Review - Gone Girl

Its either a farce, overblown but entertaining cinema. Or a detailed, true portrayal of sad married life. Whatever it is, its something outstanding.

What are you thinking, Amy?

.

Amy Dunne has gone missing. Her husband, Nick Dunne is indifferent. He behaves as if he does not cares. He smiles at press conference. He clicks selfies with some random chick. He doesn't knows her wife's friends. He doesn't knows what does she do all day long. He lies. Has Nick Dunne killed his wife?

Director David Fincher is known to cook up some real good suspense thrillers - I daresay, his Se7en is apparently the best suspense-thriller in among recent, post Hitchcock films. On the other hand, we have Gillian Flynn who wrote a great, great novel about messed up married life, all soaked up in twisted murder/abduction plot. When they both collaborate, we have something awesome to behold.

The film's first half presents itself in a series of flashback narrated by Amy - from her diary - how she met her perfect suitor, Nick; how he made her laugh, made her feel important; how they ended up getting married. They lost their jobs. Their "perfect" lives in New York ended up in the quiet town of North Carthage, Missouri. Their small arguments turned their marriage into a hard work. Slowly, slowly, they are hardly talking. Apparently Nick has hit Amy. Amy now fears Nick may kill her.

And this is interwoven brilliantly with Amy's missing case preceding. The both plot threads meet in the middle of the film - the big, big reveal. Till that, you keep guessing. This cross cutting technique (kudos to Kirk Baxter, the editor) works so well, that the entire viewer prospective of characters change. You love Amy at sometime. You love Nick at sometime. You hate Nick. You hate Amy.

The film presents some real shocking observations on the modern American lifestyle, though I'd rather say it has universal appeal. How a serious issue is turned into a media circus. How selfish, money-minded parents may damage a poor child and turn someone into a monster. Marriage is usually hard. Compromised are to be made. Adjustments are must. But usually, these compromises, these adjustments are more or less made by women - the wives. Men also, never get to know women. Husbands don't know what their wives want. Or why women fight over apparently petty issues. What do wives want. What husbands want.
Combined with stress, continuous disregard, loneliness, cheating, plotting - things are always disastrous. Gone Girl presents the viewers with some deep issues regarding marriage, which is something rare because thrillers are usually all fun and no deep themes. But mind you, this is Fincher cinema.

The acting is all round brilliant. Ben Affleck plays Nick Dunne - charismatic, cocky, charming, doubtful and weird. He is a perfect casting. Carrie Coon as soul sister to Nick gave a natural performance. But its Rosamund Pike as Amy who takes the cake. She is smart. Bold. Sexy. Unnerving. Cold. Amazing. What a performance. As if she has over ten characters for each mood. She is outstanding.

Screenplay by Flynn herself is a well balanced version of her wonderfully written novel. The novel is written entirely by two perspectives - Nick's and Amy's for most of the length. Obviously, for the film, it would have not worked. But Flynn morphed her deliciously complex novel into a smart script. Though you will have to miss those wonderful characterizations and descriptions that Flynn wrote.

Fincher gets the job done. He has made another great suspense-thriller with substance. No plot holes. But film is apparently is not believable - I think characters like Amy or her parents perhaps don't exist. Maybe it is a farce. But when you go back, think about it, it is not that unrealistic at all. Either way, farce or truth, Gone Girl is a amazing thriller. Its hard to take your eyes off the screen for most of its run time. Combined with great acting, chilling music (Raznor and Ross -you've done it again), dark, grey frames (Jeff Cronenwerth) - the film leaves you moved, disturbed and highly entertained.

4/5

Review: Gosford Park

Robert Altman's Gosford Park is a chatty, uneven slog of a film. This film is a weird mix of British nobility and some typical Agatha Christie novel - when it works it dazzles and when it doesn't its hard to stay awake. And it works so rarely.

