Review - Nocturnal Animals (2016)

Revenge redefined.

Tom Ford's Nocturnal Animals is a peculiar, yet a beautiful film. It reflects on a heavily overused theme - revenge - and yet, its unique treatment makes it entirely fresh and deeply relevant. In his second outing as a film director, Ford's skill to develop a film as an art form has honed immensely, and also as a writer, he did a remarkable job of adapting a notoriously complex book (Tony and Susan, Austin Wright) with all its layers and twists. He certainly does have a retirement plan after his lucrative career in fashion designing.

Susan (Amy Adams) is forty-something uptown art gallery owner in Los Angeles. She is unhappily married to Hutton Morrow (Armie Hammer), a failing businessman who  is cheating on her. One day, she receives a manuscript of a novel called Nocturnal Animals, written by her estranged ex-husband Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal). Susan dated Edward during graduate school, and her marriage to Edward was short-lived and turbulent. Surprised by the unanticipated contact and equally unexpected dedication, Susan starts reading the novel as her lonely despondent life carries on.

In the novel (we see the novel unfolding onscreen), Tony Hastings (Jake Gyllenhaal) embarks on a midnight trip through West Texas with his wife and teenage daughter. En-route, they stumble across a car driven by hooligans. An unfortunate accident takes place which leads to a disturbing turn of events - Tony is brutally beaten up and his wife and daughter are raped and murdered. Deeply shaken, he becomes depressed because he was unable to act in the moment and protect his family. Police gets involved and no-nonsense detective Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon) starts working on the case as Tony plans his revenge.

Nocturnal Animals plays out as a film within a film. In the first half, the secondary plot of Tony Hastings sometimes feels off and out of tone with primary story-line of Susan, but by the second half, both the plots deeply echo each other and the finale makes a brilliant thematic intersection between them. Although on surface, both may feel different, but deep down they are perfectly coherent. Tony embodies Edward - that's obviously clear - but what's even more interesting, is that at many times during the film, both Susan and Tony seem to be in same state of mind. Ford has intricately written his film which brings out the interconnections between the both factual and fictional characters, which is outstanding.

Technically and aesthetically, Nocturnal Animals is beautifully realized. The sets, the locations, the costumes - are all beautiful but everything is in accordance with the script (even Aaron-Taylor Johnson's ruffian look is realistic). Unlike A Single Man, Tom Ford's previous cinematic venture which was heavily stylized, this film is a lot more grounded, even if it is set in art background. A quick mention must be given to Abel Korzeniowski, whose score channels Bernard Hermann's classical compositions which brings a certain eeriness to the film.

"When you love someone you have to be careful with it, you might never get it again." The essence of Nocturnal Animals can be summed up with these two lines - your choices in your relationships are extremely crucial. One wrong step, you'll regret it for your entire life. Who knows, at a certain point in future, you might feel that you have made a mistake, that you want to back track and get it again. But you never get it back. Nocturnal Animals' final act puts a new twist in the idea of revenge, a revenge which inflicts no physical harm but an everlasting bruise on your soul.

3.5/5

Review - La La Land (2016)

An ode to the dreams

La La Land though disappoints with its plot, is brilliantly executed and charming cinematic piece.

Confession - I am not into musicals. I don't hate them, but thanks to Bollywood, my appetite for them is pretty scarce. I have liked some musicals, but I feel they don't work well with English movies. Still, when Damien Chazelle (his Whiplash (2014) floored me completely) announced that he was going to make a musical, I was thoroughly excited. As it is evident from Whiplash, his ear for music is extremely nuanced. What is better than a musical to exercise his music faculties? Now I would take the liberty of saying this - if Whiplash was a rehearsal, then La La Land is a full-house concert. The film, at least from music point of view, is a masterpiece. Also, this is Chazelle at his best - his effective way of weaving music within the story, his brilliant choice of shots, and his visual play of light and shadows - they are all present, in their flourishing glory and dazzling execution. But unfortunately, there is an issue - the trouble is, Chazelle's own script has failed him.

Mia and Sebastian are struggling artists in contemporary Los Angeles - the former an actress and the later a jazz pianist. They meet, they fight, they fall in love. They separate. They reunite. It's something which you have seen hundred of times. It is an old fashioned plot-line and you expect something new, fresh and unique from Chazelle. Even though a brilliant director, he is not a very good writer. His script suffers from predictability, expanded conversations, clichés and filler scenes. 

But where the story falters, the concept prevails. La La Land deeply connects with you on many façades, making up for shortcomings of the script. The plot for the film may be overly simplistic, but the themes are ever resounding. Have you ever felt disappointed when you've failed at something which you really want to attain? Have you felt the heartache when you've looked back in your life and absence of someone special had made every success trivial? Have you cried when you just grow apart with someone with no apparent reason? Life never gives everyone everything. We all have an empty space in our hearts which was once occupied by someone dear, but now there is only a void, an unfillable void which will be there forever.

Talking about the leads,  Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling are outstanding. They are both are immensely attractive, but the best part about them is their charm. Their amiable screen presence leads to a strong connection between them and the viewers, so when the emotions hit hard, you can see yourself snuffling and wiping a drop of tear rolling down your eyes. That's the effect of Stone/Gosling pair, their chemistry, physics and biology. Though both are equally good, Stone walks away with this film with her deeply realized portrayal of Mia. Her moments in the film will leave you in awe and wonder, and with some meaty scenes enqueue,  she has become a bit closer to the Oscar statue. Gosling has also played his part beautifully, without being overshadowed by Stone's prowess. 

Apart from the actors and the director, La La Land belongs to composer Justin Hurwitz, whose music is the soul of the film. Every single song of the film is carefully structured and beautifully rendered. City of Stars is a tribute to Los Angeles with a soothing feel to it, and its second reprisal by both Gosling and Stone is a lot more upbeat and playful. Auditions (Fools Who Dream) is another marvel backed up by flawless singing by Stone (and equally good acting). The piano melody for Mia and Sebastian is a haunting, touching composition which instills a sense of longing in your heart.

La La Land's  languid first half is extremely stretched, but the second half makes you almost forget (and forgive) that the first half was a slog. And even with its way too simplistic story-line, the film works - because of its execution, its masterful direction, its lovable pair and its unforgettable music. La La Land is all about dreams which are achieved and yet never fulfilled; an old forgotten love which brings joy and yet sadness.

3.5/5

Review - Elle (2016)

Outrageous, offensive crap

Huppert is the sole reason to watch this highly offensive thriller/drama

In the opening shots, we hear a woman moaning and crying in agony, while the camera is on her pet cat, who looks over the scene with a curious expression. It is clear that she is being raped and beaten up by her assaulter. The next scene - that same woman is calm and composed, cleaning up the broken china scattered across her sumptuous living room. Afterwords, she takes a bubble bath, her countenance free from anything but curiosity. She takes a mandatory STD checkup, and after a day or two, she announces during a dinner with her friends that she had been raped. Too much composure for a rape victim, that's for sure.

