Rock of Ages 2012

When Tom Cruise appeared on Jonathan Ross's couch a few months back to promote his most recent Mission: Impossible venture, he briefly spoke about Rock of Ages and I knew then that I had to watch the film. As much respect as I have for Cruise's serious acting efforts, I seem to appreciate him most when he plays slightly dirty, bad-guy characters. Case in point: Lestat in Interview with the Vampire (1994), Frank in Magnolia (1999) and, more recently, legendary Les Grossman in Tropic Thunder (2008). So, he was my sole point of interest in this film, but as it turns out, there was more on offer here than just one of the most powerful stars in Hollywood today.

Based on a very successful Broadway musical of the same name, Rock of Ages is set in the late 80s and tells the story of Sherrie (Julianne Hough), a young girl from Oklahoma, who moves to Los Angeles to pursue a singing career. Here she meets aspiring musician, Drew (Diego Boneta), who works as a bartender at The Bourbon Room and he gets her a job as a waitress at the famous club. Drew and Sherrie quickly develop 'feelings' for each other and are almost blissful. Enter notoriously debauched rockstar, Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise), who is due to perform at The Bourbon Room, and Drew's band is roped in to open his concert. Stacee finds time before his performance to first harass and then woo Rolling Stone reporter, 'Constance Sack' (Malin Ackerman). Due to a series of unfortunate incidents, Drew thinks it is Sherrie that Stacee has just slept with and, heartbroken, he mistreats her and tries to get famous by 'selling his soul to the devil', who in this case is Stacee's very corrupt manager, Paul Gill (Paul Giamatti). Rejected and humiliated, Sherrie quits her job and starts working as a pole dancer just to make money. More disasters ensue in everyone's life and there are other sub-plots: one with club owner Dennis (Alec Baldwin) and club manager Lonny (Russell Brand), another with the mayor's puritanical wife, Patricia (Catherine Zeta-Jones), and yet another involving a dance bar owner, Justice (Mary J. Blige). But this is a musical after all - and the right partners get together in the end, with happiness and success all around.

Julianne Hough and Diego Boneta can certainly sing, but neither is really an actor. They go through the motions and are not exactly terrible, but that is where 'praise' for them ends. Thankfully, this is just ostensibly their story, and the actual work is done by the stellar 'supporting role' actors. Paul Giamatti is sufficiently slimy, Alec Baldwin is ever-endearing, Russell Brand (who is really growing on me) is smart and sweet, and Malin Ackerman mixes geeky and gorgeous with absolute ease. I wish I could continue in this manner for Mary J. Blige and Catherine Zeta-Jones, but I really, really can not. The former, with her admittedly extraordinary voice, is more wooden than Pinocchio (she practically makes Cher look emotive) and the latter is ageing so badly that her lack of acting ability stands out even more than ever before.

Anyhow, it is the main attraction of the film, in every sense of the word, who deserves  special attention. Tom Cruise is mind-blowing. I wish he had done this role ten years ago, when he was younger and had the face and body that would have made his 'Rock God' performance even more convincing - but even at this age, he is the right choice. He's a little Axl Rose, a little Alice Cooper, and of course a little every-other-major-rockstar-that-ever-lived. Everything - from his hair to his make-up, from his expressions to his body language, from his stance to his tattoos - is pure magic. The screen crackles when he's on it and I lived from scene to scene just to see him. It's true that Stacee Jaxx is the main highlight of this musical - but it is Tom Cruise, effortlessly playing Stacee Jaxx, that is just a little more special.

Finally the other star of the film - the music. Yes, they're mostly remixes and covers of 70s/80s rock, but that's the best thing about it. You know and love all the songs and are dying to sing along. And all the actors can sing - they really can. Unlike Mamma Mia (2008), where you just cut them some slack because they seemed to be having fun, this soundtrack is a lot riskier. Rock fans will not put up with the slaughter of their anthems. So, I'm grateful that everyone has the voice (or the supporting studio back up) to make it all work. And Tom Cruise is actually good. He's no Jon Bon Jovi or Axl Rose, but he's good.

Overall, the film has lots of weaknesses. Anybody who has seen the stage musical (I haven't) will probably find this to be a cheap imitation, anyway. Some of the dialogue is so bad a third-grader could do better and the premise is terribly stale and dated. If it's directly lifted from the stage musical, then all I can say is that it may very well work on stage, but on film it falls flat way too many times. There's nothing new on offer here and nothing smart to make you forget you've seen all this before.

And yet, I thoroughly enjoyed it! Yes, there's no accounting for bad taste!

It's cheesy and predictable, but it's fun and familiar too. The star power is definitely a huge draw - and I would fully recommend it for the nostalgic music and 'the' Tom Cruise. But please watch it at your own risk and with lowered expectations. You have been warned that this is an imperfect film, which can be lots of fun if you let it take you for a silly ride.

'Don't...Stop...Belieeeeving...'

The Raid 2011

Indonesian film Serbuan Maut (released internationally as The Raid) has taken the world by storm. Screened as the Official Selection at a number of well-reputed film festivals, it's being touted as 'the best action movie in decades' (Twitch).

