Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb

It started off slowly as a simple fun movie with no big ambitions. Now, it has quietly crept up and become a franchise that has its own following, mostly kids and the parents they bring along. It has to be admitted that while everyone enjoyed the first installment of Night at the Museum, no one imagined that we would be having part 2 and now 3. Franchises usually require at least one big star, or at least one well known character, but Ben Stiller and his museum exhibits have chugged along quiet well.

When you walk into Night at the Museum, you know

what to expect. All exhibits coming to life, a big racket about a small problem that means nothing to anybody outside the doors of the museum, lots of tongue in cheek fun, infighting, buffoonery and a happy ending. It’s a movie where the entire world shrinks into the museum and we love that coziness, which is why people are still watching it.

In its third installment, Night at the Museum tries nothing much different. It’s the same characters all over again, so there is no time wasted in explaining anything about anyone. But, this time, the setting of the action shifts to London after beginning in New York. So, now we are in the British museum with the magic tablet, which means that a lot more guys are coming to life. Of those who do, the most notable is the most famous knight ever, Sir Lancelot. His introduction is real fun as he takes on a triceratops skeleton. Of course, we later meet a Pharaoh of Egypt, and his queen, who wants his staff kissed before offering any help to anyone. The most fun, however, is the miniature Garuda who jumps and rants around to prevent the new Yorkers from awakening a monster. And, the Pompeii episode is also a bit of fun that ends with an ‘unnecessary splash’.

But, the shortcoming with the Secret of the Tomb is that the central problem, the actual thing that brought the night guard and a few exhibits to London, looks really silly and watered down when ultimately answered. It looks like a problem that could have been solved by a walk in the park. But then, to complicate and excite things, one of the characters suddenly has to turn villainous. All this does is just to stretch the yarn that is already worn thin. The opening scene of the movie had taken us to Egypt and the actual discovery of the tomb and the tablet. And there was an old man saying ‘The end is coming’. You thought it really pointed to something big and important. When you finally learn what it was all about, you wonder what the fuss was for. It is the very flimsy theme that plays spoilsport to Secret of the Tomb.

However, one must admit that it is fun to be with old friends again. Octavius and Jedediah are a

funny pair to watch, Atilla is huge but adorable, Sakagaeawah is adorable and Robin Jackman as Presiden Roosevelt (boy won’t we miss him) is perfect as ever. And, there is a new Neanderthal named Laa who is attracted to the night guard at the British Museum. How can we forget Dexter the capuchin, the very life of the franchise. And, Ben Kingsley gets a couple of scenes as the Pharaoh and pulls off a couple of funny lines with ease. You will also be amused by the Hugh Jackman (or Huge Ackman as he is mistakenly called) cameo.

It is the familiarity with characters, that feeling of meeting very close friends again that keeps Secret of the Tomb afloat. Funny situations and exciting moments per se are really lacking in this third installment of the franchise, all thanks to a wafer thin plot. But, you might still find yourself smiling, and occasionally laughing, and also hoping that a fourth movie is made, only this time with a better plot.

 Familiar friends make you smile!

2/5

THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES

This is quite an emotional one to write for a Tolkien and Peter Jackson fans. For all we know, this could be the last time we see Middle Earth and its diverse beings on screen. Of course, we are not ruling out a reboot of the two trilogies, but the iconic status achieved by the Lord of the Rings would give almost any director cold feet if he thinks of reinventing it. So, here we are, the last of the 6 movies on Middle Earth, The Battle of the Five Armies.
As with all other Middle Earth movies, this takes off right where the last one left, when Smaug the dragon flew towards the city to teach the meddling dwarves a lesson or two about his invincibility. Thorin and his followers are crestfallen as they watch from their city under the mountain. The city goes up in flames and there is no hope against the wrath of a fire breather. But there is still a spear and a dragon slayer who has lived under the pain of having failed once. This time he finds his mark and Smaug falls to his death. The dragon is gone, the dwarves have their kingdom back, Thorin Oakenshield is king under the mountain. Everything is alright, better than ever, or is it?

With Smaug gone, the mountain city is open for takers, as much for its strategic importance as for the

immeasurable treasures. Middle earth converges on the mountain city and as more and more claimants make their way into the fray, what starts off as a battle of honor between the elves and the dwarves turns out to become the Battle of the Five Armies!
The Hobbit trilogy has the same arc as The Lord of The Rings trilogy. It is about a wandering heir finally returning to his throne. If it was Aragorn in the first trilogy, it is Thorin Oakenshield in this one. Peter Jackson can be trusted with making a visual epic that is fitting of the world that Tolkien created. The magnificence of the battle scenes, the awe inspiring landscapes, the cringe worthy orcs and all that makes Middle Earth immortal are brought out very effectively on screen.

