KINGSMAN

Somewhere close to the halfway point in the movie two characters in Kingsman have a conversation about spy movies. They have the same opinion; ‘they are far too serious these days’. The ‘good old Bond movies’ with the megalomaniac villain, improbable stunts and cool gadgets is what both of them like. Kingsman is the answer to their prayers. Ever since Daniel Craig became Bond and Matt Damon became Bourne, we’ve not had real spy movies that have a ‘fun’ factor in them. Both Craig and Damon have done good things with their characters, but we always wanted to go back to the old days one more time. Kingsman is a tribute to the golden era of Bond, and contains a bit of many many movies we love, and some that we may not love as much. You can detect traces of Men in Black, tributes to Bond, references to Bourne and one might say a bit of Spy Kids too.

The premise is pretty much familiar. A young man gets the opportunity of his life when he is asked to

appear for the ‘most dangerous’ job interview on earth. That portion, which comes after a few escapades of the promising but wayward young man, is perhaps the most serious part of the movie. There are six young people who want to become ‘Lancelot’ and only one of them can be. The tests and the way the young people respond to them are interesting to watch. It shows that sometimes what matters more is not one’s intelligence but the willingness to stick with others through thick and thin. You’ll enjoy the skydive portion. One only wonders why the three men who were also in contention to be Lancelot had to be portrayed as such complete assholes. We hear something about ‘positive discrimination’, but it seems a bit unfounded.

In parallel, opens the ‘megalomaniac’ plot. Now, he has a plan that is one of the most devious and outrageous ones that we have seen in recent times. Something like the ‘end of the world’ schemes that we used to get in the old Superman movies. Does our young man get to be Lancelot, and how the plan of the megalomaniac is foiled is what Kingsman is all about.

The one weakness you can spot about Kingsman is that it seems sometimes to be stuck in tow minds. Does it want to be Bond or does it want to be MIB? You get mixed signals, not knowing when to take the movie seriously and when not to. You are caught by surprise when the first serious twist arrives because you aren’t expecting it. But, the script oscillates between being serious and being fun, which keeps you smiling, but can be an irritant for some very serious audiences.

The good thing however is that Kingsman never slows down. The script is always moving ahead fast. You really do not get time to think, even though there are many convenient liberties taken through the course of the film and gadgets for all purposes seem to pop out from nowhere like an ‘amnesia-inducing’ injection from a watch (maybe a nod to the ‘flashy thing’ from MIB), bulletproof umbrellas and transmitter fitted top hats (that the megalomaniac wears when he is sitting inside a private jet!). These gadgets, however far fetched they may seem, are fun to watch and take us back to the old Bond times.

There are a couple of fights that take violence to a whole new level of gore. The mood of the movie

never really sets us up for this which is the reason you will be surprised when it actually happens. But the movie keeps injecting wit here and there to keep you in a pleasant mood rather than a tense one. There is one notable deviation from the old Bond films however. As a conversation goes, ‘this is the point where I tell you my big convoluted plan, and then you find an equally convoluted way to escape, just like in the old movies’. But no, ‘this is not that kind of movie bruv’! You’ll love that twist.

Kingsman is fun because of what the senior Lancelot said so rightly; ‘I felt the old Bond movies were only as good as their villain’. Samuel Jackson plays a quirky self-righteous environmentalist who thinks he is Noah, trying to save the world, only he’s got it all wrong. Without him, Kingsman would have ended up as the senior version of Spy Kids. Colin Firth is his classy self, and its nice to see him in some frenetic action. Michael Caine effortlessly stamps class with just a few dialogues and Mark Strong delivers a quite understated performance that has some witty lines. Taron Egert is a promising young talent.

Kingsman makes you feel you’ve had a good time. Yes, it never stops once it gets into top gear. It’s fun, has an outlandish plot, some no holds barred action, a spectacle of blown up heads, a femme ‘blade runner’ fatale, a climax that might remind you of Mr. India and then a finish on a funny/sensuous note that is a tribute to Bond. Go for Kingsman; it may not all make sense, but it surely is a whole lot of fun. This one deserves a sequel!

Verdict: A thorough joyride!

Stars: 3/5

THE IMITATION GAME

‘Based on a true story’ says the opening card of the movie. By the time the movie ends you wonder how such an important event in history was not public knowledge for decades. We have seen dozens of WWII movies, and quite a lot on the launching of the Second Front at Normandy beach, which was a decisive moment in WWII. But, who decided the moment and place of that attack? Have we ever thought of that beyond perhaps the generals and commanders who decided the strategies of war? What if those were not the decisions of the Generals, but that of Christopher? Who’s Christopher? Watch The Imitation Game to find out.

