RACE

This has been so long overdue that many of us even forgot that the great J C Owens' (Jesse Owens) life was worth a biopic. Set in the troubled pre-WW II world Race traces the rather swift journey of Jesse Owens from the lanes of Cleveland to the monster stadium at Berlin.

What should Jesse Owens' biopic be about? Should it be about his genius, his prowess, his work, his struggles or should it be about the political backdrop against which he made history? Does the context of his achievements mean more than the actual achievements themselves? These are the questions Race leaves in your mind.

Germany is hosting the Olympics and the United States is not sure whether it wants to be seen

participating. Germany is at the heights of its discrimination policies and the USA does not want to be perceived as a pacifist of such policies, in spite of its own chequered discrimination policies. Germany makes all efforts to make sure it holds a grand games, even camouflaging their discriminating tendencies for a while and USA nod to participate.

Back home, the ' black people' of America look at this as an opportunity to tell the world that their hearts are with the downtrodden people of Germany. They do not want one of their people going to the games. There is politics, there is power, there are egos, there is a bit of business, and in the midst of all this is a bit of athletics. Race somehow contrives to lose its focus from its protagonist and spread it all over the socio-political state of USA and Germany without giving a complete picture of any of these.

While it has a sincere performance by its lead man Stephen James, and is ably supported by an energetic Jason Sudeikis, the movie never really rests its weight on its two central characters; it is too busy flirting with greater things. The most important factor behind the making of the world's greatest athlete(arguably) - the miles and hours he had to put into the track go missing. The movie makes it seem as if he just had to turn up and run to get the gold, as if the competition was insignificant! The only time he is ever pushed is in the long jump final where his adversary (a matured David Kross, if you remember him from The Reader) shows some rare sportsmanship. Otherwise, the competition is invisible. The only time Jesse loses anything is when his mind is not in the right place; otherwise he is invincible. It is this seeming inevitability of his victories that make Race a not too exciting experience. The only thing that can make it exciting is the context of what was achieved, something greater than the sport itself. The political statement that was made in the face of Adolf Hitler.

But Race does the same thing with Hitler that many movies have done before - treat him like

Voldemort. His name must not be said, his face must not be shown. He is just a passing mirage shown at obtuse angles and referred to as Fuhrer. We really don't understand what was achieved in terms of a political statement. We only get a stone faced general trying to run the games with an iron fist and speaking in German monotone.

It is this strewn focus of the film that hurts Race the most. Of course, you can enjoy the quite well made Olympic portions, even though the huge crowds look obviously as products of CGI.

One wonders whether a generation who never heard about Owens before will watch this film and think that he was this incredibly gifted guy who just happened to be at the right place at the right time and was lucky enough to be part of history. Ask any athlete and his greatest pride will be the amount of hours he put in to get to where he was, and never about how naturally good he was. Race doesn't show the sweat and hours behind the 4 gold medals, and for that reason remains an underwhelming biopic of one of the greatest ever athletes.

A story of the circumstances more than the man himself!

2.5/5

LONDON HAS FALLEN

The Golden rule in Hollywood is that if you have a hit action movie with a bankable star, then you do not let go the opportunity to make a sequel. When Olympus Had Fallen entertained us quite well, very few of us would have imagined that there would be a sequel to it. But, it turns out that the makers smelt the opportunity and went in for the kill.

So, we have Gerard Butler returning as Mike Banning, the man who will not let the President of the USA come to any harm. From Washington DC the setting of the action is moved to London and all the world’s leaders are assembled there for ‘the most protected even on earth’. The makers have gone ahead and created characters who are very similar to the Heads of states of different European and Asian nations. The ones with most obvious similarities are the German and Italian premieres. But, the President of the USA has no similarities to the real man because they wanted to have the same cast as in Olympus Has Fallen. And so, Aaron Eckhart returns as the President. And then we have usual suspect Morgan Freeman as the Vice President who gets to do the same role as before, sit in a chair and watch all the action on the big monitor while also talking/negotiating with the terrorists.