By now, we are so familiar with the characters that we have a kind of bond with them and it is difficult to judge the character arc or development of anyone impartially; one because we like them and two, because they are characters well established earlier in the trilogy or in the earlier trilogy itself. Gandalf is not much of an enforcer in The Battle of the Five Armies, he is mostly an onlooker as things unfold around him. The main perpetrator is the ‘burglar’ Bilbo Baggins, played in a very nuanced manner by Martin Freeman. He manages to look cunning, gullible, vulnerable and courageous at various points in the movie, occasionally adding a dash of humor. He has been the life of this franchise by and large, and he does the job in the final installment too.
It is difficult to write an objective review of one of the most loved franchises of all times. So, I recommend that you go and catch this one in theaters to see Middle Earth one last time. Everyone has agreed that The Hobbit trilogy has not matched up to the magnificent standards set by the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The reason for this I feel is that Thorin Oakenshield, the main protagonist of the trilogy, has not been able to establish the emotional connect with the audience that Aragorn managed to. The Fellowship, and bonds of friendship that were forged, between Sam and Frodo, between Pippin and Merry, and between Aragorn, Gimli and Legolias could not be recreated here, which is why for all the visual grandeur and magnificence, The Hobbit trilogy could not anchor us emotionally. The love story of Kili and Tauriel manages to touch a chord, but it is snuffed out.
It has to be mentioned that The Battle of the Five Armies uses 3D technology in most effective

manner seen in recent times. It is one of the rare movies over the past couple of years which looks like it has used 3D with a purpose, not merely as an enhancement in a few shots.
The Battle of the Five Armies ends on a very sweet note, taking us all back to the point where the journey began, nearly 14 years back. The point where Gandalf knocks on Bilbo’s door in The Fellowship of the Ring. It is farewell to one of the best franchises we have ever seen, and that is a good enough reason to watch it.
A visually splendid emotional farewell to Middle Earth!
3.5/5

EXODUS GODS AND KINGS: Review

What are the challenges in making a movie out of a story that everyone knows? The visual language, the character arcs and the emotional knots have to be perfected so that the audience stays in the present frame without wandering ahead to the already known conclusion. The challenge becomes even greater when the said story has already been made into a movie, one that went on to become a timeless classic. Yes, whenever anyone attempts to make a movie on Moses, there are bound to be comparisons with The Ten Commandments, one of most widely watched movies ever. How does Exodus distinguish itself from its extremely admitted and revered predecessor?
There is an attempt to present Moses as a great warrior of Egypt who left behind his life of conquest after he grew too tired and also found love. But one feels that a lot of time is taken up in setting up this basic premise that we already knew anyway. Nearly an hour is taken up in this process which is precious time mostly because of the fact that the actual legend of Moses begins only after this. You feel a bit weary when Moses' actual purpose in life begins.
The story of Moses and The Ten Commandments is not an ordinary one. It is one of the rarest occasions  when God directly speaks to a man to get something done. The mystique of such a happening was beautifully translated into screen in The Ten Commandments, and that is somehow missing in Exodus. While God was just a booming voice in The Ten Commandments, we get to see him in Exodus, but in a very unlikely form, a child. Now, that is an idea that could have worked very well, but one feels it doesn't quite work here.
Not just that, some of the lines spoken by God seem to have too much of vengeance on them, rather than the inevitability of destiny. In other words those dialogues seem to be too much that of a mortal. God seems to have an ego and a temper in Exodus, which might not seem acceptable to many. That feeling might also be attributable to the performance of the child as God. The weight on those tiny shoulders is too immense and he isn't aided by any directorial tricks or techniques. He falls a bit short in some scenes where Ridley Scott should have helped him more. Also, the emperor of Egypt hardly strikes an imposing figure. He looks an insecure man throughout, which is perhaps what was intended.
One gets a feeling that there is a deliberate attempt to keep things real rather than lend an air of mystic. The color patterns and imagery of The Ten Commandments travel transported us to a mythical time and land which gave an aura. Exodus lacks any of that aura. The only time when the visuals have an impact is when a series of plagues hit Egypt. The biggest opportunity to create an on screen spectacle however is totally lost- the cleaving of the Red sea, which is one of the most iconic scenes in world cinema falls flat in Exodus. The chariots as I remember looked more real and fast in Ben Hur than they do in Exodus.
It might seem unfair to compare a movie with such classics, but whenever such themes are handled, these comparisons are inevitable. Exodus handles a story that has a universal appeal and lends itself to great visual imagery and aura. In Exodus, we get a well narrated story but none of the other elements which would have made it a special experience. In spite of Christian Bale's best efforts, the movie remains a linear narrative, not an inspiring experience. We did expect Ridley Scott to deliver something better with such a great tale. In spite of that Exodus is a big effort to retell one of the greatest stories ever and needs to be seen.

Doesn't move or inspire as expected.
2.5/5

Penguins of Madagascar: A madcap fun ride!

This was long overdue. The most enjoyable characters of the Madagascar franchise deserved a movie of their own. We love all the guys from Madagascar, especially King Julian and his sidekick. But, the penguins are by far the most witty geniuses of the whole gang, and no one can come up with one-liners like they do. So, ye, this was long overdue, but better late than never and here we are, the exclusive Penguins of Madagascar movie.

It starts off with the penguins blasting off because they can no longer stand the ‘I like to movie it’ song. And guess what their mission is, Fort Knox and the most ‘precious’ stash in there. There begins the adventure, but it is quite an unexpected beginning as we are introduced to someone who we have not yet met. This must be the Madagascar franchise’s first ever real ‘villain’, if you count out the granny from Escape to Africa. But this villain takes the villainy to a whole new level.

Honestly though, the story this time is a bit weak considering the movies we have got from the Madagascar franchise so far. But, the characterization of the penguin gang, Skipper, Kowalsky, Rico and Private, saves almost every single scene of the movie. The lines written for them are absolutely hilarious, especially Kowalsky’s ‘true but unhelpful comments’ as Skipper likes to put it. Add to it the pretty serious looking outfit that calls themselves North Wind, which seems to be a very deep dig at the SWAT teams that feature in countless Hollywood movies, one franchise in particular, the movie becomes one fun ride.

