Bridges of Spies

When Steven Spielberg casts Tom Hanks in a movie set in the Cold War era, the mere idea gives you goose bumps. Yes, this duo has given us some extraordinary movies including Saving Private Ryan and Catch Me If You Can. What do they have to offer this time?

This time, the plot is lot more sedate. It is drama, driven almost entirely by dialogue, without much of a suspense element. It is almost the journey of a man who is thrown into the deep end unexpectedly and outgrows himself, exceeds all expectations, within a very short period, willingly going far outside his comfort zones to achieve things he might or might not get any credit for. He is the man who goes out of his way because he believes there is a job, however unrewarding, to be done.

We are shown an insurance lawyer who is good at what he does. Yes, he knows how to use words, how to define his clients and is very particular about who is referred to in what terms. In fact, he appears very much the regular lawyer whose bread and butter lies in the favorable interpretations he can work out from the law of the land. But one day he is asked to do a ‘thankless’ job, defend a national enemy! Of course he is reluctant to do it at first, but when he gets going he becomes more serious about it than anyone likes! But his conscience as a lawyer to do the best possible for his ‘client’ leaves a window open, a window which will take him all the way behind enemy lines in Berlin.

Bridges of Spies is a very understated drama. No emotional outbursts, no overt expressions of joy or

grief, just men doing their job oblivious of what the world thinks about them. In fact that is one of the last lines spoken in the movie, ‘You know what you did, that’s what matters. Not what others think.’ It pretty much sums up the character of James Donovan, played with expert restrain by Tom Hanks. In many ways the character may be an extension of Carl Hanratty from Catch Me If You Can; the man who goes from America to France to bring back an American. Here too the task is similar, but the reasons and motives are entirely different. And Tom Hanks brings out subtle differences in the way he plays these two men. That he is not a man with experience or authority is evident in his body language, but his determination to complete his task at an cost makes itself evident. Other characters are not really given enough time to grow into the script, which is why perhaps the final ‘exchange’ fails to evoke emotions in the audience. The only other character you can really connect to is Rudolf Abel, and you wonder, as does James Donovan, on whether he ever feels any fear or doubt or worry, to which he always has the same reply. But, you do sense the bond growing in between them.

One thinks that Steven Spielberg achieved exactly what he wanted to through this movie. There doesn’t seem to be any intention of making a thriller or an intense suspense drama or an emotional rescue story. He just wants to show us that a man, as regular a guy as it gets, can exceed all our expectations, and maybe his own, when the hour is right. Bridges of Spies attempts to be no more than a closely followed character graph of James B Donovan as he transforms amazingly from a regular lawyer to somebody special. For that reason, Bridges of Spies is not exciting, or gripping, but it is through every single minute, engaging. You will love the restraint Tom Hanks put into his performance, you have to admire the restraint Spielberg showed in the making. This is the work of a master who knows exactly how much to do with a script without letting his reputation get in the way! Please do not approach this movie with the baggage of a Saving Private Ran or Catch Me If You Can. This may be more like The Terminal, but toned down even further!

Thoroughly engaging subtle drama

3.5/5

THE WALK

When an entire script is built around a single final incident, the entire film making process becomes a tight rope walk! In many ways The Walk is much like a heist movie, except no one is being robbed here, but all things in the movie lead up to the final coup, which is what the protagonist likes to call the act that he committed. That is pretty much what the movie is all about. The director make no attempt to hide where the story is going, everything is laid out right at the start. You are told that this is going to happen; just sit back and watch how it happens. Now that will work only when the final event is worth the wait even when you know what it is! Is it worth the wait? Absolutely! It is possibly one of the craziest things ever attempted. If there is anything even crazier, a movie has to be made about it.

Starting in the idyllic locales of France, The Walk traces the journey of Philippe Petit as he goes from

Paris to New York in search of the ultimate high wire! Yes, the movie traces his growth from the wonder eyed kid who just wanted to get onto wires tied higher and higher and higher. Of course, it is not something anyone can do or perfect without being taught the vitals of the trade and that is where comes Papa Rudy, played quite masterfully by Ben Kingsley! The exchanges between the master and prodigy are some of the best passages in the build up to the final act. How the master breaks the ego of his pupil, how he imparts him the small nuggets that will one day make him steady on the highest wire ever, and how they finally realize that they have perhaps built a bond that is greater than master and pupil!

The other element that adds charm to the build up the coup is of course the relationship between Philippe and Annie. We are not sure what it is, whether the really are in love, or are they just admirers of each other’s craft, and the way it ends does leave us a bit flummoxed. But it adds color and charm while it is there. The other factor that keeps the movie going without a boring phase are the accomplices who join along the way, the best perhaps being the mathematics teacher who is terrified of heights! Also, the guy who wants to be involved in anything that is ‘high’ is hilarious. Every accomplice brings a different shade which holds the script together until the final act takes over.

Once the final act begins, it is just the two towers, the wire and the man on it. The process of getting

the wire up too is told in quite a taut manner, with the final few minutes of the set up, and the ‘unknown visitor’ being the best parts. And then in his own words, ‘he shifts his weight and becomes a wire walker’. The next 20 minutes or so, watch it in theaters because they are absolutely arresting. There might be moments in the movie where you wonder how a movie about a coup can be so deprived of excitement. The answer is that Robert Zemekis knew that he had enough ammunition in the final act to make up for anything that you felt was missing in the preceding time.

