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