Each scene is very well visualized, be it the chase through the canals of Venice, the confrontation at the Shanghai zoo or the final confrontation in New York. There is direct and implied humor in every scene and the dialogues are pretty hilarious at many points. You will want to keep your ears wide open to catch all those instances. Don’t think that all the humor in an animation movie has to be loud and in the face. You will especially enjoy the word play that Skipper indulges in with the names of Hollywood stars, like ‘Nicholas, cage them’, and many other such instances. Besides the dialogues, there is plenty of slapstick fun. You will especially enjoy the penguins’ strategy to fly the North Wind aircraft, the heights of lunacy! And, you will enjoy Private’s penchant for pressing at all buttons that he comes across.

Penguins of Madagascar has got a pretty average story, no doubt. But the Penguins lead by Skipper, with their outrageously funny one liners and some very well written situations make this a very enjoyable fun ride. Personally, Escape to Africa still remains my favorite Madagascar movie, but you got to love one where all the spotlight is on the Penguins. Its 2 hours of madcap fun, go have your fun time over the weekend. And, the way they end the movie gives hope that we may get an exclusive movie for King Julian…. I’ll be waiting.

Madcap fun ride-very enjoyable 2.5/5

How The Equalizer came into existence!!

EQUALIZER: THE ORIGIN

Producer: I want to make a movie, I got the money. Let’s make a big action flick.

Director: You mean like Armageddon, Matrix…something like that. Maybe I can do it.

Producer: No No, I ain’t got that much money. I was thinking more like Rambo, Van Damme style one-man action.

Director: Right, I’ve got plenty of inspiration for something like that.

Producer: Right, so when do we start shooting?

Director: Well, I’ve to write a script first.

Producer: Why don’t you make one up as we go along. I want this movie to release this year.

Director: Right then, if you don’t care about the script, why should I? Who do you want in the movie, Arnold, Sylvester, I can get them if they are not too busy over Expendables 4.

Producer: Nah… old guys. Let’s try someone different. Maybe that guy who was running on top of the train in Unstoppable. He had a very serious look about him.

 Director: Denzel…right, he’s a serious guy. Usually asks for a script before he accepts an offer, he’s quite old school. But I’ll give him a call.

Director (on the phone): Denzel, what you up to?

Denzel: Nothing much, cooling my heels. You got something for me?

Director: Yeah, got a producer who liked the way you ran on the train. Wants to make a movie with you.

Denzel: Yeah yeah, I get that a lot. So what’s my role?

Director: You’ll know when I know. But there’s going to be a lot of shooting. And you better practice your Jujitsu and serious looks and scowl. We’ll need that a lot. And, we start shooting next week. Movie’s got to be ready before December.

Denzel: What’s the hurry? No one’s going anywhere.

Director: I don’t know too. Maybe the producer guy’s got a feeling that the world’s coming to an end in 2014. Anyways, he’s got the money and that’s what matters.

Denzel: Okay, if you say so. But don’t make me look like an idiot!

Director: Oh Denzzz…. Would I do that to you!!!

Cut to scene: After the movie is completed!

Denzel: Damn it dude, you did exactly what I told you not to. There, I’m looking like an idiot. I don’t even know who I am. Where did I get those skills from. I know everything about how the bad guy killed his parents and stuff, and I don’t know where the f*** I come from. What the hell man?

Director: Hey Denzz…It isn’t as bad as you think it is. About your role and your past. Look, I swear, I would have told you if I had the slightest clue about it. Why would I lie to you about it?

Producer: mmmm…. Director, maybe you could have amped the action up a bit, is our guy killing enough bad guys? There could be more bodies lying around. I’ve still got some cash left.

Director: Well, if you got the bodies we could use them… what do you say Denzz, shoot one more scene. Maybe that’ll fix the film well.

Denzel: Man…you’re the director, whatever you say. But I got just one more day to give to this b***s*** freakshow, just one day.

Director: One day..hmm..gonna be tough. But, I know exactly what to do. You walk into a room and walk out…and lots of bodies are lying all over the place. How does that sound?

Denzel: Sounds like the end of my career!

Producer: Well, your end or not, it’s the end of my cash. Get the goddamn movie ino theaters. Its gonna be great!

Cut to scene: After release

Audience: What the f***?

JOHN WICK: Predictable bullet spray fest!

It’s a film that makes no pretences about what it wants to offer. It’s right there in your face, it’s loud, it’s clear and it’s fast. But does that necessarily mean it’s good? John Wick falls into that category of highly predictable revenge flicks where the protagonist keeps shooting, and shoting and shooting until there is no one left to kill. The only way to save such a movie is with good characterization and some imagination in the confrontations and styling. John Wick succeeds in this to an extent.

John Wick has a past! He wants to get rid of it, but it won’t let him go. As a character says in the latter part of the film, ‘we are all cursed’! His past catches up with him in the most unlikeliest of manners, and then we are introduced to the real John Wick. He is the guy who can send a shiver down the spine of the mob boss, his name can make big time gangsters skip a heartbeat, blah blah blah. It is the sort of thing that is called ‘build up’ in Tamil films. It is cheesy, it is a guilty pleasure (because they are building up Keeanu Reevs), and it is a bit of fun. Really, it is just an ‘intro song’ short of being a typical entry for a Tamil hero.

