in all honesty I would be lying if I said they failed miserably. They were both just art house cinema in the truest sense of the word. To be fair, the poster for SHAME clearly called out, “THE MOST PROVOCATIVE AND COMPELLING FILM OF THE YEAR” amongst a few other adjectives such as Mesmerising and Dynamite and Exquisite and Emotive. All of these amongst clusters of 5 stars. But then no one said that it was all of this for the art house cinema buff. Like the people who would love Terrence Malik’s Tree of Life to bits. Surely you get the drift by now.

So I was suckered into a movie directed by Steve McQueen. Who turns out to be nowhere close to the more popular and better known star of Bullit. Nopes. This gentleman is an acclaimed (unheard to me) director with one other art house movie before this which I am certain has several layers just like Shame had. This Steve McQueen to his credit is a bold African American director. One would understand why I use the term bold after you are about 30 odd seconds into the movie. Even without watching his previous movie, I am quite certain it would be one where he tells it like it is. For e.g. if the a bullet to the head means blood splattering all around then that would be the way it has to be shown.

It is probably the reason why Shame would seem like a soft pornographic movie – ok correction – pornographic movie. In the first 5 minutes you would have seen how well endowed Michael Fassbender is and a couple of graphic sex scenes are thrown before the first 30 minutes are done and dusted. And before the movie is done with, you would have experienced different situations from your fantasies. Let me try and recount them. With one woman in a dark alley against a large container (probably a garbage bin). With a high end prostitute at home. With a seriously attractive African American woman. With another prostitute recounting your fantasy of doing it with the woman pressed against a glass window. Getting a blow job from a man. Doing it with 2 women.

The purists would say this is art and not pornography. To portray the story of a person who has a sex addiction problem is very brave indeed. How else would you show a movie about the topic. But for the not so mature audiences which include this writer, who I must say is not used to such topics being dealt with so openly, it will be quite difficult to sit through without squirming in your seat. I just found the movie too slow and randomly edited but the performances were very solid indeed. Full points for bravery. 6 on 10 for the movie.

Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3969097241/

The Vow

What better timing than the weekend before Valentine’s Day for an absolute tear jerker romance movie – not a romcom fellas – full Romaans happening in this one. It seems that the movie is based on a series of true events. Which makes things even better for the viewer. There will be I can assure you, several “Awwww” moments throughout the 2 hours that you will spend watching The Vow.

Paige Thornton (Rachel McAdams) comes from an exceptionally affluent family. Father Bill Thornton (Sam Neill) is a lawyer and mother Rita Thornton (Jessica Lange) is a socialite, housewife etc. Why would she then consider to be in a relationship with someone who is just about middle class, works at a flower shop, has a passion for music and hopes to have a recording studio someday and lives in something that can only be called a warehouse. The guy is Leo (Channing Tatum) who wins over Paige’s heart through simple sincerity. All this happened 5 years back when Paige was studying Art at the Chicago School and had moved out of a relationship and her parent’s place for reasons not revealed in detail to Leo. She is just enamoured by the absolute honest display of affection that Leo showers on her and within a year, they are hitched. What gets the twist in the story though is an accident that leaves Paige in a coma. When she does recover after a while, she has forgotten everything in the past 5 years. Her last memory is being engaged to Jeremy (Scott Speedman). Of course, Leo doesn’t exist.

The Vow tries to capture the emotions and trauma that a husband goes through because the love of his life, suddenly, has no place for him at all. In Paige’s defence, she is going through as much pain struggling to come to terms with the fact that she is indeed married to Leo but simply has no clue to how it happened. The Vow shows you both sides of the coin during the time frame of the movie. One would be faced with a stance for both parties but really, is it fair to blame one and support the other in a situation like this? Tough call eh? Now imagine that it really happened with someone and is not a work of fiction. Hope and pray that none of us have to go through it.

Cannot say much about Michael Sucsy as a director. Loads of ways he could have focused a little more on. Lots of attention given to the conflict between the love birds. Very little attention given on the time after Paige decides to stay with Leo eventually. Maybe a few minutes there wouldn’t have hurt. Rachel McAdams and Channing Tatum both disappoint with their less than intense performances. The intensity does go up at times but these are far and few between. Overall, must watch with someone you love. You can choose to download it instead of going to the theatre though. 6 on 10.

Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi236559897/

Hugo

Hugo is already @ 198 in imdb top 250. One of the movies that has entered this list in Calendar Year 2011. And it has been nominated for 11 Oscars. Yep. You heard me right. 11 Nominations. Which if my research serves me right, is the highest number this year after which we have The Artist. The categories are Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume Design, Directing, Editing, Motion Picture of the Year, Adapted Screenplay, Music Written for Motion Picture, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Visual Effects. Once you have seen it, you would not be left with any questions in your head as for the reasons for the same.

Now I have always maintained that I have no clue in my head about Sound Mixing and Sound Editing – never had an ear for it I guess. And I cannot comment on the Screenplay bit since I have not read the book written by Brian Selznick – childrens book writer – The Invention of Hugo Cabret. But in the other 8 categories Hugo is definitely one of the front runners this year. Probably the only reason Hugo will not win the Motion Picture of the Year would be a the lack of a lead actor or support actor nomination. Although I seriously thought that Ben Kingsley did a fantastic job as George Milies. Hugo is as good if not better than either The Descendants or The Artist which undeniably are the favourites for this year’s Motion Picture of the Year but would miss it by a whisker.

It was only a matter of time before the likes of Martin Scorcese dabbled with the genre of Fantasia and The Invention of Hugo Cabret probably gave him the best platform to come up with one of his best movies to date. The thought process behind movies in the Fantasia genre just blows me to bits. There is just so much that you can assume to be possible under the genre but it does take great writing and better execution with the movie for it to be viewed as believable. Even if it means inanimate objects or robots such as the Automoton to be created using the basic principles of winding mechanisms as in a watch. Objects which then can become the object of affection for a 13-14 year old who has just lost his father and takes upon himself to get it working by stealing odd parts from the railway station in Paris. Simply stunning I say.

It does surprise me that the likes of Ben Kingsley, especially with his endearing performance, didn’t get a Best Supporting Actor nomination. Or for that matter Asa Butterfield or Chloë Grace Mortez who have both come up with such sincere and heart touching performances that they definitely deserve a strong mention. Hugo joins another endless list of movies which haven’t been considered by a bunch of morons to deserve a release along with the global release in India. 8 on 10 once again. I would think The Artist was just a tad better. Difficult call to take though.

Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2781978137/

Safe House

Safe House rates amongst one of THE most anticipated movies of the year 2012. It released yesterday in the US and I wonder what the response has been like. I honestly was disappointed to see yet another CIA movie with little or no difference in either story or the making of the movie. It is the same old stale CIA story that the audiences would probably yawn through this time. I know that I did. In fact, in a rare instance, I walked out mid way to get myself something to eat. Something my close friends know that would be impossible unless 2 conditions are met – 1. I am extremely hungry and 2. I am not terribly excited with what is happening on screen. Both necessary and sufficient conditions were met this time around.

Daniel Espinosa is another one of those newbie directors who has joined an endless list in Hollywood (and for that matter even Bollywood). A list which grows by the day. A list that includes all newbie directors who need to move back to film school or get an internship or Assistant Directorship under a big name for a few years and then come back to attempt direction.

But in all fairness, Espinosa is not the only one to blame this time around. The writer of this story is David Guggenheim again a newbie who seems to have created Safe House as a mishmash of several espionage movies from the past and presented a goulash to the audiences who he definitely believes are not intelligent enough to work out that it is just “old wine in new bottle”. The only difference in angle that I could see is the introduction of the concept of a place where CIA suspects or “guests” as they call them are taken. This place is called a “Safe House” – no points for guessing that.

Denzel Washington is far too talented and mature an actor to be caught wasting his time with silly stories like these. I would have expected Ryan Reynolds to also look the other way when approached with the concept but then Reynolds hasn’t had his share of action / Espionage movies in his resumé. And what was Vera Farmiga doing there with a silly outfit which does no justice to the fact that she is one of THE most good looking women in Hollywood today – not to mention one of THE most talented actresses as well.

Saved by the cast is what Espinosa would be thinking to himself currently. Without this the man could have kissed everything he had good bye. Lucky Espinosa. Not so lucky producer. 5 on 10 for this average spy story. Can download instead of watching on big screen. Maybe rent a DVD.

Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3006438937/

Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu

Disclaimer – My disdain for Kareena Kapoor has nothing to do with my comments or views of the movie in the following paragraphs. The disdain has, is and will always be there but I am committed to giving a neutral and unbiased view of the movie and will not be swayed by my absolute disgust with the lady in question.

Shakun Batra was the assistant director of some sorts for Jaane Tu Ya Jaane Na & Rock On and something random with Don as well. So it was only a matter of time that she was given an opportunity for her first full length picture. And the part that she has written the story too (as claimed in the credits) should be taken with a pinch of salt. Shakun joins the mainstream Bollywood band wagon in true Bollywood ishtyle with an “inspired” movie – partially inspired from that Ashton Kutcher and Cameron Diaz starrer called What Happens in Vegas. The similarity of course doesn’t extend to the winning of a few million dollars but moves on to instead build fraandship etc. etc. Thoda “yawn” ho jaata hai (gets you a bit sleepy u see).

But then what else would one expect from a Valentines weekend release. I was in fact quite pleased that there were no tear jerking moments in the entire movie. Some which make you feel a little bad for the half an expression hero (read Aamir Khan’s nephew) but that’s about it. A pity though that the expression count has gone back in time to where he started from.

And the controlled excitement that the disgusting lead actress has is a welcome change from her earth shattering, chalk on the board squeaky types, performances that we are used to in the past. Boman Irani is as always picture perfect in his role as the over bearing father who believes in the adage from a shoe company (am I sounding too much like Times of India?) which said that at the Olympics you don’t win silver you lose gold.

Very disappointed though with the performances of the rest of cast with the wreckers in chief being Ratna Pathak Shah and Ram Kapoor both of who are fantastic actors in their own right and have needlessly gone over the top this time around with really bad performances. It was as if they had to do something to make the lead pair look good. So they decided to look pathetic in the bargain.

What is good though is the way Batra has ended the movie. A not at all corny end to an otherwise very corny movie all through. 5 on 10 after great deliberation. A point or 2 from the ever reliable Amit Trivedi for his music takes this movie to watchable levels.

Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi443325977/

The Artist

One of the best parts about writing reviews – other than watching some stellar movies of course – is the research that I have to do before and sometimes after the movie. And the number of interesting tidbits it throws up is just amazing. I came across a dime a dozen interesting facts and figures while researching for The Artist. However, the one that is bound to get repeated over the next few weeks, leading upto the big day – 26th Feb 2012 – is the 1927 movie titled Wings which is the only silent movie to have ever won an Oscar for Best Picture. An effort that The Artist is touted to soon emulate. Now lets see why people say that shall we?

What shall we say, goes into making a movie? Theres firstly a story that needs to be interesting enough to hold the audience’s attention for about 90 minutes or thereabouts. And the story should have 3 parts – The start (5-10 mins or so), the body or the middle (60-70 mins or so) and the end (10-15 mins or so) – the ratios can change depending on the movie but not too much. A good movie creates enough excitement in the first few minutes to generate enough excitement in the audience’s mind to want to watch the balance isn’t it?

Lets now move onto an integral part of movie making i.e. direction. The guy behind the camera who is responsible to paint a vision of how the story needs to come to life. The person who is the brain of the project – a leader who is capable of carrying the entire crew with him. The clearer this guy is in his head, the better movie is right?

Forming an integral part would next be the cast – the lead actors (female & male) who need to be capable of translating the director’s instructions into exactly what is expected. There is the support cast who is there to perform a role and must do so to the best of their ability. There is a possibility of some animals in the story and therefore it is important to get some who are great @ following instructions i.e. very well trained.

Lastly there are the support staff i.e. camera men, light men, editors, special effects guys, pre-production people, post production people – all of who need to ensure perfect execution for that perfect movie. Right?