A group of British nobles spend their weekend for shooting at Sir Williams (Michael Gambon) and his wife,  Lady Sylvia's (Kristin Scott Thomas) lavish country manor in 1932. Guests include Williams' sister, Constance (Maggie Smith), Sylvia's two sisters along with their husband, actor Ivor Novello along with Hollywood film producer and some others whose name I don't care to write. A murder happens. The host is killed. Who killed poor Sir Williams?

Guests also brought along their one or more valets with them. So in short you have so many characters in the film that you can consider a separate exercise to keep track who's who in the film.  Most of the upper class nobilities have almost similar names. Same is the case of the servants and valets - they are double in number and they are addressed by their master's surname. Confused?

Anyway, the film proceeds in a leisurely manner. Lazy mornings (breakfast on bed), chatty afternoons (or a single case of countryside shooting gig) and spicy evenings (gourmet food and secret sex). For over an hour, we see so many characters speaking of mundane things or things which simply are dispensable in context of the film. These conversations would have mattered if characters had any strong background story - baring a few. Above all, you have to figure out who the hell they are talking about. At least I had to.

But the main plot (which isn't actually the "main" focus unfortunately) - involving Helen Mirren, Clive Owen and Michael Gambon is profound and moving. Also among the herd of actors, Mirren, Maggie and Kelly truly gave an outstanding performance, perhaps their roles were written FOR the film not for filling up the scenes.

Gosford Park is hard to follow - maybe Altman intended it to be like this. I didn't enjoyed it. Maybe its my fault - I should have paid attention. But I wanted to switch off my TV just after 20 minutes. And that isn't good, is it?

2.5/5

Review - Interstellar (2014)

High on ideas and themes, Interstellar makes your jaw drop - occasionally.

 

Interstellar, put shortly, is Christopher Nolan's most ambitious film. It tries to handle so many themes in mere three acts - love, survival, wormholes, blackholes, five dimensions and what not. But even with such an weighty baggage the film succeeds putting most of the things just right.

In near future (perhaps about 40-50 years from now), Earth is short of crops. Only corn grows - wheat, okra, etc are all gone. There are frequent dust storms and population is decreasing, apparently due to starvation and lung-diseases. We are introduced to Cooper (McConaughey), a widower former pilot/engineer, who has two children and a father-in-law. Murph (Mackenzie Foy and older version Jessica Chastain), his ten year old daughter, believes that there is a ghost in her room trying to communicate with her. Her father, however, believes that there is no such thing, and there must be some explanation for strange dust patterns on the floor. It leads him to a secret headquarters of NASA, which people believe was shut down many years ago. Professor Brand (Michael Caine) ask him to join the mission to travel a wormhole and discover all the new potential habitats for Humans. Coop agrees, leaving his children behind and aims to save humanity.

Writing beyond this point will probably spoil many crucial events in the film (and honestly, length of this review too). The film's script has enough length so that likes of Anne Hathaway, Matt Damon, Topher Grace and Ellen Burstyn are in the cast. Fortunately enough, barring Damon, everyone does a fantastic job. Matthew McConaughey gives another stellar performance. His relationship with his daughter, Murph is well written and exceptionally executed by McConaughey and Foy/Chastain. Indians are lucky enough to get English subtitled version of Interstellar, without them, the loud sound mix would have muted pretty much every dialogue McConaughey mumbles. Hathaway gives another brilliant performance and her chemistry with McConaughey is great. For the very first time, Nolan has actually given woman in his film a lot more room. Murph and Amelia are Nolan's only female characters which are not just there as dead wives or plot devices. Interstellar is strongly based on elements of parental bonding and love, which are least Nolan like - as if Spielberg's spirit has descended into Nolan.

As expected, cinematography (Hoyte Van Hoytema) in the film is an eye-feast. The color palette used here by Hoytema is consistently bleak. Shot on 70mm photographic film, Interstellar's texture is grainy and sometimes too dark. And yet, its breathtaking. Shots of the space ship passing Saturn in quite space have a dream-like quality.