As mentioned before, there is nothing really unpredictable about the plot. You know the protagonist will eventually have his revenge, you know everyone will be shot down. The only surprises come somewhere in the middle when some characters  turn foes or friends out of the blue. The other thing that manages to keep you mildly interested in the proceedings is the way they don’t let you forget how deadly John Wick is. The keep injecting small doses of ‘build up’ here and there so that you don’t forget. And to confess, it is quite neatly done. The block letter sized ‘subtitles’ for some Russian dialogues which talk about The Boogeyman and stuff are interesting just because they are not something we get to see usually. And importantly, the dialogues are fun at many points, and even the peripheral characters are stylishly set up, like the ‘catch and release’ guy who is eventually ‘found by housekeeping’. The most interesting part comes after you think the film has actually ended. The protagonist has had his revenge, so what else is left? Well, there is a bit extra left in the script and that is the only part you don’t see coming. All other parts, you can see like a truck with its headlights on.

What makes John Wick likeable or bearable is that the momentum is never lost. The action is razor sharp, the fisticuffs look very real, and the gunfights are deft. The only time you can harp about the action is the confrontation in the ‘safe house’. That was to easy, even for John Wick! But its pardonable, because Keeanu Reeves is good at this sort of thing. The makerrs, I beleive, briefly toyed with the idea of making a 'noir', but realized that they neede to be slower, darker and more deliberate. They chose the easier, fun way.

Highly predictable, but mildly enjoyable!

2/5

Does Nolan challenge free will? Random thoughts on Interstellar

Interstellar takes on many heavy concepts and ideas that may appear daunting to most of us. Relativity and space-time continuums are fully understood by only the best of minds, and yet Nolan finds a way to make things clear for us. One thing in Interstellar that he may have implied, intentionally or otherwise, is that free will is non-existent; or maybe I am wrong.

Let’s look back at Interstellar (spoiler alert for those who haven’t seen the movie yet). When Cooper first leaves his daughter for NASA and the mission that follows he is already behind the bookshelf screaming ‘STAY’ and saying the same through Morse. In fact, he was there even before, when his 10 year old daughter noticed books and things falling off the shelf without explanation and thought it was a Poltergeist. That is, Cooper was present on both sides of the bookshelf at the same time, or perhaps at all times. Cooper behind the bookshelf is not able to convince the Cooper on the other side to change his mind about the NASA mission. That is, try as he may, the Cooper behind the bookshelf is not able to change the past. Then again, the terms past, present and future make no sense in a space time continuum where any point of time is freely accessible at any given point of time.

So, Cooper behind the shelf is not able to change ‘the past’, and therefore we have to consider that he might also not be able to change the ‘future’ (because they are only different points of time in a continuum that is already laid out). So, what is ‘Cooper behind the shelf’ there to change? Is he there to change anything at all, or is he there because that is what space time has dictated for him? In other words, is he (and by extension of the definition, everything in the universe) a pawn in space time, being and doing only what space time dictates under the presumption that it is ‘free will’?

Let us consider this for example. Cooper arrives behind the bookshelf after being cast through a blackhole. At this point of time he knows that the entire mission was a sham and that the chances of getting humans off the planet are miniscule at best, or even non-existent. Yet, he ends up conveying the coordinates of NASA to Cooper through the grains of sand by means of binary code. Why would he do that when he knows that the operation itself is a sham, unless it is because of the fact that ‘free will’ does not exist? Another point of course is how Cooper behind the shelf knows the coordinates of NASA? Cooper himself arrives at NASA only because Cooper behind the shelf gave him the coordinates, who in turn knows it only because he was Cooper many years back; it is a kind of ‘chicken and egg’ situation. This means that space and time are laid out for infinity and free will does not exist.

Another question that intrigues is whether ‘Cooper behind the shelf’ is always ‘behind the shelf’? As shown in the movie, the space time continuum behind the girl’s bedroom collapses once Cooper behind the shelf has conveyed the equation through Morse. Now, through the movie, we see that time is a dimension that is laid out and that every minute past, present and future, exists at all times. So, when the space time continuum behind the bookshelf is ultimately collapsed, does it mean that ‘Cooper behind the shelf’ has ceased to exist forever? That is, with the continuum not existing, does Cooper ever get to be behind the shelf, and by means of that save the world? One can argue that the continuum has collapsed only after Cooper has done what he had come to do. But, when a continuum is collapsed, doesn’t it mean that all points of time in that continuum have also been wiped out as a result? That is, if a continuum does not exist, how can any point of time in that continuum have actually existed? This means that once the continuum has collapsed, ‘Cooper behind the shelf’ is essentially wiped out, and so are his actions. So, who is the little girl’s ghost? Just random thoughts that occurred after watching Interstellar.

INTERSTELLAR : Nolan masterstroke!

When Christopher Nolan makes a movie, you wait for it with great interest. He has never disappointed, never failed to intrigue and never failed to give you goosebumps with the way he finishes a movie. He is one of the most, if not the best, talented storytellers of our times. And he has invented new levels of complexity in storytelling every time he has made a film. Maybe the Dark Knight trilogy is the only time he really conformed to the accepted norms of making films for wide audiences. But, otherwise, he has always been one to break new ground with the sort of themes that he explores. Interstellar takes his experimental exploits to a whole new level.