And that's just the beginning - Elle, directed by Dutch director Paul Verhoeven, gets even crazier over the duration of the film. Michèle Leblanc (played by Isabelle Huppert) is middle aged uptown Parisian businesswoman who lives alone in her luxurious apartment. She runs a video-game company with her friend. Her relationships with family and friends are ever swinging and swaying to extremes - she has a cold relationship with her gaudy, flamboyant mother; her son is doing nothing with his life except for trailing his pregnant girlfriend like a puppy. She is also having an affair with her friend's husband and she has a thing for her neighbor too. Much worse is her troubled past - her father was a mass-shooter who is in jail, serving his life sentence, and she has vowed to never see him again.

Since Michèle does not want to involve with police (she has her reasons), so she decides to track her assaulter by her own means. But things get out of her control, she gets a lewd message on her phone from unknown number and one day, a faux-animation of her being raped by a gaming creature is broadcasted throughout her office. Trying to manage the entire chain of events, she asks her employee to hack into personal accounts of everyone working for her, so that she can discover the real culprit who has created the obscene video. Then within some days or so and without any leads, she forgets, and her life goes on with its complications. But it happens again - not only once, but twice, rape is played as a plot device. The second time however, the assaulter is unmasked by Michèle after she stabs his hand with a scissor - and then follows a third act with complete turn of events which will unsettle even the most liberal of viewers.

What a crazy, deluded and absurd the third act is. Without spoiling much, I can only say that involves a sadomasochistic relationship, which is primarily meant to offend you or at least shock you in some level. Offensive it definitely is, shocking not much, given the history of Verhoeven's affinity for sensationalism. There is nothing in the film which justifies why Michèle behaves the way she behaves - no, not even the equally implausible sub-plot regarding a violent, traumatic childhood event. The script plays out in an uneven tone, ranging from farcical comedy to tragic drama, which only adds to the film's issues.

But what keeps Elle from being a completely disgusting piece of pretentious art house cinema is the bold and reckless performance by Isabelle Huppert. For most of its two hours, Huppert is the center of focus in the story and not even once you lose the interest in her character, irrespective of how questionable Michèle's decisions are. Huppert portrays her with a unique flair and a powerful allure, stacking on layers of fascinating shades. She is Elle.

The film holds your attention with its twists and turns, satirical situations and charming views of Paris. But nothing can sugar-coat the horrible rape plot-device. Verhoeven has said that the film is a fantasy - so I take it as one. But issue is, Elle is neither believable enough for a realistic drama nor engrossing enough for a fantasy. It is a misogynist propaganda masquerading as a pseudo-liberal feminism. If you want to watch this film, watch it for Huppert, who has given a performance which will be remembered and talked for a very long time.

2/5

Review - Prisoners (2013)

A thematically hefty thriller which almost falls apart of its own weight

"I'm angry all the time!"

 

Canadian director Denis Villeneuve has a strong penchant for criticism of religious doctrines and reflection of cyclic nature of violence. His internationally acclaimed work Incendies, reflected upon these themes with bold and broad stokes. Even though the plot of the film was very contrived, it created a deep impact and left viewers in shock and awe. With his Hollywood debut, Villeneuve has created the same effective atmosphere and laid out his narrative in a precise manner, but he couldn't really pull-off an Incendies.

As the title suggests, many of the film's characters are prisoners of some sort. Some are prisoners of violence, some of avengement, some of fear and some others of literal confinement. Like any other Villeneuve work, it does not functions alone as an abduction film, even on surface it appears to be. Starring Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal, the film explores a multitude of themes, ranging from moral ambiguity of violence to the absurdity of religious faith, all interwoven in an intriguing whodunit story. 

Somewhere in a Pennsylvanian town, Keller Dover (Jackman) and Franklin Birch's (Terrence Howard) daughters are abducted after Thanksgiving dinner. Dover's son has previously spotted an RV near their premises where the girls were playing. After much expedient search around the neighborhood,  the police is involved and Detective Loki (Gyllenhaal) is assigned the task to find the girls. The RV is tracked and the person driving it, Alex Jones (Paul Dano), is brought under custody. On prima facie, Jones, a man with seemingly low IQ, has nothing to do with abductions. Much to the ire of the parents of the girls, Jones is released after thorough questioning, and already furious Dover decides to take the matter into his own hands. He takes Jones as his prisoner and goes third degree on him, completely convinced that he is the miscreant.

From this point onwards, things complicate a bit. Aaron Guzikowski's script becomes increasingly convoluted as more and more subplots are introduced. Dectective Loki, in particular, finds two more leads - one, a pedophile priest and the other, a creepy bloke who appeared on a vigil. During all this, Dover brings Franklin along, to extract truth from Jones. Scenes involving Jones' torture are particularly hard to watch - Villeneuve, with his unflinching vision as witnessed in Incendies, keeps the horrors of torture intact and yet never goes overboard. In some way, the film starts to portray the main protagonist in a grey shade even though his actions are somewhat justified in the context of the situation he is facing. In the second half, many incidents end up just being a red-herring (a fault that thrillers cannot do without), but thanks to skifull grim visual style, you never escape the film's brooding bleak atmosphere (which in literal terms, is predominantly rainy and very cold). Roger Deakins has created some beautiful frames which are composed in such a way that the characters always appear "imprisoned" - let it be within the car windows, glass panes or doors. 

The film belongs to Hugh Jackman. Even though he's surrounded by exceptionally talented cast members like Jake Gyllenhaal, Viola Davis and Melissa Leo, he outshines every one of them. His performance is a perfect amalgamation of fear, anger and distrust; his aggression leaps out of his stature in the ripples of violence. There is one particular scene involving a hand and a hammer which will definitely remain in your memories for a long time. Apart from him, Melissa Leo brilliantly portrays a major character in the film, which I don't dare to spoil it for you. Jake Gyllenhaal is stoic and sullen in early scenes, and highly emotive near the end, which perfectly suits his character arc.

Prisoners tries too hard to underline its themes. It succeeds in justifying some and failing in the others. An abduction plot with a typical thriller treatment bodes well with the theme of moral ambiguity and cyclic nature of violence, but does not bode well with the criticism of religious faith, lacking strong arguments against it. Still, Prisoners' biggest strength is its atmosphere. It sucks you in from the moment it starts, which only proves that Villeneuve is a director to watch out for.

3.5/5

Review - Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)

Beginning of another magical adventure

Stuart Craig once again creates outstanding sets for the Potter franchise

In 2013, Warner Bros. announced that a film series is under production, first one called "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them", based on a wee-textbook written by J.K. Rowling. This book, about some assorted magical creatures, had only 128 pages - and the planned series was to roll out in five installments. No doubt, even the most non-skeptical muggle saw it as a cash-grab opportunity - another prequel/spinoff to just milk dollars from a famous, successful franchise. 

