Review - The Revenant

Breathtaking. Brutal. Brilliant.

Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki creates visual poetry onscreen.

Most of the survival dramas are pretty simple in their thematic approach. The protagonist rises above all the odds and fights against the adversities by sheer will and courage. However, Alejandro González Iñárritu's The Revenant breaks the mould - here, our hero isn't alive by his mere strength or will to survive, but he sustains because of his luck. Gods must have blessed him. Otherwise, he would have been a part of clear blue waters and icy frozen soil of wilderness. 

Our guide to stark naked landscape of Wyoming is outstanding Leonardo DiCaprio, playing  fur-trapper Hugh Glass, who gets brutally mauled by a bear during an unfortunate expedition. Set in early 1800s, this is the time when the rivers were deep blue, the land was pristine and untouched, the air was clear and non-toxic. Glass becomes a liability soon after he is assaulted by the bear, the team leader (played by Domhnall Gleeson) decides to move ahead, while assigning three of his peers to "watch over" suffering Glass. One of them is a cunning man called John Fitzgerald (played by Tom Hardy), who has some other plans rather than to nurse Glass.

What follows is the tale of revenge, greed, back-stabbing and pain. Pain, the most universal emotion, is conveyed in the most unflinching manner. Not only the physical pain, but the pain of losing loved ones and the pain of the past. Glass is haunted by the memories of his wife, presumably dead because of a colonial attack. However, Iñárritu's film isn't merely about elementary feelings. It is about humanity and wildness waltzing with blood and sweat to stay alive. It is about cyclic nature of life, which morphs into one violent instance to another. In one of the most haunting scene of this year, Glass cuts out a horse's belly,  takes out his guts - not to eat any of the flesh,  but to take shelter. To stay alive from the icy cold weather. What is dead for one, is the means of life for another.  This thought has never been so powerfully established by any other film of recent time.

Leonardo DiCaprio has given his heart and soul to this film. Undoubtedly, it is his most physical performance, for which he must have physically suffered along with his character. Shot on icy cold locations of Canada and Argentina, clearly The Revenant is challenging for any actor. But what holds about Leonardo's performance is his raw and genuine emotions. His face expresses grief, agony and his eyes are fueled with revenge. He deserves whatever accolade is thrown at him.

The conjurer of light and shadows, the ever-outstanding Emmanuel Lubezki takes another leap forward. His cinematography is breathtakingly beautiful and raw, that every frame of the film evokes some certain feeling. Shot in natural light, you can actually take any random snapshot of the film and frame it on your wall. He owns this film as much as Iñárritu or Leonardo.

There is blood and beauty, violence and grace together in the same film. Man and the nature have never been more close. Apart from slightly long runtime, The Revenant delivers an enthralling, visceral cinematic experience which will stay with you for a long time.

4/5 

Review - Carol

Carol is beautiful, elegant piece of art but unfortunately lacks dramatic conflict.

Carol perfectly captures the 1950s Manhattan, with its detailed set design and marvelous costumes.

 "You're my angel. Flung out of space", remarks Carol Aird during film's most intimate scene. Therese and Carol are having an affair in 1950s America, where the words "gay" and "lesbian" were not even common. Rightfully so, the pair was indeed flung out of space, in the extremely hetero-normative and stringent society. Director Todd Haynes' Carol, however, does not tackles the issue of sexual orientation or social stigmas - but instead, it tackles on something much more universal - love. And unfortunately, this approach is the film's both boon and bane.

Therese Belivet (Rooney Mara), who is in her early 20's and Carol Aird (Cate Blanchett), a glamorous older woman who is to divorce her husband Harge (Kyle Chandler), meet at a toy store during Christmas. Love at first sight and so it happens. Therese and Carol immediately form a connect, their eyes spark with unspoken allurement. Therese, new to her own feelings and desires, plays shy and coy, while Carol, a mature player, unabashedly flirts under the permissible limits of the homophobic society. Some few meetings and an excursion to the American West, the pair falls in love. But Carol's "immoral behavior" and its impact on her daughter's custody looms like a constant peril over the relationship.

Both Blanchett and Mara are at the top of their game. Blanchett's little hand movements, shift of eyes and subtle body-language is something to behold. Her performance glows with elegance and class. Without a sight of naked flesh, she dazzles with the aura of an ethereal seductress. Mara on the other hand, gives a more humanly and realistic touch to her character. She plays Therese with much required naivety and innocent. More often than not, it is Mara who steals the show with her newly discovered self, giving the film much required (and lacking) dramatic conflict.

