Movie Review: Room..its confines are its best times

The worst thing you can do before you watch Room is to watch the movie trailer. Even if you watch the first 20 seconds, it?ll give away all that the Room has in store in terms of plotline and plot twists. Then again, it might not be as bad because the Room is really about the presentation and the performances than what happens to its occupants.

Working in the tiny space that the Room offers can be an exhausting and claustrophobic task. However, the director does a brilliant job and coupled with the exquisite camerawork gives us the best moment the movie has to offer, within those confines. Sure, its intense and not at all pretty, still it delivers what it needs to. As the audience, you too begin to feel confined, wonder if the room extends to more than it appears and sympathize with the occupants of the room. This would be roughly the first half stage of the two hour runtime. So far, so very good.

The movie makes references to Alice in Wonderland and the rabbit hole she disappears into. That is an apt frame of reference to wonder at what goes wrong in the second half. Given perhaps a thousand possibilities after the limited arena in the first half, the Room begins to lose its firm structure and foundations. If this is done on purpose by the director, to align with the confusion its central characters feel by the course of events, it would be a masterstroke. Unfortunately, it just feels like the director (or maybe the writer since this is a book adaptation) genuinely got confused with what to do with all the options now available. It is only in its final 20 minutes that that movie truly redeems itself and gives meaningful dialogues and some structure to what it wants to convey ? the ending being particularly noteworthy.

There are gaping plotholes and convenient contrivances in the Room but all that can be ignored and forgotten simply because of the earnest performance of the mother and son at the heart of this unusual tale. An absolutely astounding performance by child actor Jacob Tremblay is more than ably supported by a wonderful performance by Brie Larson. These two are the life of the movie and together deliver its most memorable moments ? though the feather in the Room?s cap is that you view the entire movie from the eyes of the child. In a side act, we also have a short but credible performance from Joan Allen (Pamela Landy from the Bourne series).

Barring the half hour that the Room comes somewhat off its hinges, it offers a deeply stirring peep into a beautiful mother-son relationship and the innocence and simplicity of childhood despite its terrifying situation. I can say this much for sure ? you?ll emerge from the theater with a better appreciation for your life and the world you live in ? for that and the astounding performances its worth glancing through the skylight and looking into the world of the Room

Movie Review: Star Wars: The Force Awakens..with renewed vigour

As you sit in the hall watching the beloved spectacle unfold on the screen, you are more and more convinced that this revival was the right thing to do. This franchise has captured the imagination of millions in its glory days and if you can do justice to it ? then moving the franchise forward is simply the right thing to do. The great news is that with JJ Abrams at the helm ? the early indications sure do look promising.

Taking the storyline itself into the future after Return of the Jedi was a bold and very risky move. There is a lot of nostalgia attached with the old characters and this would?ve been a sensitive one to negotiate. However, I think Abrams has done an admirable job of meshing the old and the new. It tugs at the heartstrings for just a bit but keeps the focus firmly on the action. So much so that this movie simply seems a continuation of the franchise. It is refreshing to see that Abrams is not trying to change much which seems to be the trend with all the reboots and story advances the other franchises are having these days.

The art direction and cinematography is excellent. You quickly get immersed in this distinctly different world and with the technological advances over the years, the action looks simply spectacular. Screen transitions are very much like the earlier movies as well. While the 3D is hardly there, you should catch this one in IMAX if you can, simply because the giant screen would make the action much more immersive. I wish though, that the sequels that follow are even shot in an Avatar-esque 3D camera ? that would really be something.

The story has new characters albeit in familiar plotlines. There are references to what has already happened but not to such an extent that you can?t follow the plot without watching or more likely, still remembering the original storyline. There are some pretty large plot gaps and convenient twists that make this new story pretty average. The climax disappoints in terms of content but the visuals look even more spectacular. One does get the distinct feeling however that this movie is packaged to be an opener to a new chapter of the franchise with more explosive and story laden sequels to follow.

The focus of this movie is largely on the action and the visuals so there isn?t much acting to do per se. However, everybody including the newcomers to the franchise, do a decent job. BB8 is probably going to become the next beloved mascot of this new generation of the series.


I think this is a promising start to a new chapter of the franchise. By staying true to its roots, paying homage to its original story and characters, rather than trying to replace them, Abrams has made quite the fanboy movie and given the series the respect it deserves. May the Force be with him as he now takes on the even trickier job of building a complex plotline in the sequels that are bound to follow.

Movie Review: Spectre..casts a terrible shadow on the Bond franchise

Mr Mendes ? let?s just face it. You don?t ?get? Bond. Either that, or the Bond that I?ve been a fan of - especially in the Pierce Brosnan era and post that in Casino Royale ? the one that was like a guilty pleasure that took me on an action packed, escapist adventure albeit with a wafer thin plot ? is more a matter of me not being mature enough and nothing to do with your seeming intent to kill everything that is beloved about this (so far) wonderful franchise. I sincerely doubt that is the case though.