In Interstellar  he weaves together concepts and emotions that can never be associated even in the wildest imaginations. He takes astrophysics, quantum mechanics, relativity, space-time distortions, black holes, worm holes, parallel dimensions, continuums, gravity and weaves them all into a deliciously complex narrative, and the thread that holds all these heavy concepts together into one solid story love, the love of a father for his daughter and his will to give her a good life.

We have seen movies about outer space, aliens, planets, apes, asteroids, comets, space expeditions,

satellites, space stations, and most recently space accidents, which Alfonso Cuaron so brilliantly told through Gravity. But, never has the science of outer space been taken so seriously in a movie. We are not talking jet propulsion and mechanics here, but quantum mechanics and relativity; the kind of stuff that Einstein and his peers like to deal with. It would have been a nightmare to conceive a script that has its foundations on these concepts, and yet Christopher Nolan (co written by Jonathan Nolan) manages to get through to audience about what he wants to convey. A brilliantly simple explanation about what a worm hole is all about is one such instant (now we all know what the worm hole from The Avengers might have been).

The premise is pretty straight and simple. Earth is no longer getting better for humans to live. The blight wants to take over the earth and so if man wants to survive he better look for other places. NASA, long shut down, or so the world thought, had detected an anomaly in space time a long time ago and believed that answers for a new home lay on the other side of the hole. Now, they have the clues that came from probes that they sent long ago, and they need a team to go in and make sure.

It is difficult to sum up what Interstellar is all about because it encompasses so much. Be it the relativity on the planet that takes 7 earth years for every hour, be it the sheer desperation of a scientist to live that made him let down his entire team, maybe entire humanity itself, the sacrifice of a robot and an astronaut to get to the heart of a black hole so that they can find the answers necessary to save humanity. And most importantly, how ever second in a girl’s room is captured and laid out as a huge array to space time so that she can one day learn the answers that will save humanity. It is, above all, how a father’s love makes him find a way back to his daughter, and how she finds a way out for humanity.

Interstellar is outlandishly imaginative, some times even difficult to believe, but Nolan does not leave anything unexplained (except who‘THEY’ are?) The foundations of his story and screenplay are laid

on the complex theories of physics that we have heard about but never really understood. Some of it might appear plain impossible (like how a man can survive a fall through a black hole), but most of it is possible, even though not probable. And, it is brilliantly visualized showing the stoic beauty of space and alien landscapes of planets that might be our homes in centuries to come. Even though it is touted as a space adventure, the pace and turning points of the script are never forced. In fact, Nolan spends almost the entire first hour setting up the premise, using nothing but drama and the father-daughter relation, before starting out on the interstellar adventure. That restraint shown in writing and making is the hallmark of a great film maker. That is not to say that Interstellar does not have its share of pop corn moments or melodrama; like the mobile docking of the ship to the station and the final meeting of father and daughter, but they are acceptable in an extremely well written piece that spans nearly 3 hours.

Interstellar is not one for passive viewing. It was written with much thought and it demands a similar effort from you while watching it. Looking at it as just another visual space adventure is a waste of time, as it gives you much to think about too, like how a scientist’s conscience might work in different situations, how time might just be another dimension in our universe which is there but cannot be seen, and about how love can sometimes be a compass that can guide us when all else seems lost. Interstellar demands you to travel with it, not be a mere spectator. And be sure, it is a journey worth taking. Its brilliantly complex writing and film making, which beautifully simplifies what many great scientists have meant over the decades.

And, yes Mathew Mc Conaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain are the lead cast, but the script overpowers their presence, and Matt Damon and Michael Caine turn out quite uncharacteristic to what they have done till now.

Interstellar: Don’t just watch – experience it

4/5

FURY: War in all its gore!

The World Wars are the toughest tests that modern humanity has faced. The world torn into two factions, fighting and killing each other, some without knowing why or whom they were doing it for. Everyone was forced to take sides, no one could remain immune. No wonder, these two periods of great strife keep producing stories that resonate in our minds even 60 years after all the brutalities happened. We have lost count of the number of movies that have been made on WWII, butt we know for sure that there are yet many more stories of courage, desperation, suffering and struggles that remain untold. Fury tells us one such story.

Its set during the fag end of WWII when the Allied forces are making their last march through Germany. The Nazis are putting up a resistance that would take a great force to quell, and their tanks are far far superior to that of the Americans. Deep behind enemy lines, a company of tanks is sent on a mission to clear the road for troops behind. The tanks are outsmarted, outgunned and overpowered, until only one remains. What can one tank do against the fury of a whole company of Nazis?

Fury reminds us a lot of some previous World War movies, Saving Private Ryan, in particular. It is set at approximately the same time, after D Day at Normandy. It involves a group of men, lead by a veteran, who are sent on a mission that traverses through many towns that are German control. The only difference here is that there is no ‘Ryan’ to save. The other similarities are unmistakable, like the young typist, who has never even held a gun, being assigned to the company because of a lack of options. The veteran, played by Brad Pitt, too is quite similar to Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan. He has his own insecurities and fears about the war, but he never lets his men know it, and he is always ready for a new mission.