For the first time, wormholes and blackholes are shown in a film like they would actually appear (if they exist!) based on mathematical models. One set piece, which showcases a giant tidal wave will certainly take you to the edge of your seat. There is another one, which involves a rotating space station, which looks more redundant than impressive, thanks to 2013's amazing Gravity. Hans Zimmer's music is finally not recycled from his own previous scores, which is a welcome change. Score is obtrusively loud sometimes, but the main theme of the film, which is just some few notes on a church organ, is beautiful.

*inevitable major spoiler ahead*

For those who are concerned about the film's physics I can safely assure that it is no harder than Wikipedia's introductory passage on Time Dilation, Black Holes or Wormholes. Kip Thorne has given some input to the film, but I reckon it extends beyond visuals.  In the third and final act, Cooper literally and delibrately falls into a black hole to unriddle the mystery of singularity. Cooper does survives, defying pretty much everything which physics tells us - about heat, Roche limit and event horizons. What follows after that is apparently what you have seen many times before - in Back to the Future or even Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, but in five dimensions. The film goes from interstellar travel to time travel within matter of minutes.

If you think back after the end of the film, you notice many paradoxes and plot holes of size of a black hole. But if you cling to suspension of disbelief, Interstellar all-together ends with a sublime and haunting note. Nolan may not have excelled in general relativity but in film-making, he's no less than Einstein. It is not a perfect film by any means, but alas, it would have been a masterpiece if it had got everything right.

4/5

Review - Maleficent

Angelina Jolie is the life and soul of this film. 

Beautifully wicked...

In 1959, Disney released 'The Sleeping Beauty' - an animated film which was considered to be Disney's most expensive production ever. However, it failed to earn over-whelming response from critics' or the audience. Years later, Disney has once again retold the classic fairy-tale - 'Maleficent' is not exactly a live-action remake, but a re-imagination of the beloved Brothers Grimm story. Told from the perspective of the evil nemesis herself, Maleficent is a more complex version, with a back-story and alternate ending. The character itself is a given complete make-over, so if you are a fan of pure evil, you are going to be disappointed.

Instead of directly starting with the Christening gathering of King Henry's charming daughter Aurora, the film provides a lengthy background story of Maleficent. Maleficent is shown as a young, naive fairy, who was once betrayed by Henry for the greed of throne. Driven in revenge, she curses the baby girl.  The film mostly follows 'The Sleeping Beauty', but instead of Maleficent plotting against Aurora, the film portrays her as more benevolent character. Linda Woolverton, the screenwriter, hits the bulls eye for the characterization of Maleficent. The character is much more layered, with qualities of forgiveness and kindness along with anger and revenge. Compared to The Sleeping Beauty's nemesis, this Maleficent is certainly a more interesting character in itself.

And Jolie does a remarkable portrayal of such an amazing character. In one of these early scenes, Jolie howls and cries in agony - like a wounded beast - and yet maintaining humanly affliction. In the highlight

curse scene, Jolie is pure evil. Her words resonate the entire hall with great power, with a bad-ass style. There are so many bits of great acting scattered here, and there, that you certainly understand why Jolie remains one of the best Hollywood super-stars.

Unfortunately, the script is so engaged with the Jolie that all of the other characters are side-lined - expect for King Henry - whose characterization has a some depth. Aurora (played by Elle Fanning) is once again your typical Disney fairytale princess which looks good, does good, and is mostly in awe. The three pixies who raise Aurora far from the Kingdom are caricatures. Quite surprisingly, they are played by Imelda Stauton, Lesley Manville and Juno Temple - great actors - but are given a substandard script.  The plot somewhat drags in the middle - which could be attributed to repetitive scenes of young Aurora.

Robert Stromberg, a gifted artist whose credits include 'The Aviator', 'Pan's Labyrinth', 'Avatar', 'Alice in the Wonderland', and so on; tried his hands on direction for the first time. He has an eye for visuals - there is no doubt in it, his two Oscars are mere proof of this statement. For a debutant director, Stromberg certainly exceeds expectations. His imagination of the entire fairytale land is dazzling, the set design for this film is one of the year's best. Unlike 'Alice in the Wonderland (2010)' where he bombarded the sets with overly colorful and flashy art designs, Maleficent's art direction is a lot more subtle, something which should also be credited to the production designers. Stromberg is also great at drama and emotions, churning out the best in Jolie. The action sequences are where he faltered; they are poorly staged and merely for the sake of it.

