Sunday, 24 April 2016

HUNTSMAN WINTER'S WAR: REVIEW

A season of remaking old fairy tales and classics one thinks, after last year’s Cinderella and the recent Jungle Book, we have the Huntsman, based on Snow White and the evil queen and her sister trapped in the mirror on the wall. The premise is certainly interesting because it is based on an evergreen fairy tale. But, this one is a bit different because Snow White is only just a name in the movie which focuses largely on the travels and battles of a huntsman and huntswoman (if there is such a term).

Raised by the evil queen of the north who wants
to conquer everything in sight, the huntsmen are taught to live for nothing but battle. But, as Jeff Goldblum put it so elegantly in Jurassic Park, ‘life finds a way’, and so love blossoms in a regime where nothing soft or romantic is allowed to happen. But the queen does not like that and puts an end to it, or so she thinks, until it all comes back to her 7 years later. In the midst of this is the fabled mirror which speaks only the truth, which is now with Snow White, but moving some place. The quest for the mirror brings the queen and the huntsman against each other once again for scores to be settled and for a painful truth to be unveiled.

The Huntsman doesn’t feel like a fairy tale at any point of time. It starts off slow and dark, and remains that way till the very end. It’s the kind of movie which you feel was never destined for anything good. It’s not that it is bad, it just looks so jaded that you do not feel interested in what happens to anyone. You don’t bother about the huntsman and his love, you don’t care about what happens to Snow white because the mirror is calling out to her, you don’t care about all those ice statues in the great hall of the evil queen, the movie doesn’t make you care about anything. Even Chris Hemsworth can’t help things because he gets precious little to work with in terms of character, action, humour or emotions. The only positive you can say about him is that he manages to take Thor out of himself when he plays the Huntsman, which is a tough thing to do. The two dwarves, later four, one thinks were placed in the movie to provide a few light moments, but it does not work at all. One was actually excited to see Jessica Chastain in a character that was so unlike anything she has done before. The first impression one gets is that she is not totally comfortable doing this sort of thing, and she certainly does not look athletic enough to be a huntsman in certain scenes. And that makes the movie plunge further. The only time when you sit up is when the mirror releases an eviler queen from within itself, and you think things might get interesting. But, the movie hurtles to its end too soon after that without the evil potential being realized.

The action sequences, especially the one against the goblins, could have been much better, especially
when you have Chris Hemsworth. Huntsman just feels like a film stitched together without much of a vision, which is sad for a tale that has such depth. This is one movie that we could have done without. It’s not bad, it is just very ordinary and dull, which is a disappointment.

Could have done without this!

1.5/5

Saturday, 9 April 2016

THE JUNGLE BOOK REVIEW: Kipling's timeless classic on screen!

Some tales are timeless, last year’s Cinderella was one of them. This year we get Kipling’s classic retold to us. Not essentially anything new, but the appeal of The Jungle Book makes us curious one more time. The important word here is ‘retold’! Some classics can only be retold, not reinterpreted or restaged, which means absolutely nothing about the story is touched or changed, the original is that perfect.

Writing a review for such a movie is a relief, because you know that there can be no spoilers to give away. Everyone comes to this movie because they already know the story and want to see it one more time. So here we have our dear Mowgli, running through the jungle with his pack, training to be a good wolf, training to be fast enough to join the council. But, there is something about him that is different, he isn’t a wolf after all, but the wolves love him enough to see him as one of them. The alpha of the pack, Akela, keeps watch as Mowgli tries to fit in but invariably stands out, with his tricks. The jungle is quite accepting of the idea that a man cub is growing up amongst them, one guesses that is mostly to do with the reverence they have for Akela, more than the benevolence they have for the kid. But, there is one who has no reverence for Akella, or for anyone for that matter – the most powerful beast of the jungle, Sher Khan the tiger.

It is Sher khan against the wolves who want to protect the child. But, nature is so built that the underdog rarely has any chance in a fight. A mongoose always gets the better of a snake, a cat always catches the mouse, and so the wolves know that if it comes to a tooth and nail fight, they stand little chance against the might of the tiger. So they decide the wise way, until Sher Khan decides that their wise move was really stupid!

The best thing about this Jungle Book retelling is
the screenplay. Taut and swift, it wastes absolutely no time in getting down to the point. There is the obvious advantage that most audiences already know the characters well enough, and so the writers go straight to the central conflict after a few establishing minutes. Voice overs are used at exactly the right places to speed up the narrative and before you even know Sher Khan is chasing Mowgli through a grassland as a herd of wild bores run helter skelter, in one of the most arresting scenes of the film. You begin to think that the movie has gone into a serious tone and it does look so for a while with the dark jungle and a huge snake, but then out of the blue comes the most lovable character of the entire Jungle Book, Baloo. His arrival takes the movie to a fun level that it has not been to before. In fact, the brief period where it is just Mowgli and Baloo going after honey and preparing for ‘hibernation’ is perhaps the best passage of the movie. The lines written for Baloo are absolutely top notch, especially when he terms the ‘Law of the Jungle’ as ‘propaganda’!

