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