I was appalled after watching Spectre and I wouldn?t recommend it to anybody ? least of all fans of the action adventure Bond like myself. I had a sneaky suspicion post Skyfall itself ? while the world was marveling at what Mr. Mendes had achieved ? humanizing Bond and all that drivel ? I saw it as a ?wannabe Dark Knight? that didn?t even come close and a homage to HomeAlone in its second half. Still, I wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt. Skyfall had its moments ? maybe Sam Mendes too could do justice to Bond.

After sitting through an agonizing 2 hours 30 minutes of Spectre though, I am firmly convinced -if you want to save the Bond franchise, please hand over the reins to someone who understands him better. We might as well invite Mr Mendes to Bollywood though ? what with true love, heroic rescues and even I love you moments, why he would fit right in.

Spectre doesn?t feel like a Bond movie. The start is promising ? one explosive action sequence makes you sit up and take notice. And then, it all just dies a slow and painful death. Bond is supposed to be about Bond himself, his death defying stunts, his dogged single mindedness on the mission and his outlandish actions to stay on course with one action sequence leading into another ? a web of deceit, espionage, sabotage and master plans galore. Instead Mr. Mendes will have you see the natural beauty, sights and sounds of the various places Bond ends up visiting. There will be slow ?supposedly? meaningful close up shots and as you gear up for something interesting to come, it?ll abruptly cut to the next scene leaving you wondering why was there a close up in the first place. This happens too many times to keep count.

The good and there is very little of it in my view, is the handful of action sequences that are shot well and keep you somewhat interested. There?s a ridiculous one involving a plane ? I don?t allude to that one. In between, it also manages a street car race/chase which could easily have been straight out of the Fast and Furious franchise. Let?s ignore that one as well. The camera angles and cinematography is the other plus.

Daniel Craig is also in sleepwalk mode in his role. Christoph Waltz plays his act well and has commanding screen presence. Ralph Fiennes is a fine actor but he is wasted as the new M and the new Q is too much of a kid. Like so many of the Bollywood remakes of old movies, Mr. Mendes just seems intent on re-modelling Bond to the very opposite of all that it was, even if it shreds the very soul of the franchise in the process.

I guess Spectre is aptly named ? it is truly a sinister apparition that threatens the Bond franchise to have the most painful of last memories. This is not how I want to see the Bond franchise end. He deserves a better farewell than this. There was some talk of Nolan taking over this franchise, before Mr. Mendes unfortunately decided to oblige us one more time. Maybe Nolan can provide some saving grace. Somebody, anybody ? let?s do justice to Bond ? get one more action packed adventure and let him have his moment in the sun one last time before he fades into the sunset.

Movie Review: Bridge of Spies..makes an ethereal connection

This one almost seemed a no brainer.  With Tom Hanks in the lead and the veteran Steven Spielberg directing it was a foregone conclusion that this was going to be good. The only question now was..how good..

However, as the movie began and leaning into the first 40 minutes or so you suddenly weren't so sure.  After the thrilling opening sequence,  the movie slows down to such an extent that one begins to have doubts. In fact, unless you really took a keen interest in the proceedings  you could even be excused of wanting to snooze every now and then. However, you can easily cast aside these concerns.

That's because Bridge of Spies is well and truly a director's movie. He has paced it the way he wants you to experience it.  if you still have  doubts just watch the way a plane crashes and shots are fired to be assured that this director knows what he's doing. I better not say any more at this point.

You can't plan to watch  Bridge of Spies hoping for a thriller - with tense car chases, cross and double cross, espionage, mystery and intrigue  at every turn.Bridge of Spies is none of the above. It has a unique storyline, a context that takes some connecting to and a tone and subtlety that not all will appreciate. Like a mature wine of a particular vintage it takes a true connoisseur to appreciate the richness of its texture.

Tom Hanks pulls off a relatively easier  character, given his acting talent, with a wonderfully restrained performance. A special word of mention to Mark Rylance who makes his presence felt despite the much shorter air time.

Bridge of Spies is not a must watch for all. However for the few who can appreciate it, it will certainly feature very high in that list. Go find out if it manages to make a connect with you.

Movie Review: Argo..Just Go!!!

After long last I can describe what has been a near-perfect movie viewing experience watching the masterfully directed Argo. Oh! What a relief.

Based on a true story, Argo has a rather ordinary plotline for a movie. Even if I shared it with you, you?ll probably say..are you sure this?ll be worth a watch? I mean, it sounds rather like a documentary considering the situation it is set in?and I couldn?t blame you. But wait till you enter the theatres and the siege begins. You?ll feel like you are in it, part of the mayhem..maybe even one of the six..ah, but I get ahead of myself.

Despite having a pretty good hunch on how it?ll turn out well ahead, you still can?t be too sure?that?s the kind of underlying tension Argo creates. Most scenes are close up shots and camerawork as well as editing is superlative. The movie may tend to slow down but its just the right pacing for the narrative to be told and once it picks up you?ll probably feel the adrenalin rush. There are practically no explosions or death defying action stunts, yet the movie sends your pulse racing and a plane taking off may never have mattered more

Despite not looking it, Argo is a sure thrill ride. This is achieved through brilliant direction, excellent use of background sounds, great camerawork and slick editing ? there?s little one can complain about. The performances are great as well especially from Affleck and Bryan Cranston (from Breaking Bad fame). John Goodman and Alan Arkin provide the satirical humour and most of their lines will make you chuckle
Oh! and be sure to stay back for the credits where you can witness the level of detailing and research that was put in to make this movie what it is or you?ll really miss something

On a side note, What does Argo mean? Well ?I am tempted to respond to that but then I?d probably have to use an expletive in this post (something, I try and avoid as a rule)?so go ?find out for yourself?