We could go on all days about how adorable Baloo is in the movie, in the voice of Bill Murray. It is actually redemption of sorts for bears because they were being hated a lot after the mauling Di Caprio received in The Revenant. But, there are other characters too, like the ever reliable Bagheera, the loving mother in Raksha, the wolf pups and the elephants. You will really enjoy the way Raksha’s expression and voice have gelled together to give her that warmth on screen. Then, there is Neel Sethi who does a top job as Mowgli. But the director must have been careful with the body language. Some gestures and expressions obviously do not belong to the jungle, and are straight out of the city. And, some of the dialogues too could have been better. You get a feeling at times that too much is being said, when the proceedings on screen are obvious. Also, the King Louie episode is not as engaging as we think it might be, partly because the King breaks into a disjointed song in the middle of it. One also wonders how Mowgli is able to talk with most animals without any trouble, while monkeys (technically closest to him in evolutionary terms) can’t talk!

Well, these are just small things. This retelling of Jungle Book does absolute justice to the original
work and our memories of watching it on TV. The screenplay is fantastic, the animation is superlative, the story is timeless. Enjoy the Jungle Book one more time. 'The strength of the wolf is the pack, and the strength of the pack is the wolf'!!

Genuine retelling of a timeless tale!

3.5/5

Thursday, 7 April 2016

Sunday, 3 April 2016

KUNG FU PANDA 3 REVIEW - The Martial Arts Panda is Back!!!

How far can you stretch a yarn? It has got to break at some point, it has to get thin, it has to look weak, right? Kung Fu Panda was a movie founded on such a yarn, an interesting concept of a Panda who was destined to learn Kung Fu and fight for an entire valley. Of course he’s no good at it, he’s fat, he’s clumsy and he just doesn’t want to do it, but the prophecy says so and prophecies aren’t wrong. Yes, we had one great movie with that yarn, like Ratatouille was a great movie spun from an interesting yarn. But, did we imagine that the same premise can be reinvented for Kung Fu Panda 2, which was again good, and did we imagine that they will come back with the same premise for Kung Fu Panda 3? They have and have they reinvented the premise well this time?

We are back in the same valley and nothing’s changed except the
fact that Po, our Panda, believes in his Kung Fu now. He is proud of being Dragon Warrior and going around the valley giving high fives and kicking butt! But that’s all that he wants to be and Master Shifu is not happy. Shifu wants to go into retirement to seek answers of deeper questions and gain greater mastery over Chi, and he wants the Dragon Warrior to take his place. Our Dragon Warrior is however too busy with his dumpling eating contests and his toys, and he doesn’t want to take up anything new. ‘If you do only what you can do’, will you ever be a better you? Shifu wants the Dragon Warrior to take it to the next level. 


As is the template in all Kung Fu Panda movies we know that a strong foe will emerge from somewhere; someone who has the skills and the power to wipe out the Dragon Master and his entire valley. The foe does emerge, and he is shown as nearly invincible. He has otherworldly powers and he is coming for revenge.

How does our Po, the Dragon Warrior, prepare to face this foe who comes with powers he has never faced before? For that he has to go back to his roots. And that’s where for the first time we have another Panda in the Kung Fu Panda series. Now, there are two Pandas, and there’s belly bumping, more dumpling eating, and lot of insane buffoonery, and you think that the fun is stopping. But then we are introduced to a whole village of Pandas, there’s more bumping, rolling, eating, hugging, bouncing, flying, there’s everything but Kung Fu. How on earth is this preparation for the foe who comes with his great powers? Can the prophecy be wrong?

Kung Fu Panda 3 is perhaps the best movie the franchise has yet
given
us, and that is saying something. This is a whole lot of fun. There’s a good joke almost every couple of minutes. The thing we all oved about Kung Fu Panda was the adorable Panda himself. He looked so cute even when he fell flat on his back. Imagine the overload of cuteness on screen when there’s a village of Pandas trying to do Kung Fu! You got to enjoy this in theatres. It is amazing that almost the same premise has been retold, reinvented and refreshed the third time and yet continues to delight us. It was a masterstroke to bring in more Pandas, write a script that makes them all essential, not redundant. And, the set up of the nemesis too has been done extremely well. There is not a moment you are bored. 