The story is simple enough: a SWAT team of elite cops raids a multi-storey building owned by a crime lord, in the hope of arresting him. Leaving aside the preliminary ten minutes, the rest of the film is the raid - a martial-arts-infested, non-stop-action treat where people keep getting butchered in the most innovative ways. A film like this does not necessarily need dialogue, and whatever dialogue there is, is simple and cliched. In fact, the character arcs come straight out of a bottle too: there is the cool-as-a-cucumber-but-ruthless underworld don; his two henchmen - one crazy and one calm; the rookie cop who is looking forward to becoming a father; the honest leader whose men would follow him into any battle; and the corrupt old man who only looks out for himself. Throw in the story of two estranged brothers, on both sides of the law, and some daddy issues - and the formula is complete.

Sound like a Bollywood movie? You bet! Except this is the film Sanjay Gupta has been trying (and failing) to make for years.

The formula may be stale, but the action is not. The film showcases what is apparently called Pencak Silat, a form of traditional Indonesian martial arts. It is fast, brutal and pretty extraordinary. Two of the main actors (said rookie cop and crazy henchman) are the fight choreographers of the film - and understandably they both get to have the most astounding fight sequences. In some scenes, the visuals are breathtaking - and in all, the pace is unrelenting.

Barring a couple of typical, must-have shots, the camera work is excellent for the kind of action it captures. It moves very quickly, covers all angles and never once bores. Of course, the editing is perfect too. But it is the music and sound recording that deserve a very special mention. All the brilliant choreography and cinematography in the world would have been wasted if this film didn't have the strength of the score. Every fight sequence carries its own little soundtrack, often very different to the previous one (this is saying a lot, considering there are a lot of fight scenes and barely any moments of respite). Even the soft humming sound of continuous gunshots works beautifully when it is used. The technical work is flawless and complements the breakneck speed of the action perfectly.

Don't get me wrong, though - this is not Ong Bak (2003). The fights are never that neat and Iko Uwais / Yayan Ruhian do not have Tony Jaa's grace. My knowledge of martial arts is limited at best, so maybe the difference is simply that this is a far more brutal and honest form of fighting than Muay Thai is - but visually, it is less 'precise'. Yet if you enjoyed the beauty of Old Boy's (2003) sequence where Oh Dae-Su fights a corridor-full of hoods, or the magic of Bourne Ultimatum's (2007) bathroom fight scene, The Raid is exactly what the doctor ordered - and then some.

I'm just repeating myself here, but the action in this film is on steroids - it's fast, brutal, relentless and ever so rewarding. Unlike Ong Bak, you never get a break in this film - it literally goes from one killing spree to the next. Not for the faint-hearted - but if you enjoy the genre, watch it NOW!

The Believer 2001

I have always raved about Ryan Gosling's acting. In previous posts about Blue Valentine and Drive, I have had difficulty in toning down my admiration for this brilliant performer and his ability to steal a scene, sometimes with just his expressions and stance. Having seen pretty much all his films since Remember the Titans (2000), I was on a mission to catch the only three I have missed - and today, I finally caught The Believer, one of his earliest and most controversial works.

Winner of the Sundance Grand Jury Prize, the film follows Daniel Balint, a young Orthodox-Jew-turned-Neo-Nazi, who, in his determination to kill Jews, joins fascist groups, gathers support from other believers of the 'mission' and somewhere along the way, is confronted by the stark contradiction of his identity against his philosophy. Underneath all his so-called convictions, lies the fear of exposure: no one in his new-found circle of supporters knows that he, himself, is actually a Jew. He is hounded by this dilemma and the loopholes in his belief system. He is intelligent enough to question his religion - but also, intelligent enough to question his hatred. This is his undoing.

Beautifully shot with hand-held cameras on high-sensitivity film, there is a documentary feel about the visuals, which works very well considering the story is loosely based on Daniel Burros, a real-life Jewish member of the American Nazi Party in the 1960s, who shot himself hours after his Jewish identity was made public by a New York Times reporter. The direction, too, is very strong - but I feel that the film is let down by a loose script. There isn't a lot of focus on the motivation of the characters, which is an essential ingredient when the subject matter is this disturbing. Films like A Clockwork Orange (1971), American History X (1998) and, more recently, This is England (2006), have scripts far more compelling - though, The Believer did remind me of all three (hence, the mentions). As with Der Baader Meinhof Komplex (2008), I never actually engaged with the story through the entirety of this film, which is a shame because it could have been so much more powerful than it was.

Having said all that, there isn't a single scene where I feel that Ryan Gosling could have done better. The script may not have made Daniel Balint's motivations very clear, but both his comfort and conflict with his convictions were given life on Gosling's face. With very subtle looks, smiles, frowns, gestures and tones, Balint's entire persona is alive on screen. It is extraordinary that this was Gosling's first major role and even more shocking that he was barely out of his teens when he did this film. His acting is art-in-motion - and truly remarkable.

An interesting film, which could have been vastly improved with better characterisations, but is more than ably carried off with a powerhouse performance by its lead.

The Avengers 2012

I am not a comic book geek. But I love films that are based on comic books (well, the good ones, at least).

And I love Joss Whedon. Very much.

