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