The set-up of the high wire, the actual execution of the coup of getting up on the tower without authorization might look a bit watered down, a bit plain. But, one thinks that is how it was intended, to be kept real and not unnecessarily dramatic. The background score remains true to this feel.

We are taken through the movie through the memories, eyes and voice of Philippe Petit played with infectious enthusiasm by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. It is his mischievous demeanor that makes us believe that he really means to pull off this outrageous stunt. Of course he has his outbursts, he has his doubts, but he never takes a backward step. And if he is fire, Annie is the ice and Charlotte Le Bon brings all her calmness on screen.  The only thing one felt could have been different about the movie is the constant voice over that is being given by Philippe who is narrating his story to us. Yes, there are points where his explanations let us grasp things that are not too obvious, but he really doesn’t need to tell us how he feels on top of the high wire because we can see the spectacle for ourselves.

That is what The Walk is all about, a calmly and surely built stage on which a mind blowing spectacle plays out for a short time. Take this Walk!

Watch it for the arresting finale!

3.5/5

EVEREST

 Everest, perhaps one of the most hostile environments on earth for a human being. As a character in the movie puts it, ‘the human body was simply not built to function at the cruising altitude of a 747’. Everest is perhaps the ultimate challenge for any mountaineer, the top of the world with no higher to go; that is pure adrenaline, and a sense of accomplishment. That is why a group of adventure seekers have gathered at base camp in the summer of 96; to take a shot at the King of all mountains.

Based on a true story, Everest is the tale of this group of adventurers led by the Adventure Consultant who are attempting to go for the summit on May 10 1996. Among the group is a lot of mountaineering experience, some very serious causes and emotions. But scaling the King of all mountains is no mean task and we all know that. Problems are compounded because the Adventure Consultants are not the only group going up the mountain, there are others and that means a slow wait along many treacherous passages while everyone gets through.

Before going to watch Everest, you have to get one thing clear. It is not the regular Hollywood mountaineering movie. We have seen movies like Cliffhanger and Vertical Limit. Everest is nothing like any of them. A regular mountaineering flick would typically involve avalanches, broken ropes, people hanging off cliffs and a lot of heroic rescues. While all that is entertaining, it need not be real. Everest tries to keep it real, as real as cinema can afford to. There are none of the regular thrills set up for us. Instead we are shown the slow grind that mountaineering is, almost as everything is in slow motion. Legs start getting heavy, head starts getting dizzy, eyes don’t see too well, hands don’t grip too strong, and you begin to wonder why you are even up here. That is what mountaineering is all about, and that is what Everest shows you, the battle with one’s own body, the importance of knowing when your body tells you that you cannot push any further; it is about knowing one’s limits and stretching them while still staying alive. In cinematic terms of pace and editing, this is more like Danny Boyle’s 127 Hours.

Everest surprises you by taking you to the summit almost around the halfway point. Going by the normal graph of a Hollywood entertainer, you would expect that to be held back for the home stretch. But, Everest is different. There is no triumphant background music, no panoramic aerial shots, the reaching of the summit is shown as just another event, the mountain is quiet, the cold wind blows and the climbers hardly have the energy to stand. One more thing Everest shows you very clearly is the importance of sticking to the deadlines that are set on a mountain. And then of course, the movie also shows you that once you are on the mountain you are at its mercy, the mountain makes the rules.

In a movie where most central characters are always wearing thick coats and goggles the actors don’t seem that important. But Jason Clarke does come across as the earnest guide who wants to get everyone back alive, and Jake Gylenhall has a few good moments as the mountaineer who just won’t give up. Keira Knightley gets precious little time but manages to form a strong emotional hook for Jason’s character. And one really wonders what Sam Worthington is doing in this movie!

 Everest doesn’t try the usual tricks to excite you, it doesn’t intend to. It does not try to entertain, thrill or enthrall you. It wants to provide a real look into what a mountaineer’s challenges can be. Of course, if you have watched enough Hollywood movies you might be able to predict the characters that are going to get into trouble. But that apart, there is nothing typically Hollywood about Everest. It is slow, it is deliberate, it is never over the top, it is neither pop corn cinema nor a connoisseur’s delight – somewhere in between!  

A real look into a mountaineer’s challenges!

2.5/5

Hitman: Agent 47

Remorseless, emotionless, heartless, soulless, fearless, etc. etc. etc. assassins! Killing machines made by crazy scientists who want to push the limits of manipulation. Does that sound familiar? Well, Universal Soldier, Bourne etc. in a long list of movies that have used this template to render their protagonists invincible; just a notch below making a Superhero film. Perhaps the real original in this genre is Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.  You are told right at the beginning of the Agent 47 about a military program which wanted to make ultra-efficient killing machines who have no trace of emotion. Yawn…you begin to think because you know exactly where such films head. But, every now and then films do come along which make us believe that a director and an editor put together can rescue a yawn-inducing premise. Agent 47 falls into that category.