So The Avengers (or Marvel's Avengers Assemble in countries where the original title may be confused with the British spy series from the 1960s) was a film I was excited about. It's true that Iron Man 2 was not as good as the first instalment; Thor (2011) was so bad, it really upset me; and Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) though not unbearable, was not really awe-inspiring either. Yet, I believed in writer/director Joss Whedon, the man who can do no wrong (let's pretend he had nothing to do with Dollhouse). And he did not let me down!

The film is set in a time after the end of the three afore-mentioned films. We find that Thor's brother Loki has conspired with an alien race to bring an army to earth to subjugate human beings. As he starts putting his plan into action, and steals the Tesseract (immensely powerful energy source) from a S.H.I.E.L.D. facility, and turns Agent Clint Barton into his minion, director Nick Fury is forced to put the Avengers Initiative into action. With some subtle arm-twisting, Dr Bruce Banner, Tony Stark and Captain Steve Rogers are all brought together. Just as Iron Man and Captain America manage to capture Loki, Thor arrives to confront his brother and the ensemble is complete. Though Loki escapes, Agent Natasha Romanoff (Black Widow) breaks the mind control 'spell' over Agent Barton (Hawkeye) and all six of our good guys unite to save the world from Loki's evil plans. When the Tesseract is used to open a cross-dimensional portal, allowing the alien army to enter our world (NYC to be specific), it takes all the efforts of the Avengers to fight against the unimaginable mighty forces of another world in a mind-blowing finale.

While the first half is used to re-introduce characters and set the scene, with another few minutes dedicated to conflict, the last 40 minutes of the film are a full-blown ride through mayhem and madness - the scale of which I can not describe. Suffice it to say, that I watched the entire film with a stupid grin on my face, but during the battle I just did not know where to look, it was that amazing.

Joss Whedon's ability to write exceptional scripts and his track record as a master of ensemble casts, made this the ideal platform for him to showcase what he is capable of. The 220-million-dollar budget definitely helped towards the effects, but it is his imagination that made it work. As usual, every bit of dialogue is a punchline-fest (before you're done laughing at one line, two more crack you up), every scene is painstakingly planned (unusual camera placements creating beautiful shots) and every character gets to leave a mark (if you have seen Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel or Firely, you will know what I mean). I suppose his work on Firefly has contributed heavily towards this film, and there are various scenes where I was reminded of that very brilliant, short-lived series (characters placed at different heights on the aircraft to give a scope of the space, shots of characters taken from outside the 'ship', unfocused, hand-held camera shots to heighten the feel of the action).

Above all, it is the characterisations and the acting that make this an excellent film. We all know that Tony Stark is a smart-mouth, but Whedon's script gives everyone, including the dry Steve Rogers, moments of pure comic genius. His Loki, Thor, Captain America and Iron Man were so much better written than in previous films. And Black Widow and Hawkeye get their fair space to shine. But as Joss Whedon had revealed in some interviews before, it is Hulk who comes as the biggest surprise. Not only is Mark Ruffalo an excellent choice for Banner (and using him to create the CGI version of the green monster was the best decision ever), but he also gets the best scenes, for which the film will be remembered.

This may just be my best cinematic experience of 2012! For a predominantly action-packed film, The Avengers has unusually well-written characters, some brilliant comedy and more than the requisite dose of perfectly-choreographed, awesome stunts. Even the 3D is thought through and well-executed. Mr Whedon has surpassed expectations, despite his very limited prior experience of working for the big screen.

This is a 5-star film that had better spawn sequels - hopefully all under Joss Whedon's command!

The Cabin in the Woods 2011

This film has been described by so many reviewers as 'genre-defying' that I was beginning to wonder if it was an exaggeration. But what was I thinking? Penned and produced by Joss Whedon - the man who famously created Buffy (the Vampire Slayer), and turned all pre-conceived notions about a young, blond girl in a dark alley - The Cabin in the Woods actually does bring a revolution to the 'five youngsters go to a cabin in the woods' storyline.

The premise is obvious (and I've just stated it). The main protagonists are made up of the jock, the nerd, the stoner, the slut and the 'good' girl. The cast includes a healthy dose of Whedon alumni (Fran Kranz, Amy Acker, Tom Lenk) and other famous television stars (Bradley Whitford, Jesse Williams) with current poster-boy Chris Hemsworth. And that's where the familiarity ends. 

The trailer gives away so little of the twist in the story that you have got to be a Whedon fan (or a reader of all the hype) to know that this film has anything new to offer besides the obvious sex, torture and death that teen horror is known for. And unfortunately, I can't say any more about the plot either - as it will ruin the film for any one who hasn't seen it.

It is fair to say though that the dialogue is super smart, the references are tongue in cheek (AND in your face), the twists are as funny as they are welcome, and throughout the film you're simply rooting for the actors and film makers because it is entertainment at its purest. There are moments where you jump just a little, laugh a little too loud, feel bewitched by the horrors - and of course, the last 20 minutes are insanity at its peak (sorry, but I can't talk about that either). Even the posters for the film are so well-designed, they're worth collecting! It's shocking that such a fun piece of work had been lying in the cans since 2009 (before Hemsworth became Thor), because of various studio issues. 

