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

Review - The Hateful Eight

Gory, vile and trademark Tarantino, 
and still not entertaining enough.

Blizzard and Guns, sounds fun.

For me, any Tarantino film's USP is not bloodshed, crazy bang-bang action; nor its quality to offend - but his screenplay - his crisp, smart dialogues and his ability to create tension. Let it be the first act of Inglorious Basterds, or the dining room scene of Django Unchained. He chills out the atmosphere without any atmospheric blizzards. However, in a film with real blizzard, Tarantino falls short of creating chills - by self-indulging pompously and going overboard with a runtime of about 3 hours.

The Hateful Eight depicts, no points for guessing, eight hateful characters - a black ex-civil war militant turned Bounty Hunter, another white Bounty Hunter who doesn't kills, an inapt newbie Sheriff, white Bounty Hunter's female prisoner, a Mexican, an Englishman, a confederate and a cowboy. All of them taking shelter in a cabin, after a blizzard blocks the paths in landscape of snow-clad Wyoming. As their paths cross, identities are concealed, hidden motives are revealed and of course, blood is shed. It is exaggerated - like Django Unchained, The Hateful Eight's violence isn't disturbing, rather it is comic - almost cartoonish.

Acted well by almost everyone (Jackson, Goggins and Leigh did the finest job), what keeps The Hateful Eight from going on is its sluggish pace. The first half of the film is painfully slow, the characters keep talking in brilliantly photographed shots by Robert Richardson. Their talk isn't even intriguing or whip smart. And talking is what they do most of the film. When the bullets fly and blood is splattered, unfortunately too much time is lost. Even the more dramatic moments of the film, which are far in between, lack the suspense and nerve-wrecking tension of which Tarantino is expected of.

Shot in 70mm film, the film is gorgeous to look at. Outdoor shots of both The Revenant and The Hateful Eight are visually similar, though Lubezki clearly triumphs over Richardson in terms of complexity and composition. Most of this film, though, is indoors, taking place inside a room, when a cracking storm rages outside. Taking full advantage of the scenario, Tarantino and his sound effects team create an immersive atmosphere. With an apt western score by Ennio Morricone, the film shines in the technical departments.

What is lacking, then, is a sense of involvement. Tarantino's script feels detached and sketchy - you can even accuse the film of racism, misogyny and homophobia, but since everyone is hateful, it is meant to be offensive. The stand-offs are lukewarm and action is a lot less. Even with a great plot-outline which promises to be highly entertaining and providing sheer adrenaline rush, The Hateful Eight falls short of everything.  Basically, Tarantino himself is missing - even in the best parts, there is a lot to be desired.

3/5

Review - The Danish Girl

Exquisite but not extra-ordinary.

Isn't it pretty!

In the time of hard hitting and realistic portrayal of transgender people in Amazon's Transparent and recent transgender movement, The Danish Girl is a welcome addition. Tom Hooper's film is pretty important one - telling the story, though largely fictionalized, of first person who underwent sex reassignment surgery, and perhaps the story of first transgender woman, Lily Elbe.

The film follows the life of landscape painter Einar Wegener (Eddie Redmayne) and her portrait painter wife, Gerda (Alicia Vikander). Set in 1920s, both of them are equally supportive of each other, equally in love. Things take turn when Einar stands for one of the Gerda's portraits, in place of a female model. Wearing stockings and striking a feminine pose, a flurry of repressed feelings engulf Einar. This follows a brief cross dressing fun game suggested by Gerda herself, in which Einar goes out as 'Lily' in a party. One moment follows another, Einar loses himself and Lily emerges - causing a great turmoil in their life. Ultimately, with never-ending support of Gerda, Einar goes for sex reassignment surgery and becomes the first transgendered woman, albeit it all ends tragically.

Eddie Redmayne's physical transformation as Lily is astonishing to watch. His smile and his androgynous features work as a trump card. However, his performance is more or less reduced to technicalities - his gestures and gaze as Lily seem well rehearsed and well observed, but never organic. His performance lacks soul and layers of trapped repression, ultimately reflecting a bird's eye view of the character. Still, given the level of difficulty, Redmayne has done a great job, an Oscar nomination is surely there for him. 

But The Danish Girl isn't all about Lily/Einar - Hooper's film is as much about Gerda as it is about Lily. And, as Alicia Vikander embodies Gerda scene by scene, you cannot help but to be amused by the fact that she stole the show from Redmayne - without any acting technicalities or transformations. With a performance erupting with emotions, Vikander's Gerda feels more rich and deeply realized than Redmanye's Lily. Even Hooper devotes much focus on Gerda, sometimes it felt that the titular Danish girl is Gerda, instead of Lily.

As an overall film, The Danish Girl is all about surfaces - the film never goes deep into the characters' lives. Hooper weaves his film around Lily and Gerda, ticking all the major plot outlines, never dwelling on them with a closeness. Also, the film feels shy of depicting much explicit human anatomy, which seems pretty obvious for a film about transgender surgery. With a polished production design, beautiful cinematography by Danny Cohen and equally elegant Alexandre Desplat's score, The Danish Girl depicts everything about Lily Elbe's life - but through a thick window pane, which distances the viewer from its characters.

3.5/5

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