Because it is adapted from a video game, the action is relentless and the settings have a sleek and surreal feeling to them at many times, as if you are in an imaginary digital world rather than the real one. The storyline is not much of a surprise here because we almost know beforehand how things are going to pan out. The only major surprise comes somewhere in the first half hour where we have a brief passage wondering who is really the good guy. Once that is sorted out we have a long stretch of action sequences interspersed with a few quiet moments. Shooters pop out of all corners, the antagonists seem to be all powerful lords and they can go to any end to get what they want, except they do not fully know what they are after.

Agent 47 remains true to its inspiration. It maintains that video game feel of continuous action, non-stop shooting and swanky sets. There is almost zero novelty per se in the actual plot and the action is generic at best. Rupert Friend has to play the remorseless assassin. The only thing different from other similar characters that have been played before is that he does not have mental turmoil of scars of a violent career. He is very much the calculative agent who is out on a mission. But, there are moments where his face betrays a bit of emotion. Hannah Ware looks vulnerable but instinctive at the same time, which is what is required. Zachary Quinto looks more like a soft romantic hero rather than an engineered being who is impermeable to artillery.

All said and done, the director and editor somehow manage to make it a sequence of action set pieces that does not allow boredom to set it for any prolonged period. No surprises, nothing new, but a watchable series of fights with swanky sets and fast cars!

Watchable action set piece!

2/5

FANTASTIC FOUR 2015

Rebooting a franchise that has never been popular and successful is a mixed challenge. One, you have to shed the negative baggage that has been generated by the past, but on the other hand, you do not have to handle the burden of huge expectations you would have to face when rebooting a Superman or a Spiderman. So here we have Fantastic Four, a superhero franchise that has never realized its potential, being rebooted.

The origin story remains mostly unaltered here. Only the specifics change. Here too we have a few genius youngsters attempting to push the frontiers of science. If it was space in the previous edition, here we are looking at alternate dimensions and limitless energy that is waiting to be harnessed. There is not much new that is added in here and therefore nothing much that is to be said or that can act as a spoiler.

Getting down to the bare fact of whether this new attempt at making Fantastic Four is successful or not; there is not even a brief passage in this new version that looks like it might be better than the previous one. It starts off on a serious and slow note and continues in the same vein almost its entire running length. The fact that you already know what is going to happen does not help matters at all. But, what one cannot understand about this Fantastic Four version is why it feels this compulsion to be grim and serious all the time. Is someone trying to be Nolan or is this an attempt to show that this is not child’s play? Whatever be the reason, the end result is that watching the film turns out to be a dreary experience as the story unfolda and movea towards the final confrontation.

It is the fine tuning of the characters and the moments and the interestingly set up confrontations that could have saved the movie. But sadly, none of that happens. The characters lack the depth that would have given them an identity, the emotional connects are almost absent, the cast looks more like a bunch of hopeful actors than promising performers and the final confrontation fails to evoke any excitement.

It doesn’t hel;p matters that the main antagonist makes his entry only well into the final 30 minutes of the movie. And within minutes of his arrival, we have the final confrontation. The antagonist isn’t given enough time to build his identity or explain his motives and reasons. Either due to the lack of a budget or imagination, the final showdown between the four and the transformed villain looks uninspiring and the pep talk given by the one of the Fantastic Four is as old as the hills and makes you yawn instead of giving you goosebumps. And, the art work that went into shaping the look of the ‘other dimension’ looks cheesy at best. The epilogue to the final set piece is perhaps the brightest part of the movie. This is the first and only time the movie looks bright and has any cheer at all. Perhaps that gives us some hope for the sequel, if that does happen at all.

Fantastic Four tries hard, perhaps too hard, and ends up missing out on one of the most important things a superhero movie must have – fun! The older version looks much better now.

Too grim, too slow, no fun

2/5

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation

And, there we have one more movie from a franchise that was hugely successful in the 90s. This is the 90s nostalgia year I guess, with Jurassic Park, Terminator and MI making it back to theaters. So, does Ethan Hunt have what it takes to thrill us one more time or is this just another stitched up production that aims to make a few bucks from the nostalgia factor of the 90s? Well, that doubt is dispelled in the first couple of minutes because you get an amazingly well executed stunt on an aeroplane which announces the intentions loud and clear, Ethan Hunt is back to thrill and the years that have elapsed have not made him (read Tom Cruise) any less faster or crazier.

Mission Impossible films have always been about outlandish plots and preposterous situations. Rogue

Nation is not any different. What begins as probably a arms smuggling cartel story escalates and escalates and escalates until it reaches the resident of 10 Downing Street, who by the way is made to look like he is not man enough to face some of the harsh realities of world politics. The first hour is pretty solid and fast. As if he didn’t have enough enemies already, Hunt is now officially the enemy of the US government. So, Hunt is on the run, but he is also running after someone, who has in turn sent someone to make sure Hunt doesn’t get to him. We know that there is something mysteriously named the ‘Syndicate’ that Hunt is after. The initial games of cat and mouse between Hunt and the CIA, the events in Vienna, entry of the mandatory ‘girl’ in all spy movies and the flight of the plot to exotic Casablanca set a real good pace from which the second hour should have been thrilling.