Cash grab it is, and by extension, every film made over 100 million dollars is a cash grab. What bifurcates a good film from a mere cash grab is the intention. And J.K. Rowling's intention is clear and simple - she wants to cast a spell, give us a thrill ride in her wondrous world and at the same time, enlighten us with real-world parallels. To put in retrospect, many of the attempts to revive or recreate a franchise have fallen flat. The prime example being The Hobbit film series, where Peter Jackson's overindulgence lead to production of second-rate works. He over-expanded it, laid way too many references with the original series and even played with Tolkein's canon. But with Fantastic Beasts, the things have been laid out with much care and balance, you immediately know that this series will work. Best part is, the film stands on its own with minimal references to the main series.

This time our hero is not a boy-under-the-stairs, but a shy, reclusive man called Newt Scamander (apt Eddie Redmayne), who travels to New York City in 1920s, with a case full of magic beasts. His suitcase gets swapped with a non-magical (no-maj) guy called Jacob (outstanding Dan Fogler) - his beasts escape and mayhem ensues. In the mean time, a mysterious dark force sweeps across the New York, killing no-majs and destroying buildings. The blame is put on Newt, so he must recapture all his beasts, with the help from a no-nonsense ex-auror Tina, along with her charming, mind reading sister Queenie, and Jacob.

Along with this main plot, there is another thread about the wizarding society in the New York, how the wizards keep a low profile and avoid being seen. One another thread is about Mary Barebone (outstanding Samantha Morton), a wizard hating woman, and her adopted kids (one of them played by brilliant Ezra Miller). And there is another one, something dealing with a newspaper mogul and his son's political campaign. That's indeed way too many things to cram into one film. But Rowling gets away with all her lose threads by a nifty climax, which though conveniently but effectively, ties up them with a conclusive narrative arc. Her first screenplay suffers from way too much of meandering subplots, which generally work with novels but not with films as the film is a much strict format with constraints. However, it is full of her trademark imagination, vivid detailing and lovable characters which keep the things moving on. The titular beasts too, are wondrous to behold and brimming with personalities. I'm sure many of you would love to have a pet Niffler.

The film is meticulously staged, the production designer Stuart Craig has worked wonders with creation of 1920s New York and with the design of Newt's remarkable suitcase. The special effects team have surpassed their works on Potter too, there is not even a single false-note in terms of CGI. And what's icing on the cake, the film looks the best 3D I have seen this year.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is not with its flaws - the crammed screenplay, disjointed tones (overly dark moments intercut with whimsical beasts), loose editing and a disappointing score by James Newton Howard. But the film works, because the many moments are so powerful and moving that these flaws become an after-note. The film is exciting, funny, wondrous, and yes, magical. And when the next film's focus will shift towards Grindelwald and Dumbledore, who wouldn't call it fantastic? 

4/5

Review - Doctor Strange (2016)

Dimension bending fun

Cumberbatch and Swinton are outstanding in portraying their respective characters

Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) has gone a long way from the very first Iron Man in 2008. Particularly with the Avengers (2012), the studio played a big role in increasing the audience's appetite for funny, highly entertaining, city-destroying popcorn cinema. So, many more studios started churning out numerous unsuccessful films, in which the big American heroes saved the world with their supernatural powers, while the baddies were hell bent on destroying American cities. It seemed like most of the villains hated America - too much of ISIS ideology I presume.

Now since this entire genre has certainly reached its saturation point with recent disasters like Suicide Squad, Marvel has played safe by inducting an unlikely hero in its universe - Doctor Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), a narcissist, egoistic neurosurgeon, who becomes a sorcerer and saves the day by fighting evil sorcerer/demon and his goons. He saves, if my count is right, Kathmandu, London, New York and Hong Kong. Thankfully, its not just America this time.

Before that, of course, there is an exposition heavy first half, in which Dr. Strange meets a car crash and ends up semi-paralytic. When every medical solution defeats him, he visits Kathmandu, to a place called Kamar-Taj - a rumored monastery where a mystical group cures patients who are medically untreatable. There, he meets Ancient One (Tilda Swinton), a bald woman with psychic and magical powers who helps him to find his inner psychic strength. She also reveals the hidden knowledge of multi-dimensional  universe and invisible energies to him. We have two more named characters residing and practicing in Kamar-Taj, one is played by Chiwetel Ejiofor and other by Benedict Wong. The former is more of a filler character and the later fulfills the comic needs (in a good way). The main human villain Kaecilius is played by Madds Mikkelsen. He, apart from being bad, wears quite a fancy eye makeup. And yes, we have a Rachel McAdams sleepwalking, showing up here and there during the entire run time.

The most wondrous parts of Doctor Strange are those in which he learns and Ancient One practices the art of sorcery. It is an immense fun to see skeptical Cumberbatch brow-beaten and utterly wowed with the dimension-bending and world-twirling kaleidoscopic magic which Swinton conjures. He gasps, becomes breathless and wide-eyed - and we, the audience do the same by marveling at the phenomenal display of technical wizardry. Another highlight of the film is Inception-esque set piece where New York is literally turned upside down - the buildings are flipped to 180 degrees, floors become ceilings and vice-verse, the gravity starts to shift dynamically; the entire sequence, although lacking novelty, is a standout in terms of visual effects and action choreography.

Doctor Strange, however, suffers from an utterly conventional script and thinly developed characters. With possible exception of Strange himself and Swinton's magical sorceress, most of them are just there to fill empty portion in the script and perhaps to increase runtime. And some don't even do that. The logical explanation of how stuff works in Doctor Strange is murky and much of it is without any clarity. The film's climax, with all of its infrastructure demolishing buildup, is uniquely strange and even funny- "Dormammu, I have come for a bargain."

The film is indeed funny. Many of the dialogues and situations are highly comical; director Scott Dirreckson has kept the tone of the film light and fluffy. The good thing about MCU films is that they never are too grim - even though every standing structure of the city is taken down to the ground, nobody loses a limb. Deaths, if they ever occur, are pretty toned down and everyone ends up happy. Doctor Strange follows the same route - it is light, funny, enjoyable and visually arresting. Only if the script was a bit more powerful than the VFX sparks produced by Doctor Strange's weapon. 

3/5, 0.5 for visual effects
3.5/5

Review - The Passion of the Christ (2003)

My God, why have you forsaken me? 

This image is one of the rare occurrence in the film where Jesus' face is unscathed.

Just near the middle of Mel Gibson's biblical project The Passion of the Christ, there is a most disturbing, brutal and unflinching butchery of human flesh ever filmed on screen - Jesus is flagellated repeatedly with whips of metal and glass ends. As the whip is lashed out on his bare back, a criss-cross of wounded flesh is marked on him like some line texture as the blood spills out on the floor. A part of the metal pierces his ribs and the whip is violently jerked - a piece of his skin is torn apart in the process. And that's just the start of non-stop beatings, torture and cruelty.

