‘300: Rise of an Empire’ movie review

Gazing at actor Michael Fassbender’s fine tuxedoed self as he celebrated “12 Years a Slave’s” historic win at the Academy Awards earlier this week, it was hard to believe that seven years had gone by since we first met the dreamy Irish actor, when he played a brave Spartan soldier in the cult pulp classic “300.”
In that film, director Zack Snyder put his bombastic gifts to use in bringing ancient Greece, if not to life, then to some kind of mesmerizingly bizarro, synthetic version thereof. A super-stylized mashup of graphic novel narrative and video-game stagecraft, “300” was a huge hit, launching Fassbender into much finer things (including a longtime collaboration with director Steve McQueen) and star Gerard Butler into a Dante-esque limbo of forgettable rom-coms and middling action flicks.
“300: Rise of an Empire” isn’t a sequel to “300” as much as a parallel-quel, catching up with the Athenian-led Grecian forces at the same time that “300’s” King Leonidas and his Spartans are getting their toned tushies kicked at Thermopylae. While no big stars are likely to emerge from the speechifying and gruesome swordplay of this installment, the film does feature at least one genuinely memorable performance by Eva Green, here playing Persian naval genius Artemisia with such gothic bloodlust that the only things she’s missing are fangs and a coffin to sleep in. In “Rise of an Empire,” Artemisia has been sent by Persian god-king Xerxes (a blinged-out Rodrigo Santoro) to defeat Greece and avenge the death of Xerxes’s father, Darius, at the hands of the soldier Themistokles (Sullivan Stapleton). Suffice it to say, things don’t go exactly according to plan.
Based on a still-to-be-published graphic novel by Frank Miller, “Rise of an Empire” has been adapted by Israeli commercial director Noam Murro with alternately crude and canny fealty to Snyder’s hyperventilating original: A series of smashing, crashing seafaring set pieces interrupted by variations on Henry V’s Crispin’s Day speech (or maybe the “Gentlemen, to bed” gag from Steve Coogan’s “The Trip”), this chapter is a dull, monochromatic affair, its dingy gray palette barely enlivened by syrupy blood that spurts, squirts and gushes with metronomic regularity. When the film isn’t sloppily directed, it’s a series of lazy filmmaking tics, including fetishistic slow-motion shots of blood, water and sweat, as well as sundry dismemberments, impalings and decapitations.
It sounds like a blast, doesn’t it? But “Rise of an Empire” is no fun at all — even those famous six-pack abs from “300” seem to be missing a can or two in this desperate attempt to up an already dubious ante. Despite a visibly sincere effort, Stapleton is a non-starter as the brave Athenian trying to unite the city-states of Greece in defending their experiment in democracy. His supporting players are little more than an anonymous tableau of shirtless, grunting dude-itude.
Oddly, for a franchise founded on the bedrock of man flesh and macho posturing, it’s the women of “Rise of an Empire” who make the most impact: Lena Headey, as Spartan Queen Gorgo, makes serious, focused use of her lamentably limited time on screen, and Green rips into her ruthless anti-heroine with throaty gusto, not to mention an endless supply of beautifully draped leather and chain mail. (Who knew Persian barges boasted that much closet space?)
Despite its comic-book sensibilities, “Rise of an Empire” is anything but family-friendly. In addition to its steady stream of gloppy bloodletting, the film includes aggressive sexuality that borders on the perverse, including a ludicrous scene of carnal passion below decks, and a startling moment of intimacy between a key character and a disembodied head. How do you follow a scene like that? “Rise of an Empire” makes an attempt, but it only looks sillier the harder it tries.

Source : http://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/movies/300-rise-of-an-empire-movie-review-sequel-is-no-fun-at-all/2014/03/05/ec76dd3e-a46f-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_story.html

Read More

'Son of God' review : The life of Christ

It’s not true to say that every Jesus movie is different. But we have seen a panoply in our time – from hippie-musicals (Godspell, Jesus Christ Superstar) to accused heresy (The Last Temptation Of Christ) to alleged torture porn (The Passion Of The Christ).
The earnest Son Of God, produced by the husband-and-wife team of Mark Burnett (the reality TV kingpin behind Survivor, Shark Tank and The Voice) and Roma Downey (Touched by an Angel), is actually a Christ-only distillation from the couple’s hit 10-hour cable miniseries The Bible (with a bit of previously-unused footage).
And as such, it’s kind of a throwback to the Hollywood ‘60s Passion Play movies of my youth (King of Kings, The Greatest Story Ever Told) obstinately chronological in the telling, sort of “Jesus’ greatest hits.”
That is to say, a lot of Christ’s dialogue is one Gospel-based aphorism after another – “Live by the sword, die by the sword,” “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.” It’s a lot like watching Hamlet for the first time and realizing where these commonplace sayings come from.
At the same time, it’s a bit of a distraction and renders the dialogue prosaic at times. The filmmakers allow themselves the creative license to do things like greatly expand the roles of the criminal Barabbas (Fraser Ayres), Mother Mary (Downey) and Mary Magdalene (Amber Rose Revah) and lose characters like Herod Antipas entirely. Andrew Lloyd Webber put provocative words in Christ’s mouth, and has yet to be struck by lightning. I think it would have been okay to write something charismatic to suit the subject here.
Like those movies of yore, Christ, as played by the Portuguese actor Diogo Morgado, is insanely handsome, closer to Brad Pitt than the blue-eyed Jeffrey Hunter of King of Kings. This really makes it unnecessary for Judas to kiss Jesus for identification purposes. Just arrest the handsomest guy you see.
Morgado, with his ready smile (really the only one who smiles much in the movie) is of a piece with Downey and Burnett’s intent to portray a friendly Christianity not defined by “what we’re against.”
Buoyed by Hans Zimmer’s soundtrack, Son Of God moves with an unchanging pace from miracle-to-miracle (the loaves and fishes, walking on water), and selects single characters as plot devices (a single young Pharisee shouting “Blasphemy!” at him everywhere He goes, the Apostle John being the one who invariably “gets” every point Jesus makes).
And then comes the nitty gritty. The Crucifixion in Son Of God is only a notch less brutal than Mel Gibson’s, and I’m guessing FX has never been used before, or at least as imaginatively, in the portrayal of Christ’s wounds.
Still, the overwhelming esthetic sense of Son Of God is that it is a Passion Play designed to offend as few people as possible. There are artistic moments, notably one that recreates Michelangelo’s Pieta with Downey and Morgado.
But, revere them or reject them, in my mind the Christ stories that generated the most controversy were the most interesting films. Son Of God is TV-movie watchable, but it is not the greatest telling of ostensibly the greatest story ever told.
Twitter: @jimslotek
Jim.slotek@sunmedia.ca 

SOURCE : http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/27/son-of-god-review-a-satisfying-christ-story