In the end, Maleficent is all about Jolie and the wonderful visuals. Apart for Maleficent's character herself, the film lacks any rich portrayal of any other character. Also, purists will certainly feel that the film has altered too much of the original story. That said, the film is a satisfying experience and should be considered one of the Jolie's best work.

3.5/5

Review - The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

The Amazing Spider-Man is a futile exercise in film-making and is nothing new. But it is good enough for further installments.

The love birds... oh sorry, one is a Human-cum-Spider.

It all started when production of fourth installment of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films when sour, due to "creative difference" between Sony and Raimi. When Raimi backed out, Tobey and Dunst backed out as well. Sony's multi-million dollar franchise's future was unclear.  The solution to this was rather simple - a clean reboot of the film series. Just like you reboot your computer when it is not responding.

But that's really unfortunate that film series' reboot is not as simple as your computer. The third Spider-Man film by Raimi was met with luke-warm reception with critics and audience alike; it grossed pretty below expectations. Was rebooting the entire franchise in such a short time interval (about 5 years) a good move?

While I will keep my final judgement regarding this to myself until I see the sequel to this film, but it is fairly safe to assume that future of Marc Webb's version is safe. The film follows the original Spider-Man (2002) very closely, although there are some good and bad changes here and there. For example, uncle Ben's death here is presented a lot more clearly; while Peter's evolution as Spider-Man is rather sketchy and rushed. Also, setting the story in high-school is a welcome change.

Our friendly neighbourhood is now played by Andrew Garfield who plays Spider-Man in a lot more pausible
attitude as compared to Tobey, and his looks suit the whole high-school set up. Tobey, on the other hand had some better skills at comic timing and on-screen charm, which Garfield certainly lacks. Garfield's Peter is a cry-baby, tearing up quite often. Love interest here is Gwen Stacy rather than Mary Jane Watson. Emma Stone is really good as Gwen, certainly more suited companion to Peter than Mary (played by Kirsten in previous films in a rather dull way). Other returning characters include Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field, for a paycheck certainly). Norman Osborn and Harry Osbron are not in the film, although majority of the film's action takes place at the Oscorp.

First half of the film is exactly more or less same as the first Spider-Man. The new villian introduced to us is Rhys Ifans as Dr. Connor/Lizard (finally he is a biologist rather than a physicist). His transformation as the Lizard is so badly written that I would rather not comment on it. And yes, our Irrfan Khan is also present for two-three scenes with some dailogue. His work in Life of Pi, released in same year, adds more to his resume than this. The built up to the climax is hurried and under-developed. The entire ending is also your typical super-hero ending, with no new element.

Marc Webb's vision is stylish and technically sound as it should be, but it lacks straight-forwardness and cinematic grandeur that Sam Raimi brought to the screen. The film is shot in Red EPIC in 3D, and the night scenes certainly look too pristine and brightly lit to be real. The trademark spider-cam shots are present too, with new POV shots, which look really good. Editing is really bad, many scenes feel rushed and abrupt. Visual Effects are passable, the Lizard doesn't look intimidating at all; something which should be attributed to the failure of the production design team.

So should you keep your faith in this new Spider-Man? Certainly yes; mainly because of the two leads - Garfield and Stone. They make a really good pair, play their parts with conviction. Without them, this Amazing Spider-Man has nothing "amazing" to offer.

2.5/5

Review - Her

Her is a prime example of a short-film concept stretched like rubber for a full length film

Its time to sleep!

I haven't seen much of Spike Jonze's directorial features (to name one, Adaptation, which bored me to sleep). His scripts are mostly written by Charlie Kaufman, but this time he helmed the writer seat for his next venture - a futuristic science fiction comedy drama about a man who falls in love with his Operating System (or iPhone's 100x improved Siri, whatever). And the prime reason for this romance between a human and machine is voice of Scarlett Johansson. Boy, her voice is sexy.