But, right after the mandatory ‘Impossible’ stunt in all MI movies, the script falls prey to predictability, more short-term than long-term. You don’t essentially where the plot is headed because you haven’t been told enough, but the way each scene pans out seems to have a lot of predictability to it. There is an appallingly deliberate set up to a bike chase scene where you can see most of the twists much before they happen which takes the fun out of the entire thing in spite of it being quite slickly shot. And, then in an attempt to make thicken the plot even further, the writers end up writing too much and taking the plot a bit too far.

Where Rogue Nation seems to be weak is perhaps in the effective depiction of its antagonist, the

Syndicate. Most of the script is devoted to Ethan Hunt and his one on one outwitting double-guessing spy match with the British agent While that is important, it is a very small part of the big picture that we want to see. We get to know very little about who or what the Syndicate is, what is its motive, why it is even there. The only thing we get is a hand drawn sketch and a few scenes where the supposed ‘head’ of the Syndicate speaking in a very hushed tone. We get a vague idea of their origins and motive right at the very end. But, for the best part of the movie the Syndicate looks like just another mob with the clichéd hit men around; the tall guy with the beard who looks like he can knock out Mike Tyson but gets knocked out by one kick from Hunt etc.

What we will like about Rogue Nation however is that even though the script is loose at most times in

the second half, with some unabashed deliberate placement of fight scenes, especially the one-on-one knife fight at the end, the scenes themselves have been shot quite well, even though predictably. The actors have shown full commitment to the action sequences which saves the second hour from falling flat.

That apart, one feels that the cast hasn’t been used to its full potential. Jeremy Renner is the best example of that. You don’t have an ‘Avenger’ in your movie and not use him. One wonders why they even picked Jeremy Renner when they didn’t want to give him much to do at all.

If you need one reason to watch Rogue Nation then you have just one name: Tom Cruise. He has rolled back the years and spared no effort to make Ethan Hunt seem like a super spy without a shadow of doubt. Rebecca Ferguson is idea foil, looks appealing and threatening at the same time without making her intentions clear at all. That’s what Rogue Nation is all about. Two spies trusting each other without the slightest clue of what the other is up to! The script is a bit of a disappointment, but the quality of making and the actors almost make up for it.

Loosely written, but well-executed spy game!

2.5/5  

TERMINATOR GENISYS

The Terminator franchise has always leaned on that one movie, Judgment Day. That magic has never been recreated once James Cameron left that franchise. They tried twice and the results were not that great, especially when they left Arnold out of the mix. Now, Arnold is back and that is reason enough to catch Terminator Genisys in theaters. For all of us 90s kids, the word Terminator is pure nostalgia of being thrilled, of being in touch with the golden standard for Hollywood action films in those days.

Terminator Genisys takes the same yarn that started the Terminator franchise, ‘The war against machines’, and spins it in a new more complex fashion. The characters are the same, Sarah Connor, John Connor and the Model 101, not to forget Genisys and Skynet. This time, we have a new guy introduced, Kyle Reese.

Terminator works on two things, Arnold’s unmatched screen presence and the incessant action. It has

always been simple, there is a good robot, there is a bad robot, there is John Connor to protect and there is plenty of one-on-one fights between the robots. It was that simple. The home stretch of the film began very early and then it was full throttle to the finish, and we loved that full throttle action fest.

The new makers however have abandoned that simple straight approach. They have introduced multiple time travel loops, dual timelines and memory, complex game plans by the humans and Genisys. You can detect a bit of Nolanequeness in the time travel and dual timeline concepts. While introducing complexity and layers to the story is good, it must not overshadow the traditional strength of the franchise. In Terminator Genisys, one feels that the writing has done some damage to the traditional strengths of the franchise. It is more than an hour into the movie and you still cannot fully understand what is happening! You do not know who is really in the present and who has jumped timelines, and sadly you haven’t yet figured out who is the ‘bad’ robot! Consequently, the ‘home stretch’ of action is not a very long one, but while it lasts, it is pretty much fun.

One thing you can always love about the Terminator franchise is Arnold Schwarzenegger. Never mind the age, no one can occupy the screen like he does, and that is why there is no replacing the Terminator. He was never an action hero who jumped high or ran fast, he simply smashed things in front of him, carried the heavy guns and smoked everyone. So, the age really doesn’t affect the kind of action he is required to do. His charisma is in tact and that carries Terminator Genisys too. The script has a few signature Arnold moments, including the iconic “I’ll be back’ moment, but one feels they could have infused a bit more. After all, that is the single biggest USP of the Terminator franchise.

Jason Clarke has a pretty complex character to portray and one can sense he is a bit confused about

how to do it. Emilia Clarke and Jal Courtney have regular action movie roles and they carry them off without fuss. But, you know who the movie rides on. There are witty dialogues at regular intervals that keep you amused and there are a few surprises here and there in the script. But, the biggest surprise doesn’t really shock or jolt you, which is a major let down in the script! The really formidable looking ‘bad’ robot is finished far too early in the movie and it takes a long time before another really strong ‘bad’ guy really arrives, and one rally doesn’t feel he is that formidable.