Movie Review: Cloud Atlas..doesn?t scale much heights

There is an interesting TV series these days, called The Touch..which covers how we are all connected in ways we can?t imagine and while its nothing out of the ordinary it beautifully creates all the links to put across a coherent story at the end of 45 minutes. Cloud Atlas..is the exact opposite to that

What Cloud Atlas delivers is a journey that transcends multiple lives across centuries and then keeps flitting back and forth between them enough to make your head spin. When you tell such a complex tale you need to help the audience connect the dots and follow the plot in wondrous fascination (read movies like Crash and Inception) but Cloud Atlas is merciless in that department. After spending an agonizing 164 minutes, you are still as clueless as ever and wondering what to connect with what. In fact, you would be forgiven to believe that if you took any 6 random lives and drew them up together like this you?ll probably see this much connect anyways

The real hero of this terribly long tale is the, often ignored, make-up department. Most of the time your favourite activity while watching the movie is figuring out who amongst Tom Hanks, Hugh Grant, Halle Berry and the others are you really watching right now. So marvelous is the make up and presentation, that it takes a while to realize that the punk writer you are watching is really Hanks or that the savage you see on screen now is really Hugh Grant under awesome make up and prosthetics. Two thumbs up for that

With such a stellar cast the performances are bound to be good and they are. The entire cast play their multiple complex roles to perfection, no exceptions. The music and background score which ideally should have played a more integral role given the context of the movie is beautiful but limited.

At the end of it all, Cloud Atlas may be a wonderful story penned by British author David Mitchell(in all fairness, I haven?t read it yet). But the lack of connect and the rather ambitious attempt of telling too much of this tale all at once, makes this movie a rather tedious and unsatisfying watch. Other than the make-up, Cloud Atlas didn?t scale much heights for me..whether this journey is still worth your while is up to you

Movie Review: Ironman 3..the thrusters work well, but run out of steam

The highly anticipated blockbuster of the summer, Ironman 3 starts off exactly as you want it to. The machinery seems perfectly in order, the script seems to have been given due thought, the pacing is just right. At a perfect, unexpected moment the thrusters kick in and the bird is in motion with some jaw dropping action. Brilliant, this is exactly what you came to see ? you settle in deeper in your chair for more of the same and a thrilling Avengers-esque experience yet again. Only..that doesn?t happen (and hence the title ? the thrusters run out)

Ironman 3 has a lot to offer. Excellent visuals, typical Tony Stark humor an over-abundance of action, very good special effects and cinematography. The performances are also pretty good with Robert Downey Jr. donning the Ironman suit with consummate ease and Gwyneth Paltrow doing a good job with Pepper Potts, who has a meatier role this time round.

However, it pains me to say this but what could have been an explosive and emotionally packed superhero movie or just good old plain action masterfully presented..ends up being neither of the two resulting in almost average fare as the credits roll in. Its not a bad watch per se, don?t get me wrong, but by the end of it all it comes closer to becoming Ironman 2 rather than the origin movie, which I would still rate as the best movie of the franchise yet

What?s worse is that this didn?t necessarily need to be the case especially since the first half of Ironman 3 is wonderfully done. Picking up after the events of Avengers rather than the Ironman movies was a smart move and there is an instant connect. The build up is near perfect and the glimpses of the nemesis are exactly how they ought to be. In fact, Ironman 3 almost offers one of most menacing villains in recent times (and I don?t consider the Joker recent any more so don?t start comparing) . I say almost for a reason; it was a smart ploy but it kinda fell flat for reasons I can?t explain just yet, you?ll figure out when you watch it. As for the 3D of the movie ? well, its strictly okay. Ironman 3 could comfortably be seen in 2D though some of wide angle sequences could be considered worthy of the IMAX experience

In a nutshell, this installment of Ironman had the potential to be the best. But by going the tried and tested action explosion route in the second half, it ends up being just another Ironman movie. Whether that does enough for you is your call

Movie Review: Mud?leaves its imprint

Mud has routinely been described as a ?coming of age? movie ? I could scarcely put it better myself. It is a coming of age story about a boy who realizes the complexity of relationships and emotions; there are hardly any bangs and explosions ? yet Mud leaves quite a mark as it draws to a close

Mud takes its time. You start off bleary eyed almost snoozing every now and then and the plot takes its time to develop. By the second half though, you are emotionally invested and wide awake, sometimes even holding your breath in anticipation

Not everything is explained, yet since you get emotionally invested, you get what is implied. There is an underlying layer to it all that you might have to be ponder a bit to get, but its worth it. One of the reasons I really like movies like The Social Network and The Descendants so much is because they present people as people intact with all their shades of grey. Without giving anything away, Mud accomplishes this as well, leading to an enjoyable cinematic experience.