The terror outfit this time is from somewhere in Asia and out to wreak vengeance because Americans

used unmanned bombers to take out an entire family. And, this time the attack is far bigger, far better planned (though we are never told how it was all planned), and the visual effects are far far more extreme. If the budget for the first movie allowed for wholesale destruction of the White House, this time the budget has been stretched to cover the blow up of almost an entire city. The Westminister Abbey is blown up, London bridge is in pieces, at least 5 heads of state are dead within minutes and the only the President of the USA survives with his trusted bodyguard.

Saying all these plot elements don’t serve as spoilers because almost everybody knows what is coming. The only fun is in knowing how and when it comes. The ‘how’ of the entire operation, the sneaky plan of having the President as a prisoner in his own high-security bunker was the thrill factor in Olympus Has Fallen. In London though, the plan from the terrorists seems to be bomb, shoot, bomb, shoot and bomb until no one is alive. It gets a bit deafening after a point. The real excitement comes in the form of a close fought gun battle inside an MI6 safe house in London. The darkness and the deserted look of the streets of London (something similar to the lockdown of Gotham in The Dark Knight Rises) could have been used more effectively for a game of cat and mouse, but the director seems to be in a hurry to resume all the shooting and

bombing again. That said, the gun fights are quite well shot, with the protagonist being shown as an experienced strategist who knows how and when to take cover. And the final stretch inside a building with Banning going in solo unnoticed (quite like what happened in Olympus Has Fallen) is quite interesting even though short lived; you get a good finish. And then Morgan Freeman reenters to polish it off in a matter of fact style that only he can manage, as if he is ordering a sandwich for lunch.

The reliable Gerard Butler, on screen for the second time in two weeks after Gods of Egypt, makes it worth a watch. Of course, Morgan Freeman is always a good actor to have on the big screen. And, there is a relentless barrage of action. No way you will be bored. Just go in and have a nice time without expecting anything too special.

No surprises; but watchable action flick!

2.5/5

POINT BREAK

Hollywood seldom goes into full-remake mode. Yes, they do reboot franchises, but very rarely do they go for remakes of one-off yesteryear hits. The most ‘recent’ name that comes to mind immediately is The Manchurian Candidate. Otherwise, most classics, save for reinterpretations of timeless tales, have been left untouched. Point Break is not what you might call a classic. But in the 20 odd years that have elapsed since its release, the movie has steadily remained a favorite for repeat viewing on TV, and has almost never faded out of memory, which is quite something for a regular action movie. Maybe it was Patrick Swayze’s  swagger as Bodhi or Keeanu Reeves’ earnestness as Utah that made us want to go back to it again and again. And of course, there are the Lori Petty fans too. So, Point Break has now been remade and is in theaters. How does it work, compared to the original and otherwise?

The remake has the same basic premise, without much tweaking been done to the characters. It remains faithful to the original in terms of storyline. But, the dynamics of this film, the focus, and the central factors of the new Point Break are quite different from the original. You have Johnny Utah, of the FBI, trying to infiltrate into what seems like a team of daredevils who pull off the most impossible heists and then do the unthinkable by squandering the spoil in the most unlikeliest of locations. It seems to be crimes with no understandable motive and following no set patterns of criminal activity. What are they after, what are they trying to prove? Can Utah find them and stop them before they disappear without a trace? Well, if you have watched the original Point Break, you will know what happens and how it happens. If you haven’t you might enjoy it, though it might feel a lot like Fast and Furious.