Having said that, the final action set piece is enjoyable, Arnold is in his usually unflappable element and it all ends pretty well. But, you have had your fair share of plane sailing by then. Terminator is still ‘cool’, but the writing of Terminator Genisys blows hot and cold and the ‘bad’ robot doesn’t appear nearly as menacing as the shape shifter from Judgment Day. Summing up, watch Terminator Genisys for Arnold, but it doesn’t give you as much excitement as Judgment Day. Wish the writers had kept things simple. But, one thing, Arnie’s still got the chops to carry an entire action movie on his huge shoulders.

Too complex and too little adrenaline, yet Arnold saves things!

2.5/5 

INSIDIOUS 3

Only the most successful horror movies like Omen and Exorcist have spawned sequels which went on to become franchises. Horror films are not generally considered franchise material, but Insidious has quietly crept up and become a noted franchise on its own; not hugely successfully, but having a unique marquee value. The challenge with a horror movie is to scare the audience in spite of the fact that they know that they are going to be spooked. That is, the director has to stay one step ahead of the audience. But, in a franchise like Insidious, the challenge becomes even bigger because the fundamental layout of the plot remains more or less the same. Therefore, Insidious 3 becomes a movie that relies more on the scenes and the moments that are created in these scenes rather than the storyline itself.

Much of the plot will not be revealed in this review because of two things. One, it could possibly

serve as a spoiler to a newcomer to the Insidious franchise, and second and more importantly because the plot seems to be of secondary importance to the way the scenes are set up in the movie. The entire movie is built around the few startling instances of haunting and the journeys that the protagonist makes to the other plane called ‘The Further’. To be fair to the director, he has managed to create enough adrenaline through these few scenes to make us sit through the movie without becoming indifferent.

Most of the good scares come in the first hour where we are not sure who are what exactly is responsible for the eerie happenings. But, the recent spate of horror films and paranormal terminology that they bring has ensured that we do not take too long to guess what or who is doing the damage. Having said that, the first hour has its jolts that keep us on the edge. Come the second hour and the fight begins between the entity and the protagonist. This is where Insidious 3 kind of strays away from its path. It is about retrieving the partially lost soul of a young girl, but it is also about a small personal fight that the protagonist has to endure. That would have been an interesting combination had we known the reasons behind all this. But, sadly, there seems to be none. The only explanation given is that once you go ‘Further’ and come back, there is a good chance that something might follow you. That’s a vague explanation and greatly dilutes the impact of the story. It is about one greedy entity.

Also, overuse of darkness kills the impact and one feels the second half has bit of overkill of scenes

in the ‘Further’, so much that we get kind of familiar with it, our hearts are no longer pumping as hard. And then, instead of delivering surprises out of corners, we are shown a bit of action. Yeah, you don’t need crosses and holy water and The Bible when the ‘entity’ can be shoved out of your way. However, the interesting imagery of the ‘Further’, the use of blue shades of light; these things keep us engaged on screen. And, the fag end has a bit of an emotional hook attached to it which you might like.

The movie really belongs to two people, Lin Shaye and the director Leigh Wannell. Lin as Elise brings the air of mystic and vulnerability that the script demands; apt casting. That apart, the cinematography department has done a good job, especially when spooky scenes have to be shot during the day.

Insidious 3 might not live up to the previous Insidious movies. It lives in its moments and scenes, but falls short in the overall outcome. But, a few good scares in the first hour and some interesting imagery in the second hour make it an interesting one time watch. And, one thinks that plans for a sequel are afoot!

A limited dose of spooks

2.5/5

JURASSIC WORLD

Well, this had to come. Such a lucrative and exciting franchise could not be put to sleep for so long. So we have dinosaurs walking the earth again in Jurassic World. The problem with making a movie like Jurassic World or a Godzilla is that everybody knows exactly what is going to happen. We know that the dinosaurs are going to break out of confinement and run amok. It is the ‘how’ of the process that should hold us in our seats. Has Colin Trevorrow succeeded in giving an engaging ‘how’ to Jurassic World.

Jurassic World takes us back to the same island where the entire saga started. What John Hammond

once dreamt of is now a reality. Jurassic World is open to public and it has been open for so long that it is now just another ‘amusement’ park that has dinosaurs as the main attraction. A decade into business and the public is far too familiar with all the ‘sauruses’, they want more. And, the makers of Jurassic Park, headed by Dr. Henry Wu who you will remember from 22 years back, decide to give them exactly that, more!

Just like in the original Jurassic Park, where unwittingly engineered frog DNA famously allowed ‘life

to find a way’ (nod to Jeff Goldblum), here a whole lot of inserted sequences make the Indominus Rex almost indestructible, and more importantly very very intelligent. As Wu puts it, “it is not possible to engineer a more dangerous predator without the accompanying behavioral enhancements”. The rest you know, or do I have to say that the Indominus Rex escapes and all hell breaks loose until Chris Pratt finds a way!

In a way, it is the predictability that is the most exciting part of Jurassic World. You know that something is definitely round the corner, you know that the Indominus is just about to make a thundering appearance, you know there is not going to be a dull moment. Trevorrow almost manages to do that. He quickly sets the stage with some very pleasing and aerial shots of Isle Nublar, lets us know exactly how huge it is, introduces the Indominus in some detail and then sets the adventure rolling. Of course, you miss the iconic lunch table debate from Jurassic Park where Attenborough and Goldblum did some excellent verbal jousting. That kind of stimulating conversation is missing in Jurassic World, though they try to make one between Dr. Wu and Simon Masrani (new owner of Jurasssic World, played by Irrfan Khan), which looks more like a pale comparison.