Our protagonist is Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix), who is an introvert, loner and a complete bore. He works in a firm whose employees write hertfelt letters for people who do not  have time to write. He writes really good, as we are told. But good love-letter writing doesn't means a good marital life, so he is about to get divorced from his childhood sweetheart Cathrine (Rooney Mara). He is sad. He is melancholic. He barely speaks up his mind. He plays a video-game with an abusive little character. He engages in phone sex. In short, he is prime candidate to fall in love with the next living thing(or non-living, in this case).

Enter Samantha, sexy, smart, funny computer OS with Scarlett's voice. Theodore is delighted. She arranges his work, his meetings (I don't think he had many though) and she reads her emails (professional and private ones). Samantha is non-judgemental, considerate and highly respecting towards Theodore. They fall in love.

But as soon as they start dating (and voice-sexing, if there is any thing like it), things start to really drag. The film with all soft tones and moody atmospheric score, at first is captivating, but for 2 hours, it is major ingredient for sleep. On a conceptual level, its all intriguing, but come on, it is weird. You really cannot make a human being, no matter how introverted or shut out, fall in love with a voice. Without a face. Without a body.

Joaquin Phoenix's Theodore has limited range of expressions - sad, more sad, smiling but yet sad -  which may put Edward (of Twilight) to shame. Of course, it was the script's requirement. Amy Adams is sleepwalking in this sleep inducing film. Rooney Mara appears and disappear, like a ghost. Only Scarlett's Samantha is an 'alive' thing, which is ironic since she is an OS.

Spike Jonze's Her might have won hearts all over the world. But I don't think I am ready to acknowledge the whole 'human-computer' love thing. Its illogical. But films are not always about logic, so Her may just pass as a failed experiment for me.

2/5
 

Review - Captain Phillips

'Captain Phillips' sails on turbulent waters

Paul Greengrass's 'Captain Phillips', based on real events that took in 2009 in Indian ocean, is an edge-of-seat thriller, however, emotionally distant, even though the film showcases some flawless acting by Tom Hanks near the last 10 minutes. This docudrama keeps the viewer restless and tense throughout its first half, but it does looses the steam later on. By the end of its super tense climax which reminded me of Argo (in a good way), I felt a little exhausted, a little lost and a little disappointed.

Captain Rich Phillips is a US mariner, whose most recent task is the shipment of support material like food and medicines to Mombasa, Kenya. On voyage, the ship is hijacked by four Somali pirates (their leader is Abduwali Muse, played by Barkhad Abdi). The first attempt for hijack fails, but on the second attempt, the pirates succeed. The captain and the crew, despite their best efforts, loose the control of the ship. Things turn ugly when the captain himself is kept hostage on the life-boat for 5 days. Muse demands 10 million dollars, Captain ain't got it. Mayday. Enter US navy seals and other American maritime forces to save Captain Phillips. And no, I won't spoil it further.

But what follows are some exciting, gripping moments, which showcases some immense talents of wide range - direction, editing, sound design, visual effects and acting. Tom Hanks' performance rises like a steep mountain - he is apt in the beginning, very good in the middle and exceptional in the last minutes. His transformation as a character from an emotionally strong, rigid man to a wounded, shocked soul is a marvelous. He has lost an Oscar nomination though, but its no denying, Hanks is at top of his game in this film.

Barkhad Abdi walks like a pirate, talks like a pirate and yes, looks like one too. It is a great casting choice, and Abdi complemented Hanks very well. 'No problem "Irish", everything gonna be OK. Nobody's gonna be hurt", Abdi says it with a great competence.

Greengrass, without any second thoughts, was perhaps the best suited director for this film. He has proved that he is the master of fast paced action thrillers (see Bourne series).  In this one, however, he somehow gets lost in action and the emotions. Film's tone shifts from emotional one to an action one a lot, specially in the end. It may have worked, but for me it didn't. Also, Bill Ray (screenwriter) at the same time wants us to sympathize with the pirates but also wants us to feel proud and all happy when three of them are shot (one of them is adolescent). Its all thematic hotch potch. But yes, you can't portray your own country in a grey shade, can you?