You might be thinking that I have gone a bit too graphic in the description of overly gruesome violence - but The Passion of the Christ is indeed about the blood-bath. Documenting the last hours of Jesus' life, Mel Gibson manages to evoke a visceral, full-fledged assault on our senses and empathy. His film is true to its namesake - The Passion, Jesus' endurance of ineffable torture for the sake of washing away humanity's sin. The only point remains in order to judge this film is how much it moves you emotionally and spiritually, as the violence is already on the driver's seat.

Personally, as a non-Christian and a follower of a Dharmic religion, I didn't find anything which uplifts the film from the restrained scope of The Passion; the film doesn't has the narrative to portray monumental chapters of Jesus' life. There are some glimpses of Jesus' childhood with Mother Mary, his life as a rural Jewish carpenter in Nazareth, his sermon on the hill, The Last Supper, etc - all of these are intersected with the gory bits; these are too short in length and too oddly placed for their influence on the viewer. In short, the film is entirely based on the suffering of the Jesus Christ. To answer the question posed above, the film affects you - mostly emotionally - not because it does it effortlessly, but because you have to be an inhumane piece of rock to not be moved by such an cruel torment. As far as spirituality is concerned, Mel Gibson hardly cares about it nor his vision caters this aspect. His only focus remains on the titular context, everything else is either briefly acknowledged or left out completely.

That said, it goes without saying that The Passion of the Christ is a remarkable achievement. The lead actor, Jim Caviezel is particularly brilliant - even though most of the times he is piled up beneath tonnes of prosthetics and make-up, he lets his physical acting speak for him. He plays Jesus as a mere human - a human subject to intense torture, a human who has given up his body, his soul to the God. Caviezel never embodies Jesus as a divine figure, not even in a single shot - but his unscathed countenance in the flashbacks emanates mystical aura. Maia Morgenstern plays Mother Mary effectively, as the emotional crux of the film is on her shoulders.

Technically, the film is a well staged - photographically, the film is lighted like a painting from Caravaggio - Caleb Deschanel's masterful work gives a timeless quality to the film. Some of the shots of this film are so brilliantly framed that they are iconic in their own right. Francesco Frigeri's set design is pitch perfect in showcasing the Semitic background. John Debney's score has an eclectic mix of instruments - electric cello, an eastern woodwind, solo vocals - all of them highlight their respective scenes in the film and yet never over-powering them.

Gibson could have toned down the violence a bit and added some more bits of Jesus' teachings and his earlier life. The resulting work might have been much more balance and spiritually affecting. The Passion of the Christ ultimately moves you but in a forced manner - Gibson literally onslaughts with blood and gore on the viewers. The film is a hard NC-17 - but actually it is not; any other film might have never gotten away with an R rating. So much "religious license" Gibson has got, alas, not so the artistic one.

3.5/5

Review - The Piano (1993)

The tale of elusive desires and obscure intentions

Both Hunter and Paquin are outstanding in this somewhat disappointing affair.

Jane Campion's 1993 celebrated drama, The Piano, is humane tale filled with sentiment and catharsis, but it is not without flaws. Written by Campion herself, we follow our protagonist - a 30-year old mute widowed woman named Ada (Holly Hunter), who is sold off into marriage to a man named Alistair (Sam Neill) by her father to a secluded place in New Zealand. Along with her young daughter Flora (Anna Paquin), an ardent, mature and yet a naive girl, she arrives to New Zealand's stormy coast with quite a luggage. She has brought a full-size piano with her. We are told that her piano is her only outlet of expression. Her feelings, her thoughts and her desires are all are channeled to swinging notes and melodies of the piano. It is her voice.

She is however, separated from the piano. Never fully settling in the foreign land with foreign relations, Ada grows lonely. The plot further progresses to introduction of Alistair's friend, Baines (Harvey Keitel), a European who has adopted Maori ways. Baines is immediately smitten by Ada, which makes him to bring the piano to his home. He asks Alistair to make Ada teach him the instrument. Ada reluctantly agrees, but soon it becomes clear that Baines has no prospects to learn the piano - but he rather wants to "do things" while she plays it. Disgusted at first, Ada agrees with the agreement of sexual liaisons - only to get her piano back, one key per tryst.

Then follows a string of erotic sessions. The Piano is one of the rare films which celebrate the human body- not just the female one, but even the male frontal nudity. During one scene, while Ada plays some melodious composition, Baines strolls around completely naked. The scene is bold and provocative, yet never exploitative. The sex scenes are too handled tastefully - the camera lingers on the outer door and catches the lovers in sight via a crack in the wooden frame in a voyeuristic manner. The audience is obligated to respect the couple's privacy, confined to a cage of dwindling morality -  a cage in which the main protagonists are certainly trapped.

Things set into a turmoil when Flora catches both of them while peeking through a keyhole. Furious with her mother, she communicates this falsehood to her step-father. The film's narrative reaches the climax when frustrated Alistair confronts a defiant Ada - a scene with a devastating aftermath.
Without spoiling much, that scene alone justifies an Oscar for both Holly Hunter and Anna Paquin. There is a powerful, crushing moment where Hunter's near-blank expression bursts with tremendous shock and agony. Being mute, her mouth speaks no word, but her eyes pierces your heart with a wrecking jolt. Paquin equally complements her elder actress - her remarking acting talent leaves you overwhelmed.

The problem with The Piano is certainly not with its actors, neither with its production values, cinematography or the score (which all are brilliant). But the script wanders - some sub-plots are implausible and the character do not have a clear motive for their actions. Having an uneven tone, the film sways to emotional extremes with heart-shattering highs and impassive lows. The ambiguity, the lack of clear conclusion in the end is irksome. The open-to-interpret endings work amazingly for many films, but here it does not. The Piano is deeply riveting but only at times. Campion never allows her narrative wings to soar higher into the cinematic skies

3/5

Review - Jane Eyre (2011)

The underdeveloped and "plain" Jane Eyre

Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbander save this adaptation from failing.

It is a common sentiment that the movies are never as thorough as novels are - let it be in terms of their complexity, impact or details. Hence, it is unfair to judge a film adaptation on the literary standards, for a visual medium can only be an approximate version of what a novel is. And yet even with relaxed criteria, it is saddening that Cary Fukunaga's Jane Eyre fails to capture the very essence of the Charlotte Brontë's novel, let alone the details. The novel was about feminism, religion, righteousness and yes, romance too - but the film is merely an underdeveloped romance with scattered hints of feminism - everything else is forgotten into the oblivion.

It is probably the umpteenth adaptation of the celebrated classic. When a work has been translated so many times onscreen, you expect the latest attempt to bring something new to the already done-to-death analysis of the work. Unfortunately, Jane Eyre does not bring anything new. The plot is skimmed so much that the narrative becomes a sequence of bullet points of novel's key events. The themes are never fully exploited, the buildups never pay off. Clocking less than two hours, screenplay by Moira Buffini is sketchy and crude, often forsaking the intricacy of its source material for pace and simplicity.