However, the best thing about Kung Fu Panda 3 are the dialogues, Witty, hilarious, funny, all at the same time; you will find yourself laughing hard many many times during the 90 odd minutes. And after a spate of movies that were over 2 hours long, this crisp, lovable, light gem of a movie is a real delight. Go with your friends, go with your family, go with anyone, laugh out loud and hard, have a great time. See the Panda do Kung Fu again, because you never know when a good thing ends. We just hope other franchises like the Ice Age follow the lead of the Kung Fu Panda. Is there anything negative that can be said about the movie? To quote a line from the movie; ‘Be the best you you can be’, and Kung Fu Panda has been the best Kung Fu Panda 3 we could have asked for. So let’s not waste our energy looking all negatives, let's enjoy the 'Chi'.

Absolute delight – Watch the Panda in theaters!
3.5/5 

Monday, 28 March 2016

Why the Batman in Batman v Superman is just not right!!

Now that the reviews of Batman v Superman are out, and it has been pretty much broadly agreed that the movie does not live up to the gigantic hype generated by the title – hard core DC fans might disagree – let’s look at something slightly more complex, something about the way the two of our superheroes have been projected by Zack Snyder and team.

Why is Batman angry with Superman, why does he want Superman finished? Yes, we are shown right at the start why Bruce Wayne doesn’t view Superman very favourably. We can understand anyone feeling a bit antagonized when they or their dear ones are caught in the collateral damage of a big fight.  So he nurses that angst for nearly 2 years before he gets a sniff at a chance of going up against Superman without a certainty of death.

The first hour or so of the movie tries to reinforce again and again as to why the Batman is so angry
with the Superman. He says that ‘even if there is a 1% possibility that this guy can become our enemy, we have to take it as an absolute certainty’. That is a logic that is hard to accept because even that 1% possibility has not substantial evidence, and the Bat of Gotham works on evidence and data rather than gut instincts and hunches. Actually, this version of the Batman shows him as someone far more practical and more evidence-based vigilante than previous versions. Look for example the amount of data he tries to gather about Lex Luthor before launching any action at all. Phone call data, encrypted disks, a Kryptonite consignment –the Bat waits for the jigsaw to fall into place before he swings into action. Yet, when it comes to Superman, the Batman needs one act of collateral damage to decide that   he has to be counted as an enemy. That does not convey the image of an impassionate and objective superhero, this is a superhero who lets his heart get in the way.

We all know that the Batman, whichever version it is, has bad childhood memories that haunt him time and again. In fact, it is those childhood memories that haunt him and drive him towards becoming a vigilante. But, never once have we seen the Batman act on the behest of those childhood memories and insecurities. He always does what is right. But in Batman v Superman, the motive behind his angst towards Superman seems to be driven a lot by his insecurities. We have dream sequences where the Superman unmasks the Batman after having him captured, we have another dream where people asking him to save them from Superman. It is almost as if the deep-seated mental insecurities of Bruce Wayne dictate the targets of the Batman. That is not the sign of a true superhero, that is the sign of a fallible, feeble mind, which is not how we want to see the Batman. The overwhelming feeling I got while watching Batman v Superman is that the Batman was actually jealous of the Superman, jealous of the fact that a more powerful, more omnipresent superhero had taken over from him. It was like Batman shared the insecurities of many ordinary people around him, the insecurity that comes in the presence of someone overwhelmingly powerful. That makes Batman just another person like you and me, which is not how anyone wants to see him.


You might ask, isn’t it the same thing that the movie does with Superman? He too assumes Batman as
a nuisance vigilante just because some newspapers say so. Right, but Superman is much different from Batman. Superman is a reactive superhero, he has always been a reactive superhero. He is the guy who wears his cape when he sees something bad happening on TV and flies to the scene of action and blasts every bad guy with sheer power. We do not expect any great calculative moves from Superman, he just reacts! But, Batman is not so! He analyses, he makes plans and he chooses his adversaries. He doesn’t let situations dictate his actions, he is always one step ahead of the bad guys. Batman is a proactive superhero, and it is this aspect of Batman that was completely messed up in Zack Snyder’s film. He made perfect plans for Superman without analysing whether he was really an enemy, and he analysed Lex Luthor a lot without having any plans for him. That is just not like Batman and we hope DC sets it right in movies to come.

Wednesday, 23 March 2016

BATMAN Vs. SUPERMAN

 YOU ME & CINEMA - BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN REVIEW

 The greatest gladiator match on earth - Son of Krypton against Bat of Gotham, this is not one to be missed, this one has to be witnessed on the big screen. If Marvel redefined the scale of Superhero movies by bringing their biggest characters together, DC has now begun rolling out its own version of heavy duty multi-superhero flicks, and it is reason enough to get excited. But the hype ends the moment you enter theatres. From that point it is only the quality of the movie that can decide whether it wins over the viewer. Does this scripting coup win the viewer?

