The title of the movie makes you
think, ‘here comes another Hollywood action flick’. It is the Hollywood
counterpart of the Tamil masala film, sometimes enjoyable, sometimes downright
predictable. So, you need reasons to go watch such a movie. Robert De Niro is a
good enough reason to go watch any movie, and that’s why most people came too,
judging by the claps and whistles in theatre when he was introduced on screen.
The opening couple of minutes of
the film tell us that this is very much a routine action flick, with a gang of
masked guys hijacking a bus, and then we flashback to ‘one week earlier’! It
was as if the writers had no better ideas to give the movie an interesting start.
The plot is as clichéd as it can get for a Hollywood flick. Casino, lots of
money, snubbed employee, seasoned criminals, and then the heist. You can see it
coming miles ahead. Of course, there are reasons why one guy is joining the
heist and you figure that the script will find a way to return to that reason
before the end.
But, as the title tells you, the
movie is not about the heist itself, but the bus that somehow gets
involved in
the heist. Whether the involvement of the bus was planned or not is a cloudy
area that is not answered clearly enough in the film. The heist happens very
early, and much to our disappointment, it happens far too easily, without much
planning at all. That is the biggest let down of Bus 657. The main act looks
pretty bland and that spoils a lot of the fun that we thought we would have.
Cut to the bus and the hostage situation
that ensues, we have very little surprises. It’s the same story told once
again, the kind that we have seen in many movies before. But, there is one
surprise, and that is the best surprise that the movie has up its sleeve, and
that is the only reason Bus 657 has any identity among the sea of hostage
dramas in Hollywood. But that apart, there is the usual band of cops going
after the bus, trying to save the hostages, complying with the hijacker’s
demands, negotiating, etc. The same drill.
The emotional content in the
movie comes in the form of one of the hijacker’s family, which is why he is in
this. So, naturally, he has to win the sympathies of the audiences. Jeffrey
Dean Morgan does a neat job of that with his earnest expressions. There is one
more thread of emotional content that is pushed in which involves Rober De Niro
and his estranged daughter, which is supposed to explain some weird changes in
him towards the end. But anyone who has watched films like this before knows
what is coming. Dave Bautista, we are getting to see him quite regularly on
screen nowadays, gets to play a control freak criminal who can’t think straight
when the going gets tough. His loud ways only lead us to think that he going to
land everybody in trouble. The only other person who makes a mark on screen is
Gina Carano, as the cop who sees a silver lining of good in one of the
hijackers.
But, we are all in it to watch
Rober De Niro right? So, what’s he got to do? Precious little, and very
little
where he can stamp his class. There is really nothing interesting in it for an
actor of his accomplishments, but he chose to do it.
Bus 657, released as Heist in
America, is as generic a con movie as it can get. Watch it if you have
absolutely nothing else to do. If you like De Niro, go back and watch any of
his classics, if you like good heists, go watch any of the Ocean films.
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!
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.
Leonardo Di Caprio delivered a
potent message for climate change on the Oscar stage! Great, it has got
everybody talking about how timely and well delivered the message was. Yes,
climate change needs to be addressed real quick and there are no two ways about
it.
I was recently watching some South Indian movie awards night, SIIMA or Star
or Asianet (they are so homogeneous that it is difficult to distinguish one
from the other), where many stars were giving small one liners about how there
is ‘solution for pollution’ etc. etc. and some such stuff straight out of the
TR style book. Then we have had this habit in the IPL of one match or one team
looking to ‘Go Green’. What they basically do is wear green or greenish jerseys
for a match of a few and exchange saplings between captains at the start of the
match – go green.
Now all these are initiatives to
raise awareness about how much we need to start taking care of our planet. But,
I do keep wondering, is the message really delivered or whether the only thing
that is being achieved is a propagation of a style of hollow posturing and
lecturing without actually getting anything done?