Chances are that if a movie were to score 8 on all counts – unlike a few who score 9+ on some and less than 6 on the others – would be more likely to win awards and accolades right? The artist checks all the boxes at 8 or more. And who says you need talkie to get across a story. The expressions of the actors and the placards which come in between to call out the dialogues more than make up for the lack of spoken word. I could not find a flaw in The Artist at all. If I were forced to find some, I would say, it is just too simple and straightforward – but who says that’s bad eh? I am going to stick my neck out on this one. Close call between The Artist & The Descendants for best movie this year. I would say The Artist just for refreshing our memory on that old adage that a picture paints a thousand words. 8.5 on 10. And not to forget that the Academy will have only one statue to give out against 3 for The Descendants :):):)

So rest at ease folks. It is not for nothing that the Academy has put this one up for 10 nominations. Simply put, it scores more than 8 in all of them!!! Therefore not surprising either that it is @ 126 in the imdb Top 250 movies of all time. I have a grouse though – why not Bérénice Bejo for Best Actress and why put her in the Supporting Actress Category? Nevertheless ….Do not miss this one!!!! It is fantastic!!!

Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2003082265/

Albert Nobbs

Most movies which show a woman portraying a man or vice versa are quite the funny variety stemming from the comedy of errors that would ensue in the eventuality of it happening. Cannot remember any one movie with the exception of Boys Don’t Cry which has not picked up this topic in a serious fashion (open to correction – TransAmerica doesn’t count). Albert Nobbs becomes the second one in my memory to do it. And it is done well.

It is a very slow movie and dialogue intensive to begin with. So if you aren’t into that kind of thing then I would strongly suggest that you avoid this movie. But I can also assure you that each frame has been painstakingly made. Rodrigo García has gone through the process of painting each frame like an artist would paint a picture. Could it have been faster – yeah sure. But I guess the end product would not have been better than what has come out eventually.

Albert Nobbs adds to another list that I have been keeping a close watch over this year – that of a female dominated star cast. Hardly any men in there. One male actor who has a reasonable role in Aaron Johnson as the loser Joe. Brendan Gleeson as the good doctor has some role. Every other male character has bit parts at best. Even the better known star such as Jonathan Rhys Meyers has some 2 minutes of screen time.

The stand out part of Albert Nobbs – and yet again The Academy has proven its detractors wrong – are some stunning performances from Glenn Close & Janet McTeer both of whom play men in a man’s world. A very subdued character of Nobbs played by Glenn Close is very unlike the more spunky, aggressive characters that she is normally stereotyped in. Had to be a fall out of the character that she was playing. That of a girl who is raped by a bunch of goons at age 14 and decides that the only way for her to survive in the big bad world is to be a man. A welcome change which is executed very well indeed. A nomination well earned.

The story of Mr. Page (Janet McTeer) is one of the husband being a wife beater and in a night filled with drink beats her up badly enough for her to lose her uterus. She plays the more aggressive character of the two and I would hazard a statement here that she has played the role with more passion that probably Glenn Close. Maybe my eyes playing tricks but I thought I noticed a distint difference.

Either ways, the movie is not meant for Indian audiences who will yawn their way through the better part of 2 hours. Select screening recommended in select cinemas such as PVR Phoenix for best results. 7 on 10 is my verdict on the movie.

Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1358863897/

Moneyball

Which one of the following do you really like 1. Baseball
2. Statistics
3. Economics
4. Sport in general
5. None of the above

If you ticked on 5 then I suggest that you avoid Moneyball like the plague. You will find nothing in it that will keep you riveted to the screen. Chances are that you will walk out of the hall scratching your head and cursing the Academy for yet again picking a dud for the Best Movie nomination. If you ticked on 1 or 2 or 3 and have a deep love for either of these subjects then chances are that you will find the movie very interesting and will comfortably sit through for more than 130 minutes. But you need to pay close attention to what is being said. If you ticked only 4 then you will struggle through the movie. You will have to be patient enough to survive the parts that are heavy and I mean really heavy on numbers and strategies. You need to be even more cued into what is being said and you have a good chance of understanding the movie better than people who have not done what I have recommended.

In the unlikely event that you have ticked 1, 2 and 3 then you have hit yourself a jackpot. Chances are that you are Peter Brand (Johan Hill) who is an economics major from Yale and has found his calling in baseball. Who strongly believes that getting the championship is about winning more games. Winning more games is about getting to more bases and getting more people out. Winning more games is about scoring more runs that the opposition. Adds up doesn’t it? And who would have been better placed to experiment with this method than the General Manager of the Oklahoma As i.e. Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) who is at his wits end trying to figure out how to manage a baseball team @ a budget of $38 million a year which is the lowest in Major League Baseball. The two went on to revolutionise player and team selection over the early part of the previous decade. Stuff that case studies are made of.