'Captain Phillips', at the very end, is a very well made film with some great talents all around. You should give it a chance, definitely. You may love it, or maybe not so much, like in my case.

3.5/5

Review - The Game

Even with a foolish twist, The Game an engaging, edge of seat thriller which keep you guessing.

  Spoilers ahead -
 Its 1997, and its David Fincher's second consecutive attempt at Thriller genre - his first attempt - as you all know, is a mind-blowing nerve wrecking Se7en. He got the bulls eye at that time. Does his next project, The Game, with a very intriguing premise holds up the fort?

Well, then my dear friends, The Game is what Se7en was not - it is fast-paced, full of action, stylish and unfortunately absurd. We have our protagonist,  Nicholas Van Orton is a rehashed version of Gordon Gekko - snobbish, emotionally distant and  introvert. Apparently his shoes costs around a thousand dollars. Nicholas is a private banker, had a divorced from his wife (though they remain friendly) and has a estranged brother Conrad (Sean Penn, wasted). Nicholas had a troubled childhood, he apparently saw his father committing suicide by falling from a top of a building, at his 48th Birthday no less. So when his own 48th birthday arrives, his brother Conrad shows up out of the blue, gives him a voucher for a "game" - developed by a company called CRS (Consumer Recreation Services). Without giving him any details how exactly the "game" works, Conrad tantalizes Nicholas by promising it will change his life.

Intrigued by the Game, he reaches CRS, spends all his day for the test they require for him to participate which includes handwriting samples, Q&As and physicals. But he is rejected, told on the phone. After that, he learns that the game has just begun - it is no recreation but an assault to his privacy (a scene involving a dummy clown and TV is a highlight of the film), his wealth and his life. Through series of events he escapes from the clutches of CRS employees, often with the help of beautiful mystery girl played by Deborah Kara Unger. In all bizzare turn of events, he finds himself somewhere in Mexico, snatched of all his money, his accounts are drained. Near the end, he sets out for revenge near the end and sets his aim to unmask the man behind this.

Until now, you have already guessed that it makes no point having a star like Sean Penn in the film for just 2 scenes. So yes, he is behind this dreadful game. And guess what, is he up for his brother's money? Tada! Wrong answer - he just played out all this as a prank, so that his brother can face the reallity and enjoy his life. What!

The climatic twist at the end is as absurd as absurdity goes. It matches 'The Village' for the most impossible plot. I wonder what Fincher was thinking when he made it. Or what the screenwriters thought when they wrote it.

But still, there are very few movies in which even the so-called twist is hard to digest, engulfs you and captivates you into its atmosphere. David Fincher is a master when it comes to creating atmosphere on silver screen. The mood, the thrills and the creeps you get, is all worth your time even with an illogical finale. Aptly shot by Harris Savides, The Game hardly has any dull moments. It is an engaging, edge of seat thriller which keep you guessing. Remove that last 5 minutes from it, you've got pure Fincher cinema.

3.5/5

 

Review - The Wolf of the Wall Street

The Wolf of the Wall Street is non stop adrenaline rush.

F**K THE WORLD!!!

 Imagine Martin Scorsese directing a Michael Bay-esque movie, replacing all the steel and iron banging with drugs, parties, strippers, however keeping the hot bombshells intact. All of this with some depth though. This is 'The Wolf of the Wall Street' for you.

Scorsese's got a huge U-turn from his PG-rated biopic-cum-adventure flick Hugo (read boring). Hugo had no f-words, no nudity and drugs in light years distance and no sex at all. Seems like Marty was really depressed after Hugo, so he went out with a bang (literally and physically). Here's a film with a record breaking F-words count, nudity in every third scene, drugs of all kind and decent amount of sex. So much that it could have been a NC-17. But like Requiem for a Dream or The Perfume, the film walks the thin line.