Joss Whedon calls it a 'very loving hate letter' to the genre (Total Film 191) and I hate to repeat myself, but if you're familiar with his work, you will see and hear Whedon in every concept and dialogue of the film (even though he only co-wrote it, along with director Drew Goddard). I used to say that Joss is the god of television; he does what Tarantino does for cinema. And then he did Dollhouse (2009-2010) and made me cry. With The Cabin in the Woods, my faith is restored and I bow my head to the cleverness of Joss Whedon, once again.

'Recommend, much?' You bet!

Warrior 2011

'Not another fight film', right? Wrong! This one's everything it should be...and then some.

The life and times of a fighter has been fodder for the scriptwriter for decades. Rocky (1976) wasn't the first or the best, but was definitely a milestone. And since then, Raging Bull (1980), The Boxer (1997), Million Dollar Baby (2004), The Wrestler (2008) and The Fighter (2010), to name just a few, have helped gather awards, accolades and fame for their lead actors. There's something about a sports drama that really clicks with the public and when the story is about a tough fighting machine and their inner sensitivities and social problems, the magic is doubled!

Warrior wasn't a film I was planning to watch. It had a fairly uninteresting poster, I hadn't seen any trailers for it and though Tom Hardy's name keeps coming up in every conversation I've recently had about good actors, I can not recall him from the many films I have seen him in (except for 2008's Bronson, which was a very good, but difficult film to watch). Anyhow, since everyone recommended it to me, I finally watched it today and have been blown away. 

I feel like I shouldn't give anything away about the story, as it revealed itself beautifully on screen and that is how it should be. Yes, there is struggle and personal trauma and heartache and hope and lots of fighting - but it is different. One thing I can say is that this film stands apart from all previously mentioned fight films - because Warrior splits loyalties in quite an amazing sort of way. There isn't just one warrior that you can happily support. You don't find yourself chanting 'Rocky!' or 'Danny!' along with the rest of the crowds. You are absolutely torn and the end isn't totally obvious, which is testament to how well the film is written.

The choreography of the fight scenes is excellent and keeps the viewer on the edge of the seat. Dialogue is minimal and appropriate. Tom Hardy, Joel Edgerton and Nick Nolte deliver very fine performances - but to be honest, it is the writers' and director's presence that sails this ship. I can't say I'm familiar with much of Gavin O'Connor's work from before this film, but I'm definitely keeping my eyes peeled for next time. So, let it be said, I loved Warrior.

More Shorthand Rants...2011

Here's a summation of the last few films of 2011 that I have not reviewed thus far:


The Adventures of Tintin - I've been a fan of the comics all my life and so I expected this film to be an epic fail, because I thought nothing would be good enough. Well, I stand corrected. This beautifully animated film, which incorporates three separate comic stories, captures the essence and so much more of Herge's translated adventures. What is quite amazing is that the wit and certain nuances, like background action, have been very carefully transported from page to frame - and nothing about the pace and excitement of the comic books is lost in the process. An excellent adaptation and hats off to Mr Spielberg for this wonderful addition to animated filmdom.


The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo - I have issues with this film. It doesn't help that I have read Stieg Larsson's trilogy and watched the Swedish adaptations - because without them I would perhaps have rated TGwaDT, American-style, to be a first-class thriller with an excellent story, tight direction and strong performances. Perhaps. But unfortunately, as I know (and love) the source material and the earlier, very competent adaptation, David Fincher's much-appreciated attempt just made me VERY angry. I won't delve into the story as its details are available for all to read on the internet and my shorthand rants are more about my opinions than serious reviewing anyway. But I will explain why I'm angry. It's not just that they changed (and weakened) the ending, which is a very important part of any crime / mystery thriller. It's the fact that they have messed with the flow of the story and the characterisations. Michael Blomqvist (played by Daniel Craig) is a man who attracts women wherever he goes - and is comfortable with his slightly promiscuous sex life. Craig's Blomqvist shows no signs of that, which is strange because sexuality is quite crucial to the overall theme of the books. Dragan Aramsky, barely gets a scene or two, whereas in the book, he has a strong presence in relation to Lisbeth Salander. And the changes to Lisbeth's character are unforgivable - her 'special gift' is barely highlighted, her brutal rape scene is tamed down - which really affects the viewers' reaction to her revenge scheme, her immense contribution to solving the case is brushed over because of the need to put Daniel Craig's character in the driving seat and above all, the scene where Michael and Lisbeth lie in bed and he asks her about her past and she pretty much spells it all out for him made me mad, because that one scene destroys everything that the uncommunicative and distrusting Lisbeth ever stands for. Rooney Mara is good - but if you have seen Noomi Rapace do Lisbeth, Mara's rendition does not match up. In fact, the film is a stylish Hollywood flick, which finds the need to glorify the famous male lead's character, downplay the unknown female lead's title role and make the mystery a quicker, simpler solve. If you don't know any better, it's all good - but if you have read or seen the original versions of the same story, this version is just sinful.


Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol - It's unfair to criticise the M:I films for their lack of believability. I mean if you're going to the cinema, by choice, to watch a Mission: Impossible film, I'm guessing you have either seen a previous instalment or have at least heard of the franchise - and so you should be aware that it will be very impossible things that will be made possible. Hence, the title. And this one takes it up another notch. And is all the richer for it! Tom Cruise does crazy stunts at Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world; Jeremy Renner, Michael Nyqvist and Anil Kapoor all get a few minutes of screen time; IMAX cameras and beautiful locations are involved; and the thrill is compounded. It's a win-win formula. After two weak attempts, this is by far the best M:I film since the first one came out in 1996 and is exactly what you should expect from a blockbuster action film.