Its 1939, the Nazi’s are threatening civilization and the allies have no clue about their movements. There is a way to know their movements before they actually happen. But to do so they have to break a code, the code called ‘Enigma’. Espionage thrillers usually have an undercover agent in enemy territory pilfering information for his people back home, risking his limb and life. Here, the spies are in the comfort of a radio factory, in cozy huts with sheets of papers. They are the best cryptographers in all of England, and they have been chosen because they solved crosswords faster than anyone else. How do they break ‘Enigma’? That journey and the bigger journey that Alan Turing takes through this task is The Imitation Game.

This is as different a WWII movie as you can think about. Yes, there are fleeting footages of war that

remind us of the devastations of the period that the movie is set in. But for most part, the movie is a drama set within a military camp where a group of certified geniuses rack their brains. While all of them want to use pen and paper and their gray matter to crack the problem, Alan Turing, professor of mathematics at Cambridge, wants a 100,000  pounds with which he wants to buy rotors and wires. What’s he up to? That’s as much as one can reveal about The Imitation Game.

If you need just one reason to watch a movie, then here the reason is Benedict Cumberbatch. He plays the irascible genius to perfection. He is not good at talking to people, he never understands why people mean something and say something else and yet expect you to know what they mean. He never wants to explain his ways to others and believes that even if he tried they would never understand the importance of what he was doing, not even his fellow geniuses. He can’t take orders, he can’t work in a team. He’s just not normal! But as it is said many times in the movie, almost always at the right time, ‘It is the people who no one imagines much of, who do things that no one can imagine’. All those traits portrayed with seasoned expertise, underplay and expression at the exactly right places. This is a pitch perfect acting masterclass by Cumberbatch.

And his brilliance has rubbed off on others too. Everyone around him transforms into min-geniuses in their own ways. Keira Knightley comes in as a very important character who makes Alan Turing likeable to his other teammates. Their romance that seems to spring from the admiration of each other’s intellect and oddities comes across as refreshing.

The script, and the way it ahs been shot, beautifully shows the ways in which geniuses function on a different plane. Their daily frustrations of knowing that there is someone or something out there smarter than them, their processes of elimination and calculation; and most importantly the final moment of truth when they hit upon what they have been looking for all this while! It is not all said in a way that a layman cannot understand. Especially, the simple piece of logic which gives them the final breakthrough is very understandable.

A special word of mention for the dialogues. They are witty, sharp and deep at different points and you will enjoy them as they sprinkle humor along the way. The movie begins in 1951 as cops enter the house of Alan Turing whose neighbors have reported unusual sounds. The movie then flits between 1951 and the WWII, as the police investigate into what or who made those unusual noises. One small detail that could have been better here is a clear demarcation of the two periods. The scenes shift so fast from one era to another that there are a few seconds before one can actually pick up which it actually is. That apart, the few looks at the boyhood of Alan Turing are revelations into the growth of his genius and some of his predilections.

In the end, it is a bit sad to know how late in history this man has been acknowledged. Nevertheless, The Imitation Game is the beginning of a very late tribute that the world owes to Alan Turing.

Brilliantly executed portrayal of brilliance that changed the world!

4/5

Taken 3 Review

The last month or two have been filled with pretty meaningless sequels; Night at the Museum 3, Woman in Black 2 etc. Movies that were made because the producers felt that there was still some steam left in the franchise, and not essentially because a good script was ready. So, going for Taken 3, one did hope that it was not a sequel made out of compulsion.

We know the drill with Taken 3! It has been the same over the last two movies. Miller (Liam Neeson) has to save his family from some huge mafia or drug lord or flesh trader who has somehow laid his hands on them. No matter how many people are killed, how many cars blown up, how man buildings brought down, Miller doesn’t care. He just wants his family safe.

It goes the same way here too. But, there is a slightly more sinister twist this time. Miller finds his wife Lennie dead in his bed. Before he knows there are cops pointing guns at him. He has to prove his innocence all by himself, because he knows that he has been framed by people who are really god at it. So, who’s framing him and why? That’s the only thing that Taken 3 is worth watching for.