Carol is a thing of beauty. It is graceful and dazzling with visual sheen. The holiday season, decorations and lights, Christmas songs on the radio, crowded restaurants and snow falling on the streets of Manhattan are so vividly shot that you are transported to the film's settings instantaneously. The meticulously detailed production design, pitch perfect costumes by Sandy Powell and the lush, glowing cinematography by Edward Lachman are worth thousand accolades. Carter Burwell's score, with wonderful use of strings and oboe, is melodious and captivating.

But what Carol suffers from, is its subtleness and lack of narrative heft. Haynes never focuses on the turmoils of being a homosexual during 1950s. Instead, he mostly devotes himself capturing the limited perspective of two people in love, which ultimately causes a lack of dramatic conflict. The film plays more like "In Mood For Love" than "Brokeback Mountain", which is never-the-less not a bad thing at all. Carol shines with its elegance and powerful leads, but it could have been so much more.

3.5/5

Review - Crimson Peak

Crimson Peak with its detailed production and novel vision, delivers just enough thrills and chills.

The mansion of Crimson Peak reminds you of Hammer Horror films - like the one in The Woman in Black (2012).

Guillermo Del Toro is a master of wild imagination and visual flair. His movies, full of practical effects and outlandish prosthetics, have brought some of the most zany characters.  However, his masterpiece Pan's Labyrinth had a profound story along which his trademark style, something which he hasn't quite managed to attain in his recent movies. Fortunately enough, Crimson Peak doesn't disappoints (in extreme manner) in any department.

Starring the trio of Mia Wasikowska, Tom Hiddleson and Jessica Chastain, Crimson Peak is more about ghastly humans than ghosts. Set in late 19th Century, the film is about young American writer, Edith Cushing, who has a certain interest in ghost stories. She weds off to a mysterious but passionate baronet, Thomas Sharpen; moving from America to an isolated mansion called Allerdale Hall, somewhere in far-off Northern England. Thomas lives alone with his sister, Lucille, who is surprisingly cold towards Edith. The Aberdale Hall is your typical Hammer Horror mansion - creaking doors and flooring, whooshing winds echoing through wide desolated hall, century old furniture and equally dated cobwebs. From the day one, Edith starts to experience arcane happenings. The Sharpe siblings are certainly not what they seem and Edith is apparently our Jonathan stuck in Count Dracula's castle.

Flirting with ideas of forbidden love, isolation and of course, the supernatural, Del Toro's script however never rises above its mediocre, genre-bound tricks. The film is largely devoid of deliberate plot twists (which is a good thing), but again, you will guess the major secret miles away. There are some plot holes lying here and there, and the questionable benevolence of some elements (avoiding spoilers here), is irksome. The film's plot is largely reminiscent of many other Gothic-horrors of Hollywood's Golden Era and has a little new to offer in terms of story-line.

But what novel here is the vision and treatment. With a production design so intricate and detailed that it deserves an Oscar, Del Toro along with his allies behind the screen have constructed each and every scene in so painstaking manner, that the film engulfs you entirely. The mood and atmosphere of the film is well realized and Fernando Velázquez's haunting, piano-based score leaves a mark of impression. The staple "booh" moments in this film feel like spine-chilling horror, even though the script itself doesn't allows much more to it. Shot with shades of gold in the beginning and gradually shifting the color palette to grey and white as the film progresses, cinematographer Dan Lausten has complemented Del Toro's vision handsomely. Apart from obvious technical brilliance, none of the actors spoil the fun - Wasikowska, Hiddleson and Chastain have done some great work here. Chastain, particularly shines above the rest, perhaps because its the first time the great actress has done a twisted and dark character.

Crimson Peak is a prime example of an above-average script turned to a memorable film with mere vision and clean execution. It is certainly not Del Toro's best (not even close to the cinematic gem Pan's Labyrinth), but definitely a very fine Gothic romance, akin to Dracula (1992).
3.5/5

Review - Ida

Ida is gorgeous. But that's all about it.

Ida is simply breathtaking in terms of cinematography.

Director Paweł Pawlikowski's Oscar-winner Ida is one of the most uniquely shot movies - beautiful but unfortunately, emotionally inert. Set in 1960s post-war Poland, Ida tells story of a nun who discovers her true identity as a Jew, whose family was murdered in World War 2. She, along with her aunt, embarks on a journey to find the truth behind the murders.