Carnage should not have gone wrong. With three Academy Award winners (Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz) and an Academy Award nominee (John C Reilly) making up the entire cast, there was obviously no dearth of acting talent. Adapted plays often provide for exciting film scripts. And Roman Polanski is often touted as one of the great directors of our time. Yet, the entire film felt flat, the premise really stretched and the acting very over-the-top. I had high hopes - which were unfortunately dashed.


Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows - They're back! With another fun-filled, bizarre and witty script, slick direction and cool actors! Just like last time! And this time they brought Stephen Fry and Noomi Rapace with them. Yay!

Young Adult is an indie film, with Charlize Theron playing the title role. She is Mavis Gary, a 30-something writer, who moved out of small-town Minnesota to the 'big city' Minneapolis many years ago, and returns home after a divorce and a lost job, to reclaim her high-school sweetheart, Buddy Slade (Patrick Wilson), who has since fallen in love, got married and had a baby. Theron is absolutely brilliant as the delusional and lonely woman, pretending nothing has changed and trying to relive her very popular teenage years. She is very ably supported by Patton Oswalt, who plays social outcast Matt Freehauf, the one person in the entire town in front of whom Mavis is able to confront reality and face her life. The scenes between Mavis and Matt are reason for a few laughs, but as with director Jason Reitman's / writer Diablo Cody's previous venture, Juno (2007), Young Adult is as much about the laughs, as it is about the complicated characters that are people. It's an excellent film - and Charlize Theron all but sparkles in it.


New Year's Eve - Garry Marshall follows up 2010's Valentine's Day with another ensemble film that boasts a who's who cast and a razor thin story. There's no point going into it - and it's enough to know that this one has enough Oscar winners and heartthrobs (just like the previous film) pulling enough heartstrings and providing enough 'cute' moments to make it worth a single viewing, if your other option is a plank and certain death.


The Artist is the sort of film that comes around only once in a long while. A clever, thoughtful, labour of love, carefully put together and at the top of its game. Enough has been said and written about it, so it's no mystery that its USP is the fact that it's a silent, b&w film, with a story about the silent, b&w era. Within it, is a bit of a Greek tragedy - the story of a hero, his success, his ego and his failure. But as with all good films from the era it depicts, The Artist has love, happiness and hope. And an amazing little dog called Uggie, who will be retiring soon due to a mysterious neurological illness. No, I'm serious. The film is entertaining, gripping, simply beautiful...and beautifully simple. Michel Hazanavucius, as writer and director, has earned his stars and so much more. And his cast is just brilliant. Jean Dujardin may have acted in many French films already (including the fabulous Little White Lies in 2010 - where he was mostly in a coma), but this one film has made him into an international star, pretty much like Christoph Waltz after Inglourious Basterds (2009). Berenice Bejo is not only beautiful, but full of an old school charm that lights up the screen. And together they have an unbelievable chemistry that makes The Artist a delight to watch. This one should not be missed.

The Descendants is the sort of independent film that is bound to get Oscar nominations because the Academy likes to boast of a varied taste. Of course, I'm simply offended that the Academy's heart and mind is closed to truly off-beat cinema like Drive and Shame, but I can rant about that elsewhere. The Descendants is a story about a man struggling to keep his family together, keep everyone happy and do the right thing, even when he learns of some horrific truths and has to face his worst nightmares - in a paradise-like Hawaiian island. Although the success of this film is heavily dependant on the lead, George Clooney, everyone on screen has delivered an excellent, controlled performance, whether it is the young actors Shailene Woodley, Amara Miller and Nick Krause, or the entire older ensemble (including the wonderful Beau Bridges). The Descendants is a sweet film, a story about life - good, bad and ugly, as it is - narrated by and seen through the eyes of 'regular Joe' Matt King (Clooney). Despite the sadness of the realities of life, there's always reason to rejoice and smile - and so you come out of the film with a silly smile on your face, because that's just life!


Melancholia, another of Lars von Trier's studies on depression and desperate human behaviour, this time against the backdrop of the impending end of the world, stars Kirsten Dunst, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Kiefer Sutherland, Stellan and Alexander Skarsgard and stalwarts like John Hurt and Charlotte Rampling. At times entertaining, but mostly interminable, this is yet another film by the Danish auteur that has failed to make me feel...well, anything, despite the excellent cast.


J. Edgar is the next instalment in Clint Eastwood's a-film-a-year average - and like many before it, it is mediocre and uninspiring. Charting the life and times of J. Edgar Hoover, FBI's founder and first Director, the film reveals his intelligence, his contributions and his secrets. The story and methods of storytelling in the film are quite interesting, whether it's the narration or flashback-in-flashback, yet for some reason it feels like a flat line after the initial 20 minutes. Had this been a documentary, I would have complained about its blandness, but for a commercial feature film it is almost unforgivable to be so flat. The make-up used to age the actors is abysmal, the acting is decent but again nothing brilliant and this joins the long list of films directed by Eastwood that leave me feeling confused about why they were made. Leonardo Di Caprio does justice to his role, but since his greatest weakness as an actor has been adopting accents, I could see the effort in his acting throughout the film. To be fair, the film doesn't take sides and does not try especially hard to make Hoover out to be the good guy or the bad guy, but its monotone left a lot to be desired. So, in summation, J. Edgar is neither a good film nor a bad film - but possibly a redundant film. Watch at your own discretion.