Why do I say this? Look at the
stages on which these statements were made. Cinema and cricket! Now, name
anything to do with cinema or cricket that has anything associated with
reducing consumption of energy or bringing down the carbon footprint. Now,
Leonoardo in his speech said that last year was the hottest year in recorded
history and they had to travel to the southernmost tip of the planet to find
snow. That is great observation. But, tell me where is the environmental
consciousness in flying around the planet, with a huge crew no doubt, to the
only place that seems to have escaped the heat just to shoot a movie? Would the
shooting of The Revenant in that fortunate and part of the planet have done any
good to the environment over there? No, actually it would have been the
reverse. Shooting in those parts with a huge crew, lights, lots of vehicles and
meters and meters of green mat would only have adversely affected the
environment, destroyed microhabitats and created more chaos than ought to have
been there. If the environment should not be taken for granted, why not wait
another year for the snow to fall in your part of the world and shoot the movie
over there? The Oscar could have waited one more year! No disrespect to Leo or
the cast and crew of The Revenant, but the words seem far removed from the
actions. In a year when the earth sweltered under the heat, you chose to tread
on the little amount of snow that had fallen in one corner of the globe so you
could make your movie. I understand the ambition, the commitment to the craft
and the deadlines that you might have had to meet, but aren’t they the same things
that drive a big multinational corporation or an industrial conglomerate? Why
are ambition and commitment termed as greed and monopoly when they are
exhibited by businessmen?
Now, am I writing in favor of
businessmen or corporates? No. I am as much concerned about climate change as
the average man. But that is not the first thing on my mind at any given point
of time. My life, my career, my future top the priority list, much like almost
everyone on this planet. And to ensure
we have a good life we might be willing to work for any of these
corporates, fly all around the globe without worrying about our carbon
footprint, use sheets and sheets of paper to print our resumes, criss-cross the
city in our vehicles, use many lifestyle products made by these giant corporations
and what not. It is personal ambition, personal choices. It is the same
personal ambition and choices that made the team of Revenant fly across the globe
and tread on the wee bit of snow that was available. Yet at the end of all that
when we heard two lines of talk about ‘not taking the planet for granted’ we
clap and we feel good as if we supported a worthy cause! Damn!
I felt the same way during the
IPL when players wore greenish jerseys and exchanged saplings and tried to give
the world a ‘message’! Seriously? Eight teams flying all across India, almost
twenty times each in the space of 45 days, flood lit stadiums for more than
half of the 60 matches, huge support staffs and their travel, and the after
night parties – the energy expenditure goes through the roof and yet they
deliver a message about going green and it is beamed all over on television and
we watch in glee and decide to wear a bit of green ourselves! Damn!
And the south Indian film
industry uses all the arc lights, shoots in whatever little forests we have
left, flies around the country and organizes the min numbingly bright and loud
awards function (can’t imagine the amount of electricity consumed on that one
night alone) and then delivers one liners on ‘solution for pollution’! Damn!
With every such instance we are
becoming a world of increasing symbolism. A world that is easily gratified or
easily deceived into thinking that we have actually done something only by
uttering a few hollow words. Look around
us and we can see that the practice is already rampant. More and more ‘awareness’
drives being organized where everyone attending is already aware of everything
that is being said. Cars driving in, cars driving out, papers cups being
disposed and everyone feels that they have done enough for the environment for
a year. And the internet celebrates! Damn!
If at all we want to celebrate,
why no celebrate this man
who doesn’t just talk but gets
down and does things that actually make a change. Or why do not we
celebrate this
man enough, a man who made a forest all by himself, even though the statements in the picture look a bit exaggerated! Fact is, there are many
other examples of action over symbolism that we can find around ourselves, but
the symbolism gets highlighted more, talked about more, and worse even, it gets
mimicked more, not helping us move ahead an inch.
The Oscars, the Filmfares, the
IPLs are not stages where green talk will ever be appropriate because these are
stages where personal ambition and success are celebrated, and it is the excess
of these elements that makes the world hotter every passing year. I admire Leo
for saying what he did, but cannot agree with the context or the stage. A stage
like and Oscar can be good to make a political point, like Marlon Brando did in
1976.
or
it can be used to make a point pertaining to cinema like Sean Connery did in
1988.
But Oscars are not a worthy stage
to discuss the environment because the very purpose and ambition of the
industry go against what is required of the earth right now, which is for everyone
to live quiet and disciplined lives without too much energy consumption, and
not take flights to New York and Los Angeles just to say that we have to reduce
energy consumption.
Speaking about climate change on
the Oscar stage, or the cricket stadium is like the leather industry talking about animal welfare. In
pretty simple terms, it is conflict of interest! And let’s not take that for
granted.
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’sswagger 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.
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!
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!