Our hero (read antihero) is Jordan Belfort is a long island stock broker who turns obscenely rich by selling stocks of pink-sheet, worthless companies and getting 50% commission each time. He and his team (comprising of very funny Jonah Hill),  sells it firstly to poor, working class people and then to rich. He soon starts his own company, his dirty business grows and he becomes the king of the Wall Street within months. 

So when you have such an outrageous amount of money, you spend it or waste it in very possible way - so does Jordan, he moves to a palatial home, divorces to his wife for an ultra-sexy lingerie designer Naomi (the super hot Margot Robbie), takes every possible drug, bangs hookers, buys yacht and chopper and what not. But its all saddening since the money he is spending is not really his, but of the poor (but desperate) people, who want to get rich very quickly.

It showcases a bravura performance by Leonardo diCaprio, that would probably be his second best  (after the brilliant Revolutionary Road). He gives all his flesh and bone to the character. He acts with jolts of energy that it shakes you up inside out. And the best thing is, he maintains a very difficult balance between a good performance and a hammy one.

The film is unnecessarily long, with all its partying, doping and f'cking scenes become repetitive. These scenes firstly are a bit of surprise (or shock if you don't see much of hard R's), then fun and finally boring. But thankfully there are some ingenious sequences scattered throughout the film - McConaughey's brilliant cameo, the whole 'marrying your cousin' conversation between Leo and Jonah, the little sexy fights between Leo and Margot, the whole climatic road crawling scene which may lead Leonardo to the Oscar statuette - are to name some few.

The Wolf of the Wall Streets does comes out as a bold, brave movie which is not shy of anything at all. It is a rare of a kind film which treats the movie goers as adults, who have brains and can make whatever (good or bad) they want to make out of this film's horrible selfish characters. Even at 71 years, Scorsese has made a film so dynamic and energetic that it appears to be made by someone in his 20's. We can only say, keep the good work up and the Hugo's down, Marty!

3.5/5

Review - Blue Jasmine

 Blue Jasmine is all about Cate Blanchett.

Here is a film with a character so narcissist, snobbish and self-centered -  and yet you feel for the character. You care for Blanchett's Jasmine, not because the character is written in such a way. In fact, the character is wretched, a complete disaster. But you care. You care because there is something usual about Cate's portrayal. Her eyes, her face, her expressions - are just unforgettable. This is a great piece of acting.

Woody's first US based production after many years, Blue Jasmine is about a high fashion, ultra-rich Manhattan socialite - she is all that not because of herself - she is not even a graduate, but because of her husband Hal (Alec Baldwin, in a very apt casting). "He swept me off the feet" says Jasmine, not once but many times, after the things turn dreadfully wrong. Hal goes to jail in a Bernie Madoff-way, all the money, goods and property are taken by the State; and Jasmine is all left alone to face reallity. - She doesn't even have enough money to pay rent for the apartment.

So she moves to her sister's apartment in San Francisco.  Ginger (amazing Sally Hawkings, very natural) is a working class and hasn't heard from her rich sister in years. What follows is a sequence of comic situations in a very dark way and a detailed character study of our herione, Jasmine.

Writing his best, even at 80's, Woody Allen has a gift for quirky narrative. It is amazing the way he crafts his script, altering between dark comedy and neurotic drama. And also, the way he lets her lead to shine - Blanchett has apparently the best film ever which a heroine can dream of. It is a film which allows Blanchett to throw all her emotions. She is angry, frustrated, flirtatious, happy, jealous, amazed and finally, mad - all this in just an hour and a half of runtime. In any other hands, the character would have turned into a caricature. But Blanchett plays it with such a vulnerability and conviction that she turns Jasmine into a full flesh and bone character. She is the actor of the year undoubtedly.

Blue Jasmine is an amazing film. It shows how a great artist like Woody Allen never loses his luster and command in his craftmanship. And it shows how a great actress like Cate Blanchett can turn a repellent character into a empathetic one.

Jasmine doesn't plays in Indian cinemas, but you should definitely catch it on home video.

4/5