Its lead actors, Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbander, thankfully embody the characters with flesh, blood and sweat. They are completely convincing in their portrayal and never once they have rung out of tune from their respective characters. Wasikowska shines with her expressive demeanor - even though the film lacks inner monologues that Jane had, her face speaks of many untold stories. Fassbander puts his own stamp on Mr. Rochester - he is brooding and sullen, yet he shelters a thrilling passion for Jane. Judi Dench plays an extended cameo as Mrs. Fairfax fittingly - though her character is expanded beyond the scope of the novel. Apart from this triad, everyone else is rendered trivial, rushed or as a side-note.

As a mainstream British production warrants, Jane Eyre is well-made. The set design, costumes, cinematography and a moody score by Dario Marianelli are worth mentioning. However, the actual problem lies with the script - a successful adaptation treads a thin line of altered sub-plots and a narrative encompassing the entire novel. Jane Eyre is too short to encompass the entire novel and pretty unaudacious to afford an altered version. Great adaptations achieve this aforementioned balance, the lesser one struggle. Jane Eyre falls into the latter category.

3/5

Review - 45 Years (2015)

Ghost of the Past 

Beneath that forced smile, lies a profound grief.

Andrew Haigh's filmography has been quite extra-ordinary -  from an editor in his early days (he worked as an assistant editor for the films like Gladiator and Black Hawk Down) to a director, he has gained much respect in a short time with works like Weekend and Looking. With 45 Years, Haigh has finally got a feature film with a decent budget, a renowned cast and wide distribution. And he didn't disappoint.


With their 45th wedding anniversary just a week ahead, an ageing English couple Kate (Charlotte Rampling) and Geoff Mercer (Tom Courtenay) receive an unexpected letter during the early hours of a Monday morning.. Addressed to Geoff, the letter written in German reveals a grim news - a body of a young woman named Katya, who died in 1960s during an accident while trekking, has been discovered within the glacial ice of Swiss Alps, perfectly preserved in freezing conditions. And Mr. Mercer, being the next of kin, is advised to travel Switzerland for further proceedings. 


The fact that Geoff had a girlfriend before their marriage wasn't a surprise for Kate - but him being married to Katya was indeed a revelation - even though Geoff simply shrugged off the tidings by saying he and Katya just had to pretend for accommodation as they were tourists. Kate reluctantly accepts his version of the story, but over the time, Geoff develops an odd fixation on Katya. He remembers her brunette hair, her way of talking softly and even the ring she wore on her finger the day she was swept off  to the crevasse. And then during one pivotal day within a week of this news, Kate discovers heaps of lies and distrust that Geoff harbored for all those 45 Years.


45 Years is fundamentally English - the characters are subtle and so are their emotions. You need to examine their body language, their facial expressions or their surroundings to explore their deep sentiments. Nobody speaks out directly what they feel in this film - its all elusive. Audience with lesser patience and proclivity of being bored will indeed find this film as utterly boring and plot-less; as there isn't much in this film plot wise, or any dramatic stands off and climatic rows. But thematically, there is much more to explore in this film than the depths of Mariana Trench. Patience and attention does pay off.


Rampling's performance is remarkable. Playing an upper middle-class English woman, she is always well-mannered and composed. I don't remember even a single scene of her shouting or crying out loud. And yet, she moves you. Her face expresses so much, that you don't even need words coming out of her mouth to underscore her predicament. The fine lines of wrinkles on her face stagger with such a force as if years of grief has finally found an outlet of release. Her piercing look towards her husband speak of many reproaches and yet she maintains near impossible controlled demeanor with him. It is a work of great art and her Oscar nomination is a testament of that.


Just like Weekend, 45 Years studies the dynamics of relationship and love changing within a crucial time span. For Weekend, it was how two young men discover so much about each other in just mere three days that they fall in love. For 45 Years, it is how an elderly couple's marriage hits a rock bottom within a week of a news from their past. Sometimes mere three days are enough to know a person for a lifetime and sometimes even after spending 45 years together, you hardly know a person.

3.5/5

Review - Amadeus (1984)

Of envy, mediocrity and brilliance

There is a lot more to Amadeus than wigs and fancy dresses.

 Peter Shaffer's landmark play, Amadeus, is almost as true to the history as The Lord of the Rings is (in short, it never happened). But what makes Amadeus stand apart from other historically inaccurate works, is its deeply realized theme - and mind you, it is not about rivalry.

It is about envy and sheer hatred, which drives actions of a person. A person soaked in mediocrity; his talent trying to achieve heights of genius, but his attempts failing every single time. This person is Antonio Salieri, court composer for Joseph II in the 19th century Vienna. And subject of his envy is the brilliant German-composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.

A child prodigy, Mozart was well known even before his arrival in Vienna. Before Mozart's acquaintance with him, Salieri had long admired Mozart's work and was fairly excited to meet him. However, during one fateful crossroad, Salieri was shocked to find Mozart as childish and obscene person of a lewd nature. His image of Mozart being a respectful and well-mannered fellow had crashed disastrously. Salieri being a devout Christian, had vowed for celibacy for his music. But he thought, why God had given such an immense talent to such a vile creature?  Why he had been unsuccessful, being pious and chaste for life, while Mozart, with no religious tendencies, had been bestowed with musical brilliance?

Things worked no good for Salieri - as Mozart climbed ladders of success and recognition in the musical chambers of Vienna, Salieri struggled. He remained sulking, lamenting his inferiority and his incompetence, and composing substandard works. However, even with his abhorrence of Mozart's personality, he felt that God spoke through his music. He admired it, was relished by it, but at the same time, brilliance of Mozart's music reminded him of his own ineptitude, fueling his hatred for Mozart even more. His faith shattered ultimately and he denounced God - now his only motive was to destroy Mozart - to kill him. 

Peter Shaffer has written the screenplay for the film, and he infuses his script with a twist, weaving an interesting plot around the equally interesting characters. Salieri shouts in the beginning that he has killed Mozart. Has he?

Director Miloš Forman employs innovative ways to make viewers invest in the complexities of classical music. Many times during the film, we see Salieri reading sheet music while describing it aloud, and in the background we hear the orchestra playing the same score - reflecting the emotions which Salieri speaks with words. The film is an outstanding production - set designing, costumes and make-up are all around great. Editors Nena Danevic and Michael Chandler along with Forman deftly arrange many of famous Mozart's compositions in the background score, underlining many crucial events of the film effectively.

F. Murray Abraham and Tom Hulce play their respective roles of Salieri and Mozart with a complete ease. Abraham expresses more than words with his expressions and body language. Even under kilograms of prosthetics, Abraham's face emotes joy and exultation so vividly that you almost feel the prowess of Mozart's music along with him. Hulce's Mozart is charming bloke, with a crazy giggle. When Hulce plays piano or conducts the orchestra, you know that a maestro is performing, effortlessly and with complete command. Throughout the film, however, Murray overshadows Hulce - but near the end, Hulce shines in a scene where Mozart dictates music (one of the piece of Mozart's actual requiem) to Salieri.