Based on a book written by Michael Lewis "Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game" – the movie has earned itself 6 nominations. None of the nominations – including Best Picture – are surprising. That it may not win the best picture is mainly due to other movies such as The Descendants and The Artist being better made on more parameters than the 6 that Moneyball finds itself nominated. Excellent editing for certain and great performances from both Pitt and Hill who seem to have a chemistry of sorts on screen. They just get along seemingly very well. Havent read the book so cannot comment on the quality of screenplay adaptation and I am not qualified to comment on the sound mixing either.

What I can definitely say though is that the movie is well made and worth a watch. But keep a look out for what I called out in the first paragraph. An understanding of basic baseball, economics and statistics will go a long way in understanding the movie. 7.5 on 10. Deservedly in the top 10 movies of the year. But not surprising that it hasn’t released in India yet.

Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3229326361/

Batman Begins

I could not have missed the opportunity to kick start my movies for the weekend with a Saturday nite show of Batman Begins. And it obviously helped that on a Saturday I had been movie free!!! Sacrilegious I say!!! So I wasn’t going to let this pass. And my respect for Christopher Nolan keeps going up every time I see a movie. I wasn’t watching Batman Begins for the first time mind you. But each time I see it, I build a deeper sense of respect for Nolan who is not just one of the finest directors of our time but also one of the visionaries of cinema. Bob Kane couldn’t have asked for a better director to bring to life “Batman” – the way it was supposed to be.

People must have been doggone bored with Batman by the time this one released. 4 Batman movies had preceded Batman Begins – none of which had told the story of Batman, the way it was supposed to be told. More importantly, there were 3 Batmans in 4 movies. And 3 directors. With the exception of the Tim Burton / Michael Keaton combination, the other 2 not only failed to excite the audiences but also left them with a distaste for Batman movies like never before. Thankfully, Batman Begins came in after a hiatus of 8 years and audiences had probably forgotten the trauma that they went through with Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy. One of the few movies on imdb that has a score of below 4 (from what I have seen). Thankfully Catwoman (2004) didn’t feature Batman and so people were fine with another Batman movie.

They wouldn’t have regretted spending the better part of nearly 2.5 hours watching the saga of Batman unfold from Bruce Wayne’s “scaredy cat” days as a child with fear of bats to his nerdy looking days when he is studying at college to a point in time where he decides to really follow best friend Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) advise and decides to really do something about the grime around him rather than just claim to be a good man below his façade. Batman Begins sees the introduction of Ra’s Al Ghul and The Scarecrow aka Dr. Johnathan Crane (Cillian Murphy) both of whom are portrayed brilliantly by Nolan. It kind of sets the tone for the sequels to come where very clearly, the villain would have as much screen time & content of role if not more than Batman himself. A fact that had till then been vastly underplayed with the exception of the first Batman where Jack Nicholson played the role of The Joker.

Batman Begins is the truest and the most sincere representation of the Batman Story that I have seen so far. It was no surprise that the movie closes with the introduction of the “calling card” and sets things up beautifully for Dark Knight. Must watch. 8 on 10.

Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi2743468569/

Chronicle

I guess we have had way too many movies now which have been shot – in layman terms – using a normal recording camera. The kind of stuff which gives you the effect of it having been recorded by someone like you and me. I guess Josh Trank – yet another director who is moving from a single TV series to mainstream cinema – doesn’t quite agree with me that it is passé. From the looks of it (read – scores on imdb) people are lapping it up as it is being served. Chronicle is currently scoring nearly 8 on 10 on the imdb rankings. Not on my scale though. Don’t get me wrong. I think don’t think it is a bad movie at all. Just not good enough to come close to 8 that’s all.
Whats different about those video cam recorded movies from Chronicle is a slightly different story. Most of the stuff that I have seen are either about the end of the world or some random ghost story which went on to make zillions in the BO. Yawn. Not so much the case here though.