Just when you think that the movie is dipping into a slowish period in the second hour, in come a foursome to amp up the action and set up for a very exciting final confrontation. The foursome (I won’t tell you who they are, that would be a huge spoiler) are perhaps the most important part of the movie. And then, in the final minutes, there is a nod to the iconic scene from Jurassic Park where we learnt that a T Rex can see only moving objects. Yes, Jurassic World entertains without a doubt.

One only wonders why there were a few clichés! Why do Owen and Claire have to be shown as a pair who had just one date and then broke off? Is the casting of Irrfan Khan as Simon Masrani merely a bait for Indian audiences? After a while, the script doesn’t seem to know what to do with him, so they dump him into the middle of the aviary with a helicopter. And why, for heaven’s sake, do the parents of the two kids have to be going through a divorce? Will the movie have been any less effective if their parents were still in love?

One has to say that Bryce Edwards has done hard work for this movie. Running from a T Rex on high

heels should be one of the toughest tasks in the world! Chris is comfortable and looks every bit like the tough guy! Irrfan Khan is perhaps not on the button this time. His dialogue delivery is far too reminiscent of Piscine Molitor Patel. But, who cares, wee are in it to see the dinosaurs and they look as real as you want them to. For us, that is the generation tat saw Jurassic Park and Lost World in theaters, Jurassic World will be just another well made entertainer. But, for the kids of today, it is the moment to drop their jaws and be awed! It lacks the wit and intellect of the original, but it has the sense of adventure.

An exciting ride back to Jurassic Age!

3/5

SAN ANDREAS

 Disaster! It has evolved into a whole independent genre all by itself. It is no longer part of the story, it is the story! I know that this statement comes maybe three or four years late, because disaster became a full scale genre with movies like 2012 and Day After Tomorrow. We have Roland Emmerich to thank for this new genre in cinema. He kept pushing the pedal further and further till the genre got a life of its own! Now, we have Brad Peyton take on the mantle of taking this genre to the next step.

The first thing that goes through one’s mind after seeing San Andreas is, ‘What Next’? Over the years, the genre has developed into one of special effects. One can perhaps call it the cutting edge of special effects in world cinema because you have entire cities crumbling, skyscrapers dashing into each other all sorts of things you can and cannot imagine. The challenge with a disaster movie these days is the ‘how’ of exciting the audience. We have seen it all too often and are no longer surprised. We know how it will start, with minor indications that people do not notice or sometimes brush aside as an inconvenience or even a joke! But, some scientist notices that these are indications of bigger things to come. Pau Giammatti does the ‘terrified’ scientist routine this time and he does a fair job of a man caught between the joy of the ‘light of discovery’ and the fear of the realization of annihilation. But, we have seen all this, so where does the surprise come?

Fact is, the surprise never comes! In fact, there was no surprise planned, as you realize. San Andreas

is about a well mounted, well executed work of scene after scene of apocalyptic proportions. In short, the earth never stops shaking. Just when you think its over, it shakes again, and then again, and every time it shakes, someone’s life is in danger. But, the protagonists will find a way to survive, and you know that, especially because you got Dwayne Johnson. Some of the best scenes of the movie are when he makes rescues from his helicopter, especially the one right at the start.

San Andreas achieves what it set out to do; create a visually awing piece of disaster fiction. It brushes the border of being an assault on the senses, but doesn’t actually do it, which would have been a shame. The one drawback is that there are two parallel tracks of rescue happening during the first hour of the movie, with the screenplay shifting between them, a bit unevenly at times, making you wonder how much time might have elapsed. The other pitfall is the clichéd characterization. You have the family that is going through a hard time because the parents are getting a divorce, and there is the other guy, and then the disaster helps them find their love again. We have seen similar strands before and there is too much predictability on that front. Ioan Gruffud plays the ‘other guy’ in perhaps the most insignificant role of his career. It felt unnecessary.

Meanwhile, the occasional strands of light heartedness come in from an unexpected source; Art Parkinson, playing the teenaged Ollie who can’t wait to be 20. And you will love the earnestness that Hugo Johnston brings to the role of Ben. That apart, Alexandra Daddario plays Blake with conviction, and it is on her that the entire movie hinges, not forgetting that this movie is more about the disaster than about the people. Dwayne Johnson has a pretty easy outing. He is not required to do much physically here, except for a bit right at the beginning and one right at the end.

San Andreas carries no surprises. You know how it will begin, you know how it will end and you

almost know how it will happen. But, it is a compelling special effects showcase. The characters do not emotionally anchor you, even though the script tries to. But, there is not an empty or silent minute! Your eyes and ears are busy all the time, which means you do not get bored, which is good enough for a movie. It does not have the jaw dropping moment, like the ship drifting inland or the Liberty going down (which might have been a cliché, but who cares about a cliché in a genre that is driven by clichés?), but it manages to keep you engaged. Only question is, how much more can this genre go before it hits saturation? Roland Emmerich will have the answer.

Predictable but watchable special effects showcase!