Amadeus is a remarkable film, but slightly of longer run time. And some of its extended operas may challenge general audience. Nevertheless, backed by pitch perfect performances and glorious music by the genius Mozart himself, there is a little in Amadeus which falls flat. After all, no other film talks of envy, mediocrity and brilliance in such a powerful fashion.

3.5/5

Review - Son of Saul

A trip to hell.

Son of Saul is hard to watch, but important.

Within the first seven minutes of the Hungarian drama Son of Saul, know that you are going to witness something remarkable. It is a trip to hell; the hell which was created by mankind during bleak years of World War II. Set in Auschwitz-Birkenau during October 1944, the film tells the tale of an extermination camp worker Saul Auslander, who takes a dead boy for his son and makes his aim to give him a proper burial.

Saul is a sonderkommando, a class of Jewish prisoners who opt to work in the camps, rather than inhale hydrogen cyanide on arrival. They are the secret-keepers, as the unaware prisoners reaching Auschwitz do not know that they are in for a slaughter-house. Saul, along with hundreds of other workers, have their fixed daily routine - they pick up valuable times from the belongings of the dead, scrub the floors of gas chambers, transfer the dead bodies from the chambers to the incineration furnaces, collect the ashes and shovel them down in the nearby river. The workers are mocked and threatened at every passing minute by the Nazi officers, but given the revolting work they do, they are slightly better fed than their prisoner counterparts. Saul has seen many deaths and mutilations. He is always surrounded with constant screams and his work is to aid killings of his own people. As a result, he has grown indifferent over the time, wearing a static expression, which somewhat feels normal. Nothing shocks him, nothing shakes him up. But when a boy who miraculously survived the gassing is softly killed in front of Saul's eyes, a flicker of humanity in him is ignited in the hell-fire of Auschwitz. He is determined to bury the boy with the help of a Rabbi for Kiddish ritual, which may sound like a fool's errand in an extermination camp; but sometimes somethings are done for without apparent reason or logic. The actor playing Saul, Géza Röhrig, acts with such a command that you never believe that he is actually a poet living in New York, not a renowned thespian. 

The script for Son of Saul is relatively straight-forward, with our protagonist Saul risking his life to give the dead boy a proper burial. Director-writer László Nemes also takes a dash from the history and we see the Birkenau revolt up close and personal. But the approach here is definitely not straight-forward. We see all the events of 36-hour time-frame with Saul. I mean this literally, as the camera is constantly fixed upon his face, over his shoulder, his back or sometimes in front of him. Throughout the film, we follow him like a shadow. Cinematographer Mátyás Erdély strictly uses shallow focus and has shot the film in 4:3 aspect ratio. The resultant imagery is claustrophobic, blocked and restricted. 

Such a photographic technique would dilute the impact of the immersive experience of the viewer. But with this film, it is completely the opposite - Son of Saul is closest to reality. You are trapped in the concrete walls of the camp lighted with bulbs radiating warm hues; you try to see through the unfocused background from which the source of an unseen sound is coming, or to see some grisly inhumane sin. It is a psychological trick and Nemes uses it to a great effect. The soundtrack of the film is a towering achievement on its own - the multilingual voices waltzing around Saul, random gunshots and marching footsteps, the ambient wood sounds - everything is so perfectly mixed and edited that it never appears that the film was shot on location in a warehouse in Hungary.

Holocaust is a done-to-death genre in the world cinema and has lost its novelty and impact. But with Son of Saul, László Nemes has not only reinvented this important genre, but also the cinematic technique of fixed perspective. His film is a monumental success, particularly for not being exploitative in violence or being overtly sentimental - but achieving a fine balance of fiction and reality. Nemes remarks that Nazi camps were a killing factories, where output was the hundreds of dead corpses. Son of Saul underlines this fact with the boldest presentation, challenging and deeply disturbing us for existence of this black chapter of history and reminding us the crimes we have committed in the name of race, religion and greed.

4/5

Review - Inside Out

Inside Out is a triumph of vivid imagination.

Inside Out is an absolute joy ride.

You may call Pixar's new creation as Inception for kids, but don't let others fool you. Director-Writer Pete Docter's Inside Out is a terrific ride for adults; not only it simulates brain, but your tear-glands too. Past few years, Pixar has somewhat lost its innovative thread of films, but with Inside Out, they're back on track. This film brings back the good old experience of Pixar gems like Toy Story, Up and Finding Nemo - in short, a real treat for animation lovers. 
  

The script - what an outstanding script - is a right away classic. The premise goes like this - we all know our brain is controlled by our emotions - joy, anger, disgust, fear and sadness. In this film, our emotions are controlled by little human-creatures who reside our brain. Each of them have corresponding personality like the emotion they convey. We have Joy (Amy Poehler), Sadness (Phyllis Smith), Fear (Bill Hader), Anger (Lewis Black) and Disgust (Mindy Kaling), controlling brain of eleven-year old girl called Riley. Things go pretty well until one day, Riley's family decides to move from Minnesota to San Francisco, which causes a havoc in the Headquarters of the brain. Things go awry when both Joy and Sadness are thrown out of Headquarters and are stranded on the big stretches of Riley's brain-land.

Her brain-land is full of utterly marvelous stuff, which includes various personality islands, a dream-land, subconscious cellar, memory hall and what not. Watching Inside Out is like a visit to your first theme park ride. It is wildly creative, with its own consistent logic and details. I have never been so utterly amazed by sheer display of imagination, perhaps since Inception. 

The film explores the idea of human emotions like never before. Even though on paper, the idea of little folks living inside your head and controlling you may sound a bit ridiculous, but the way Pete Docter has executed this, is an absolute master-stroke. He never makes the movie overtly jolly, but goes for a more bittersweet approach. It is not to say that the film is without laughs or comic situations, but it remains balanced, like a classic animation should be.

Inside Out is the best animation movie of not only 2015, but perhaps the best since Up. With another great score by Michael Giacchino and great voice performances by every member of the cast, the film is a wondrous joy ride, filled with wonders of imagination and creative ideas. By the end, it may leave you teary-eyed, so keep your handkerchiefs close.

4/5

Review - Spectre

Spectre is epic failure.

Cheers to the doom!

"You are a kite dancing in the hurricane, Mr. Bond." That is the only single line of dialogue which falls in the category of substantial writing, in Sam Mendes' heart-shattering, disappointing affair called Spectre. In his newest (and hopefully the last) outing as the Bond director, Sam Mendes has staged some brilliant set-pieces, shot extremely well with his cinematographer, added some pretty girls - but has completely forgotten to build tension, or at least devise some sensible plot. But even with the big bunch of four writers no less, Spectre is half-baked and clumsy - to put in another words - very poorly written.