Ida, played fittingly by debutante Agata Trzebuchowska, is naive and unlearnt of the world, while her aunt Wanda Gruz (brilliant Agata Kulezsa) is a cynic and worldly. Ida is repeatedly told to have a taste of physical pleasures by Gruz before she takes her vows - the notion Ida rejects. The pair travels place to place, trying to put things together. Disturbed after the discovery of Ida's parents' graves near the end, Gruz commits suicide - leaving Ida unenthusiastic about her convent life. Unsure about her oath, she accepts her impulses and indulges in worldly desires. But, understanding the hollowness of normal life, she goes back to her convent and apparently restarts her life as a nun. 

The script doesn't attempts to flesh out its plot, nor the screenwriters aim to do so. Ida is clearly a character-study about the tremors felt in Polish lives after World-War 2 - depicted through the lead pairs. The film is largely devoid of dialogues and the pace is slow, which may challenge non-arthouse viewers. The major events in the film are handled in a very subtle manner, having no scope of dramatization. Due to all this, Ida feels sluggish, cold (literally) and distant.

But one thing in which Ida shines is its gorgeous black and white cinematography - it is one of the best photographed films of recent times. Many shots in the film are off-center - the characters are filmed at the bottom of the frame while rest of the frame is filled with the environment in which the characters are present, evoking certain sense of isolation. This technique also evokes minuteness of the characters in the environment they are in. Each shot is carefully composed, the lines are perfectly aligned- almost like a painting. Although cinematography is undoubtedly brilliant, it is also obtrusive and many times distracting you from what is happening onscreen. 

To sum up, Ida is a good film, but it never affects you on an emotional level. It is beautiful and atmospheric but without any dramatic punch. Like a showreel of some high-profile cinematographer, Ida may elicit many "wows" but won't tear up your eyes. 

3/5

Review - August: Osage County

Except for the obviously contrived plot, August: Osage County delivers a powerful punch. 

"I thought we were having a funeral dinner not a cockfight"

August: Osage County, based on a play by Tracy Letts, which is about a dysfunctional family in turmoil times - is fueled with surplus theatrics and melodrama. Yet fortunately, it never goes overboard. Starring Meryl Streep and Julia Roberts in the lead roles, the film is full of fireworks, presenting the actors with the opportunity to showcase their immense talent.

With an ensemble cast with likes of Chris Cooper, Ewan McGregor, Benedict Cumberbatch, Margo Martindale and others, Osage County is a basically an actor's film - instead of direction, screen-writing or any other filmmaking aspect, the film is completely on actors' shoulders. Fortunately, all the cast members are in top of their game. Martindale, Julianne Nicholson and Cumberbatch are worth mentioning here - it is extremely difficult being noticed by the audience, particularly when both Streep and Roberts are on fire, let alone being impactful. 

And about the leads, the more you praise them is less. Like a tennis match near its match point, Streep and Roberts' performances are full of power and energy which will blow your mind away. Hammy you may call it, but the script demands for it. Both of them chew the scenery literally and their performance is what drives the entire film.

There is a dinner sequence in August: Osage County which displays the family hitting the rock bottom. It starts off with grilling, then it shifts to humiliation and finally hysteria. The entire sequence feels somewhat contrived - the entire film for that matter. As if, all the plot's dark twists and unrealistic scenarios are there for actors to flex their acting muscles and wow the audience. On a very basic level, the plotline for Osage County isn't bad by any means - but its way too much dysfunctional to be real. The script, however does provides us with characters having flesh and bones, rather than cardboard cutouts, which is commendable.

Filmed remarkably well by Adriano Goldman, you can feel the heat of mid-western summer inside and out. The outside shots in Osage County are calm and serene, which are in complete contrast to the chaos inside. The scenes are mostly awash with yellow and sepia tones, complementing the theme of the film. Music by Gustavo Santaolalla, is low key and doesn't attracts much attention.

Despite the film's obviously contrived plot, the film works, primarily because of the immense acting talents of Streep and Roberts. Also, in part because of its characters. They feel somewhat plausible even in the implausible scenarios. But one thing can be said for sure - you would never want to attend a funeral dinner akin to the one in August: Osage County.

3.5/5

Review - We Need To Talk About Kevin

"They never talked about Kevin"

Kevin uses extraordinary visual motifs, colour red being the main motif

Mothers are always known to love their child - no-matter how cruel, narcissist or self-centred the child is. They always shower love and care. But what if, a mother doesn't loves her child? What if, she puts on a façade that she cares when both the child and herself know that they don't really care? And what if, the child turns out to be a monster later on? Is it her fault -  her husband's or both? Or its just a mere example of "bad seed"? It is nature or nurture?