The cinematography is breath-taking. No slick shots ? just some beautiful pictures ? any frame of the movie would do well as a picture postcard with perfect lighting and camera angles.

While he can be mistaken to be the hero (judging by the poster), Matthew McConaughey isn?t really the protagonist, though he does a great job of his character. That role belongs to the highly impressive Tye Sheridan who as Ellis dominates most of the screen time and does complete justice to it as well. Ellis is a pretty complex yet restrained character and Tye Sheridan does a wonderful job. All the others do a good supporting act as well. The only nagging issue is that they all have some kind of accent which gets you to miss some of the good dialogues. (PVR seems to always get it wrong as to which movies they should have subtitles and which they shouldn?t)

Mud, then, leaves its imprint. If you do end up watching it this weekend, I am pretty sure its not one of those that?ll wash off so easily. Whether such movies are your type, is another matter altogether

Movie Review: Star Trek: Into Darkness..lights up the franchise

I just love it when a movie goes beyond the plot and understands its characters and what they stand for. I love it when a sequel in a franchise looks to be more than just a money spinner; when plot matters and plot development even more so; when the audience is kept guessing and interested till the very end. The good news is that all these boxes are checked in this sequel in the ever popular Star Trek franchise so go book your tickets right away

While the original movie itself was highly acclaimed and lauded ? I wasn?t so impressed by it. I thought it slowed down at precisely the wrong moments and there were plenty of dull moments as Captain Kirk came of age. The sequel, in my opinion, goes one better - it stays true to the franchise ? in rich exploration of the central characters, the relationship between Spock and Kirk and yet, spins a tale that keeps you interested all through. Add to that brilliant visual effects and great action and you have almost the total package.

Almost, I say, because the unnecessary post production 3D ruins what is a perfectly enjoyable 2D experience, without adding anything of value, save one or two brief frames. That and the predictable dialogues ? some pretty much the cheesy ones you have come to expect in such movies ? cast a minor shadow

More than performances, its really the characters that stand out. Kirk and Spock are all of legendary status already but John Harrison is perhaps the most intriguing to watch ? Benedict Cumberbatch completely nails it and you quickly forget Sherlock (he plays Sherlock Holmes in one of the best TV series today). You could hardly ask for a better Spock than Zachary Quinto (in this day and age) though the same cannot be said of Chris Pine (Kirk). As the protagonist of the film, let?s just say Chris Pine is only convincing in parts ? in some scenes he?s in his element and in others he looks completely off.

However, this movie really belongs to its director, J J Abrams. As someone, who clearly understands Star Trek and its characters, Abrams gets it bang on target (Pay particular attention to the voiceover at the end if you are a Star Trek fan). In one sequence, while I felt, he had gone a bit too far, he quickly inserts one dialogue that explains why that scene was so necessary. That said, there was still potential for this movie to be a tad shorter though Abrams does a fine job of it as it is.

So, if you haven?t beamed yourself into the theater already, you better get there at warp speed to see a promising sequel live up to its expectations ? for a change

Movie Review: The Conjuring..manages to summon quite a few spooks

What spooks one about horror is not the sudden bangs and loud noises but the slower stuff ? the focusing on a single frame, the camera slowly moving in, the slow build-up, that heart-in-the-mouth feeling over the unexpected that is about to unfold next and then the sudden..well, you get the point. With The Conjuring you get treated to exactly that..that is, at least for a while

Chances are that you would have seen this rare decent horror flick by now. If you still haven?t ? a word of advice. Don?t see any trailers. While the trailer itself is sufficient to spook you it definitely spoils the fun for you in the hall. If, however, you would like to meet with as little surprises in the dreary emptiness of a dark hall with a large screen ? then, by all means, see the trailers first. Bear in mind though, that if you do, then the first half of this movie would become a rather less eventful affair

The start of the movie is just apt with everything happy and hunky dory. There is a sense of gradation to the horror and as the family on screen becomes apprehensive, cautious, tentative and completely terrified in stages, so do you as the audience. Couldn?t have been better

However, as the movie builds, particularly in what would be the second half, it seems to teeter dangerously on the brink of relapsing into the stereotype till it simply falls in ? giving an over-dramatized finale all screams and ghouls intact. Thankfully this part is a pretty short end to an otherwise well-presented and sufficiently horrifying horror flick. The fact that it is supposed to be actually based on a true story only adds to the terror. There is an underlying sense of dread to every scene and you are worried about what might just unfold next. All the credit to the director for accomplishing that

The acting is also solid as each one including the five kids put in a good show. Lili Taylor as Carolyn Perron (am pretty sure you?d be googling that name once you?ve seen this flick) and Vera Farmiga as Lorraine Warren have the most meaty roles and are particularly effective

In summary then, there is every reason I?d say you give The Conjuring a visit and see what it manages to summon off you

Movie Review: Rush..powers forward with panache

Two very different but nonetheless great movies in two days..now that?s more like it, Year 2013. Supremely directed by Ron Howard, Rush is a spectacle that deserves the biggest of screens ? IMAX beckons..don?t miss it