Read More

Priest 3D Movie Review

There has always been Man.   There has always been Vampires.  The two races warred for centuries until the Church trained and sent Warrior Priests against the Vampires.  The humans won, now with most of humanity living in walled, pollution plagued theocratic cities and the rest eking out a living in the desert.  The vampires have been corralled to reservations, the vampire menace over…or is it?
That sums up the setting of the world of Priest; part science fiction, part steam-punk future-western, part horror, and some action thrown in.  The city sequences have the unmistakable mark of Blade Runner (then again what dystopian movie nowadays doesn’t?) while the wastelands have a certain mix of Sergio Leone and a dash of John Ford.
I’ve never read the original Korean comics by Min-Wood Hyung so I can’t judge to the accuracy to the source material.
Priest marks the second collaboration for actor Paul Bettany and director Scott Stewart (this is also his second feature).  Considering this is their second film and along with their first (Legion) also being in the religious/action/horror vein, I wonder if there will be a third…a Bettany Religi-Action Trilogy.
While I did list Stewart’s previous feature Legion as one of my 5 Worst films of 2010; my assessment boiled down to it was more of a disappointment.  Legion was filled with interesting, compelling yet many unrealized, concepts and ideas that were constrained and shoved into a far smaller film.
Priest on the other hand is in some ways an improvement over Legion as that it is a larger canvas with plenty of interesting and compelling ideas.  However it suffers the same problem as Legion in that many of them are only marginally exposed if at all.
In all fairness, the world of Priest is very interesting; these ain’t your daddy’s vampires and the idea that vampires have evolved alongside mankind as a totally separate species really hasn’t been done before.  We get glimpses of the hive/pack mentality and live style of these drooling, snarling beasts but not much is explained.  Because of the difference of these vampires to the vampires of common lore, this is one of those few cases where I’d say expose more of the creature’s biology.
The film also possess ‘familiars’; humans infected by vampire bites.  As they cannot turn into vampires themselves, they have become slightly mad and look to serve their masters.  However the Master-Slave relationship between the vampires and familiars is never really delved into and would have helped explain some elements of the film.
There are also the unavoidable religious aspects of the script; with the Church (though it never specifies which denomination) running the world in a totalitarian theocratic manner is also a great source for storytelling. However the Church lacks any great impact on the film beyond sending other Priests after Bettany’s character.  Like Legion, Priest bites off a good chunk of religious meat but doesn’t really chew it.
That is the big problem with the movie when it comes to the story.  It’s not the most original storyline; in some ways you might say it’s a science fiction/horror redux of John Ford’s classic The Searchers. While the story isn’t very original, it doesn’t really flex it’s muscles too much and when it begins to; it retreats into more familiar territory.
The story has a lot of wonderful potential, but it feels wasted to a degree.
However, when watching the film I had the distinct feeling that the 87-minute film that played before me was cut down from a longer movie.  Several characters make an appearance and though it seems they might come back later they don’t.  Other times some scenes just seem to end before they are through.  And the opening feels a bit too chopped.  In terms of violence (will get to that later); yes it seems to cut away before too much is shown.
Does that mean there’s an Extended Cut lying about somewhere?  Maybe; I’d be curious to find out as it certainly feels like there was more movie to be had.
From a technical perspective the movie is competently done and certainly has some solid production values.  The sets are wonderfully built and each setting has their own distinct look and feel while maintaining the same idea of the universe.  A far more elaborate and fully rendered world than the diner of Legion.
While the story fails to dig into some really interesting material, that isn’t to say it’s poorly directed. Stewart shows himself to be a competent action director; the set pieces are well staged and shot.  The editing is also not as aggressive as some other films have been, a great benefit for actually seeing what is going on.
The movie moves very briskly, if not to a fault (once again making me think that there may be a longer cut).  The film isn’t scary, there are a few jump scares here and there but this movie wears the tag of ‘action’ more than it does ‘horror’.  The action is generally good and that’s if that’s what you’re coming for; then you’ll get some decent stuff.
The question that is on a lot of folk’s minds: How is the 3D?  Priest was delayed several times for its conversion to 3D.  Director Stewart said that Sony (who owns Screen Gems) wanted the film in 3D more or less from the start; however Stewart wanted to shoot with large anamorphic lenses.  Lenses that aren’t gonna fit on any 3D rig.  So the ‘shoot for conversion’ route was adopted.
How was it?  Because it was shot knowing it was getting converted it’s not bad.  Neither is it all that great.  A few of the shots, mostly the action, those work pretty well while other scenes don’t do that well in establishing space or dimension.  Nothing really pops out of the screen at the audience, so you don’t have to worry about that.
The fact that the editing is less aggressive than it could have been helps the 3D immensely as the audience’s eyes have more time to adjust; thus hopefully alleviating some headaches.
Ghosting was marginally visible in a few of the shots and only obvious in one or two something that probably wouldn’t have happened if the film was shot with 3D rigs.  But, unless you know what to look for; you won’t notice.
But, by the end of the day; the 3D is kinda meh.  It really doesn’t add much to the viewing experience but at the same time it doesn’t take too much away.  I think that Priest though can be held as hopefully one of the last conversions.  Even with WB pounding away at a conversion for Harry Potter 7 Part 2; that film wasn’t shot for the format; Priest was.
Priest also spent a long time being converted and even with being shot for the release of the format; it didn’t do much.  So far the only good ‘shot for conversion’ film in my opinion is Piranha 3D; a film that I didn’t realize was converted till I was watching the end credits.  Whatever Aja did during shooting and his post-team did; they did right, something no one else has been able to do.
I love 3D, I love it to death; I think it’s fun.  And just by judging Priest; I think the ‘shoot to convert’ path should be near dead.  And after over a year and a half of work and probably a few million burned (making it certainly the longest conversion yet); if Potter doesn’t look like it was filmed with 3D rigs, the whole conversion craze I’m sure will be dead.
But that’s my bit about the 3D; love it, want it to be around.  Only if though directors are willing to put in the extra time and studios the extra coin to shoot it with 3D rigs and not shooting 2D for conversion.
Moving on.
The cast is pretty solid.  Paul Bettany place the stone faced, title character and proves that he has not only the acting chops for great drama; but he can be a solid action actor.  He brings a certain about of credibility and weight to the role.  It was also refreshing he didn’t do ‘The Bale’, a new term I’ve just thought of where action heroes drop their voice a dozen octaves and sound like they’re in desperate need of a lozenge.  He lowers his voice a bit, but it’s still Bettany coming through.
Karl Urban is his foe Black Hat and Urban brings a controlled over the top performance to the role.  He flashes his fangs almost every time he talks and does something closer to ‘The Bale’ than Bettany does.  He’s a cool villain and strikes a great silhouette in his western garb looking like he stepped out of a Clint Eastwood film.
The supporting cast includes Twilight actor Cam Gigandet as a local lawman in the wastelands.  Gigandet holds his own well enough against Bettany during their scenes and the more I’m seeing of him the more I’m seeing him developing into an interesting actor.  I think he’ll be one to watch in the coming years.
Maggie Q is Priestess and her character is fairly straightforward assistant to Bettany.  There’s some sexual tension between their characters but it’s something that doesn’t develop beyond a few brief mentions.  Once again, going back to interesting, yet underdeveloped ideas.
True Blood star Stephen Moyer has a small role as Bettany’s brother and if anyone has seen the trailer, I’m not spoiling anything by saying he kicks the bucket.  Moyer doesn’t do much and leaves not much impact.  Genre veteran Brad Dourif pops up in a small, two-scene role and I’m sure people in the theater looked at me oddly as I giggled with glee when he appeared.  Character actor Christopher Plummer brings some needed weight to the role of the delusional theocratic head of the city Monsignor Orelas; a great actor with potentially an interesting character, also underdeveloped.
Now for the thing everyone must be wondering about.  The PG-13 rating.  While I think some critics have made the film more bloodless than it is, the film is still in PG-13 territory.  There is blood being spilt and splattered and even a man being torn to pieces with his chunks falling to earth.  There is blood and some gore in the movie, however not enough to push it into the R.  Some of these shots seem to be trimmed to keep it PG-13 while others seem to be less bloody takes chosen once again to stay with that rating.
Maybe there’ll be an Unrated Cut released to Blu-Ray and DVD.
The vampires, no sparkly, sexually charged, handsome creatures of the night here.   No these vampires are bestial, drooling, snarling four legged critters that won’t seduce you before feeding.  Then again who would want to be seduced by one of these things?
I’m someone whose firmly in the ‘only do it CG if you can’t do it practical’ camp and while I think some of the vampire shots could have been done with practical effects; the CG isn’t bad.  It’s not as photo-real as District 9 however it wasn’t a distraction and the only CG weakness I found was a few green screen shots inside the vampire hive.
I’m sure Screen Gems was hoping to have another horror/action franchise to add to their rooster of the Underworld and Resident Evil films; because of the disappointing opening; unless foreign and video sell well, I doubt we’ll see another journey into the world.
Which is somewhat sad as while the movie isn’t great nor is it an atrocity of film, the world that the movie takes place in interests me enough that I’d like to see a continuation of the story.  The overall movie, it’s kinda there, it does its thing and to be honest I was entertained.  I’m a Bad Movie Masochist and I didn’t find the movie offensively bad enough to recommend to only the hardcore of us in the BMM community.
Priest is something a mate of mine in Australia might dub a ‘Beer Movie’; a flick you can watch over a brew or two with your friends and have some cheap thrills.
Even so, while Priest entertained me it was a disappointment considering the potential that this movie had.

Read More

Fast Five Movie Review

Director Justin Lin is back with the movie Fast Five, which is the fifth entry in the series of The Fast and the Furious. His latest venture is an exceptional sequel, which is even better than the original film. The action scenes look highly unimaginable and far from reality, but they are really fun to watch.

The plot of Fast Five is a fantasy and does not resemble real life. It is a film about crass materialism, masculine sentimentality and extreme violence and these aspects have been exaggerated to the point of caricature. Relentless car chases, great setting and action sequences are the major attractions of the movie. In a way, Chris Morgan's goofy script and ridiculous action are disappointing aspects.