Based on the novel by Lionel Shriver, director Lynne Ramsay's adaptation is an extraordinary piece of film-making, reflecting a disturbing theme in a darkest fashion. The film is about the state of mind of a mother Eva Khatchadourian (Tilda Swinton), whose son Kevin (played by Jasper Newell as young Kevin and Ezra Miller as teenager) has become increasingly erratic and menacing as he grew up. Presented in a non-linear fashion, the film starts with the aftermath of a deeply troubling tragedy which has made headlines on the national television - which is directly linked to Eva and her son. The film goes back and forth, ultimately concluding in a tragedy which is hinted at the start.

Wonderfully written by Ramsay and Rory Stewart Kinnear, there isn't much of dialogue in the film. Most of the narrative is showcased by unspoken actions and expressions. The script smartly avoids creating black and white characters - even Kevin is so-called antagonist, Ramsay doesn't presents him as a unidimensional villain.  Though the film's title is directed at a certain discussion regarding Kevin's behaviour, which probably could've involved both Eva and her husband (John C. Reilley), they never really talked about Kevin - at least in a constructive manner - which is the irony. The film never answers the real motives of Kevin - nor it divulges in the curiosity for its search. It focuses on the effect - not the intentions.

Kevin is one of the rare films which relies heavily on images. The film features repeated use of the colour red - the starting sequence of tomato festival where Eva is all drenched in thick red tomato pulp, Eva's cottage bombarded with red colour-bombs or even the blood-red jam that Kevin spreads too much on his bread. Needless to say, red is the colour of blood which is foreshadowed in every second frame of the film. Using off-focus shots, bleak colour palette and extreme close-ups (one particular shot in extreme close up of Kevin's eye shows a dart-board), cinematographer Seamus McGarvey has achieved a monumental success, evoking narrative motifs entirely through visuals and blurring the line between reality and surreal nightmare. As a matter of fact, pictures do speak louder than words.

Since the script doesn't has much dialogues, it provides an ample opportunity for actors to shine. And every single one of them shines. Starting with the actress giving the most affecting performance of her career - Tilda Swinton- she lives Eva deep down under her skin. Her acting heavily depends on her facial expressions - which she gets right on target - showing utter helplessness, annoyance or regret during the entire course of the film. Another performance worth mentioning is the chilling portrayal of teenage Kevin by Ezra Miller - even though Kevin is meant to be Devil's equivalent, near the end you feel do sorry for him - a trick which Miller has done effortlessly. 

We Need To Talk About Kevin is an achievement of direction, acting, cinematography and sound. Meditating on a deeply disturbing theme, the film leaves a great impact - which should be credited to flawless use of imagery and brilliance of its actors. Even though it unfolds at a leisurely pace, Ramsay's work is rare, which combines the ethics and vision of an art-house motion picture and zeal of a mainstream film.

4/5

Review - Cloud Atlas

Cloud Atlas is ambitious but way too flawed.

When a film tries to encompass not two or three but six story-lines in a single narrative, you can't help but appreciate the mere display of courage to attempt such a gargantuan task. Directed by three directors no less (Andy-Lana Wachowski, Tom Tykwer), Cloud Atlas tries hard to make a point but fails unfortunately.

The six story-lines are so disjointed in their theme that the film altogether appears like an anthology and worse, without a connecting thread. There might be a subtle hint of some metaphysical/cosmic work going on, but whatever it is, it is so downplayed that every narrative thread ends up in an incoherent resolution - for instance, the first storyline ends up with a happy reunion, the second one with a suicide. Each story is different - first two are period dramas, the third is a thriller, fourth one is a comedy, fifth is a dystopian sci-fi and the sixth is an apocalyptic drama; such a diverse range of genres only add up to the frailty of the narration. 

Even with all its uneven storytelling, Cloud Atlas soars magnificently in some scenes - let it be the tragic scene when young composer (played by Ben Whishaw) ends his life and his lover just arrives after the deed, or the scene in 22nd century when we see upside down naked corpses of young female clones, or a thrilling case sequence in the same segment. Again, such scenes are handful. 

The film showcases immense acting talent - Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugh Grant, Jim Broadbent to name few - almost each actor has played over two characters and yet, this never felt forced or a gimmick. Technically, the film is a makeup and production design achievement - the actors and the settings are seamlessly transformed from one scene to another. As far as editing is concerned, the film feels overly long and the cross cuts between the different segments work occasionally.