Whether you are an F1 fan or not, whether you understand track dynamics or racing jargon is all immaterial. Based on a true story that can only be the stuff of immortals, Rush is a beautifully balanced act on and off the race track. The screeching of tyres, rustling of grass and roar of the engines is all there ? but it just feel natural and in line with the story being told. Never is there an attempt to over-emphasize the racing bit; clever editing takes care of that

Normally such movies would have one protagonist, whose life you would follow, feel the highs and lows with and would ultimate emerge triumphant. However, when the same act is to be pulled off with almost two protagonists, neither of whom are really white knights ? it?s a tough ask to build connect and empathy amongst the audience. Rush does this wonderfully well and Ron Howard can take a bow. With this movie, he has further stamped his credentials on credibly making realistic drama movies based on true stories (his others being A Beautiful Mind, Frost Nixon, Cinderalla Man etc.) and are further proof that he steer off fictional stuff like Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons

While the acting is good from both the leads (Chris Hemsworth and Daniel Bruhl) and Alexandra Maria Lara looks particularly lovely and expressive, most of the kudos for this one would go to the director, camerawork and crisp editing. The shots of the Japan Grand Prix and perfect use of the slow motion camera with the rain splashing in, is stuff that you would want to watch over and over again. Initially you might feel that there is very little context build up around the two leads ? but that you realize is deliberate since the real story lies somewhere else. Clocking at a comfortable 2 hours and 2 minutes, there is never a dull moment in Rush

To sum up then, Rush powers through and reaches the chequered flag in style, much like the heroes it celebrates. Rush to the theaters and book your seats to watch this enthralling spectacle

Movie Review: Prisoners..keeps you in captivity for too long

 
Its rare that I get to say that Hollywood made a movie that could?ve been much shorter and snappier. But this time, I can certainly say it. I missed some 10-15 minutes of the start of the movie and yet I found it too long to endure. Clocking at a rather long 2 hours 33 minutes, Prisoners takes its name a little too seriously and ends up making the audience feel like prisoners as well

This is especially sad since Prisoners is not a bad movie per se. Its got great acting, good direction for the most part and a decent script ? but the length of the movie simply deals a deadly blow on all the other stuff. You reach a point wherein you don?t really care whether the movie succeeds in pulling a rabbit out of a hat at the ending, as long as you can exit the hall ? the earlier the better. This has such an effect, that even when the film does throw in a dramatic twist that would?ve otherwise captivated you, you?re just too tired and exhausted to take notice

Prisoners does some things really well. It starts off (at least from the point I joined it) tense and excited with an investigation in full swing. Then you meet the two families, defeated and lost and that sets you on the downhill path. The increasing desperation and hopelessness of the situation is well shown till it starts feeling over done. At first one feels that maybe there isn?t much more to the script for them to show but by the end of it all ? you are only left wondering why in the world did they delay it so much. In fact, what is most puzzling is that when it all comes to light ? there are still plenty of seemingly unanswered questions ? you wonder why the movie didn?t spend more time focusing on those

The cast does try its best to lift things up, with Hugh Jackman putting in a particularly strong performance ? displaying the raw emotion of the helpless yet desperate father very convincingly. A big change from his Wolverine avatar but he is completely up to the task. Jake Gyllenhaal is also very good as the determined cop.

Watch Prisoners if you have enough time to kill and are willing to show a lot of patience in the hall while the director indulgently takes his time to tell his tale. Then and then alone, would this movie be worth your while and the ransom paid for the ticket money, feel justified

Movie Review: Gravity..deserves universal applause!!

Making a 3D in movie in space is a smart idea.Those of us who have been to a good planetarium will know that watching the stars and the blue planet from space is thrilling in itself. However, to make a movie like Alphonso Cuaron has made Gravity is a mark of a genius.

These words aren?t easily written by me either ? since to this date I hold Cuaron responsible for practically destroying the 3rd movie in the Harry Potter series (Prisoner of Azkaban, for the uninitiated) through his direction alone. With Gravity though ?he more than redeems himself and brings 4.5 years of hard work (that?s time it took to make this movie, I am told) to epic fruition. This one?s a must watch ? all the way and it is to be seen in 3D in IMAX and IMAX only

Gravity is set in space and runs for only 90 minutes. Within those 90 minutes though, Cuaron manages a smart script that keeps you interested despite the slow nature of movement in space due to the absence of gravity itself ? and delivers an enthralling spectacle.

The attention to detail is astounding and if the hall became a little more deprived of oxygen there?s a good chance you would consider yourself as part of the movie. In a sublime blend of technology and special effects with 3D, Gravity becomes an immersive and realistic experience. Long after you leave the hall, don?t be surprised to find yourself wondering ? how in the world this kind of visual imagery was made possible in the first place.

To make matters better, Cuaron even manages to lend some gravity to what could have been completely acceptable fare as a cut and dried script - which is probably the moment Gravity becomes a great movie from a good movie. To say more would be unfair

To further bolster Gravity ? Cuaron entrusts the movie to two highly capable leads ? George Clooney and Sandra Bullock. Bullock should probably heading for an Oscar nomination with this one and George Clooney plays his familiar, self-assured character with demonstrated ease.