But these two aspects do not deter the viewers from enjoying the movie because it has no pretensions other than to be a perfect car-chase film. It is all about two guys who steal expensive cars for a living and are forced to do this in Brazil because of America's draconian anti-stealing policies.

Notorious street racer Dom (Vin Diesel), Brian (Paul Walker) and Mia (Jordana Brewster) are wanted by the FBI for all the mayhem they perpetrated in the previous installments. They flee the US for Rio de Janeiro, where they decide to steal one last car to line their bank accounts. The easy money score goes badly and along with the FBI, a Brazilian kingpin (Joaquim de Almeida) also starts chasing the antiheroes. But Dom, Brian and Mia assemble a crack team of old colleagues to beat the kingpin at his own game by stealing all his money.

The characters in this franchise are larger than life. Justin Lin has retained most of the lead heroes of previous film and this helps him to go right into the meat of the story instead getting in to the introduction of each character first. He is also successful in tapping out the right kind of performance from each actor.

The major highlight of the movie is its action scenes and they are marvelously energetic and well-choreographed. There are two solid chase scenes in it. They are stealing cars off a moving train in a sequence and a chase scene on foot in which Dom, Brian and Mia have to elude both Reyes’ criminal gang and Hobbs’ law enforcement team. Stephen F Windon's camera work is superb and the CGI effects shown in the film are extremely clever.

In a nutshell, Fast Five may not have an interesting script and it may run like an atomic clock, rumbling past calcified performances and logic free stunts, but it keeps the viewers' interest in the film awake till its end. It is a must watch movie.

Read More

Bridesmaids Movie Review

Through an act of karmic rebalancing, or cosmic reparation, the universe has made amends for Hangover Part II. Bridesmaids is a terrifically funny, smart and tender ensemble comedy starring its co-writer Kristen Wiig, and it pulls off the remarkable trick of being brutal and gentle at the same time. The full horror of being a bridesmaid is shown, but Wiig persuades you there is something genuinely loving and sisterly to be found at the end of this incredible ordeal.A good deal has now been written about Bridesmaids being at the vanguard of a new feminist revolution in Hollywood comedy – a sorpack to go with the fratpack – and how, before this, women were marginalized or treated as second-class turns in Hollywood, a theory that holds up if you discount the colossal commercial success of the Sex and the City movies. It's certainly true the comedy of Rogen, Ferrell, Carell et al has been very laddish.
So there is something in Bridesmaids that is particularly interesting: how it offers a male, or male-seeming dimension that is not featured in all the other sugary girly-romcommy treatments of engagements, bridal showers, wedding ceremonies, etc: the world of status-envy and career-disappointment. It is the women's relationship with each other, and not with men, that is central. So what is dramatised in these characters is not the traditional single-girl qualities of vivacity or demureness, comically flavoured with man-pleasing sexiness or anxious self-doubt, but the bridesmaids' competitive sense of themselves as successful or otherwise: at home, in business and in the wider world. And what's important to social success is not romance, exactly, but marriage.
Wiig plays thirtysomething Annie, who in early middle age has woken up to find herself a failure. Her bakery business, in which she invested all her money, has gone broke; she has to walk past the boarded-up premises on the way to a terrible job in a jewellery store in which she cannot help but warn couples buying engagement rings that love won't last. There is a magnificent scene in which Annie finds herself in an argument with a teenage girl who wants to buy a necklace reading "Friends for ever". She herself is single, in a demeaning "fuck buddy" relationship with Ted, played by Mad Men's Jon Hamm. The only real thing in her life is her single friend Lillian (Maya Rudolph) who tells her she is getting married, and that Annie is to be maid of honour.
Annie must whoop and hug with delight, but Wiig shows that, in her heart, she is horrified at Lillian's disloyalty at leaving her behind in the dismal pit of spinsterhood. She instantly takes a dislike to one of the other bridesmaids, Helen (Rose Byrne) a wealthy, Martha Stewart superwoman who presumes to organise everything and to believe herself a better friend to the bride-to-be than Annie. Poor Annie has nothing in common with the motley crew of bridesmaids, and the traditions of being a bridesmaid are soon revealed to her not as a festival of love, but a theatre of cruelty, dominated by envy, unhappiness and fear.
Wiig hilariously dramatises Annie's desire to make the bridesmaids' parties and functions operate down at her own unmoneyed level – through an ambiguous need to rebuke smarmy Helen for her wealth and snobbery, or possibly just to wreck the whole thing. Just before the women visit an impossibly chi-chi boutique to have their expensive bridesmaids' dresses fitted, Annie insists on taking them to a dodgy Brazilian restaurant, where they pick up a dose of food poisoning, with horrendous results.
Annie is perpetually finding herself at posh engagement parties and social functions where she is financially out of her league. Mocking and laughing at it all – the sort of joke she crucially used to share with Lillian – is now quite unacceptable and inappropriate, and Wiig shows how desperately lonely and resentful Annie is becoming. There is a nice running gag in which Annie will find herself standing next to men, total strangers, and the people to whom she is introduced, steeped in the ideology of coupledom, keep assuming that she is "with" this embarrassed, random man.
To be a bridesmaid is to be a failure: that seems to be the awful truth. Something about someone else's impending marriage makes the bridesmaids' existences seem second best, and even the married bridesmaids – those who have attained the great prize – instantly become disenchanted with their life choices. A gentle, almost childlike bridesmaid confesses her discontent with never having sex. A bridesmaid mom confesses her horror at sharing the house with three lively teenage sons ("There's semen everywhere. One blanket actually cracked") and at her husband's banal, insatiable conjugal needs: ("I just want to watch the Daily Show once, without him entering me"). Annie's own sense of failure, amplified and accelerated by the intolerable humiliation of being a bridesmaid, threatens to poison everything, including a promising new relationship with a nice cop, played by Irish actor Chris O'Dowd.
Obviously, Bridesmaids does resemble the Hangover template a little: one Bridesmaid, Megan (Melissa McCarthy) is in the Zach Galifianakis role. It's not exactly groundbreaking, but what's striking is how fresh and unusual the comedy looks. Offhand, the only recent point of comparison I can reach for is Jonathan Demme's 2008 movie Rachel Getting Married. As for Wiig herself … well, some obvious wordplay suggests itself on the subject of how she has always been the supporting player but never the lead. Well, this movie has made her a star. It is her special day.

Read More

Thor movie review

When I first heard about the “Thor” movie, I had the same reaction as most folks I know. “Thor? Really?! Thor?” Couldn’t we just have another Hulk movie instead? Did the “Power Man and Iron Fist” script not turn out the way they hoped? Until I was about 16, I was an avid comic collector, and I favored Marvel titles, of which “Thor” is one. When I turned 16, I started spending my comic book money on gasoline, and it all went downhill from there, but I still have boxes and boxes filled with a few thousand comics, bagged and boarded, safe in my parents’ basement. I collected “Thor,” but I also collected “Speedball,” so my taste is suspect. In any case, the news of a “Thor” movie mostly means, to me at least, that Marvel is running out of super heroes for the big screen.