Maybe the source material for Cloud Atlas is indeed unfilmable - but for its sheer ambition, the film is worth a watch. Flawed yet beautiful, Cloud Atlas is a failed attempt to reach cinematic clouds of brilliance.

Review - Capote

Philip Seymour Hoffman gives performance of a lifetime.

Capote is labelled as a biopic based on the life of author Truman Capote, but rather encompassing his entire life and times, the film presents a rather brief period - the writing of 'In Cold Blood' - how Capote gets drawn to a gruesome murder in Kansas, forms an unlikely bond with one of the convicts and uses this friendship as the research basis of the novel.

The star here is Mr. Hoffman, who elevates the every single scene he is in. His transformation is something to behold - his voice and mannerism - Philip Seymour Hoffman deserved every single accolade he got. Apart from him, the film showcases great acting all around - particularly Catherine Keener as Harper Lee and Clifton Collins, Jr. as Perry Smith, one of the convict.

Director Brent Miller's film is rather ponderous and unengaging at times.. The script is probably a weak link here - there is no narrative structure. The film sometimes appears looking for arc or an conclusion, but never finds one. With a limited scope for a biography, Capote remains focused on dynamics between Perry Smith and the author himself. The relationship is explored over the film's entire duration in a very static manner, with a series of conversations and interviews; the script never goes beyond that. At times, the film feels more like "Making of In Cold Blood" rather than about Capote himself.

Shot in grim tones of grey and washed out colors and appropriately scored by Mychael Danna, Capote is an average film with great performance. Certainly recommended, if only for the brilliant Philip Seymour Hoffman.

3/5

 

Review - The Hours

The Hours is a fleeting glance into three depressive lives. And yet with such a small scope, the impact is profound.

 

Life is not what you really are living every "hour". Life is what makes you feel happy, life is what which gives you aim and life is what keeps you motivated. Many people, living their life in those "hours" of charades and trivial errands seek something worth living. Seek a meaning to their life. And when they fail, they their last resort is to break free from this imprisonment. Or, these are the notions what Stephen Daldry's 2002 drama about three morbid women, The Hours, reflects on.

The Hours is an intelligent and highly cohesive drama spanning over decades, showcasing a single day of three different but thematically connected women - In 1920's, writer Virginia Woolf (Nicole Kidman) has began writing his novel "Mrs. Dalloway" while facing severe mental issues. As she writes her novel, we cut to 1950's where a suburban housewife Laura Brown (Julianne Moore), is reading Mrs. Dalloway, as she begins a new day in her mundane life. The film further introduces us to Clarissa Vaughan (Meryl Streep) in 2001 - her life closely resembling the events of novel Mrs. Dalloway. As all three lead characters go through their life on that day, we witness helplessness, yearnings and melancholia.  

Brilliantly performed by pretty much every single actor, The Hours, however, should be remembered Nicole Kidman's heartfelt performance. Even with all those prosthetic bells and whistles, Kidman's performance is natural, real and deeply moving. Julianne Moore and Meryl Streep also are amazing - they remain subtle without going over the top and yet creating a great impact. All performances are wonderfully woven together in a single thread by Philip Glass's ethereal score.

 

The film maybe simply referred as a "suicide" film - the film presents us with three heroines who are struggling to keep themselves intact, almost to a fault, thinking about ending their life at one point in the film. But labeling this film as such would be a crime - it is an intense character study which questions the basic nature of life - Why do we keep on living even we are unhappy and see no hope? As the film progresses to its closure, The Hours provides some great insight on life, hope and realization of our identites.

3.5/5

Review - Whiplash

Whiplash is a knock down, a sucker punch. Its electrifying. 

You'll want to bang your hand on the wall. 

Not quite my tempo.

I never though instrumental music, or jazz to be precise, will feel like watching a wrestling match. Or a dirty cricket sledging. Whiplash proves that artists are indeed pushed to their extreme limits - by their teachers, peers or themselves, which actually isn't the case. The fact that they won't give up until they prove themselves, over and over again, is indeed what makes them brilliant. Artists are not made overnight.  

Based on director and writer Damien Chazelle's own first hand experience at a music school, Whiplash is about a young jazz drummer Andrew Neyman (Miles Teller) who gets admitted to United States' best music school, Shaffer Conservatory. He is dedicated to his art, focused but still an amateur. He is selected to the school's band by conductor Terrence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons). Fletcher is abusive, verbally and physically to his students. He insults, mocks. He is like Voldemort conducting a jazz orchestra.