To put it in a nutshell, Gravity doesn?t take one step wrong. (Houston, we ?don?t? have a problem with this one). It is comfortably my Movie of the Year thus far and I don?t expect that to change either. Just go watch!!

Movie Review: Captain Phillips..charts out a glorious expedition

When I went all ga-ga about Gravity 2 weeks back, I didn?t really expect to write such rave reviews of anything else in 2013. Hollywood sure has a way of proving me wrong. With the third definite hit of the season, Captain Phillips is right up there in Hollywood?s offerings of 2013 ? this one too, is unmissable, albeit for completely different reasons

Captain Phillips is aptly named not so much for the captain of the ship this real life event movie is based on, but more the captain of this particular ship (the movie) ? Paul Greengrass. Much more well known for his epic presentation of the Bourne Trilogy, Greengrass proves that his expertise doesn?t necessarily require a canvas like the Bourne series to paint on. In his expert hands, a vessel more focused on drama than action, more tight build up than explosions and effects, is steered along on perfectly smooth waters. Scenes that would have seemed ordinary when served up by other directors, get a sense of underlying tension with background score to match and you marvel at the director?s skill at captivating your attention.

The camerawork is just apt, balance between wide and close range shots ? just right. Captain Phillips is less about the story (though that would stand for itself too) and more about the presentation. There?s no attempt to glamorize in order to impress. Yet the timing and the sheer smartness of the action that unfolds will hold your attention for long.

Practically all through the movie, you may be wondering why a veteran like Tom Hanks was required to deliver what seemed like a fairly uncomplicated role ? till you reach towards the climax. In those moments, Tom Hanks proves just why he is the force to reckon with and in a matter of a mere 10 minutes, he steals the show. It may not all be an Oscar worthy performance but those final moments sure will get you thinking (relax, am not about to give anything away)

However, there?s no doubt that Captain Phillips is ultimately a director?s movie. A veteran who clearly has a vision for action, Greengrass demonstrates his repetoire, deftly navigating through the rough, less familiar seas of emotions and builds connect to the characters and situation. While you might start off wondering why Greengrass chose such an unfamiliar arena, by the end you are well convinced that you have witnessed the work of a master

Watch Captain Phillips only in the hall and watch it for Greengrass? wizardry despite the unfamiliar territory. Also, you?d better catch it quick. This movie is already two weeks old since it released alongwith Gravity, so it won?t be long before Captain Phillips disappears into the horizon

Movie Review: 12 Years a Slave..is cold, hard and relentless

12 Years a slave is a very well made movie. No one can doubt that. However, despite how good it is, I wouldn?t say you should go and book your tickets right away. Here?s why

The thing about a true story is that it is scarcely the romanticized stuff we want it to be. The highs and lows cannot be pre-decided, hardly ever are things ?planned? to go a certain and even so, most of those times also the plan tends to get derailed. Thus, if one has suffered much hardship, the hopelessness of the situation has been all too obvious, despite any amount of courage and there has been much despair and grief, then that?s how their story will be. One can?t fault the makers for it. And that?s the issue with 12 Years a Slave

Exquisitely executed, in painful (and I mean the word literally here, as well) detail Steve McQueen does not shy away from showing the horrors that a man suffered in the despicable act of slavery. The basest of human emotions and utter sadism is exposed bare (again, quite literally) in scene after scene in unrelenting fashion. That such savagery existed amongst humans, itself, is a shame for humanity altogether and the movie makes no efforts to hide any of it.

As a result then, 12 Years a Slave can scarcely be described as ?entertaining?. If anything, it gets more and more gruesome and depressing as it progresses and while you feel for the protagonist and his circumstances, the whole situation itself is over-whelmingly off-putting. After a point, the whip lashes, kicks, bared backs and blood marks become too much to withstand and you will the movie to move on to the better part, content-wise.

Apart from the subject matter itself, the treatment of the movie is perfected to a fault. Dialogues spoken plainly would sting you long after they?ve been said. A lingering scene will have you thinking deeply about it rather than pass it off as a mere occurrence. The character of Chiwetel Ejiofor suffers too much but is pulled of extremely well by him. That said, I don?t think his character was as complex as the others in the race for the Oscars. Brad Pitt?s role is too small to speak of. Michael Fassbender is fantastic as the evil slave owner and Benedict Cumberbatch is more than equal to his relatively smaller role as Mr. Ford

12 Years a Slave is right up there in terms of quality movie making. However, given the extremely depressing nature and hopelessness of the situation the protagonist finds himself in over and over again, for majority of the movie, it makes for a rather grim watch. Bear that in mind if you decide to go for this one

Movie Review: 'Her'..offers you only what you can take from it

'Her' isn?t an ordinary tale. In fact, am not even sure if I can call it a tale. There?s no beginning, climax and end, nothing that I can call a plot ? just a very unique context (which may be not be too far a stretch of imagination, the way the world is going) and a lot of emotional depth in a lot of conversations. In fact, 123 minutes later when you emerge from the hall, you are still not quite sure what you?ve just seen  - its all too layered and complex ? 'Her' is that kind of movie