The conundrum of super hero movies is a balancing act between juvenile fantasy, which can feel silly and hokey to a mature audience, and real character pathos. At its most successful, you get heroes who are also interesting characters, besides their super abilities. Long, drawn out special effects battles and fight scenes actually take on some meaning, and the audience is engaged. See “Spiderman 2″ for an example.
At its least successful, the movie acts as a simple showcase for special effects. The costumes start to feel ridiculous. The villains are stacked up and knocked down like so many dominoes. The movie feels like a money grab; a cynical attempt to trick fans and the curious alike into seeing a real-world example of a compelling fantasy story. See “Spiderman 3″ for an example (or any “X-Men” movie after the first one.)
“Thor” is firmly in the second camp. There is not a single character in the movie who generates any sympathy from the audience. There is no character development, even though the crux of the plot relies on Thor developing as a person. When we meet him, Thor is plenty powerful. This isn’t about a hero developing his powers and learning to cope with his newfound strengths and responsibilities (see “Spiderman,” “Iron Man,” “Hulk,” every “X-Men,” etc.). “Thor” is supposed to be about the title character becoming a worthy heir to the throne of his kingdom. Unfortunately, this never happens in a convincing way.
Here’s the main problem. The plot is ridiculously small and narrow-minded. SPOILER ALERT: Here’s the plot of “Thor” in a nutshell. Thor’s dad gets mad at him for getting into a fight. So he sends Thor to the desert, where he meets a pretty girl and they have breakfast at a diner. Thor eats a lot, then steps outside to fight a big magical robot. When he wins, he is allowed to come home.
Also, his brother is a mean guy. We know this in part because we learn very late in the movie what we assumed all along, that he is really on the side of the bad guys (Frost giants? Seriously? Frost giants? What is this, Harry Potter? No, Harry Potter had more imagination than that). But mostly we know that Thor’s brother Loki is a bad guy because everybody else is big and muscular and wears armor and bashes people with swords and hammers, while Loki is thin and weasely and uses magic and bashes people with a big staff. Oh, also, if you know any Norse mythology (or if you remember the movie “The Mask”) you know that Loki is the god of mischief and lies.
So, the plot of “Thor” is just pathetically short-sighted. It goes nowhere, literally. When I realized that the movie was never going to leave the small diner and tiny town in the middle of the desert, I almost walked out. No Thor in New York City? No Thor in the Rockies? The Grand Canyon? Mount Rushmore? The director (the esteemed Kenneth Branagh, who does an amazing job channeling Shakespeare, but comic books not so much) could not have chosen a more boring spot. Except maybe Antarctica. Oh, wait, I forgot: that’s where the Frost giants live. On a big ice ball world. Yawn.
Nothing happens in “Thor.” At least no character development. But in the plot, a condition of Thor’s ascension is his learning humility, and demonstrating leadership characteristics. All of this is wrapped up under the label of being “worthy,” as in only someone who is “worthy” can lift the hammer of Thor. But when the time comes, the first time Thor really needs his hammer, he doesn’t even have to lift it. It comes flying back to him.
What a missed opportunity. This Excalibur moment, when Thor might have put his hands on the hammer’s handle, hoping he was finally worthy to take possession of his weapon and all of his god-like powers. The audience might have sat on the edge of our seats, with baited breath, wondering. Was he worthy enough? Had he come far enough as a person that the hammer would finally be his again? Or were there still more lessons to learn?
Nope. The dramatic moment, if you can call it that, is squandered. Thor’s character development apparently involves cooking scrambled eggs for a cute but wasted (her acting ability, that is. She’s not drunk) Natalie Portman. Wow, you didn’t make someone else prepare your breakfast. You learned not to smash a mug on the ground when you want more coffee. Way to go. My 2-year old has developed as a character more since breakfast than Thor did in the entire movie.
Also, at some point this muscular god decides that he’s really into a geeky scientist. They share no romantic moments, and in fact barely talk to each other. There is no connection at all. She makes no great sacrifice for him, and he only helps her when presented with an easy opportunity while he is also helping himself. Not only does she talk about her ex-boyfriend, she actually ends up encouraging Thor to use her ex’s name as his secret identity. This is a woman with baggage. Best to move on.
Comic book movies are in trouble. The second “Iron Man” was soulless. Both “Hulk” movies have failed to live up to a television show from the 1970′s where a body builder painted green played the title monster. I have little faith in the upcoming “Captain America” movie. But all of these titles will be rolled together into one super hero sandwich called “The Avengers.” Joss Whedon is directing, but I can’t even get excited about that, because if Kenneth Branagh and Ang Lee couldn’t breath life into super hero dullards, I wonder if anyone can.

Read More

Conan the Barbarian movie review

For those who decry gratuitous violence, this is not a flick for you. For the rest of you bloodthirsty lot, it's not like the filmmakers were attempting a bait and switch. The movie is set in the fictional Hyborian Age, roughly post-Atlantis and pre-Facebook by my calculations, where monsters and sorcery were ever a threat and humans weren't exactly civilized. Then there's Conan's mantra: "I live. I love. I slay... I am content." Who doesn't like a man who isn't conflicted or apologetic about who he is.
Gory remakes of marginal quality are something of a specialty for German-born director Marcus Nispel, who counts the 2003 redo of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and 2009's "Friday the 13th" among his artier achievements. Though it's relative, the director keeps getting better each time out. Nispel has always brought a very strong vision to his work -- a sort of melodrama of imagery that can be mesmerizing if you can get past the viscera. Character development? Not so much.
In "Conan," he's got a better cast that he occasionally does better things with. Momoa is coming off a very fine run as the enigmatic horse-warrior Khal Drago in HBO's "Game of Thrones." He's got Conan firmly in his muscly grip, from the absurd asides, to the furrowed brow, to the fierce fighting, though some of the clunkier dialogue trips him and everyone else up. Momoa's also got that bigger-than-life presence that is absolutely necessary for this genre piece, enough to loosen the iconic hold that Arnold Schwarzenegger has had on Conan since he flexed those famous pecs in the 1982 original.
The movie itself does not attempt to replicate the Schwarzenegger version, which had less violence and a splash more cheesy humor. Instead writers Thomas Dean Donnelly, Joshua Oppenheimer and Sean Hood work off of Robert E. Howard's Conan mythology (he started it all with his dark pulp series on Conan in the early '30s) to create a troubled ancient world of warring tribes, vestal virgins, lethal swords and Machiavellian monsters.
After some setup voice-over to give a little historical context and introduce the Mask of Acheron, which is the holy grail here, we are in the midst of a bloody battle with the Cimmerians led by Conan's father Corin (Ron Perlman rocking a Unabomber beard), lopping off heads left and right. Conan's mother (Laila Rouass) is in the middle of the fray, and labor, delivering Conan by C-section, which apparently wasn't as much a routine procedure as it is now.
Flash-forward to a motherless Conan (oh, come on, anyone could figure that out), at about 13, played by very tough young martial arts expert Leo Howard, who gets perhaps the best action sequence in the movie. It's one of those rite of passage things that always go bad, and it involves a lot of running in rough terrain, some wonderfully choreographed fighting and surviving. The fight scenes throughout are stunning to look at, exceptionally gross, exploit the 3-D technology in the best possible way and should satisfy hard-core action junkies, though there are still way too many of them.

Read More

Spy Kids: All the Time in the World movie review

It’s hard to believe it’s been eight years since the last Spy Kids adventure, 2003’s Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over. In that respect, director Robert Rodriguez is a victim of his success. Between subsequent Hollywood attempts to create a new kiddie super-spy franchise and Spy Kids-style kids’ films from Rodriguez like The Adventures Of Shark Boy And Lavagirl and Shorts, pint-sized special agents have been only slightly less ubiquitous on the big screen than their adult counterparts. How are we supposed to miss the Spy Kids franchise when it feels like it never went away?
In the belated fourth entry in the Spy Kids series, the perpetually miscast Jessica Alba stars as a pregnant secret agent so dedicated she dodges bad guys and pursues evildoers even after she’s started to go into labor. Alba’s stepchildren (Rowan Blanchard and Mason Cook) know nothing of Alba’s secret life saving the world, nor does husband Joel McHale, a professional spy-catcher so clueless he can’t detect the spies inside his own home. But when a time-obsessed madman known only as The Timekeeper (Jeremy Piven) begins robbing mankind of its time, Blanchard and Cook are pressed into service as Spy Kids under the direction of original Spy Kid Alexa Vega, now a top operative within her organization. Ricky Gervais continues his sad descent into glum self-parody voicing a Poochie-style talking robot dog with ’tude.
The Spy Kids series once seemed charmingly homemade. These days, it feels less charmingly homemade than maddeningly amateurish. The franchise similarly used to offer at least something for adults, but if Spy Kids: All The Time In The World aimed any younger in its puerile scatological humor and monosyllabic dialogue, it would be pandering hard to the pre-natal demographic. With its shiny colors, super-campy action, and villain who can’t stop making terrible puns relating to his identity, Spy Kids: All The Time In The World provokes traumatic memories of another third sequel from a franchise that had similarly worn out its welcome ages before it stopped: Batman & Robin. Schumacher’s infamous botch at least induced morbid fascination; this is just leaden kitsch clumsily conceived and painfully executed.