We have James Bond (Daniel Craig) pursuing another criminal organization called Spectre - even though he is grounded by M (Ralph Fiennes) and is not allowed to leave London. Worst, the entire double-oh programme is to be shut down and a new surveillance system is to be introduced by C (Andrew Scott), head of another privately owned intelligence agency. As Bond digs deeper into the reaches of Spectre, he travels to Mexico, Rome, Austria and Africa; makes love with Monica Bellucci and Léa Seydoux; and then goes back to England for a final showdown with head of Spectre - Franz Oberhauser/Blofeld (Christoph Waltz). 

The plot seems pretty simple, but believe me, it is indeed, without any complexity or character development. Bond seems to be hopping from one woman's bed to another like a butterfly flying from one flower to another. There is absolutely no reason for existence of Monica Bellucci's character, apart from a PG-13 sex scene. Romance between Seydoux and Bond is rushed - there is some chemistry between them, but alas, filmmakers hardly focus on that. It has so many scenes which are throwbacks to previous James Bond films, that it feels more like a rehashed version of older Bond movies. There are funny moments in between - like the one between M and C, debating meaning of the respective words. Everything else is so suppressed by mindless car chases and demolishing buildings, Spectre becomes monotone and pretty flat by its end.

Daniel Craig plays Bond with all his acting capabilities - he broods, sulks, despairs and gets annoyed- trying hard to elevate the trash script. Seydoux is serviceable, her character is underwritten and is surface-level, but her looks makes her job easy. Fiennes has done another film for paycheck, and unfortunately Waltz seem to have done the same. He has played Blofeld half-heartedly, without any dramatic flair - which could have actually worked well for a psychopath. But he performed his character with a flat, bored look, as if he is having detention during school. Only Naomi Harris and Ben Whishaw remain unscathed from the atrocious script, and for that record, the script actually develops both of their respective characters to some extent.

To give credit where its due, the film is brilliantly shot by Hoyte van Hoytema (Interstellar), the colors used here are bleak and dark. Score by Thomas Newman and "Writings on the Wall" by Sam Smith are welcome addition to Bond music. Sam Mendes is one of the best directors alive - it does not requires any proof. He should forget Spectre as a nightmare; and move ahead and do other non-Bond stuff. Maybe Skyfall was such a cinematic achievement that Spectre, even though not awful by Hollywood standards, feels awful. Perhaps it is unexpected from such a great director and such a talented actors and crew. I hope we all see better stuff from them in the future. Until then, leave Spectre and rather watch Skyfall or Casino Royale, if you are in the mood for Bond.

2.5/5

Review - Sicario

Sicario could have been a lot better.

Deakins captures some brilliant images in Sicario

Canadian director Denis Villeneuve is being hailed as the new visionary film-maker, largely because of his trademark meandering and somber thrillers - Prisoners being the most recent and deservingly acclaimed. This time, he has taken his turn to US-Mexican Drug War, layering his story with underlying currents of political power and personal vendettas. An idealistic FBI-agent, Kate Macer (Emily Blunt), enrolls to a secret mission with CIA and Department of Defense. Her boss, Matt Graver (Josh Brolin) is fairly tight lipped about the mission and Kate is fairly unaware of the true agendas of the seemingly fishy mission. Add character of Alejandro (Benicio Del Toro), we've got our protagonist almost blindfolded in front of plots and conspiracies.

Taylor Sheridan's brisk screenplay changes its protagonist in the last act - first two acts have Kate as our central character, and in the final act, Alejandro swaps the role - which as a storytelling structure doesn't works flawlessly. I wouldn't call this turn of leads as a complete disaster, Sheridan does makes a fine conclusion for both the characters near the end, but it does comes out as abrupt and forced.

Script issues aside, Sicario works fairly well for most of the part - thanks for the convincing performances by the actors - Del Toro and Blunt particularly shine, given the meaty parts in the film. Villeneuve as a director handles and balances the film between the drama and thrills quite well, and the film never goes beyond the scope of the script for loud hysterics or for mere set pieces.

Roger Deakins has shot this film digitally (and brilliantly). The difference between film and digital cinematography has never been so obvious - Sicario looks pristine and without a single speck of noise. The dynamic range is absolutely gorgeous - in one of the remarkable scenes, we see agents in their silhouettes, equipped with guns and gears, walking towards a tunnel against deep violet twilight sky. In another scene, near the beginning, we see Kate's troop travelling across Juárez's dusty roads - the camera follows the group of SUVs like a shadow, bouncing when there is a speed-breaker, just like the vehicles themselves. Deakins transports you to the scene immediately - without added dimness of 3D.

With all round top notch production (special mention to Jóhann Jóhannsson's electronic score - polar opposite to what he did in Theory of Everything), Sicario is a watchable crime-thriller, a nice companion piece to works like Traffic and Breaking Bad. It could have been infinitely better - its muddled screenplay reduces the impact of the great acting on display and focused direction. But it does provides you enough chills down the spine to warrant a viewing.

3.5/5

Review - The Big Short

Crazy Stupid Love reunion!

 If you are not a stock broker or an economist, reading The Big Short's plot premise would feel like a general relativity lesson to an arts student. "Subprime Bonds","Default swap", "Collateralized Debt Obligation", "AAA ratings", "BBB ratings" - the banking jargon is so recurrent that you could probably lose the sense of what's happening onscreen. But Adam McKay's largely approachable film achieves it's goal - to educate layman movie-goers about the financial crisis of late 2000s effectively and yet, not boring them.

The Big Short concerns itself with mainly four characters who foresaw the housing mortgage bubble - how they took advantage of the impending economical Armageddon by betting against these extremely fragile bonds. The four characters are partly or entirely based on real-life people, played by the likes of Christian Bale, Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling and Brad Pitt. We see them being doubtful and speculative at first, then negotiating with the banks regarding the default swaps and reverse insurance (who are, willfully or not, completely ignorant about the crisis at the twelve o'clock), and finally making big bucks when the American economy goes down the toilet in 2007. Charles Randolph and McKay's screenplay avoids making any judgement about the leads' ethics or morality and rightfully focuses on the events. The film isn't a character study - apart from Bale and Carell, none of the other characters are fully fleshed out. It is more of a sociopolitical black-comedy, which discusses an extremely important issue with a splash of humor.

Comparing another important film of 2015, Spotlight, with The Big Short, it is pretty clear that both the films are an exposé of horribly corrupted American system, which is exploiting the commoners. Spotlight, however, is slightly more impactful than this film as Spotlight maintains a strict serious tone overall, while The Big Short is quite uneven - sometimes playing out as a comedy, sometimes like a farce and sometimes like a documentary - all mashed up into a single narrative, which reduces its impact.