The Way is Emilio Estevez's first film since Bobby (2006) and does make me wonder why he doesn't direct more and get more credit for his work. The film is about a father's reluctant journey to complete something his dead son started. It is a very simple story, nothing we haven't seen before - but it's Martin Sheen's very controlled and compelling performance, a host of interesting characters and neat direction that make this a worthy film. It's not ground-breaking, but is still very good.


Moneyball surprised me because I had not seen a single trailer in London cinemas and besides a poster with Brad Pitt on it, I knew nothing else. Considering Pitt has been less than impressive in recent years, I was not expecting anything. What I got was a smart, engaging script, excellent cinematography, good performances and a very decent film. Of course it was the end credits that revealed that Aaron Sorkin and Wally Pfister had a lot to do with my enjoyment of the experience - but Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill, along with Philip Seymour Hoffman were in top form and based on a true story, this film is definitely worth a watch.


I Don't Know How She Does It should be re-titled, 'I don't know why she does it'. Sarah Jessica Parker plays Kate, a wife, a mother and a successful career woman, who has to make choices all the way in striking a balance between her personal and professional life. As predictability requires, she also has to make a choice between a sometimes difficult marriage to husband Richard (Greg Kinnear) and a possibly smoother relationship with client Jack (Pierce Brosnan - still looking good). Cliche-ridden and offering nothing new, the film is perfect for a mindless Sunday afternoon - but nothing more.

Haywire 2011

I feel like I must say something in protest against everyone's praise for Haywire, a fairly bad action film that is currently being touted as artistic, stylish and totally bad-ass.

So, it's an out and out action film - and I know I'm not supposed to expect an intelligent storyline or great dialogue, but honestly, even a Steven Seagal film scores higher on these accounts. Then of course, there's the action. For a film that's relying only on its lead's fighting prowess (she's a retired MMA fighter), the action is sparse and short-lived, and mostly not so exciting.

But back to the actors and their acting - so there's Gina Carano delivering scene after scene with no expression; and a host of very attractive leading men - Michael Douglas, Antonio Banderas, Michael Fassbender, Ewan McGregor (ok not all were so attractive) and Channing Tatum (someone had to match Carano's wooden expressions after all) - most of whom get pounded by Carano at one point or another. Nobody, and this includes Fassbender, even tries to act well. Of course, it is meant to be a throwback to the '80s action-filled B-movies, which is obvious by the way it's been filmed - (mostly badly), with lots of discoloured, over-exposed shots, apparently using 4K Red One cameras - and by the story, which is unbelievably weak and flawed. Now if this was anyone but Steven Soderbergh at the helm, I'd have been convinced that it was simply a bad film - but with him sailing this ship I know he wanted to make it the way it's come out.

I am actually very confused by this new trend of homage films. When Scorsese makes Shutter Island (2010), or Soderbergh makes Haywire, what exactly do they bring to cinema? They're making redundant films really, by re-creating something that already exists, without really adding to it. When a Tarantino pays tribute to old cinema or when a Refn makes Drive (2011), I see the motivation, I see the homage and I see the creativity, because those films are not replicas of the past. Haywire brought me nothing new and actually just bored me to death.

Anyhow, it's getting decent reviews and people are enjoying the realistic-but-not-sufficiently-impressive action much more than I did - so maybe this needs to be seen and judged without my prejudices.

Margin Call 2011

With a stellar cast and an incredibly well-written script, Margin Call is an impressive first (feature-length) film by writer/director JC Chandor. Set in the recent past, and covering just over one day in the life of an investment bank (shades of Lehman Brothers), it depicts what may have been one, or many, firm’s part in the financial crash of 2007-08. While there is a decent explanation for how things went so wrong, the story is not necessarily about the ‘how’, but rather the ‘who’. It sheds some light on the characters who are often directly or indirectly responsible in such situations, and why they make the decisions they do.

From the very first scene, the film is like a who’s who of character actors – Stanley Tucci, Zachary Quinto, Penn Badgley, Paul Bettany (with an awful accent that veers from British to Australian without warning), Kevin Spacey, Simon Baker (with a very consistent American accent – Bettany, take note!) and Jeremy Irons. Intentionally or unintentionally, the film has a token female (Demi Moore) and a token ethnic presence (Aasif Mandvi) working in Risk Assessment, while the rest of the cast is completely white male. Whether this is or isn't a true depiction of the environment the film is focusing on is not the subject of this review; it is merely an observation.

The film is well-paced and the story utterly gripping. The best thing about the script is that while there is some explanation of the mechanics of the financial world, the terminology is not dumbed down for the viewer - and the audience is expected to have a basic level of intelligence. And in line with that thinking is the characterisation of the key players - no one is made to look like the good guy or the bad guy. There are no clear 'villains' - and just about no one is innocent - which makes everyone very human and their actions comprehensible.