Read More

Fright Night Movie Review

As we’re drowning in a flood of big screen remakes, we ask ourselves time and time again; is it worth it? In Fright Night‘s case, yes. As we’re drowning in a flood of 3D features, we ask ourselves time and time again; is it worth it? In Fright Night‘s case, no, but, luckily for director Craig Gillespie, he’s working with some solid source material and an absolutely stellar cast, both with the power to stake that extra dimension right in the heart. If only it’d burn up and evaporate for good.
For anyone familiar with the Tom Holland original, this synopsis is a bit redundant as Gillespie’s Fright Night is quite similar. Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin) is your average teen living with his loving mother (Toni Collette) in a quaint little neighborhood – that is until Jerry Dandridge (Colin Farrell) moves in next door and rips out the locals’ throats as he pleases. Why? Because Charley’s new neighbor is a vampire.
Peter Vincent (David Tennant) is still present and accounted for, but now he hosts “Fright Night” the live stage production, chugs Midori and dons skintight leather pants. When Jerry snatches up a couple of Charley’s friends, Charley’s got no choice but to head to the Vegas Strip to get some advice from the showman. Too bad the act is primarily a façade and Vincent lacks the nerve to put his extensive weaponry collection to use. With no one to turn to, Charley’s mother and girlfriend, Amy’s (Imogen Poots), lives are in his hands.
Fright Night’s opening sequence provides an excellent taste of what you’re in for; a vampire film that isn’t particularly scary. Sure, the 1985 movie is a horror comedy and offers a nice amalgamation of the genres, but this updated version definitely highlights its funny bone. While the favoritism makes for a weak opening, Fright Night is amusing enough to carry on as a comedy with a little grit and gore to it.
Christopher Mintz-Plasse is one of the funnier of the bunch as Charley’s ex-best friend, Ed. Ed holds a grudge after Charley ditches their geeky past for cooler friends, but when another buddy, Adam (Will Denton), goes missing, Ed turns to Charley for help in hopes he’ll believe his vampire theory. Sure enough, he doesn’t. Think about that for a moment; Mintz-Plasse as the school nerd attempting to convince someone that vampires are real; the role is made for him and Mintz-Plasse seizes the opportunity. He works wonders with the friendly, but testy banter between Ed and Charley and, later on, has no trouble switching gears to show off his darker side. Tennant also earns some laughs embellishing Vincent’s idiosyncrasies, but he’s held back by his character’s cliché rock star woes – a drinking problem, hard exterior but soft core and childhood troubles.
As for our leading ladies, only one matters, Poots. Collette does a fine job as Charley’s mother, Jane, but the role is particularly menial. Poots, on the other hand, is right by Charley’s side from beginning to end, and thrives on some rather original traits and solid chemistry with Yelchin. Amy isn’t your average teen movie girlfriend; she’s got sass and a mind of her own. Rather than care for the couple because they seem to fit together in idealistic movie land, Charley and Amy work on an impressively authentic and charming level.
Plus, her main man is quite endearing. Yelchin is an ideal Charley Brewster. He’s sweet and loving, yet it’s entirely believable when watching him lock and load to defend the women he loves. Yelchin has an exceptional amount of range when it comes to working with his co-stars. He establishes a solid mother-son relationship with Collette, lets the sparks fly with Poots and turns on the wit when bickering with Mintz-Plasse. But, best of all, he’s got quite the opponent in Farrell. Farrell has an absolute blast as Jerry. It shows and it’s also very appropriate. Part of the reason the new Fright Night works so well with its more comedic twist is because of its unintentionally funny Jerry. Jerry enjoys tormenting his victims in the most outlandish ways. Farrell is a thrill when showing off his supernatural vampire skills and is surprisingly just as compelling when exercising his intellect in a one-on-one conversation.
The acting is top notch and the writing solid enough to earn your interest; the problems are in the visuals. There is absolutely no reason for this movie to be in 3D. As many scenes take place during the night, quite a few are frustratingly dark. Plus, the only time the 3D is even noticeable is when it’s too noticeable, like when Gillespie makes a conscious decision to throw a paint can or cross in your face. But, even if the film lost the extra dimension, it’d still have technical problems. Sure, Fright Night establishes itself as more of a comedy than horror film, but some of the effects are a bit too cartoonish. There’s a car chase scene that feels more like one of those virtual reality rides in an amusement park than multi-million dollar special effects work.
Still, these are only minor distractions in a primarily enjoyable piece. It’s labeled a modern take on the 1985 original and that’s exactly what we’ve got – a hot new location, better makeup design, subpar yet more realistic effects, pop culture references, Twilight namedropping and a contemporary soundtrack. As fantastical as the piece is, it’s oddly relatable and just too much fun to dismiss.

Read More

One Day movie review

One Day is based on the book by David Nicholls, who in a rare move by Hollywood, was allowed to adapt his book for the screenplay. Emma (Hathaway) and Dexter (Sturgess) first meet on their college graduation night and spend their first day together on July 15, also known as St. Swithin's Day in the UK. And with that, Emma and Dexter begin their two decade long journey.

The action quickly moves from their university to the cityscape of London. Hathaway’s Emma yearns to be a writer while Sturgess’ Dexter… well, Dex isn’t sure what he wants to do. But, he comes from money and in many ways doesn’t have to worry about such things.

Sturgess astounds in his role. The actor, who shined in the Beatles-themed Across the Universe, brings his impressive talent to the forefront with the not-so-easy task of capturing a character over a long period of time. Dex goes from a “who cares about anything” lothario to all around good soul worthy of Emma’s friendship and perhaps even love.

Hathaway, as always, is brilliant in One Day. For any American thespian, capturing a British accent is a thankless task. With such an army of amazing British actresses out there, it is unavoidable that if the American’s performance misses the mark, the cry for “Why didn’t they use a Brit” will come from all corners of the kingdom. Her success in One Day is hardly a surprise for Hathaway fans as they know what an amazing job she did capturing one of the UK’s favorite daughters -- Jane Austen -- in 2007’s Becoming Jane. Also, her characterization in One Day requires less alteration over time as Emma is already a middle-aged soul when we first meet her on that fateful college graduation night.

One Day is a simple story, yet it feels like a sweeping romance.

This format of storytelling is nothing new to cinema. Yet, 1978’s Same Time Next Year did it with more power. Although Same Time Next Year and One Day focus on two incredibly different couples with the former showcasing an affair between two people that is shared outside of their normal lives, the latter is a 20-year expose of a friendship that blossoms into love.

One issue we have with One Day? A plot device used in a million romantic films that audiences can see from a million miles away. It is hinted at in the beginning of the film before it flashes back to Emma and Dex’s graduation night. When the film catches up to the big moment near the end, it may be easy to feel cheated. With that being said, as Nicholls' book contained the same plot point and it works on the page, it is hard to fault the film for its use of this age-old cinematic storyline.

The film is also slow to get going and even when it starts to get into the meat of the story, it at times feels flat. As is the case with most page to screen adaptations, the book fares better than the film -- yet One Day still channels the novel’s heart and soul.

Read More

Griff the Invisible movie review

Griff the Invisible provides a unique look at superheroes, vastly different than the slew of mega blockbusters that have hit screens over the past few years.

As the name implies, the main character, Griff, is just about invisible to everyone around him. Most of his co-workers ignore him. The only one that doesn't, bullies him to no end. He has no family except an exasperated brother who feels compelled to guide Griff down the life path he chooses. But Griff has a secret, at night, he prowls the streets, protecting innocents and stopping crime. Inexplicably, doesn't really have a superhero name in the usual sense. He still refers to himself as Griff. So much for a secret identity. Being a superhero in the real world has plent of danger, however. People are not always predictable, situations are not always black and white, and most of all, things are not always what they appear.
Griff the Invisible takes a unique look at superheroes in a real world setting. Griff has no superpowers and doesn't even really have any gadgets except his computers and telescope. When he sees someone who needs help on the screen or in the lens, he changes into his costume and literally runs to their aide. From the very beginning it is fairly obvious that Griff is not quite your everyday person. He is painfully shy and doesn't ever truly appear comfortable outside of his superhero suit. In costume, however, Griff is confident, capable, and even a little outgoing. Despite his difficult daytime life, Griff seems perfectly content with the way things are.
Everything is turned upside down when his brother introduces him to the girl he is dating, Melody. Melody is just as eccentric and unique as Griff. In our first introduction to her, she is making her 51st attempting to walk through a wall. Although she is dating his brother, Melody finds herself falling for the kindred spirit she finds in Griff.
I have only seen Ryan Kwanten play Jason Stackhouse in True Blood so this role is a major departure from that role and he pulls it off incredibly well. He plays the introverted victim of Griff with heart and sincerity. I won't say why, but he is able to make the viewer feel a wide range of emotions from excitement to pity. I was truly impressed with Kwanten's performance. Maeve Dermody embodied Melody perfectly. I don't think I have ever seen her in any other film but she owned this role. Melody felt real. Her body language, vocal tone, and even the way she looks at other characters totally steals the show.
The direction and writing are pretty tight, the pacing moves the story well. The first two acts are truly unique; unfortunately, the third act falls a little flat with predictability and a few clichés. Despite those complaints toward the end, I still really enjoyed the film. It was nice to see a more realistic take on the joys, risks, and even legalities of putting on a costume and taking the law into your own hands. Griff the Invisible was a breath of fresh superhero air.