2.5/5

Poltergeist: Another 'run of the mill' horror

Walking in to watch Poltergeist, one expected a different kind of a horror movie because of its title. Now, if you know the basics of ghosts, and have seen another film titled Poltergeist that came out a few decades ago, you will know that a poltergeist is not the normal/usual type of ghost. It does not have a form. It just acts through objects and energy, getting violent and destructive. So, that kind of a grammar can make for quite a different horror flick.

Poltergeist, however, starts a lot like most horror films do. A family moves into a house, not because they want to but because their circumstances force them to. Typical horror film family: mom, dad, elder daughter, younger brother and baby sister. Then you know what has to happen! Spook!!

We have had so many of this type of horror films over the last year or two after the success of The

Conjuring  that the director needs to be amazingly inventive to find enough angles and sounds to scare us. The story as such carries very little in terms of surprises. It is the youngest of the family that discovers or is able to sense the presence of something supernatural. It is the youngest that is targeted first. The only surprise comes in terms of what happens to that person. The arrival of the exorcist/ghosbuster or whatever you want to call them with all their thermal cameras and magnetic field detectors is almost becoming a cliché and you do not really feel any sense of excitement when they are actually setting up to do their stuff. The disappointment is that in spite of having a fairly surprising main haunting event, the script doesn’t build up to it in an effective manner. There could have been a few more minor events which effectively brought out the prowess of the haunting entity. But it is as if the writers couldn’t come up with enough interesting material and decided to go for main event without wasting much time.

Even the exorcism, or something similar that is tried towards the end is not very convincing because the prowess of the haunting has not been shown to us in all its ferocity. That said, it does have its moments, some interesting imagery during the exorcism process.  The little girl has played her part with quite some innocence. The others really have to mouth their lines and look concerned and disturbed, and nothing more is required of them.

What do you look for most in a horror movie? The spooky moments of course! It’s the director’s

ability to make our hearts skip a beat that makes or breaks a horror movie. It is when you watch movies like Poltergeist that you realize that spooking people with sounds, half open doors, false alarms and similar stuff is not something everyone can do. Tried as hard as they might have, the team of Poltergeist has managed to give one or maybe a couple of genuine spooky moments, the drilling machine scene is one of them. The rest is just like sitting through a plane narrative of a haunted house! And one more thing; why was this made in 3D?

Flickers briefly and goes up in smoke!

1.5/5

Tomorrowland

Apocalypse is something dark and depressing! We have had numerous movies that have shown us in terrifying detail about how we can be wiped off the face of earth – thanks to Roland Emmerich in particular. Is it possible to be positive about apocalypse? Is it alright to be optimistic knowing very well that what is here today might not be the same tomorrow? Is it possible to think that world need not have an end and that we can find ways past it or around it? Tomorrowland introduces us to people who think that way, people who think that anything is possible.

It starts with a dash of humor, George Clooney addressing the audience, trying to narrate a story and

being constantly interrupted by a shrill sounding girl because in her opinion he is not being optimistic enough in his narration. So he tries to be optimistic and takes us to the 1964 World Trade Fair where he has his first brush with the other dimension and Athena. What changes his life more, The other dimension or Athena? Well, we don’t find out just yet because he can’t keep up the charade of optimism. So, the girl takes over with her genuinely optimistic story, her brush with the other dimension and again Athena. Their stories are separated by many years though. But, their brush with the other dimension was more or less identical. What is the other dimension and who is Athena?

Tomorrowland attempts a complex mix of fantasy and environmental reality, with the former taking the bulk of the screen time and the latter being a latent, sometimes ‘in your face’, message. The first half is almost entirely about Casey and her amazing adventure as she comes in contact with a ‘pin’ that she found mysteriously along with her belongings. She is one to go beyond barriers, break rules if necessary, and take wild risks if she thinks there is hope of seeing something special. So, she is not taken aback by this new experience, very much like Frank Walker many many years ago, and follows the trail to find more. What does she find? She finds Athena, or Athena finds her, and then they both find Frank Walker again. And, that is when Tomorrowland begins.

George Clooney re-enters the screen after nearly an hour. He is grumpy, unshaved and seems to have a very serious grouse against everyone he comes across, especially Athena. But, there is something that they both know that Casey does not. When she finds out, she is amazed; and one must admit, so are we! We get a rocket blasting off from the center of the Eiffel Tower, which is the visually the most fantastic scene of the movie, and we are transported to a land of which we only got glimpses earlier.

Tomorrowland wants to entertain which it does. At a visual level, the movie is a treat at times,

especially when we go to the other dimension. Of course, there are portions that look a bit cheesy, like a huge wall that seems to be made of red pointy stones, which makes us think whether the characters are having a dream or whether this is for real! But, more than the visual aspect, it is the characters that keep us anchored to the movie throughout. The genuine sense of belief and optimism shown by Casey, the never-flinching earnestness of Athena and the angry but ultimately dependable Frank – these are the things that make Tomorrowland worth your time. The three are different, very different, two of them *spoiler alert* may have felt something special for each other – which is later described as a fault in the ‘empathy interface’, but they are united by what they want to do, even though Casey has no idea what it is! There are dashes of humor in the way they interact with each other, there is a touching minute towards the end, all of which adds to the weight of the characters. But, Tomorrowland holds its cards very close to its chest. For most part of the film, we do not know what is going on, or what the protagonists want to accomplish, or why Commander Nix is the ‘bad man’, or is he a bad man or just a man who is doing what he believes is right? We only know that it has something to do with a parallel dimension where there is no politics and greed, only creativity and possibilities. A little more clarity on the what and how and why of the plot a little earlier in the script could have got us more strongly hooked. We do not know why there are random attacks on Casey, we do not know what exactly went wrong that Tomorrowland’s plans were put on hold for almost ever. The movie for most parts, rides on the strength of the characters , and it is a good thing that they’re really well etched.