The Taken franchise has worked mostly on Liam Neeson’s ability to pull of close range action

sequences with the slickness of a professional. He did it perfectly in Taken 1, which is why we loved it. But, in Taken 3, he seems to have slowed down a lot. Especially the first chase when he is running on the road and over fences, one can clearly make out that a body double has been used. That is shoddy making and has no excuses! The action too does not match up to the standards of the Taken franchise. The car chase looks more messy than exciting, with some special effects looking cheesy (you would expect something similar in a medium budget Tamil film). And, Liam Neeson escapes from too many car crashes without a real good explanation. Come on, we know he is not Superman!

But, the biggest let down is the script itself. It is just one action sequence set up after another with different reasons. One wonders why Miller is so desperate to contact his daughter in person just to tell her that he is okay, and risk getting arrested and getting his daughter in big trouble. It just seems like artificially induced spikes in the script because of lack of sufficient material. Yes, we know Miller dotes on his daughter, but we also know he is intelligent enough to sort out his priorities.

The best thing about Taken 3 is not Liam Neeson. He does his usually senior-pro stuff with ease. You will enjoy Forrest Whittaker’s nuanced performance as the detective. He has employed a couple of unique mannerisms which he consistently follows, and gets some very witty lines. But, his role is cut off for long periods in the script, which spoils the fun.

One feels that Taken 3 was just made because some people felt that there was some more juice left in the franchise. The script is half baked and does not excite at all. The action sequences are repetitive, and all what we have seen before, and sometimes look half-heartedly done. If you like Liam Neeson’s trademark underplay, and can enjoy Forrest Whittaker’s nuances, you might just about feel not too bad about this. Otherwise, there’s nothing new to watch it for.

[The audience]Taken (3) for granted

1.5/5

The Woman in Black: Angel of Death

One never imagined in 2012 that the Woman in Black would actually have a sequel. It was a small movie that used old school tricks to give us a few thrills. But, it did hit it off well with audiences, which is why she returns as Angel of Death. The movie is set in 1941 where children from London are being evacuated to the countryside to keep them safe from the bombings. One such group is sent to Eelmarsh house, the house of the Woman in Black. But of course, the unsuspecting children and the two teachers accompanying them know nothing of this.

The makers of the movie have gone ahead with the script with the assumption that anyone watching this already knows everything about Eelmarsh house. Now, that is a pretty far reaching assumption considering that the original Woman in Black was not such a huge hit after all. There will be many who have not watched the first movie and will consequently have no idea about the reason behind the haunting at Eelmarsh house. Those audiences are bound to find everything a bit meaningless.

Coming to the movie itself, and assuming that you have seen the first part, Angel of Death comes as a

heavy disappointment. It tried to play its cards the same way that the first movie did, by slowly spooking you, by using darkness, half open doors and ravens flashing against the windows. But, it doesn’t work this time because almost always you know that it is coming. The director also tries to use ghastly faces coming out of nowhere as a scaring tactic. But save the rare momentary jump in your pulse, it does not have any effect whatsoever. The lesser said of the story, the better. It is just another one where one kid after the other keeps finding ways to die, with the veiled lady making fleeting appearances now and then. The characters really do not have any meat in them. The only one who seems to have a character arc is the flying officer. He is the only one whose fears seem real, and he doesn’t fear the ghost but something else.

The Angel of Death tries to do what the prequel did. It tries to give you a tense two hours with you guessing what will pop out of which corner. But the script and the director have failed in putting together anything meaningful and even remotely scary. It ends up as a collection of ‘horror gimmicks’ which fall flat. In 2012, when the Woman in Black first released, we hadn’t seen old school horror for a while, which was one of the reasons it found interested audiences. But, in 2013 and 14 we have had far too many including The Conjuring, its sequel Annabelle (which was also a big let down), the forgettable Jessabelle etc. It is not new anymore, which is one more reason the Angel of Death falls flat. And by the way the movie ends, they are definitely leaving room for a sequel. Hope they work hard on the script this time.

The greatest horror is that you actually spent time and money on this!

1.5/5

Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb

It started off slowly as a simple fun movie with no big ambitions. Now, it has quietly crept up and become a franchise that has its own following, mostly kids and the parents they bring along. It has to be admitted that while everyone enjoyed the first installment of Night at the Museum, no one imagined that we would be having part 2 and now 3. Franchises usually require at least one big star, or at least one well known character, but Ben Stiller and his museum exhibits have chugged along quiet well.

When you walk into Night at the Museum, you know

what to expect. All exhibits coming to life, a big racket about a small problem that means nothing to anybody outside the doors of the museum, lots of tongue in cheek fun, infighting, buffoonery and a happy ending. It’s a movie where the entire world shrinks into the museum and we love that coziness, which is why people are still watching it.