Read More

Mozart's Sister movie review

It’s hard to watch René Féret’s historical drama Mozart’s Sister without thinking of the Oscar-winning 1984 biopic Amadeus, which uses Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart as a springboard to consider the sad case of those who can recognize genius, but can’t replicate it. Mozart’s Sister, meanwhile, uses the composer’s life as a springboard to study the lot of European women in the 18^th century. As a girl, Maria Anna Mozart performed for royalty alongside her younger brother and even composed her own music, just like Wolfgang. But as Maria—nicknamed “Nannerl”—grew into adolescence, her parents steered her toward meeting a nice, rich man and becoming a wife and mother.
Féret’s daughter Marie plays Nannerl, a 15-year-old with the sense of maturity and gawkiness common to adolescents, no matter the era. Mozart’s Sister is largely concerned with Nannerl’s friendships with two of Louis XV’s children: the 13-year-old Louise de France, whom she meets in an abbey, and the Dauphin, with whom she shares her passion for composition. Unlike the king’s family, who never get to see each other, Nannerl spends nearly 24 hours a day cooped up with her brother and her parents in such close quarters that they can’t keep secrets. Contrast that with Louise, who shows Nannerl a hidden book listing practices banned by the church (“described indecently”), and to the Dauphin, who whispers anecdotes about his father’s infidelity.
Féret is very much concerned with these characters’ earthy everyday lives. One of the first shots of the film is of Nannerl urinating in the snow, and later we see her watching her parents have sex, and listening to her mother use a bidet for the first time. The movie also deals with the economic realities of the Mozart family, who travel in high society, but receive only trinkets as payment for their concerts. What’s missing from Mozart’s Sister, though, is the kind of fervor that made Amadeus so memorable. Féret’s film looks lovely, is acted well, and successfully humanizes famous folk from long ago. (Marc Barbé is especially effective as Léopold Mozart, who cruelly tells his daughter that she hasn’t the brain to write music, yet also plays his violin sweetly for her when she’s sick.) But when Nannerl tells her father, “I hear notes, my own notes, in my head, but I don’t know how to write them down,” her words are an indictment of a society that marginalizes women, but not deeply moving as a personal plea.

Read More

5 Days of War movie review

While as an action movie, 5 Days Of War is rote and cliché-riddled, as an act of pop-culture warfare, it’s downright fascinating, an answering salvo in a battle that’s moved from the disputed Caucasus territory of South Ossetia into the realm of schlocky feature films. A few months after 2008’s Russo-Georgian War, Russia released a documentary online purporting to tell the suppressed truth about Georgia’s culpability in the conflict. It was followed by the made-for-Russian-TV drama Olympus Inferno, a love story involving a visiting American biologist who gets caught up in what’s again shown as the Georgian army running rampant.
5 Days Of War is Georgia’s return volley, owing its initial funding to the Georgian government and listing a state minister as a producer. The film ups the stakes impressively, with a larger budget and only slightly dented Hollywood offerings—Renny Harlin, still one of the all-time top-grossing directors, though long past his Die Hard 2 heyday; Rupert Friend as a dashing war reporter; Emmanuelle Chriqui as his local love interest/thing to rescue; an oddly cast but earnest Andy Garcia as the Georgian president; and Val Kilmer nibbling scenery as a seen-it-all veteran correspondent. Accents abound, unevenly—Garcia sports one, Chriqui doesn’t bother. The dialogue trips over unwieldy exposition about a complicated situation before settling into a comfier divide of good and evil in which the Georgian soldiers are heroic and led by Johnathon Schaech, and the Russians by Rade Serbedzija (the hey-it’s-that-guy of ominous Eastern Europeans) and a tattooed Cossack who slits the throats of elderly ladies.
The plot involves Friend and friends getting footage of said throat-slitting and attempting to find a place to upload it while running from attacks and explosions—a goal that, when finally achieved, is anticlimactically noted to be getting a lot of hits at Human Rights Watch, which hardly seems to justify the dangerous effort. The combat, at least, looks good—the military equipment was reportedly provided by Georgia’s defense ministry. But the film is far more interested in its underdeveloped fictional characters than in giving any sense of the scope of or motivations behind the war, which is shown from such a one-sided angle that it seems nonsensical. As propaganda, 5 Days Of War is unlikely to make a mark, though perhaps the idea of reaching people through would-be blockbusters will. As the film shows, when the conflict first broke out in South Ossetia, everyone was too busy covering the Olympic opening ceremony in Beijing to pay it much mind. Spectacle rules the day.

Read More

Programming the Nation? Movie Review

It’s tough to keep track of everything Jeff Warrick’s subliminal-advertising documentary Programming The Nation? does wrong. First off, it looks cheesy: a little like a corporate training tape, with low-quality video and goofy visual effects. Then Warrick takes a smarmy Michael Moore-style first-person approach to his narration, making what should be a serious inquiry into the existence and effectiveness of subliminal advertising unnecessarily personal. He even starts the movie with images of the World Trade Center collapsing, saying that in the wake of 9/11, “I felt compelled to take a long, hard look around me,” and adding, “I couldn’t help but wonder if we were all being brainwashed.” Warrick goes on to suggest that manipulation and mind-control may be at the roots of our recent economic woes. In other words: Warrick is mounting a huge case here, with no less than our freedom on the line.
What’s most frustrating about Programming The Nation? is that the topic is fascinating, and it hasn’t been dealt with extensively in documentary form. During some stretches, Warrick tells the story well, getting into the history of mass manipulation, from the subtle propaganda tactics of Edward Bernays to the “black boxes” that pipe anti-shoplifting messages into department stores. Warrick also points out that some of the most famous cases of subliminal messaging—like the anecdote about the theater owner who boosted concession sales with flash frames of popcorn and Coke, or the backward-masking on rock ’n’ roll albums—are either overblown, hoaxes, or just plain bogus.
Yet because Warrick couldn’t get anyone from the advertising world to talk to him, his interview subjects tend to be left-wing politicians (mainly angry at Bush-administration warmongering), conspiracy theorists, and for some reason, Queensrÿche lead singer Geoff Tate. And though Programming The Nation? acknowledges that the human mind tends to see patterns where none exist—be it the word “sex” in a picture of an ice cube or Robert Plant chanting “Here’s to my sweet Satan” when “Stairway To Heaven” is played backward—the movie presses forward with what Warrick calls “an expanded definition of subliminal messaging,” which includes common motion-picture foley effects, product placement, and just about any attempt to influence or agitate with pictures and sound. But if Warrick means to demonize anyone who uses the media to persuade, what’s it supposed to mean when Programming The Nation? inserts ominous music under images of children watching TV? That it’s okay to spread bullshit if you mean well?