What follows after that is a series of some serious action. Not your typical physical action - instead of men, here drums are beaten to death. There are some scenes which show humiliation and bullying in its most worst form. Miles tries, tries harder. His conviction to his art is what keeps him going. Fletcher, on the other hand, knows that Miles is capable of being great. But his way of motivation isn't your usual teacher-student pep talk. Hands bled, drums are broken and thrown over. The film turns into a WWE match (not literally).

Acting here is amazing. First things first, Miles Teller is a great actor. Yes, you can go at lengths that he didn't performed the actual drumming. But his expressions - agony and pain on his face while he's drumming at 200bpm - and yet determined - is a brilliant acting. They say, acting is not just about talking. Miles proves it. J.K. Simmons, however, gets most of the "talk" here and mind you - he is loathsome. His words fire bullets, hitting right on the target. Sometimes, I felt hitting Fletcher with a drumstick right on his bald head. Simmons proves that bad guys indeed make a great impression.

The film is a great example of shooting and editing a music session - the quick cuts, closeups and shots matching the music right on tempo. As if the editor (Tom Cross) himself was part of the orchestra. Visually the film resembles 'The Social Network' - the sepia toned imagery with crisp details. Chazelle is outstanding as a director - his work flows with a thrust, like a hurricane that blows you away. 

The moral issues and ethics are debatable and they should be. How far you should push someone to be great? By the film's end, its stand is pretty much clear. "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than good job", says Fletcher near the end. After watching the masterful 10-minute jazz action at the end of Whiplash, I'd say "good job", Mr. Chazelle.

4/5

Review - Boyhood

Boyhood is one of those films which showcase life in front of you. Its brilliant.

 

Richard Linklater is a very different director. His work is, at many times, highly intricate portray of human lives. His work is subtle, often slow but always affecting. So when he makes a film spanning over 12 years and shot over 12 years about a boy growing up - you know it is going to be very personal, special piece of work which will present some great reflections on - well, childhood to boyhood.

So Boyhood is indeed all of this. Even though I am writing this review being an Indian, and Boyhood is quintessential American film, the film is remarkably true to universal nature of growing up. It stars Ellar Coltrane as Mason, initially as a six-year old boy, to all the way upto age 18. The film starts sometime in 2002. Mason lives with her single parent mother Olivia (Patricia Arquette) and elder sister Samantha. Their father Mason Sr. (Ethan Hawke), sees them on weekends and holidays. Over the entire runtime of over 2 and a half hours, the film presents Mason's journey from a fragile 6 year old to a determined 18 year old. And what an amazing journey it is.

The script is wonderfully written - it actually gives all the major event references of respective time frame. Mason is shown playing on a Game Boy Advance early on, going for mid-night release of Half-Blood Prince. As time moves, he and his sister grow - the film references to presidential elections, Iraq War. As the film draws to closure, we even catch references to Lady Gaga, Twilight and Facebook. The character development is so detailed that the film doesn't feels like a "shot and acted" production - its more like peeking through someone's life - his family, his friends. The relationships are so well portrayed that they never feel over-dramatic even for a single instance. It is even more astounding that Linklater had only beginning and ending of the film in mind when he started writing/directing in 2002. He developed the entire script each year, by revising what they have shot previously and taking it forward. And yet, the end-product never feels "stiched together". The narration flows organically without any bumps over its entire duration.

Acting is natural. That is what I can say about the cast of Boyhood. Ellar Coltrane and Patricia Arquette in particular, are so real in their emotions and actions that they elevate the film to what the film has become. Every actor in this film - let it be Patricia's exes, Mason Sr's new wife or her parents, Mason's girlfriend Sheena, Mason's friends or even a plumber guy in a small scene is natural - the film is full of wonderful characters, some of them may remind you of someone from your own life.

It is rather rare to find a film with flesh and blood characters and real narrative these days. What Linklater has achieved - it could be labelled difficult (or easy, given the fact that they had so much time) - is remarkable. Holding on to the faith of completing a film in 12-years alone requires applause. It started as an experiment many years ago and the result of perseverance of a film-maker has resulted in a gem. You may call it slow or even without story - but that's magic of this film- it moves you without story. It may be sequence of events and dynamics of relationships. But that's life. So Boyhood is 12-year snapshot of life. 

4/5

Review - The Imitation Game

This film is not a just a film with great performances - it is the great film overall. Thrilling, suspenseful, entertaining - what else you wish?

The Weinstein Company's this year Oscar juggernaut is surprisingly is not a mere Oscar bait, but it is actually a very good film. The Imitation Game, directed by Morten Tyldum (known for BAFTA-nominated Headhunters) is an entertaining, highly involving film which is supported by all-round great acting and well-balanced script. 