It starts when Superman is first introduced to humanity, from Man of Steel. We have Bruce Wayne
watching from the sideline as the new hero gets the adulation. What does he feel? The Bruce Wayne from Nolan's universe would have been relieved that he can finally retire, rest his cape and mope around in peace. But this is Zack Snyder's universe and we are not sure about what Bruce feels. Is he insecure, is he confused, or is he jealous? We are not sure at first. Turns out that is how the entire world feels about Superman. It is this insecurity that Lex Luthor wants to prey upon.

Batman vs. Superman starts slow and is in no hurry to pick up the pace. Both Batman and Superman view each other with suspicion, and someone's stoking the fire quite strategically. This though takes quite a long while. The proceedings are dull and we are left searching for moments of adrenaline. The story does keep moving ahead, you can see the isolated dots coming together slowly, but very few moments get the excitement going. That Batman is someone with deep seated psychological insecurities due to a childhood tragedy is well known. Zack Snyder probes that hard, giving us a couple of sequences that are obviously dreams, which seem to slow things down further. You begin to feel that things are taking too long, when finally the Bat and the Superman come face to face. That is really when the film clicks into gear after a fair amount of drifting.

The plot thickens and comes together soon after that. If  Bruce Wayne’s haunting childhood memories are inseparable from Batman movies, so is Krypton inseparable from a Superman movie. The Kryptonite angle is built up slowly and surely around Lex and then there is the final showdown. The usual graph of a superhero movie! What should appeal here is the Batman vs.  Superman angle, which one feels is explored more at a psychological level rather than a more entertaining popcorn level. That could have been very interesting in the hands of a skilled director, more Nolan territory. Subtlety is not Zack Snyder’s forte and so much of it looks more forced than fluid.

And once we are at the business end of the movie, that is when the protagonists have all come to the
right side and are now up against the anatagonist, Zack Snyder jumps onto his style of film making – large scale destruction. If you think he had peaked with Man of Steel, think again before you see this one. We don’t know how many cities he has blown up in the final showdown, frankly we lose count because it movies all the way from some port to Gotham city, burning almost everything in its path. For audiences who are accustomed to the usual Hollywood superhero movie, this is more yawn-inducing stuff as there is little or no originality in the way these confrontations are conceived. Die hard Batman and Superman fans can whistle for a while, but even they go quiet after a while. DC needs someone more inventive, not a technical behemoth like Zack, at the helm of things.

It is obvious that the plan is to dazzle us with a lot of action - big, bombastic action. But with so many superhero movies these days, it is a hard thing to impress audiences that way. What we do enjoy are the little moments, like the ones we saw in the trailer, the ones where the Batman smartly takes down a dozen or so guys, like the one where Batman and Superman fistfight each other, or the small game of wits between Bruce Wayne and the Wonder Woman. The Script, however, does not allow enough room for more such moments because the big action cannot wait. Also disappointing is the complete lack of cheer or brightness in the movie. The Nolan shadow of grim and dark superhero movies hangs on over DC – get rid of it already, please. That’s something only Nolan can do well. Here, we get a movie which looks and feels like it is always waiting for doomsday to happen, as if it is inevitable, as if there is a sword hanging over the world, when the audience can’t frankly see it. We are here to have a good time, but the movie just won’t have any of it, it is too busy being serious. Hardly anyone smiles on screen, except of course for the megalomaniac villain.

That brings us to Jesse Eisenberg who gets to play perhaps the first big ticket character of his career
after Zuckerberg, that is. He is required to play someone one dimensional, and even though he tries to do that with subtlety it doesn’t look that great, the shadow of the Joker lingers on, one guesses. The thoughts that he echoes are also quite similar to what the Joker said, like how someone all powerful cannot be all good and vice versa. Someone who does abominations for the sake of it, someone who couldn’t escape the abominations of his father! The set up of Wonder Woman too has fleeting similarities to that of Selena Kyle from the Dark Knight Rises. These observations just show how big a shadow Nolan cast with his trilogy and how hard they are to forget. This script does not challenge its lead players much. Henry Cavill has to look morose or angry, while Ben Afleck has to look pensive or angry, and there is nothing much in between. The epilogue, even though stretched a bit, gives us glimpses of how the Justice League is going to come together in the coming years and who their adversaries are going to be. The way it panned out gives us hope that this franchise will get better, that this was just the first act of a grand play, the one that sparked off bigger things. But DC will have to rethink its strategy of making superhero movies. If they are going to go all out on heavy duty VFX action with cities crumbling like packs of cards, they must remember that they are very close to saturation. Watch Batman vs. Superman because it is a dream union of superheroes, there are moments (even though only a few) where you can scream your lungs out, there are genuine goose bump moments, but it all does not add up into a great movie. Worth a watch nonetheless.

2.5/5
Dream duo, grim setting, heavy VFX, middling movie!

Saturday, 19 March 2016

BUS 657 aka Heist

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.

Too run of the mill to be interesting!

1.5/5