But this uneven tone makes The Big Short somewhat delightful if not impactful. Telling a story about financial meltdown without making the story boring is a gargantuan task. To make audience get what the entire crisis was, without diluting the facts or overstating any events, is a big achievement. McKay deserves many praises for employing some intriguing plot-devices like celebrity cameos defining and describing banking terms (Margot Robbie and Selena Gomez make an appearance), third-wall breaking and humorous narration by the leads - which keeps the momentum going for the film.

Just like Spotlight, this film also ends with harrowing descriptions - about the aftermath of the recession and how it may still occur. Among hundreds of frauds, only one person was convicted, which is a real shame. Many people lost their jobs, their homes and yet, the system is still there, still making common people fool and blaming immigrants and the poor. The Big Short could have been a deeply troubling film and thankfully or not, McKay brushes off the distress with humor. With all-round good performances and a unique take on a deeply troubling issue, The Big Short is an essential watch. You may not get it entirely, but just like me, you may get the gist of things - which is terrifying and alarming.


3.5/5

Review - Spotlight

Subtle, important and brilliantly acted.

The brilliant ensemble of Spotlight.

"It takes a village to raise a child. And it takes a village to abuse one." Aptly reflected by Stanley Tucci's advocate character in Tom McCarthy's journalist-drama Spotlight, based on the story that shook the entire United States in early 2000s. The film is about the Catholic Church's most biggest impropriety - the cover up of child sex abuse by priests, occurring over many decades. And not a few, but about 80 of them were accused of child molestation and all of them were immorally and unethically saved by the American law and the Church. The entire scandal was divulged to the public by some brave journalists of Boston Globe, who are the main players in this film.

What works brilliantly in McCarthy's vision of the Pulitzer-prize winning story by the Boston Globe is its impeccable realism and subtlety. Hollywood has the tendency to over-dramatize the events, its characters and increase the hysteria, just to spice up things. But Spotlight resists any tendencies to turn such a delicate subject matter into a loud newsroom drama. Co-written by McCarthy and Josh Singer, the film is richly realized within the screenplay itself, providing a strong foundation for the film. All characters feel like your common hard working journalist - one who work late nights, sit in dingy cabinets, focused and determined to put their story without blowing up the things into an attention seeking piece. 

Spotlight works so well also because it has a brilliant cast - with likes of Keaton, Ruffalo, Tucci, Schreiber and McAdams, the film's actors are synced and composed like a choir, with all of them supporting each other in such a manner that the combined effect of their talent creates the soul and spirit of the film. First time in many years, I have seen a film in which no cast member outshines any other, and yet removal of any one would have certainly lowered the film's impact. To speak of, Ruffalo gets one meaty scene in which he dominates, which will probably bring him some awards attention. But still, no one should be singled out in such a accumulative performance display, which redefines the word "ensemble cast". Everyone here is deeply soaked and drenched in their characters, which is a triumph for McCarthy as a director as well.

The film is low key, almost devoid of any big dramatic scene. Yet, it never feels slow paced or any less intriguing, much credit to the film's editor Tom McArdle. The film starts with a decent pace and remains steady throughout its two hour run time. Shot in unflattering and gloss-less manner, Spotlight looks like a docu-drama, only without the shaky handle-held moments. The film was shot on location and on the set replica of Boston Globe office, and perhaps that's what contributed to the film's realistic style. 

Spotlight is a brilliant film. The last moments of the film are devastating - the list of hundreds of locations where child abuse have taken place within the institution of religion. It shakes you up and implores you to think. It deals with an important theme and even a controversial one, without diluting or exaggerating its facts, which is rare feat. The straight-forward yet impactful approach and powerful amalgamation of performances by the outstanding cast puts Spotlight as a must see film of 2015.

4/5

Review - The Martian

So mediocre that it is not even worth a watch.

Enjoying ourselves, are we?

Matt Damon is lost once again - and that too, consecutively twice in outer space.  Only this time, he is playing God, Jesus or perhaps an Oracle. He knows in advance that he is not only going to be saved, but is going to be the centre of coverage for the prime time news in no less than three continents. He is clearly having the best time in Ridley Scott's average affair with the Red Planet, which is unfortunate as he is the one who gave is brilliant films like Alien. Based on the best selling book by Andy Weir, the film pretends to be the celebrating the spirit of science or the power of do-it-yourself; but in the sheer jollification, Scott has completely forgotten that -

1. The film is a science-fiction thriller and survival drama. 2. Did I say that it is a thriller? 3. Thrillers have thrills. The Martian has none. 4. Survival dramas have their leads which show some stress at least, our hero behaves as if he is on a vacation millions of miles away from Earth. 

For the plot, we have a one - *God* Mark Watney (Matt Damon) is on his space mission to the Mars. As he leaves his space pod for whatever reasons, a disastrous storm  hits, which pretty much beats the shit out of the crew. The crew, leaded by Melissa Lewis (Jessica Chastain - sounds like Interstellar reunion!) decides to leave him, and as expected he is stranded, all alone on the Red Planet. He has limited supply of food, power resources and other stuff, which simply means that he has a few "sols" to live. But dear audience, no need to fret - our protagonist is chilling, relaxing on the red soil, without a shred of anxiety, busy on producing crops (with his poop), reinstating power and listening to disco on Lewis's iPod. Too much fun.

Sarcasm aside, the basic problem with the film is that it is way too optimistic in its approach. Scott, undoubtedly wanted to make a film which doesn't scares the audience with dangers of outer space and perhaps, he wanted to show that if you know your science right, nothing is impossible. But he overdid his theme, by virtue of it, the film went flat, devoid of any dangers and suspense. Mark Watney most of the time remained calm, or even joyful during his entire stay on the Mars. Either he knew that he was going to be saved, or he was high on drugs. The film even goes cringe worthy near the end, people cheering when Watney is being saved - which is broadcasted live in Japan,  UK and the US.  You read it right. 

Matt Damon is playing the "cool" guy, pseudo Einstein who pretty much fixes and invents anything and everything from the scratch. He cracks jokes and is overly cheerful. Damon did it well, so well that his character was irritating. Maybe Scott wanted him to play his role like that only. Everyone else in the film is behaving as if the situation is a big crisis. But it is never a crisis, at least from our protagonist's point of view.

Even technically, the film is mediocre. Mars appears to be the Death Valley shot in red filters. The vast, deserted landscape of Mars doesn't look outlandish or from any other planet than the Earth. Music by Harry Gregson-Williams is completely disappointing, without any memorable theme or a single composition which underlines the respective scene. Visual effects are fine, nothing worth praising or criticising. The final climax is reminsicent of Gravity (those tethers) and there is hardly anything new that this film offers. 

You can skip The Martian, there is nothing worth watching in this mediocre science lesson and a quick "How-To-Do-It-Yourself" crash course. Yes, you may learn a thing or two about Mars, but you are better off browsing NASA website or even Wikipedia. Paying a hefty 3-D ticket sum for science lessons, and too for a big fat bore isn't a good idea. See it, if you really want to, while skipping your channels during a mundane weekend.

2.5/5