If you don?t wish to explore it, trouble the ol? grey cells or maybe in this case, more importantly, pause and reflect, you might as well not watch 'Her'. You?ll likely get bored with all the random conversation, moping about and sheer pacing of the movie. However, if you are one of those who likes to go deeper, unravel the layers and reach out to what lies at the core ? 'Her' may well be a goldmine. I am not even sure that the director himself has an explanation for every scene he?s shown and what it implies

Like a good idea (and one of the movie characters), 'Her' just grows independently, evolving to have a personality of its own and its depth is more about how you interpret it, than how the director intended it. Me, I am still struggling with the ending of the movie ? not quite sure what that depicted. The movie explores many important themes and emotions ? love, relationship, the need for connection and simply human nature without stamping its own message with either of them. Its only what you take away from it that matters. There is some subtle irony as well but again it takes some doing to catch it

Given the lack of characters, a lot of responsibility falls on Joaquin Phoenix who does a very credible job with an extremely complex character.  Amy Adams in a much simpler role also does a good job, as does Scarlett Johansson in her very unique character. Sorry..can?t say more

'Her' then is a layered and complex movie. One viewing may not be enough to take away all it has to offer. Go for it only if you are willing to explore what lies beneath

Movie Review: Big Hero 6..Big bang opening but can?t sustain it

Ever since I saw the hilarious teasers and trailers this movie has, I?ve been waiting to see the original humor and fresh presentation that Big Hero 6 had to offer ? and from the opening to the ?forced? interval ? I couldn?t have asked for much more. Unfortunately I can?t say the same for the entire movie though to be fair, the climax and ending again make up for some lost ground

Much before you get started with Big Hero 6 though, you get treated to another animation short by Disney. This seems to be a regular feature now ? last time it was the excellent renaissance of Mickey Mouse in a 3D avatar; this time it?s a cute little dog but every bit as welcome as ever. In sharp contrast to the quiet homely visuals of the short, Big Hero 6 starts with the ultra high tech stuff and if you are a tech fan like me, it?ll feel like candy-land.

Not only is the tech ultra cool, the humor quotient is right up there too  Smart writing and a great concept for a unique ?robot? will have you guffawing and laughing hard many a time. Some of it can even be termed as slap-stick but this brand of slapstick is more than welcome. The animation itself is probably a couple of notches higher with the background elements looking particularly realistic. Its only when you see the bright red or white vinyl of Baymax or any of the other characters that you realize that this is actually animation. Nice job. Approaching the half way stage, the plotline is predictable but not pedestrian and you look forward to scaling even greater heights in the second half.

While that wish comes true quite literally in the second half, the fun is not half as much as sequences become unnecessarily extended, the story progression becomes more and more stereotypical and you grimace that maybe by now they?ve run out of their bag of tricks. What starts off particularly fun and fresh, becomes ordinary and even dragged along. This is saved somewhat by a nice climax but you end up leaving the theater a tad disappointed

Animation movies are not just about fun anymore and plotlines and development are becoming more and more mature and unique ? eg. movies like Frozen, Rise of the guardians etc. While Big Hero 6 takes a big step forward and seems more than equal to the challenge it soon relapses  into the tried and tested and despite its brave climax, ends up being an average watch. Still, for the big, fun filled first hour of the movie and the big leap forward in animation, I?d still recommend a watch

Movie Review: Interstellar..a stellar, outwardly experience..best digested with a pinch of corn..

Possibly my longest review title till date but I had to do justice. Yes, it is nothing like I have ever seen and yes, Nolan does bring another mind bender..but this time perhaps it?s the visuals and the scale, the sheer ambition and guts to show what was shown rather than the intricacies of the plot or the mind games or even the writing, that deserve all the kudos

Confession time ? I haven?t seen 2001 A Space Odyssey so alas! I cannot compare how this one turns out against what I hear was a visionary masterpiece ( I plan to correct that very soon though). However, for the visuals I did see, I can tell you that Nolan?s sheer ambition will win you over. Its not just another outworldly adventure. Its not about breaching the boundaries of gravity and the earth ? it goes far beyond that. It doesn?t talk of separation, pain and angst over months ? it goes far beyond that. It?ll even expect you to understand wormholes, blackholes and multiple dimensions and give you lessons on these concepts as you watch it. For Nolan, the entire universe becomes his sandbox and our good old earth is but a tiny piece in a gargantuan puzzle. For that vision and ambition, and that alone, I would recommend this movie be watched in an IMAX theater, no less

In terms of plot and storyline I am probably less ecstatic. While he attempts to weave an emotional tale, with all the weaving and interconnected threads he ultimately manages, the story from being one of hope, sacrifice, belief and courage adds an extra layer of corn (and I am not talking about the expansive corn fields destroyed in the movie) that just doesn?t sit right by the end of it all. Maybe I couldn't fathom the multiple ?dimensions? that Nolan is willing to explore, but for me that extra effort just seemed forced, a desperate attempt to take the story in the direction he wanted to.