I would hate to be Andrew Detmer (Dane DeHaan). Why would anyone want to be Andy. How many people get ragged in their senior year by all and sundry? And if that is not sufficient, get beaten up by Sr. Detmer (Michael Kelly) every nite for any reason whatsoever. Like because your door is locked. Matt Garetty (Alex Russell) is the only friend of sorts that Andy has. But Matt doesn’t qualify since he is Andy’s cousin and happens to be a senior as well. To make matters worse – Andy’s mother is terminally ill and is on constant medication which the family can barely afford. Did I mention that Andy has this fetish of shooting (on camera) everything that he sees? There is a video cam constantly between Andy and the rest of the world. That’s the chronicle that he is making – arbit no? It gets more arbit when a chance encounter with a UFO without the F so UO in a cave during a party gets Andy, Matt and front runner for class president – Steve Montgomery (Michael B Jordan) special powers of telekinesis which eventually gets Andy completely ballistic.

The message that Josh Trank has tried to give through the movie is that age old adage which goes something like this – Power Corrupts. And Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely. The performances are quite good actually. Dane DeHaan looks like the nerdy fellow who has something sinister inside him – quite errie actually. Alex Russell and the wanna B Jersey #23 are also pretty decent in their performances. For a first timer, Trank also makes the cut. So there is a future for a lot of people involved with this movie in Hollywood. Just bored with the Video Cam look and a story that kind of goes haywire towards the end. 6 on 10 I say.

Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2464325145/

Man On A Ledge

Asger Leth – quite a different name right? He is new to this business with the exception of one arbit TV Series which sounds half French very honestly. Ghosts of Cité Soleil. That’s what it is called. Sounds weird right. But let me tell you that Asger Leth knows how to direct a thriller. I was slowly but surely taken into Man On A Ledge. The trailers seemed interesting enough and the movie turned out to be even better. Asger seems to be one who understands the genre of Thriller movies better than most new directors.

The essence of a Thriller being to begin slowly but surely. Set up the tempo by giving the audience a background of what exactly has happened. Also give the audience a sneak peek into what could happen. Throw in a couple of twists and turns in between this entire shebang to throw the audience just that little bit off track. And then again get them back just as they are about to give up on what is happening. And finish off in style with an ending that the audience could have predicted but yet couldn’t have because of the twists that you have thrown in. That is what one would call great narration. And Asger Leth seems to have been taught by someone who really knows how to create a thriller. All credit to Asger that he has been able to convert what he has learnt into very solid execution.

What helps Asger is also very good support from a cast which is made up of reasonably well known names but no huge stars with the exception of one Ed Harris who plays a negative role – probably the first time after The Rock (which was more of an anti hero). But he sure does deliver. He does have the strongest screen presence of the cast undeniably. Sam Worthington is quite solid as well as the protagonist. Does get over shadowed by Harris in the few scenes that they are with each other but that’s Harris’s experience which gets the better of Worthington.

Elizabeth Banks is probably the only weak link in the entire movie. She has performed reasonably well but in some scenes, where she is unable to pull off a convincing scene. Like when she tries to get a fingerprint off Nick Cassidy by pretending to be a smoker – oops scene very honestly. Doesn’t come off well at all. And a dialogue or 2 where the intensity just doesn’t come through. Other notable performances from Jamie Bell as Nick’s brother Joey and the sizzling Genesis Rodriguez as Angie. Genesis actually shows that there is some acting talent other than just sizzling hot looks.

Net net, Worth spending time and hard earned money for this 6.5 on 10. Deducted half a point for some basic consistency errors. But don’t worry. Most people will not get the errors. Worth watching.

Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi4159021337/

War Horse

Very rarely has a Spielberg movie been ignored for the Oscars. Of the 27 full length features that the master has directed, only 4 have not received a nomination of any kind. They are Sugarland Express, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Firelight & Always. Even movies which have not really upto the mark such as Minority Report and the atrocious The War of The Worlds have been nominated at least. So when you have a very good movie such as War Horse, it is not very surprising that it has received 6 nominations including Best Picture.

Spielberg continues to weave his magic in this adaptation of a book by Michael Morpurgo and the stage play of the same name which has run to full houses across the world (wonder how they would get a horse on stage though). However, the silver screen doesn’t limit the master by any length and ergo he has created some magic. I have, as I tweeted earlier, always loved movies that feature animals – the serious ones like Sea Biscuit and not the ridiculous ones like Shaggidy. Surprisingly the well made movies featuring animals have all been those with horses. It was only a matter of time that Spielberg found a story that caught his interest.