It is an effective portrayal of the muddled and tortured minds of the men who had the misfortune of fighting in such a huge war. They do not want to kill, they do not want to die, and they know that if they do not kill they might have to die. It shows us that the men who have been in the war a long time have adapted themselves to this reality, while a young man who is thrust into action takes time understanding what war is all about. The way war transforms his mind and him as a person is very well plotted through Fury. The movie also takes time to show us how even between the ravages of war, they crave for some quiet time, some gentleness, like the scene in the apartment.

No holds are barred in showing the brutalities of war. There are no sentiments, no teary farewells, just men falling left, right and center and their comrades moving on after just a glance, that is what war is all about. The bullet showers, the bombs and the tanks look very real, and every time a tank is in a confrontation with another, we are literally on the seat edge, not knowing what the next move will be or where the next shell will come from.

And then comes the final confrontation. If nearly 80% of the movie had only isolated battles with long periods of drama (very much engaging and revealing about the characters), the last standoff more than makes up for it. You could call it a Trojan Horse, though it is not exactly one (that would make it two for Brad Pitt after Troy), and the strategy is really exciting, even though you know it is ultimately suicidal (but then all war movies end that way, don’t they)

The performances are all intense as demanded by war. But one thing about Brad Pitt. You can throw all the smoke, grime and blood of war at him, but his good looks still manage to shine through. The way his character meets its end though is very much reminiscent of the way Tom Hanks dies in Saving Private Ryan.

Fury may not have a whole lot of originality, because we have seen WWII movies with a similar arc before. But it is very effectively shot, portrayed and performed, and will drill the brutalities of war into your conscience. The makers could have been a bit more careful to avoid similarities with Saving Private Ryan, but Fury remains a strong statement and documentation of a WWII tale nonetheless. Definitely recommended.

The brutality and futility of war – a heroic one too!

3.5/5

GONE GIRL: A Perfectly imperfect crime!

Is there anything such as the ‘perfect crime’? Those who believe in truth and cosmic justice and the long hand of the law will tell you that there is no such thing; the truth will always come out. But, what if the crime was intended in such a way that the truth would come out, but not in its true form, but in a manipulated form which would mislead, confuse and concoct a truth that never was. Gone Girl is that ‘perfect crime’. A perfect crime, planned with just the right amount of imperfection that it looked like the perfect crime gone wrong.

Gone Girl is one of the tautest and smartest psychological thrillers to come on screen in recent times. It is not a thriller in the strictest sense of the word, it is a crime drama, that is not as much an investigation as it is a revelation. Yes, the drama unravels itself scene after scene, and it always remains a step ahead of even the shrewdest brains who have watched thrillers by the dozen. A wife has disappeared, and the husband knows nothing about it, her parents know nothing about it, and the neighbours know nothing about it, and now the cops want to know all about it. Prime suspect, the husband. Yes, he has the motive, he has the opportunity and he is the last person who saw her, perhaps the last person who saw her alive! All eyes on the husband as he bumbles through the initial phase of the trouble, he mismanages his image and before he knows he has been branded the killer of ‘Amazing Amy’. Is he the killer or not? Has he committed the perfect crime and set someone up, and will the cops ever get to the bottom of it all? Watch Gone Girl for the answers.

The best thing about Gone Girl is that you don’t know who to trust, at least until the end of the first hour of the film. Everyone is under the shadow of doubt, everyone is a suspect and everyone is a possible victim. And then comes the revelation as the audience gets to know the identity of the manipulator. From then on it is a guessing game as we try to figure out what the manipulator is going to do next; who is going to be set up, who is going to be framed, who is going to be killed? If the first hour confuses you in many ways about the truth, the second hour amazes and startles you with the sheer criminal genius of the manipulator. The modus operandi of the crime is brilliantly explained and you can look and look and think and think about any loopholes and you wouldn’t find them, unless you are a forensic expert maybe. Then, comes the great surprise when the manipulator gets manipulated! Can the manipulator come back?

Gone Girl is a brilliantly written non-linear narrative which puts us back and forth, before the crime and after. Even though it has Ben Afleck, one should give the honors to Rosamund Pike for an absorbing performance. Afleck too has some aces up his sleeve, but Pike takes the cake. Tyler Perry comes across as the ultra-cool litigator.

One thing that elevates Gone Girl to the level of a mind-twisting thriller is the editing; deft and absolutely controlled. The economy of sound in the entire movie is also very much helpful to the overall mood. You might have seen many films where there are clever and cruel manipulators who play others in masterly ways, but Gone Girl deviates from all these films in the way that it ends, which justifies the especially long epilogue. You won’t have a clue. I have a great urge to add a final one line that would aptly sum up the content of Gone Girl, but I’d hate to be a spoiler for you. Read the comments section for that one line if you want to. Watch Gone Girl in theaters. It is undoubtedly one of the best of this year and perhaps the last few years too.

Unpredictable and taut crime drama 4/5

TICKET OF THE WEEK: BRAD PITT vs. BEN AFLECK

This week is really exciting as tow big stars come together for a clash at the Indian box office. Two weeks earlier it was Robert Downey Jr. vs. Nicholas Cage, in a battle that Downey seems to have won quite convincingly. This week it gets bigger with new poster boy of ‘pure’ cinema Ben Afleck and old faithful Brad Pitt fighting it out. The good thins is both their movies carry excellent pre-release and overseas reports, and neither of them is a routine action plot with the hero firing at aliens or terrorists.