Considering the lack of marketing for this film (at least in the UK), it really came as a surprise package. Definitely worth a watch, even if only on DVD.

Shame 2011

My friends have suggested that I sound like a stalker every time I say that ‘I found Michael Fassbender first’, and they may have a point, but I really did find him before he started appearing on the cover of pretty much every other entertainment glossy. With Steve McQueen’s Hunger (2008) he impressed me, with the subsequent Fish Tank (2009) he had secured my loyalty – and by the time ‘everyone else’ saw him in Inglourious Basterds (2009), I was already the president of the fan club. So, I insist: I found him first.

Such quibbles aside, Fassbender is going from strength to strength – and his performance in Shame is simply mind-blowing. He plays Brandon, a well-to-do, 30-something New Yorker living the high life. He works hard, parties harder and is a confident, attractive man. There is one complication though. He has a sex addiction. What is initially shown as a debauched lifestyle (so what if he sleeps with prostitutes, tries to pick up strange women at parties or on his way to work, or jerks off to porn every night – doesn’t everyone?!), slowly starts emerging as an actual problem. But Brandon has things under control. His demons are private and his peers are to never find out. 

This delicate balance is instantly toppled when his younger sister, Sissy (Carey Mulligan), suddenly turns up at his apartment and requests a few days' stay. Sissy is clearly messed-up. She is disturbed, reckless and seems to have an appetite for sex with inappropriate men, followed by an unrelenting obsession, almost like she is looking to be rejected or abused, or both. Her relationship with her brother is odd at best and very, very discomfiting at times. And though she pretends to be innocently sexual around him, Brandon's reactions to her every gesture make it very clear that there is a history to their relationship that is unsavoury.

The story focuses on Brandon's descent into hell, as he loses control over a very carefully built sham life, where his addiction takes over and all but destroys him, and where he stands to lose everything he's ever worked for. Before the audience's eyes, this desirable, male animal becomes a worthless, quivering slave to obsession - and yet, we just can't look away.

Steve McQueen is a truly remarkable director and storyteller. As with Hunger, he has once again filmed long scenes, in single takes, to extraordinary effect. The camera angles he has chosen throughout the film are unconventional, bold and exciting. The performances he has extracted, out of both Fassbender and Mulligan, are exceptional. The subject matter, which in the hands of a lesser film maker could have easily been sensationalist and vulgar, is just so powerful and almost...beautiful, in all its ugliness. What is quite wonderful about this film is that we never really know anything. We are never given the full information about Brandon and Sissy's past. All we know is that they left Ireland many years ago and moved to the US - and there seems to be a sort of secret buried in that simple fact; a secret that may or may not hold the key to two very damaged siblings. We can assume what we like, but we are never given neat, little snippets to help us along the way. We are never really given the opportunity or the right to judge. All we get is a window to watch two fairly likeable characters, become completely broken - and that journey is so unbearable at times, it is painful to watch.

Michael Fassbender is being hailed as the next big thing - and he really does deserve the praise. He reminds me of Christian Bale at times - and it is not just because they both have an animalistic grace or the fact that Brandon's initial scenes were in some ways reminiscent of Patrick Bateman in American Psycho (2000) - but rather how both these actors are able to convey a level of unpredictability that few others can. There are at least three scenes between Fassbender and Carey Mulligan, where I was gripping my seat and fearful of what would happen next - and besides excellent direction, it was due to excellent acting that those scenes worked the way they did. He has delivered a smouldering performance - a flawless depiction of rage, self-loathing and pain. Mulligan, herself, is fantastic in the film. She is emerging as a very fine British actress and God knows we need some more of those.

Shame is not a film for everyone. But for some it is a near-perfect work of art. Recommended for only those that can put up with it!

Ides of March 2011

Nowhere as powerful as George Clooney's directorial success, Good Night, and Good Luck (2005), this film, based on a play by Beau Willimon, has a stellar cast but smells like West Wing in so many ways.

Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling) runs a tight ship as the campaign coordinator for Democrat candidate Mike Morris (Clooney), but loses his footing when he makes a few rookie mistakes in his naive ambitiousness. As he almost gets fired by campaign manager Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman), he turns the tables by blackmailing Morris with a well-guarded secret and joins the very dirty politics he claimed to have loathed in his idealistic years.

There are flashes of The Godfather (1972) all the way through. Much like Michael Corleone, Stephen Meyers is corrupted right before our eyes and we can't really blame him. Even the last scene is extremely reminiscent of the final shot of The Godfather when Michael's fate is sealed. Clooney, Gosling, Hoffman, Paul Giamatti and various others make this an excellent lesson in acting - but the film seems to lack a soul...or a coherent mind. It gets you almost there, but never really hits the spot.

Shorthand Rants...too

So, I'm back with various half-baked thoughts, because in most cases these films do not deserve the effort of proper writing...

Larry Crowne (2011) - Why would two Academy Award winners get together and make such a pish film? There's no depth, no story, no chemistry and really no reason for this to work. So it didn't. This film was such a terrible waste of my time and yet I find myself wondering if there was a single redeeming factor about the absolutely haphazard story. I haven't found it.