Read More

Bbuddah Hoga Tera Baap Movie Review

From a generation’s point of view that has heard the stories and scavenged around for the DVDs of the original “Angry Young Man”, Amitabh Bachchan was and is always regarded with respect as an actor several classes above the rest, acting royalty even if you will. But in his latest venture directed by Puri Jagganath, that iconic character played by Big B is back on the big screen, unperturbed and angry as ever, if only with a touch of grey. Does he pull it off and re-instate his ferocious reign? Will the director that wrote the smash hit Pokiri which was remade twice, once in Tamil with the same name and then as Wanted in Hindi, be able to make his mark on the Hindi audience? Read on to find out. To begin with we see the streets of Mumbai, busy and bustling with people. The dark cloud over the compact but fair city is Kabir Bhai [Prakashraj], a don that works his underworld web from Dubai. A contract killer, his contacts and clients sit in highly political and high up seats in Delhi. His latest planned bombing however, gets him aggravates the keen eye of ACP Karan Malhotra [Sonu Sood], who’s determined to keep the streets safe and mafia-free. Already unhappy with the ACP, Kabir willing to give in and looks for a hit man to get rid of his headache. But when his men drop like flies and two important members of his gang get arrested, Kabir realises he needs no ordinary man. He needs the baap of all hit men. Enter Vijju [Amitabh Bachchan]. Suave, cool and utterly unorthodox, he dares, does and walks away smiling what most can only think about. Vijju is a man on a killer mission but while focus maybe on what his going to do, the questions will rise on who he really is.
My oh my how do I begin. Let’s just say Amitabh Bachchan isn’t called Big B for just his height. The almost 70 year old [okay so he’s 68] is nothing short of King Size on screen. Clearly aimed at the fans of that infamous Angry Young Man character desperately want to see him back in theatre halls, he brings the whole kit and caboodle and showcases to all why the craze started. Even when a fine actor like Sonu Sood is on screen with his fair share of depth and space, Amitabh looks amazing and dominates like nobody’s business. On his part, Sonu is sincere and honest, with not even an iota of his previous bad guy roles coming to the foreground. Prakashraj is definitely the baddest bad guy on the block in the film but it is great to see him bring out the funnies as well. Hema Malini is elegant as always, although a tad on the rhona-dhona side. Sonal Chauhan is confidant while Charmee Kaur is bubbly and infectious. Raveena Tandon adds in some overdue quirkiness and so does Makrand Deshpande and Subbaraju for their small roles. The actress that plays the nosy landlord and the actor that plays Sonal’s father definitely give you the giggles although they seem like add ons.
Music by Vishal-Shekhar is topping the charts as it is and works extremely well on screen too. The title track BHTB in acapella has been cleverly inserted at regular intervals and is sure to be on your lips as you walk out of the theatres. Editing by Shekar is crisp while the cinematography by Amol Rathod is top notch, staying in sync with the story and surroundings. But now to the main man behind the camera, Puri Jagganath. Masala films are not new to the established director from the south but when you’re catering for a different language and type of audience, there are still chances to fail. However, Puri has made a cohesive script with a some great dialogue to carry the film forward. The story itself may not boast of originality or depth but it sustains interest and is woven in such a way that you don’t immediately notice the flaws. And yes, they are there. As stated Amitabh is all over this film but it does seem that at one point no one else is visible. While it may be a treat to see the actor sparkle, it would also have been nice to have a proper ending to the Raveena-Charmee-Big B track and for that matter a little more support from the supporting cast. Add in the logic factor that flutters haphazardly like the sequencing and some may feel there is little substance to the film. Yet BHTB’s biggest plus point is that this is not supposed to be an intellectual fair and it doesn’t claim to be one. It is a complete and unabashed masala roller-coaster ride, out to do one thing. Entertain. And that it does very well.
BHTB is a chance for Amitabh Bachchan to prove to the younger generation how he did it once and, also how he can still do it again.

Read More

Phhir Movie Review

The best performance in this pretty but listless supernatural thriller comes from the film’s producer Vikram Bhatt who plays a sinister extortionist’s voice on the telephone. We never see the character. But it remains the single-most expressive performance in a film suffused with deadpan performers who seem to have traveled all the way to the idyllic British countryside for a  vacation.
But then they decided to make a quick thriller to supplement their holiday expenses.
The film exudes a kind of stock-slickness…The rugged castles and the verdant outdoors are well shot. The plot ? Ah…now that is another story…Rajneesh Duggal (know him?) has two lives to portray.He does the needful with the expertise of a trapeze artiste with a sprained ankle. The trip, as they say, is pre-destined.
Adah Sharma’s hair and caps suggest she’s auditioning for a bar waitresses role in a London-based sequel to Madhur Bhandarkar’s Chandni Bar. She’s supposed to read minds and predict the future. Wonder what she would have to say about this film!
The film is about a husband’s search for his missing wife (played by one Roshni Chopra who provides an all-new definition to a listness debut).
One evening the Duggal chap is supposed to join his wife for  dinner at a restaurant. She just doesn’t turn  up! If she didn’t like the food at the restaurant why didn’t she just say so?
For the rest of the film Duggal wears the expression of  a man who can smell a bad odour. Sharma keeps getting flashes of what’s to come.
The only engaging moments in the narration occur when the film’s editor rewinds the plot to get a supplementary view on the goings-on. That apart protagonist’s search for his spouse makes none of the impact of,say, Mani Ratnam’s Roja where Madhoo’s husband was abducted by militants during their honeymoon in Kashmir.
Phhir has neither the political or cultural specification to make the man’s search for his wife poignant or even interesting. A Pakistani cop is of no help. To the aggrieved husband, or to the film. Pravin Bhatt’s lucid cinematography and Manish More’s savvy editing salvage what looks like  a case of a missing spouse who could remain where she is for all we care.

Read More

Aarakshan Movie Review

Director Prakash Jha is known for his films that shed the light on social issues and movements. His latest is Aarakshan, which takes a look at the policy of reservation in Indian education. Starring Amitabh Bachchan, Saif Ali Khan, Manoj Bajpayee, Prateik and Deepika Padukone, the film explores the issue on a more personal level and delves into how the policy affects a school, a family, a relationship, a friendship and even closer how it changes one man. Like most social issue based films, Aarakshan was steeped in controversies – destroyed sets, threats to the cast/crew and eventually all the brouhaha led to multiple state governments putting a ban on the film simply on the basis of possibly the title or the perception of what the film was about. Did the film live up to the title, the story and the controversies that surrounded it? Read on! Disciplinarian principal Prabhakar Anand (Amitabh Bachchan), who believes in equality for all, runs his college with an iron-hand penalizing wrong doers irrespective of their societal status in the same tone as providing free coaching and financial assistance to students. His favourite student university topper Deepak (Saif Ali Khan) comes from a low income backward class and earns his way to academia excellence on merit. When Prabhakar Anand is forced to resign on account of a misquoted statement on India’s reservation policy, Vice-principal Mithilesh Singh (Manoj Bajpayee) usurps the post. However, Mithilesh’s agenda lies in multiplying his independent coaching venture while sidelining the welfare of the college.
How many ways are there to praise the performance of Amitabh Bachchan? Dependable as ever he pitches a perfect act. His confrontations with an equally stellar Manoj Bajpayee are persuasive to keep you glued to the seat. Saif does justice to his role of a Dalit, feeling the anguish, mouthing lines of chaste Hindi with near-perfection and earnestness. While Deepika manages to get away with an effective performance, Prateik in his till date career weakest is below-average, completely inept in the character of a rich anti-reservation student.
The screenplay by Anjum Rajabali and Prakash Jha, which ideally should have been the film’s biggest strength, wavers. Some of the best lines on reservation, which were part of the promos are just about as limited in the film. Occasionally stirring, the cause ‘Reservation’ takes a back-seat to ‘war of the ideals’ of the good guy vs. the bad guy. The pitfall is that Aarakshan talks less about reservation, and more about the buck-making trend of the education system that is increasingly plaguing the nation. It starts off explosively, and paints a compelling first half, but when it comes to a point of taking a stand, it conveniently steers into another direction. This unfortunately has been the predicament for most movies of recent times that have been based on societal/real life issues. Which makes me wonder – Knowing the sensitivity of the subject and pre-release angst involved with films of this genre; are the filmmakers intentionally conservative with the treatment of the subject? Would the screenplay have been any different if we weren’t a society that subjected its artists to uncalled agitation for the issues they want to take up on celluloid?
Where I was hoping the film would go full throttle and delve deeper into Deepak’s life (low caste community in large)– his status, his fight, his anxieties, Jha instead pulls him off-screen for longer than required; shifting spotlight onto the verbal feud of ‘education as a business transaction’ between Prabhakar and his nemesis Mithilesh. In isolation, this sequence works brilliantly, but as part of the larger motive it fails. While there isn’t enough for anyone to make a judgment on the subject, pro or anti, the filmmaker plays very safe barely presenting the basic facts, not necessarily filling in the flesh in detail.This is the kind of cinema that demands a fair balance between the subject and the art of film-making. The performances, characterizations, narrative, timing need to be in perfect sync failing which the very purpose of the movie is lost. In the case of Aarakshan, despite strong potential for high-octane drama, factual errors weighted down by a consistency-challenged storyline steals away the integrity of the subject.
Having said that, due credit must be given to the team for taking up a series of social issues, even though they didn’t manage to establish anything substantial by breaking the halves of the film into different episodes. Even the two separate themes of Reservation and Education as taken up by this film would have worked if they were neatly intertwined into each other, instead of appearing as mere subsets. Despite some negatives, if you can excuse the non justification done to the primary theme or expectations created around it, Aarakshan must be watched for some thought provoking insights and perspectives.

Read More

Higher Ground movie review

Religion is a tricky topic.  It’s incredibly easy to mock it or to preach it.  But an honest exploration of faith requires complete commitment and a willingness to let non-believers scoff and the holier-than-thou scorn.  Vera Farmiga’s directorial debut Higher Ground manages the impressive task of fully committing to its characters’ faith.  Unfortunately, it never transforms that commitment into a more fulfilling experience.  Despite an earnest approach to the Christian faith, Farmiga never finds anything interesting to say about it.