War Horse traverses the life of a colt born in Devon and bought by a stubborn self respecting farmer who goes by the name of Ted Narracott (Peter Mullan) for the princely sum of 30 guineas in a head to head auction against his landlord. The horse although not cut out for farm work builds a strong relationship with Ted’s son Albert (Jeremy Irvine) who names the horse Joey and eventually gets Joey to do the impossible – plough the fields. However, with misfortune befalling the Narracott family, Ted is forced to sell the well bred horse to the Army just when World War I breaks out. The horse then moves from Devon to France with the Brits. He then moves onto the German Army, a French girl, back to the German Army, the British Army and then finally back to Albert over time. The story of how he goes about this and the spirit that is so often shown by animals is just stunningly portrayed by the master.

While I would not say that War Horse is the best movie of the year, it isn’t surprising that it is in the top 10 movies of 2011 for certain. I cannot claim to know much about Sound Editing, Sound Mixing and Art Direction but I can say for certain that Janusz Kaminski’s cinematography continues to come upto the standards that he has set for himself over his past 4 nominations, 2 of which converted to Oscars (Schindler’s List & Saving Private Ryan). War Horse’s cinematography is quite similar to the 2 movies which have won this for Kaminski in the past. Plus the fact that he has won it every alternate time he has been nominated must be playing on his mind as well.

War Horse is a typical serious slow Spielberg movie but it does enough to keep your interest alive all through. Do I think it will win the Oscar for best movie? Nopes. But should it be in your “must watch” list for 2011 – HELL YES!!! 7.5 on 10.

Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3969097241/

A Few Best Men

So the fact is that I was supposed to watch the Charlize Theron RomCom titled “Young Adult” and realized that mistakes in online schedules are not characteristic of India at all. For 2 days in a row, I experienced a gaffe in show timings at the local theatre in Adelaide called Wallis Cinemas @ Mitcham Mall. Firstly, The Iron Lady was called out as the 1205 show and turned out to be the 1235 show – lucky I say. But not so lucky when The Young Adult was called out as the 1830 show and turned out to be the 1710 show. So now what? I wasn’t going to go back without watching a movie. So I picked up the 1910 show of A Few Best Men which not only resulted in 90 minutes of acute pain but also in missing the first minute or 2 of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. I am not sure what pissed me off more – watching the movie or missing the first couple of minutes of the next one. I guess it was both!!!!


AFBM turned out to be an excruciatingly painful example of British Slapstick – yes there is a genre of comedy called British slapstick because I just experienced it and it sucks!!!! While I didn’t expect a stunning example of classic comedy – the posters were quite obvious about it – I didn’t expect the latest form of British torture. Indeed MI5 would be seriously considering putting those serious terrorists who refuse to break, through the likes of AFBM. Spill out the secrets that you have hidden from us or else we will force you to watch AFBM.

From the first frame it becomes quite obvious that you are in for a tough time. Mia Ramme (Laura Brent) meets David Locking (Xavier Samuel) during a random vacation in Tuvalu (a Polynesian island for those who are unaware) and they fall in love over 10 days and decide to get married. Now Mia is Aussie. And David is well …. British. So it comes as no surprise when David’s mates back home turn out to be a bunch of idiots – Tom (Kris Marshall), Graham (Kevin Bishop) and Luke (Tim Draxl). By this time you are quite certain that u r in for a more than tough time!!!!

The pain gets excruciating when the actual facts start falling out of the cupboard. Mia is a Senator in waiting. Her dad is the current Senator and is rich like nearly nothing else. David is a nitwit. His friends get pally with a dope runner as soon as they get to Oz. They are even bigger nitwits. Mia’s sister is twice her size and pretending to be a lesbian. Her mother is a frustrated wife of a senator. 4 snorts of lethal cocaine doesn’t kill someone it just makes them extremely happy and go blabbering all over the place. The list is endless.

To cut a long story short, Stephan Elliott (Priscilla Queen of the Desert) cannot direct to save his life. The cast cannot act to save theirs. The dialogues suck. The comedy is non existant unless u are a sucker for slapstick (not to mention severe pain). And even if this is playing on an in-flight, which it will starting a month or two, you should avoid it like the plague I say. 3 on 10 for some decent moments that enable you to survive this crap.

Watch the trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf4aaxIH-nQ