Clooney is fabulous as the man whose life was derailed, and is consequently very very upset but is willing to go through the same grind again. He doesn’t bother with looking good, though he can still look good with minimum effort. Britt Robertson brings that energy and charm that Casey demands. But, if the movie belonged to someone, it has to Raffey Cassidy. *Spoiler Alert* To make the audience develop a connection to an animatronic takes a very talented actor, and here we have one. Love between a human and an animatronic is weird, love between a middle aged man and a teenager is pedophilia. Both are unpleasant things to watch on screen. But the writers and the actors find a way to make it look cute. That is what Tomorrowland is all about: a fantasy that doesn’t really delight in terms of narration, but draws you in by visual appeal, strength of the characters and some very polished performances. Yes, there is a subtle message about ‘feeding the right wolf’ which you might want to take home. It is one of those few movies that touch upon apocalypse and still remain ‘positive’.

 Tomorrowland: A positively inclined apocalypse-averting fantasy!

2.5/5

CINDERELLA

There are stories that we can listen to once, there are stories that we can listen to a few times, then there are stories that we can listen to over and over again without ever feeling tired or bored. What makes a story belong to that rarefied category? Maybe goodness, cheer and a happy ending. We will never know for sure what it is. Cinderella is one such story that has lived on for decades and still continues to be loved. We have read it when we were children, seen it as a cartoon, seen it in comics and now we see it as a movie. The greatest challenge while handling such a universally loved story is to give the audience a new experience while retaining the soul. And that is easier said than done.

Cinderella does leave the soul of the story untouched. It is about a girl who never changes the way she sees the world. No matter how badly the world treats her or how cruel destiny is, she remains kind and believes that there will be light. So, what is new this time in Cinderella? I must admit that I have not seen any full length features on Cinderella, nor do I know that if any were made at all. But, the visual tone and language adapted by Walt Disney this time seems to be one that wants to keep things as real as possible and give just that small hint of magic and splendor when required. That is not to say that frames of Cinderella are plain and unjoyful. They are serene and beautiful without ever being over the top. It is not like watching a giant unpainted canvas, but like looking at a canvas that has been gently touched upon by shades of mild colors. The visual tones of Cinderella are very much in tune with the moods of the protagonist itself. It moves from bright and happy to a bit mellow, but never depressing, showing just how much faith this girl has in her heart. It moves across to grandeur, splendor only when her life takes that decisive turn. It is this beautiful visual language that is one of the best things about Cinderella.

The other great thing about this movie is the casting. No big names, except Cate Blanchett, and that goes a long way in making the characters even more relatable. Lily James is just about the perfect choice for Cinderella, because she looks simple, innocent and is also able to look haloed when the time comes for it. It is her serene presence that forms the canvas on which this beautiful story is painted with gentle brushstrokes. Cinderella is a story of contrasts, no holds barred. There are people who are good at heart, and there are people who aren’t. There is no one in between. That contrast is exemplified none better than by Lady Tremaine (Cate Blanchett) who thinks every moment only of ways to work things out to her advantage. The only doubt one has is whether she was always like this or became this way because of the hand life had dealt her. There might have been a temptation to tone down the meanness of her character in interest of contemporary tastes because current cinema deals in grey more than it does in black. But, the makers of Cinderella have kept her as mean as she was made to be in the original story. And, Cate Blanchett has played it with calculated coldness. Drisella and Ansatasia, similarly, are portrayed as nothing less than irritating bimbos, which makes us feel even more sorry for Cinderella. And, the Prince has to look charming and warm, and Richard Madden does so with consummate ease.

The best and the most wonderful part of the movie is also the one we all have loved over the years – the ball and the magic that makes Cinderella able to go to it. That scene has been perfected by the makers. Helena Bonham Carter proves that when it comes to certain roles, there is absolutely no one that can take her place. She is Cinderella’s ‘hairy dogfather’ or ‘fairy godmother’! And the transformation of the goose and the mice (who by the way are endearing presences throughout the film), and the lizards into her driver, horses and footmen is wonderful to watch, not to mention the beautiful carriage that emerges from the pumpkin. You could watch the movie just for this scene and the ‘first dance’ at the ball which is nothing short of being uncomplicatedly magical.

That is what Cinderella is all about! An age old much loved story that has been made into an uncomplicated, simple, visually wonderful film that does nothing to change the story. In the end it is about being kind, having courage and believing in just that little bit of magic. Relive your childhood, and introduce your children to one of the most beautiful stories of all time.

Sweetness and goodness redefined.

3.5/5