Higher Ground follows the life story of Corinne (Farmiga).  The movie starts slow and never picks up much speed.  We see Corinne’s childhood home-life, her introduction to Christianity, her intellectual curiosity, her marriage at a young age, and finally her “coming-to-God” moment.  This is all before we finally get to see Corinne as an adult and her total devotion to Christianity.  While everything in the first act isn’t unnecessary, it could have been condensed and more creatively explained.
Once we see Corinne’s life as a devout Christian, the film picks up a little bit of steam, but can’t maintain its pace.  Watching Corinne go through the paces of her Christian life is curious, but Farmiga doesn’t seem to know what’s worthwhile in the story and what’s not.  She also isn’t able to bring a spark to the proceedings.  There are some laughs from the oddities of her Evangelical faith, but almost everything is presented so matter-of-fact that there rarely seems to be much joy in Christianity.  When Corinne expresses her desire to speak in tongues so she can be closer to God, it’s a wonderful moment because the film rarely shows the love from these people who love Jesus.

To its great credit, Higher Ground never thumbs it nose at faith and that is incredibly admirable.  The film has the potential to be something special because it makes no judgment on the devotion of its characters.  It questions their discriminatory practices and close mindedness, but it nurtures their total belief in God and the Devil as physically real entities that can be called upon and fought against in one’s daily struggles.
But Higher Ground never connects the faith of its characters to something grander.  There are no deep insights or even much of an emotional connection.  It’s not a film that’s about big performances and it’s clear that Farmiga is actively making a choice not to go big (except in brief, bizarre fantasy sequences that feel like a comic crutch) and that’s fine if you’ve got intensity or complexity simmering beneath the surface. Higher Ground could have been divine, but the story and Farmiga’s direction rarely manage to raise the film’s spirit.

Read More

The Last Circus Movie Review

Visceral anger isn't often communicated very well in film. The tendency is to put the rabid puppy on a leash in hopes of averting alienation and discomfort, which are hardly the easiest emotional reactions to see the benefit in. To be perfectly frank, most movies that come from true outrage tend to come off as biased, cloyingly self-righteous, and political in the worst sense of the word, leading one to not only lose faith in the filmmaker but also in issues that deserve contemplation, action, and, yes, anger. The difference between a film being in your face or "in your face" is the difference between a rattlesnake and a lemon, and a film such as Alex de la Iglesia's The Last Circus is perhaps most interesting when considering where an artist's rightful fury contaminates, distorts, and ultimately degrades his formal abilities or, perhaps, highlights the limits of said abilities.

This isn't to say that dissent is a new criterion for de la Iglesia, who is perhaps most well-known in the states for The Day of the Beast, which saw a priest attempting to gain the favor of Satan through a series of increasingly debauched acts in the service of ultimately killing the Anti-Christ. No less jarring in its conception, The Last Circus opens as a clown is drafted to fight for the rebellion in Franco's Spain, subsequently tearing through a battalion of soldiers with a machete in full regalia before his inevitable capture. He is later killed by one of Franco's head honchos, Salcedo (Sancho Gracia), during a daring escape staged by the clown's son, Javier, who already has plans of following in his father's oversized footsteps. A few decades later, Franco's regime is in severe decline and pudgy, side-burned Javier (Carlos Areces) has landed a not-so-sweet gig as the Sad Clown for the eponymous show, working under the Happy Clown, Sergio (Antonio de la Torre).

An egomaniacal boozer with his clown shoe pressed firmly to the ringmaster's throat, Sergio is Franco in miniature, ruling over his colleagues with his frequent, ultra-violent tantrums. Not even his lover, Natalia (Carolina Bang), is safe from his savage beatings, but, as she explains, she is addicted to his wild, carnal nature; their fights tend to be followed by feral fuck sessions, sometimes in public. But Natalia also falls hard for Javier's boldness and his lack of fear in regard to Sergio, who attempts to instill said fear with a ferocious once-over at a local carnival that leaves Javier with an aching back and a further twisted psyche. Javier answers back by bludgeoning and severely disfiguring Sergio, mid-coitus, and on goes the war between charismatic tyranny and impassioned rebellion, reaching a fever pitch when Javier deforms his own face with acid and a hot iron before embarking on a shooting spree.

De la Iglesia imparts a genuine sense of madness to the proceedings, which is deeply seductive in its willingness to toss itself into the void. But it comes at the cost of clarity, both in terms of storytelling and technical form. Working from his own script, the director seizes upon a grotesque atmosphere of gaudy embellishments, matched by grandiose set-pieces and unsettling quakes of barbarity. It is then somewhat understandable that once Javier and Sergio's visages truly mirror their mangled, monstrous insides, the narrative itself begins to come apart at the seams. At the same time, however, de la Iglesia loses control and the film's tone and pacing begin to feel like erratic fits. Save for an engaging chase between Sergio and Natalia from her Kojak-themed nightclub, the action in the film's final third is deployed sloppily and the film's urgency begins to feel more like hurrying towards its near-operatic end.

By the end, the whole mess feels only marginally effective in its political subtext but you can feel de la Iglesia's wild heart thumping like mad underneath the grimy veneer of Madrid, which appears as a charred husk after innumerable bombings and terrorist attacks. Casting the ruthless Sergio as Franco's proxy is expectedly vicious but Javier, as the brooding face of the rebellion that explodes into a scarred atrocity, is hardly more sympathetic by the film's climax in a church filled with the bones of dead rebels.

There are moments of great, caustic humor and delirious melodrama throughout The Last Circus. But as a whole, the film lacks the consistency, sorrow, and tremendous imagination of Guillermo del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth, which it has been somewhat unjustly compared to. Del Toro's magnificent fable focused almost completely on how imagination and invention serve as reactants to personal and political trauma, at once shielding us and betraying us. In contrast, The Last Circus deals more closely with memory, how we revert to and pervert learned ideals of innocence and entertainment, making them essentially hideous. De la Iglesia's unwillingness to reconcile his passion for his country's cruel heritage is effective in spurts, but it's all too familiar of tragic Javier, whose inability to come fully to terms with his past births a horror. 

Read More

Final Destination 5 movie review

For anyone who doesn’t already know how lovingly the Final Destination franchise clings to repeated tropes and gleefully gory shocks, the series’ fifth entry begins with a statement of purpose: a lengthy opening-credits sequence featuring random CGI objects (skulls, bloody nails, flaming windowpanes, an exploding microwave, a burning corpse, and much, much more) crashing through CGI glass and flying at viewers’ eyes in 3-D slow-motion. It’s painfully repetitive, context-free violence-fetishization, and it’s instantly boring, yet dragged out at vast length. That’s all fully appropriate for a series that’s been coasting on the same gorehound storyline for more than a decade. Still, it does make what follows feel creative by comparison, as Final Destination 5 tries to spruce up the once-fresh, now-familiar plot with a few new wrinkles.
Once again, a well-meaning kid has a precognitive vision that lets him save a group of people from horrific death. (By this time, the minor variations from film to film feel like something from a game of Clue or a Mad Libs sheet: In this case, it’s Nicholas D’Agosto rescuing his paper-plant coworkers from a suspension-bridge collapse.) Once again, the survivors begin dying in hyperbolically unlikely ways, and D’Agosto and company realize death feels cheated and is trying to reclaim them. One new twist: Candyman’s Tony Todd, reprising his occasional role as a creepy, mysteriously knowledgeable figure, claims the doomed cast can trade fates and lifespans with other people by murdering them. Another twist: In setting up the elaborate, gruesomely fatal accidents that are the FD movies’ raison d’être, director Steven Quale (Aliens Of The Deep) and screenwriter Eric Heisserer (the 2010 Nightmare On Elm Street reboot) actually insert a few red herrings for a little misleading tension.
And it practically counts as a twist that they also tried to personalize some of FD5’s characters. Most of them are generic chum-to-be, particularly the usual roster of mildly hateable stereotypes meant to attract horror fans’ bloodlust—including David Koechner slumming it as The Obnoxious Boss. But D’Agosto, at least, with his dreams of being a Parisian chef and his dedication to the girlfriend (Emma Bell) who just dumped him, feels like a more realized character than the series has seen in a while. Still, while FD5 is less generic and less facilely goofy and ironic than past series installments, it’s still a rote execution of formula that scores its biggest points with self-aware references to its predecessors—including a closing-credits montage of kills from Final Destinations past. Which echoes the opening credits, and reiterates the theme: Who needs a creative storyline or meaningful connections when you can just string some shocking images together?

Read More