The new Point Break is really about daredevilry and high flying action. Sometimes it looks like one life-ending stunt after another with our gang of thrill seekers (‘adrenaline junkies’ to borrow an unforgettable term from the original, which is not used in the remake though) finding potentially the most dangerous places on earth to execute a sequence of tasks which seems to have an almost mythological reverence. This complexity behind the motive of the group is something new in Point Break, the original one had it much more straight or simpler; not saying that one is better than the other. But, in packing so many (at least 6) breathtaking stunts into a 2 hour movie, the script doesn’t get much time to focus on the Utah-Bodhi bond which was the central force of Point Break. There seems to have been an assumption that audiences will carry the intensity of that bond from having watched the original. Just didn’t work that way. The investigative process seems a bit dumbed down here, like everything clicked into Utah’s head in a jiffy, which also dilutes the impact because Point Break is after all a movie about an FBI assignment. Also the romance which grew silently yet strongly between Reeves and Lori Petty in the original is made to look like a one night stand, which is perhaps where the movie totally loses its emotional current and becomes a VFX and stunt showcase.

But, you have to give it to the team though, for making some really visually captivating stunts in some breathtaking locales. It is not stunts on an unprecedented scale, but definitely worth watching on the big screen. You will definitely enjoy the final rock climb. But stunts alone cannot hold a movie together. Yet, the new Point Break can be watched. Most of its emotional power comes from an intense Egdar Ramirez who brings Bodhi back on screen. It’s a challenging job to recreate such a memorable Patrick Swayze performance, but he manages to do a convincing job of it. Go for Point Break to catch some awe inspiring locales and very well executed stunts. For the emotional muscle and the nuances of storytelling, the original remains head and shoulders above.

A few points short of breaking even!!

2.5/5

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

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 

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

Focus Movie Review

The first thing a movie needs is a clear intent of what it wants to be. The Focus on a story, a premise or a character. When Focus is strewn all over the place you get a movie that is a bit of everything, but not fulfilling any single promise. That is the fundamental flaw with Focus. Then it is left to the cast, the writers who can come up with interesting scenes and the director to make things as interesting as possible.

A con man who believes in volume more than the big time ropes in an intern and teaches her the tricks of the trade over a week long harvest. Then they part ways and their paths cross years later when he is on another job. Is she on the other side now? Can she be dangerous because she knows all his tricks?

Focus could have been that! An exciting con flick where everyone is out double crossing

everyone. But it takes the easier route. The movie is not so much about the heist as it is about the hot and cold relationship between the con man and his protege. What can we say
about a con movie where the major heist is told at the fag end through a voice over and we didn't even know that was the plan. It doesn't help matters that the protagonist (Will Smith) is shown to be the only smart man around. He doesn't have an adversary or a cop who can foil his plans. He just walks through them as if it was his destiny. Really
low on excitement!

That is not to say that Focus is not interesting. There are some parts that will make you sit up. The gambling scene at the stadium is easily the best and really sets you thinking about the possible ways in which the story would go. But the script springs it's biggest surprise right there! Sadly, we are just about halfway into the movie at this stage and we are left looking for similar moments right through the rest of the film which don't arrive. The revelations right at the end are interesting but we have had too much plain sailing by then.

Focus rides on Will Smith's screen presence. Honestly, this is not the kind of role that he excels in. Underplay is not one of his strengths. But he makes a fair fist of it, even though we can think of quite a few others who could carried off this mastermind con man thing with
much more ease. But, this one does need a shade of vulnerability that Will brings. There is no trademark loud mouthed dry humor that he does so well, though there are moments of fun. Margot Robbie matches up quite well and manages to keep us guessing about the motives of her character.

One just can't help think that if the writers had let go of the wish to delve into the romance o

f Will and Margot, this would have been a good heist/con flick. Instead we get one that is somewhere between a heist and a romance. And by the way, the romance doesn't seem too deep either. Focus has its moments, but they don't build up into anything substantial. Will Smith carries Focus through, but for once we have to say that the sum is lesser than the parts. It’s not exciting, it’s not  a whole lot of fun, but it’s amusing and will keep you in good spirits. At any rate, it is much better than After Earth! 

Verdict: Amusing, easy-going con

2/5