What he does manage though, is a breath-taking visual journey that not only captures the imagination ? it challenges it. Whatever you think you might see next, Nolan takes it to greater heights and offers a dazzling spectacle. So much so that actors and performances, credible though they are, pretty much get relegated to the background ? the canvas and the storyteller themselves have so much to offer.

Matthew McConaughey gets it exactly right, his act while watching video messages being particularly convincing. Anne Hathaway gets a pretty simple character given her abilities and she pulls it off fairly well but all that is secondary. There are some new additions to the standard Nolan cast but its best you discover them as the movie progresses along

Interstellar also manages a wonderful communion of sound and visuals. Hans Zimmer has been oft accused (unfairly, in my opinion) of offering very similar soundtracks. Well, this one should easily silence his critics. Whether it?s the scenes in the cornfields or those of exploration - the background score is an integral part of this movie and would not be half the experience it is, without it.

For, in a nutshell, that?s exactly what Interstellar offers you - an experience. It?s a journey not only to the stars but beyond. Sure the storyline gets a more than a little warped and (unconvincingly) convoluted but for its sheer vision, ambition and stellar presentation, Nolan?s Interstellar should not be missed

Movie Review: Boyhood?feels the long years it films

Some of you might feel I have violated one of my own cardinal principles and given away the storyline..by the look of the review title. Well, be assured, I haven?t given away anything. In fact, here?s the real shocker ? this movie has nothing to give away - no storyline or plot and therein, lies its greatest weakness

Boyhood is very well made ? no doubt about it. A scathing commentary on the American culture and where we are all headed if we continue down this garden path is very thought provoking. However, when it takes 169 minutes for the director to say all he has to say, it can be exhausting and in the absence of a movie-like plot ? you feel time slowing down even more. Furthermore, whatever message the director ends up giving isn?t really uplifting. The scenes are painfully realistic ? cutting out the escapist, idealistic fa?ade which make most movies a delight and exposing the grime and struggle of life. Instead you feel even more depressed and frustrated ? not your ideal time at the movies.

I heard about the tremendous efforts that went into making this movie and the kind of painstaking diligence and discipline it took to make the transition feel as natural as possible in the movie. However, my concern is that while the effort is certainly laudable, as an audience, it doesn?t matter as much. I could?ve possibly felt the same effect with 3 similar looking child actors than I did with what was presented.

The movie shines at times when it treads the familiar road of the boy and girl having conversations that would be considered much ahead of their ages ? the kind that made the Before (Sunrise, Sunset and Midnight) series the hit it was.

In terms of performances, the real recognizable actor is really Ethan Hawke. However, the rest of the ?family? also all do a solid job and there?s no complaint there ? especially Patricia Arquette as the mother.

If you are okay with movies without a plot but rather a large slice of real life, you can jump right in to Boyhood, though its long runtime is bound to have even you looking impatiently at the watch every now and then. For the others, who need a definite storyline and some excitement ? better to recollect your own childhood instead, Boyhood isn?t gonna interest you

Movie Review: Mockingjay Part 1..sadly douses the flames

Catching Fire had set the stage perfectly. I remember when I reviewed the previous installment I had said it set the series ablaze and I couldn?t have put it better. The future was brimming with possibilities ? so much intensity and focus, a clear direction, thrilling action, a climactic finale?.Well, while we are still one movie away from the finale to comment on that, Mockingjay Part 1 in itself is sadly quite the dampener and douses most, if not all the flames that catching fire had set.

The primary reason that this movie fails is not because it isn?t particularly well made or its badly acted ? it fails because, quite simply, it doesn?t deserve to be an entire movie by itself. By these counts, only the Harry Potter franchise really deserved a two part finale ? there was so much Rowling had done with the last book that a single movie, albeit action packed, couldn?t have done justice. But that?s where it ends. No other franchise deserved it. All this hobbit 3 part movie nonsense is also possibly going to meet the same fate.

In all honesty, I haven?t read the book Mockingjay, but if this movie is any indication, its plain it doesn?t have all that much to showcase. It would be obvious to even the most casual viewer ? each scene lingers on more than its due; if Katniss is moping about something, well she mopes longer, if the ground is being surveyed after damage, you see more of the rubble, if Katniss is to sing a song, the song will be longer ? each time you know its just to fill time ? it really doesn?t have any impact to make.

Despite the seemingly comfortable 123 minutes it runs, Mockingjay Part 1 is painfully slow. There?s hardly anything that happens. I could write a two line summary of the movie and I may well have told you all that happens by it. With not much happening, neither does Jennifer Lawrence need to do too much with her character and unfortunately, in the few scenes that do demand something, she doesn?t pull it off as convincingly. Julianne Moore is a veteran actress and its sad to see her given such a wooden and one dimensional character. All the other side characters are also given even lesser airtime so I really don?t get what the point of this movie was.

Since I haven?t read the book, I don?t know whether the Hunger Games is really going to have the thrilling end we would?ve anticipated at the close of Catching Fire. But if Mockingjay Part 1 is to be any indication ? I am not all that enthusiastic about its release, despite it being the finale of the series. That?s the kind of damage this ridiculous, money spinning focused strategy has done to what might well have been a good trilogy