CHAPPIE

It is not a subject that has much of novelty in it when you see the trailers and teasers. Chappie, right from the start, seems to deal with the concept of machines developing a brain and taking control of earth from human beings. That has been the premise of many films starting from Terminator and it no longer holds surprises because we know that humanity ultimately wins! That is where Chappie surprises you. What starts out as a routine human vs. machine stuff turns out ultimately as something else. When we saw the tagline of the movie that said ‘Humanity’s last hope is not human’, I bet no one would have guessed the way the movie would ultimately pan out.

Chappie has all the trademark stamps that the director has created over his last two movies. He has a liking for dry and arid places, almost bereft of any greenery. It puts us in a frame of mind where we think that the earth is fast dying and that the machines might actually take over. The idea (spoiler alert) of one life form metamorphosing into another also continues here. And he also creates very distinguish looks for his good and bad guys! The good guys are shaven with neat haircuts, and the bad guys have funky hairdos and strange mannerisms. It is as ‘black and white’ as it can get. But, the director wants to make black look like white towards the end!

The idea is no doubt interesting! But, the script doesn’t spend enough time on the central idea around which the film is built. You feel almost as if the writers were torn between two possible ways in which the story could have progressed and decided on one only after more than half the script had been written. The bottom line is, no matter how interesting a ‘one-line concept’ is, the script should successfully build up towards it. Here, it is as if Chappie abruptly changes track during the middle, turning a human vs. machine story into the biography of a machine. At first you are lead to believe that the central conflict is between humans and machines, next you think that it is between two machines, but finally you realize that there is no conflict at all, just survival. There are one too many knots in Chappie for it to fully do justice to any one of them.

 The best thing about Chappie is Chappie himself. The makers have managed to make a police robot appear cute and innocent, and those portions are very well written. The dialogues in many of those scenes are really top notch, ranging from hilarious to emotional. The progression of the robot from being a child to a self-aware individual is shown pretty convincingly. Sharlto Copley plays Chappie and definitely deserves an ovation for being able to convey emotions purely through body language, which not even for a second appears to be ‘un-machine like’. That is a good enough reason to watch Chappie. Hard core action fanatics might however feel a bit let down by the relative low dose of action. In fact there is just one action set piece close to the end, but that too is a bit predictable.

One big surprise in Chappie is Hugh Jackman. We never expected him in the kind of role that he does. To be fair, the role does not demand Hugh Jackman. His presence only serves to keep you guessing about the motives of the character, not because of the way the script is written, but because it is Hugh Jackman. And, his Wolverine persona is so attached to him that even when he is getting beaten to pulp you sometimes catch yourself expecting him to sprout the adamantium nails. Dev Patel though is a very good choice because he looks every bit the nerd who is willing to risk anything to see his new experiment getting a fair trial. Among others, Yolandi manages to create an emotional connect as ‘Mommy’.

Chappie does touch your heart because it gives a human touch to a robot without giving him a face. That is a first since Wall E. But, it is not all about that right from the start, which makes things a bit dilute overall.

Chappie the guy’s great! Chappie the movie is not so great!

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

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