In its third installment, Night at the Museum tries nothing much different. It’s the same characters all over again, so there is no time wasted in explaining anything about anyone. But, this time, the setting of the action shifts to London after beginning in New York. So, now we are in the British museum with the magic tablet, which means that a lot more guys are coming to life. Of those who do, the most notable is the most famous knight ever, Sir Lancelot. His introduction is real fun as he takes on a triceratops skeleton. Of course, we later meet a Pharaoh of Egypt, and his queen, who wants his staff kissed before offering any help to anyone. The most fun, however, is the miniature Garuda who jumps and rants around to prevent the new Yorkers from awakening a monster. And, the Pompeii episode is also a bit of fun that ends with an ‘unnecessary splash’.

But, the shortcoming with the Secret of the Tomb is that the central problem, the actual thing that brought the night guard and a few exhibits to London, looks really silly and watered down when ultimately answered. It looks like a problem that could have been solved by a walk in the park. But then, to complicate and excite things, one of the characters suddenly has to turn villainous. All this does is just to stretch the yarn that is already worn thin. The opening scene of the movie had taken us to Egypt and the actual discovery of the tomb and the tablet. And there was an old man saying ‘The end is coming’. You thought it really pointed to something big and important. When you finally learn what it was all about, you wonder what the fuss was for. It is the very flimsy theme that plays spoilsport to Secret of the Tomb.

However, one must admit that it is fun to be with old friends again. Octavius and Jedediah are a

funny pair to watch, Atilla is huge but adorable, Sakagaeawah is adorable and Robin Jackman as Presiden Roosevelt (boy won’t we miss him) is perfect as ever. And, there is a new Neanderthal named Laa who is attracted to the night guard at the British Museum. How can we forget Dexter the capuchin, the very life of the franchise. And, Ben Kingsley gets a couple of scenes as the Pharaoh and pulls off a couple of funny lines with ease. You will also be amused by the Hugh Jackman (or Huge Ackman as he is mistakenly called) cameo.

It is the familiarity with characters, that feeling of meeting very close friends again that keeps Secret of the Tomb afloat. Funny situations and exciting moments per se are really lacking in this third installment of the franchise, all thanks to a wafer thin plot. But, you might still find yourself smiling, and occasionally laughing, and also hoping that a fourth movie is made, only this time with a better plot.

 Familiar friends make you smile!

2/5

THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES

This is quite an emotional one to write for a Tolkien and Peter Jackson fans. For all we know, this could be the last time we see Middle Earth and its diverse beings on screen. Of course, we are not ruling out a reboot of the two trilogies, but the iconic status achieved by the Lord of the Rings would give almost any director cold feet if he thinks of reinventing it. So, here we are, the last of the 6 movies on Middle Earth, The Battle of the Five Armies.
As with all other Middle Earth movies, this takes off right where the last one left, when Smaug the dragon flew towards the city to teach the meddling dwarves a lesson or two about his invincibility. Thorin and his followers are crestfallen as they watch from their city under the mountain. The city goes up in flames and there is no hope against the wrath of a fire breather. But there is still a spear and a dragon slayer who has lived under the pain of having failed once. This time he finds his mark and Smaug falls to his death. The dragon is gone, the dwarves have their kingdom back, Thorin Oakenshield is king under the mountain. Everything is alright, better than ever, or is it?

With Smaug gone, the mountain city is open for takers, as much for its strategic importance as for the

immeasurable treasures. Middle earth converges on the mountain city and as more and more claimants make their way into the fray, what starts off as a battle of honor between the elves and the dwarves turns out to become the Battle of the Five Armies!
The Hobbit trilogy has the same arc as The Lord of The Rings trilogy. It is about a wandering heir finally returning to his throne. If it was Aragorn in the first trilogy, it is Thorin Oakenshield in this one. Peter Jackson can be trusted with making a visual epic that is fitting of the world that Tolkien created. The magnificence of the battle scenes, the awe inspiring landscapes, the cringe worthy orcs and all that makes Middle Earth immortal are brought out very effectively on screen.