Alan Turing, known for his great contribution to computers and cryptography, played by Benedict Cumberbach. The film primarily focuses on Turing's endeavor to crack Nazi's enigma code. During the World War 2, Nazi Germany was using a highly advanced encryption for their radio messages, generated by a curious electro-mechanical machine, called Enigma. Allies got hold of this machine, but were not able to decrypt any of the signals because the machine had millions of settings and Germans changed their decryption setting everyday. So obviously British military and MI6 required code-breakers and mathematicians for this secret task - to break the enigma. Turing, having a respectable résumé, takes the job, along with his team consisting of a bunch of men and a woman too.

This woman, Joane Clarke, played wonderfully by Keira Knightley, develops an immediate fondness for Turing. Turing is rather an arrogant narcissist on surface. The film accounts this to his tormented childhood - his peculiar interests and school bullying. Turing retreated more and more into this personal shell and became more inaccessible. All of the other colleagues on the mission dislike him but only Joane understood Turing and his emotions. 

Over the less than two hours of the film's runtime, the film provides layered characterization for most of its characters - not only Turing, but also Joane, mission partners Hugh Alexander (Matthew Goode),
John Cairncross (Allen Leech) and MI6 head Stewart Menzies (Mark Strong). The script is very well written - the storyline never becomes stretched or dull in its entire length, which usually is the case with biopics.

Cumberbatch gives an extra-ordinary performance here - it is restrained and never showy. It is always easy to act loud and shout to make an impression, but subtle performances are very hard to pull off. And Cumberbatch did it with a great conviction. His scene with Keira near the end are heartbreaking - "I don't want to be alone." Keira Knightley provides an effective support to Cumberbatch performance, which actually defines the supporting actor role.

Alexandre Desplat's music has worked amazingly well onscreen. His scores always underlines a given scene and are never obtrusive, and yet you always hum his themes when you step outside the theater. He never ceases to amaze me with his work, such a large body of work. The production design is also worth a mention, the WWII era is well depicted along with all the machines and war-era London.

The homosexual element is underplayed, but is not written off. In fact, the injustice done to a brilliant man who helped saving thousand of lives is the integral theme of this film. The Imitation Game is amongst this year's best. Cumberbatch brings his heart and soul to his very fine film.

4/5

Review - Theory of Everything

Eddie Redmayne's masterful performance makes The Theory of Everything worth a watch.

Made for each other...

 

Documentary filmmaker James Marsh's biopic The Theory of Everything is an elegant, polished production, with heartfelt performances by Eddie Redmayne as theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking and Felicity Jones as his wife, Jane. The film focuses primarily on Hawking's relationship with his wife during his 30-year old marriage. 

The film starts with Hawking's years at Cambridge, where he is enrolled for Ph.D. He is a shy and an introvert fellow but obviously, has brilliant mind. During a party he meets Jane, who is studying arts. Jane is devout Catholic. Hawking is an atheist. She studies poetry and language, he studies black holes. Opposites attract, they say. And so they marry. Meanwhile, Stephen is diagnosed with motor neuron disease, which is destroying his neurons and leaving him paralytic every passing day. He's got only two years, the doctors say.

However, it turns out that doctors are wrong - Jane becomes Stephen's primary caretaker after marriage, while he discovers the vast secrets of the universe. His brain, ever racing, but his body denying everything. Jane stays with Stephen, gives birth to his three children, along taking care of him. But it is not as easy as it seems - the ever increasing responsibilities add extra burden on Jane's shoulders over the years.

The script by Anthony McCarten (also one of the producers), largely focuses on Stephen and Jane, but skims through the marvelous and ingenious work that Stephen has done. While at many times, I strongly felt that the film demanded more of Stephen's work to be presented onscreen, the storyline here is rather dull and formulaic. It proceeds like any other biopic about suffering genius and selfless wife (yes, it does somehow reminds me of A Beautiful Mind.) Also, there is hardly any conflict in relationship so to say. Everyone is nice, decent and composed. No one snaps. It is worth mentioning that the film is a based on a more recent memoir by Jane, which has skipped or positively transformed any arguments or clashes between her husband and herself, which were evident in her earlier memoir post divorce.