                            

Gone Girl:

Ben Afleck is back in the big time after a couple of years. After Argo, great things are being expected of him every time he does anything on the screen, and Gone Girl seems to be one that has the potential of living up to all those expectations. Billed as a thriller, it shows the character of Ben Afleck being framed for the murder of his wife. Sounds like a very interesting premise and for those who have seen Argo and know the promise that Ben Afleck holds as a cinematic brain, then you surely wouldn’t miss this one.

Fury:

Brad Pitt on screen is always an exciting prospect, and when it is in the action/drama category, it is bound to be almost irresistible. Pitt’s last outing was World War Z which didn’t quite satisfy everyone. This time, he drops the Z and goes back to a real world war and explores the minds of soldiers marching to the warfront. Any movie based on a World War will have interesting, gripping and often touching stories to tell. It is indeed a wonder that more than 60 years after these dark times ended, the stories about them, of the people who fought and died iijn them, and of the families that suffered in silence, are yet not fully told. It shows us that humanity itself was greatly challenged when the whole world went to war without knowing what or whom they were fighting. The movie has some well known faces besides Brad Pitt and is surely something you got to catch on the big screen.

Does Kaththi need two Vijays?

While Kaththi it's doing great business at the box office and almost the entire media is unanimously praising it as a week made entertainer, one thing about the movie leaves a lingering doubt in my mind. Why are there two Vijays in the movie. Except for the marquee value of having Vijay playing a double role there really doesn't seem to be a necessity for two characters. Yes, we have to admit that the two characters are completely different from each other and that Kathiresan is able to accomplish what Jeevanandam might never have with his methods. But my question is why did there have to be a Jeevanandam and then bring Kathiresan to pose as Jeevanandam. Would the movie have been any different if there had been only one Vijay, named Kathiresan or Jeevanandam, having the qualities of Kathiresan?

Kaththi is focused on the right lead by Kathiresan to bring justice to the village. The double role card played by Murugadoss doesn't have any  significance in the plot. It does not carry any suspense because it is revealed to its right at the start, it does not serve as a turning point at any portion of the film, nor does it cause any major confusion to the characters in the film itself. The only instance where the double role factor has any impact is in the one scene where the antagonists discover that the person they are dealing with is not Jeevanandam, but someone who has taken his place. But even that moment turns out to be of little consequence in the subsequent events and hence the question to Murugadoss; why did you bring in two Vijays?

We all love to see Vijay on screen, especially when he died something new and different on screen. So natuirally, when we saw that Murugadoss was using him in a double role, we think that there is something special in store. But, what we get is a rather underplayed Vijay who is replace very early in the first half by the normal exuberant and energetic Vijay, who then proceeds to do what Vijay does in most of his films, which is sing, dance, fight and emote like only he can. What makes Kaththi good is the fact that it has a solid screenplay and great social relevance, which takes it a notch above a regular 'Vijay' movie.

. So naturally, when we saw that Murugadoss was using him in a 

The double role, I believe, is an unnecessary burden on the screenplay which helps only to add a prologue and an epilogue to an interesting story. The central plot in itself was good enough to make a good movie without resorting to this redundant gallery show, and yet Murugadoss chose to do so, which is puzzling. The double role in Kaththi somehow reminds me of the double role played by the villain of Ghajini, which was a jarring note in an otherwise fantastic movie. Now, the double role in Kaththi is not nearly as bad, but one only feels that it could have been avoided. Please do not take this comment as one that says that Kaththi is a bad movie. It is an immensely enjoyable entertainer with social relevance. The double role however seems to be an unnecessary appendage. What do you think? Please let me know.

Sex Tape

Sex was never this funny! Lol

It begins with explaining how boring your life can be when you grow up. A couple discovers that marriage and two kids makes ex almost impossible. And before they know it, the hardly remember how good they were at it. How do they spice it up, how do they get it back? They do something crazy to turn on the heat, which in this case happens to be a three hour long sex tape where they pretend to be sex gurus showing each and every position in the ‘book’. But technology has robbed us of so much privacy that even the most intimate of moments cannot be kept private. A few careless hours, and before they know their raunchy porn video is on the ‘cloud’ network. Now, almost everyone who is someone in their lives, which includes their kids and the mailman, is one click away from seeing the wild carnal details that they filmed in such detail. It’s a mad scramble to retrieve their ‘honor’ before it all goes up in ‘porny’ smoke.

‘Sex Tape’ is all about that mad scramble and less about the

actual tape. The trailers made one thing clear; this is a fun/comedy movie, and not a hot sexy one. The film stays true to it. Yes, there are a few moments in the beginning that are inevitable to set up the premise. But never once does the streak of humor go missing, which is the best thing about Sex Tape. It is a tough balancing act by the director handling such a subject to not make it look like a ‘sex’ movie, and at the same time to not turn it into childish run-around movie. The need of the lead pair, at first to reignite their sex life, and then later to destroy the evidence, is well articulated, which is what connects it to the audience.

But, serious stuff aside, the movie is really a lot of fun. Thanks mainly to its lead pair of Jason Segel and Camerone Diaz. They have played the devoted couple who realize that they are ageing but yet want to have a shot at their younger, more romantic days again, with conviction. And, they share a good comic timing, which makes their verbal exchanges really enjoyable. And, the script has written in a couple of tailor-made situations for slapstick humor which thankfully work quite well without stretching out for too long. There is a bit of melodrama towards the end, and a scene in a huge server room, which seems a bit too far fetched. But, we can understand the writer’s lack of options to effectively finish the script on a sweet note. The pre-climatic portions definitely do not live up to the energy and fun of the earlier parts.