By now, we are so familiar with the characters that we have a kind of bond with them and it is difficult to judge the character arc or development of anyone impartially; one because we like them and two, because they are characters well established earlier in the trilogy or in the earlier trilogy itself. Gandalf is not much of an enforcer in The Battle of the Five Armies, he is mostly an onlooker as things unfold around him. The main perpetrator is the ‘burglar’ Bilbo Baggins, played in a very nuanced manner by Martin Freeman. He manages to look cunning, gullible, vulnerable and courageous at various points in the movie, occasionally adding a dash of humor. He has been the life of this franchise by and large, and he does the job in the final installment too.
It is difficult to write an objective review of one of the most loved franchises of all times. So, I recommend that you go and catch this one in theaters to see Middle Earth one last time. Everyone has agreed that The Hobbit trilogy has not matched up to the magnificent standards set by the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The reason for this I feel is that Thorin Oakenshield, the main protagonist of the trilogy, has not been able to establish the emotional connect with the audience that Aragorn managed to. The Fellowship, and bonds of friendship that were forged, between Sam and Frodo, between Pippin and Merry, and between Aragorn, Gimli and Legolias could not be recreated here, which is why for all the visual grandeur and magnificence, The Hobbit trilogy could not anchor us emotionally. The love story of Kili and Tauriel manages to touch a chord, but it is snuffed out.
It has to be mentioned that The Battle of the Five Armies uses 3D technology in most effective

manner seen in recent times. It is one of the rare movies over the past couple of years which looks like it has used 3D with a purpose, not merely as an enhancement in a few shots.
The Battle of the Five Armies ends on a very sweet note, taking us all back to the point where the journey began, nearly 14 years back. The point where Gandalf knocks on Bilbo’s door in The Fellowship of the Ring. It is farewell to one of the best franchises we have ever seen, and that is a good enough reason to watch it.
A visually splendid emotional farewell to Middle Earth!
3.5/5

EXODUS GODS AND KINGS: Review

What are the challenges in making a movie out of a story that everyone knows? The visual language, the character arcs and the emotional knots have to be perfected so that the audience stays in the present frame without wandering ahead to the already known conclusion. The challenge becomes even greater when the said story has already been made into a movie, one that went on to become a timeless classic. Yes, whenever anyone attempts to make a movie on Moses, there are bound to be comparisons with The Ten Commandments, one of most widely watched movies ever. How does Exodus distinguish itself from its extremely admitted and revered predecessor?
There is an attempt to present Moses as a great warrior of Egypt who left behind his life of conquest after he grew too tired and also found love. But one feels that a lot of time is taken up in setting up this basic premise that we already knew anyway. Nearly an hour is taken up in this process which is precious time mostly because of the fact that the actual legend of Moses begins only after this. You feel a bit weary when Moses' actual purpose in life begins.
The story of Moses and The Ten Commandments is not an ordinary one. It is one of the rarest occasions  when God directly speaks to a man to get something done. The mystique of such a happening was beautifully translated into screen in The Ten Commandments, and that is somehow missing in Exodus. While God was just a booming voice in The Ten Commandments, we get to see him in Exodus, but in a very unlikely form, a child. Now, that is an idea that could have worked very well, but one feels it doesn't quite work here.
Not just that, some of the lines spoken by God seem to have too much of vengeance on them, rather than the inevitability of destiny. In other words those dialogues seem to be too much that of a mortal. God seems to have an ego and a temper in Exodus, which might not seem acceptable to many. That feeling might also be attributable to the performance of the child as God. The weight on those tiny shoulders is too immense and he isn't aided by any directorial tricks or techniques. He falls a bit short in some scenes where Ridley Scott should have helped him more. Also, the emperor of Egypt hardly strikes an imposing figure. He looks an insecure man throughout, which is perhaps what was intended.
One gets a feeling that there is a deliberate attempt to keep things real rather than lend an air of mystic. The color patterns and imagery of The Ten Commandments travel transported us to a mythical time and land which gave an aura. Exodus lacks any of that aura. The only time when the visuals have an impact is when a series of plagues hit Egypt. The biggest opportunity to create an on screen spectacle however is totally lost- the cleaving of the Red sea, which is one of the most iconic scenes in world cinema falls flat in Exodus. The chariots as I remember looked more real and fast in Ben Hur than they do in Exodus.
It might seem unfair to compare a movie with such classics, but whenever such themes are handled, these comparisons are inevitable. Exodus handles a story that has a universal appeal and lends itself to great visual imagery and aura. In Exodus, we get a well narrated story but none of the other elements which would have made it a special experience. In spite of Christian Bale's best efforts, the movie remains a linear narrative, not an inspiring experience. We did expect Ridley Scott to deliver something better with such a great tale. In spite of that Exodus is a big effort to retell one of the greatest stories ever and needs to be seen.

Doesn't move or inspire as expected.
2.5/5