But what holds the fort here is outstanding performance by Eddie Redmayne - his physical transformation is worth thousand accolades. What is even more astonishing is that when his character looses his voice after the first half, his face - even with a smallest move - says so much. He not only looked like Stephen Hawking, he talked, walked and expressed like Hawking - or even better then him. That's a wonderful performance. Felicity Jones also leaves an impression, playing the good, helpful wife, but she was towered by Redmayne most of the time. 

Technically the film is extremely well-made, the cinematography is bright and vibrant and has fantasy-like feel to it and like all period films, is too polished. Music by Jóhann Jóhannsson is lovely and touching. It resembles works of Abel Korzeniowski and Shigeru Umebayashi, in a good way ofcourse.

The Theory of Everything is not a brilliant film by any means. It is, however, definitely worth a watch. It does gives some insight, no matter how fleeting, into the genious mind of Stephen Hawking. The marriage and relationship with his wife may feel a bit "made-up" and false, but there is no denying that Hawking could not have achieved great milestones without help and support of Jane. And there is bravo performance by Redmayne, who should win an Academy Award for his outstanding work.

3/5, 0.5 for performances - 3.5/5

Review - Birdman, Or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance

Birdman's a strange bird of Hollywood in recent times - it successfully blends dark comedy and psychological drama in same film.

Hollywood has some strange obsession with obsessive, twisted and deluded artists. Sunset Boulevard, Opening Night or even recently, Black Swan are some of the examples. Enter Alejandro González Iñárritu's Birdman, whose central character has to prove that he is capable of doing not only pop-corn superhero flicks, but also complex artistic work as well.

Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton) is an American actor in his early fifties, whose career is pretty much done. He starred in highly successful "Birdman" superhero films, but due to his own personal choice, he refused to do further sequels way back some decades. Now, in hopes of rebuilding his career, he stages an adaptation of Raymond Carver's short story "What we talk about when we talk about love", in which he is all set to play a character and direct as well. Ambious.

Of course it is not as easy as it seems - he has some serious issues with casting. He replaces the male lead, by a narcissist, but outstanding method-actor Mike Shiner (Edward Norton), who makes his life no easy. He has an affair with co-actor Laura and she is pregnant. Her daughter Sam (Emma Stone) has just came back from rehab and Riggan needs to be there for her too. Her ex-wife expects a lot from him. He is facing legal issues with an ex-cast member too. Maybe that was not enough, he is also self-delusional - he thinks that he has telekinetic powers and he can fly. Levitate. Save the world. Birdman's voice is in his head - he says things, a lot of them to Riggin. And yup, there is a snooty critic too, who is going to write a pretty bad review by all means. Reason? She hates Riggin. As the opening night nears, Riggin goes more and more into the psychological turmoil. Will he be able to perform good?

Although all of this may sound hotchpotch, but I don't know how, but Iñárritu along with his three more writers has successfully translated it on screen. And in a single shot no less, more on that a bit later. The film poses some obvious questions about popular culture - the role of critics, success of no-brainer films, social media, artistic merits and so on. Along the way there are some really funny moments - one scene involves Riggin maneuvering through late-evening Times Square in white underwear is a highlight.

Acting is all-around outstanding. Michael Keaton is tailor fit for this role. As many of you may know, he did played Batman in late 1980's, way before Nolan's version came. Funnily enough, Birdman also has Batman-esque voice. Keaton's work here is outstanding - even on stage, where he is supposed to "act" as if he is in a play, his shows wide range of emotions. Norton's performance is equally great - there is a scene involving his character on stage early in the film which is downright hilarious. Emma Stone has never been so good. We also have Naomi Watts here (and a surprise lesbian kissing too, unwarranted). The overall tone of acting by everyone here is a bit hammy, but that's how it is supposed to be.

And now the single-shot thing. The whole film is shot (or lets say edited/computer manipulated) in such a way that the most of its 2-hour duration feels like a single, continuous long shot. Cinematographer here, no guesses required, is the brilliant as ever Emmanuel Lubezki, who won Oscar last year. When you see it, the camera work sucks you right into the film. It is sometimes obtrusive, but it does sets the mood and atmosphere of the theater backstage so well that you feel that you are walking around these characters. Editing also requires a special mention because to seamlessly combine many shots into a single one requires great hard work. Only thing which does not works here is the background score - which does not fits well into the film.

Birdman, however, left me a bit unsatisfied. There is something missing. Maybe its theme, obsession to prove your work, is done may times before. The atmosphere of the film however, leaves a great impact on you. The narrow corridors backstage, the make-up rooms, rooftops and Times Square at night - Birdman is a visual delight. By the very end,  the film has wonders here and there. It is one of the very good films of the year.

4/5