Finally, if there is one thing about the movie that is

consistently good and funny and amusing, it is the dialogues. Most scenes would have fallen flat if it were not for the witty lines. Admitted, it does play on our guilty pleasures, but what else can we expect when a couple is looking for a self- made porn movie. It has been cleverly used to keep a naughty smile and the occasional laugh on your face for almost the entire duration of the movie. Its not the regular Hollywood rom-com that you get dime-a-dozen. Go for Sex Tape to have an amusing couple of hours. Sex was never so funny! Lol.

Mostly witty and funny – not sexy!

2.75/5 

The Tickets of the Week - Choose your movie!

Three releases from Hollywood this week. All have pretty well known stars and so the choice is a bit tough because it surely is not easy catching all three in theaters. So, here is a peek at what is in store.

1. Sex Tape.

Marquee Name: Camerone Diaz.

The ‘Charlie’s Angel’ was last seen in a major release in Bad Teacher. Well, is she a marquee name in India? Not always. But, with a movie named ‘Sex Tape’, the interest is definitely increased. But, this one is more of a comedy/drama, with very little of the ‘title’ element. Expect to have a laugh riot, if the movie delivers what it promises.

2. The Judge

Marquee Name: Robert Downey Jr.

Well, the name Robert Downey Jr. might not bring people into theaters, but if you say the words Iron Man, the barometer jumps a few inches. Robert Downey Jr. is hugely popular as Iron Man/Tony Stark and to a lesser extent as Sherlock Holmes. It would be very interesting to see him on screen after a long time as something that is not Iron Man or Holmes. This is far removed from the action and thrills; The Judge is a family drama, with a bit of courtroom stuff. Interesting premise. And you have Robert Duvall and Billy Bob Thornton for company. Definitely an inviting option.

3. Left Behind

Marquee Name: Nicholas Cage

Cage ceased to be a big draw after Ghost Rider ran out of steam. Now, going by his last few movies, one has to approach a new one with quite a bit of apprehension. The last few years have damaged his legacy a bit and we hope for our sake and Cage’s that this one stems the rot. Looks like a fantasy action flick with a little bit of sci-fi thrown in. We have had quite a few action movies this year, so this one has to be quite good to catch our attention. Besides, there are many action films yet to release this year. So, the idea of waiting for a bigger better option doesn’t seem that bad.

Bottom Line: In spite of big names like Robert Downey Jr. and Nicholas Cage having releases, it is Cameron Diaz’s Sex Tape that has managed to get more shows in Chennai city than the other movies. Is it Diaz, is it the movie’s title, or is it something to do with how the movie performed globally? Friday has the answers.

Dracula Untold: Vampire, war, vengeance

Dracula, the bloodsucking count, has captured moviemaker’s imaginations for decades. He has been told, retold, reinterpreted and reinvented time and time again in different forms. What began as an eerie tale of a count who became undead at night to drink human blood has transformed over the years. Dracula has been painted as a schemer, a womanizer, a merciless killer, even a complete idiot (in a spoof). The name Dracula has moved out of the horror genre and into pure action over the past few years. So, what else is left that is new and that can be tried with Dracula? He is now a savior, a prince who takes up a curse so that he can wield the power that saves his people. Now, that is something new!

The prince was once a ruthless slayer, a warrior who impaled his enemies. But he now wants peace

and no more war. As they say, peace is forged by war, and even though he hates it, war comes to his doorstep because there are other men who covet power above all else. The prince has to defend his people and he knows that the enemy is too big and its will too strong. To conquer the enemy the prince will have to invoke a power that might just take him to the dark side. He makes the choice. Does he cross over to the dark side or does his soul have the strength to use the powers only to defend his people and nothing else?

In many ways, this is not a real Dracula film. The only thing ‘Draculaic’ about it is its name. The premise has parallels with many other warrior movies we have seen over the years. Its about one man’s will to save his fellow men from the wrath of the enemy. The only difference here being that the man chooses to become a terrifying monster to fight his battles. The fun in watching Dracula films is in watching him being the antihero! Here, the protagonist is more righteous than anyone else – hardly the stuff that Draculas are made of. He resists his unquenchable thirst for human blood, he resists attacking his own people even when they try to take his life. Yet, he is Dracula.

The film moves at a fairly leisurely pace with no major spikes throughout its duration. It is a pretty

linear and simply narrated action set piece, where one battle follows another at regular intervals. The action blocks themselves are pretty enjoyable though we have seen many like this, and quite a few that are better than this. The only times when we really sit up during the fist 75 minutes or so is during the prince’s encounter with a demon inside a deep dark cave during his quest for unlimited power. But the film really does surprise you with the way it ends. From the moment he becomes the monster you see the prince fighting the evil within him, unleashing it only during the battles. You can see him trying to remain human even as the dark threatens to engulf him. And then, the end is something that most of us would not predict. Thos final 15 minutes or so make Dracula Untold worth a watch.

Finally, with a character as popular and mythical as Dracula, the dialogues ought to have been far far more fun and memorable. The only thing one can remember is ‘Let the games begin’!

Verdict: ‘Undraculaic’ Action flick with an unpredictable end

2.5/5