Horrible Bosses (2011) - I'm usually averse to this genre of 'bromantic comedy', but this was a fun film. If for nothing else, one should watch it for Kevin Spacey's unbelievably evil role, Jennifer Aniston's sex-crazy character and above all (and I really mean that), Colin Farrell's repulsive turn. Astounding to see a man as sizzling hot as Farrell, be as comfortable as he is in such a revolting guise. Enjoyable film.

Friends with Benefits (2011) - Oh no...not again...yawn. Another story about friends having sex without commitment and then falling impossibly in love. How many times will we watch the same story in one year? Justin Timberlake is surprisingly good and Mila Kunis delivers as expected, but really this film can be easily missed without any great loss to your viewing score.

Crazy, Stupid, Love (2011) - There are shades of American Beauty (1999) here, with Julianne Moore playing her usual over-the-top paranoid/bored/crazed wife and Steve Carrell playing the hapless/confused husband. But that's where the similarity ends. Enter Ryan Gosling with his suaveness, unending charm and raw sexuality as Carrell's self-appointed love-guru and the film glitters a bit. Emma Stone is as usual a breezy, fun addition and the final product is an ok film, not quite sure if it wants to be a rom-com or a slight satire - managing neither - but not failing miserably as an entertainer. I guess if it wasn't for Gosling, I really wouldn't have given two hoots about it, and this is definitely his weakest outing in years, but he does make it all better.

Fright Night (2011) - Colin Farrell. Vampires. Need I continue?
Trashy remake of a trashy film, worth watching only because Farrell and vampires are in it.

Don't be Afraid of the Dark (2011) - Wow. What a bad film! The horror wasn't horrifiying, the terror wasn't terrifying, the film was just plain boring and Katie Holmes should've stayed at home. Guy Pearce once showed such great potential but now seems to spend his time torn between bad leading roles and inconsequential character roles. What a waste. And the kid really did not bring out my maternal instincts. Guillermo del Toro should really think before he 'recommends' films and put his name down as producer. His goodwill is running thin.

Drive 2011

Ryan Gosling is a good actor. In fact, he's a brilliant actor. And Drive is his film all the way.

Gosling plays a car mechanic, who works part-time as a stunt driver and moonlights as a getaway car driver. He is a man with no name, no past and no real ambitions for the future. He is laconic, almost stoic - and somehow his silent presence in a scene makes everyone else seem a little bit too talkative. 'Driver' (as the character is credited) works for Shannon, the owner of the garage, who knows his potential and sets him up with movie stunts, heist deals and during the course of the story is about to set up a stock car race, with the help of the mob. Somewhere along the way, Driver bumps into his neighbour, Irene, who, along with her young son, becomes his friend and companion, his love interest, till her husband, Standard, comes out of jail. When Standard gets in trouble with the mob again, Driver offers to help out, to protect the family that he has come to love, and what follows the botched-up job is a quick spiral into a mad, violent killing spree that keeps the audience alternating between wanting to look away and not being able to take their eyes off the screen.

Drive is a very stylised, stylish film. It reminds you a little of Michael Mann films - probably because his films often have an 80s feel - but it takes that 'feel' to a different level altogether. Languid scenes, economical dialogue, electronic music, and a very particular use of lighting takes you straight back to films like Cruising (1980) and Cobra (1986) amongst many, many others - where the reticent male protagonist takes it upon himself to protect others from an evil force. From the opening sequence itself, you know that this is not an ordinary thriller. Every shot is poetry in motion - and even the opening credits, in a hot pink font, are a sign of the extreme care that has been put into this film.

The cast is worthy: Carey Mulligan (Irene), Bryan Cranston (Shannon), Oscar Isaac (Standard) and Albert Brooks (the mob-head Bernie Rose). But worthy as they all may be, it's Ryan Gosling's film. He reigns over every scene, without even opening his mouth through most of them. His face speaks volumes. A smile, a glance, a glare - every move he makes says more than pages of dialogue could. He is a force to reckon with and goes from endearing to frightening in seconds. When he follows up the greatest show of romance in the film, with the most violent act, it seems ever so natural.

Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn had earned his stars with Bronson (2008), but with Drive he has delivered a masterpiece. Whether you like it or hate it, it's definitely one of the most important films of the year. Don't miss it.

Jane Eyre 2011

Of course it helps that Jane Eyre has been one of my favourite classic novels of all time, but that is exactly why this film could have gone so wrong and made me hate it so easily. Instead, I felt every chill and every thrill the characters felt, which is all to the credit of the makers and the actors.

But let's rewind to the beginning. This is the story of Jane, a young orphan, who having been cast out by her evil aunt after her uncle's death, is doomed to grow up in the heartless environment of a Victorian English boarding school. Through her childhood and adolescence, and despite the hardships, Jane remains a strong-willed, self-respecting individual, who does not let anyone walk all over her. She defies the norms of 19th century society and refuses to accept the 'inferiority' of her social class and gender. After working as a teacher at the school, she lands the opportunity to become governess to a young French girl, the ward of Edward Rochester of Thornfield Hall. The housekeeper, Mrs Fairfax, becomes the audience's guide in describing the absent Mr Rochester and his peculiar way of living. When he finally does make an appearance, we see that he is outwardly a foul-tempered, arrogant man, who has no compunction in belittling people who work for him. Little by little, Jane's intelligence and quick-wittedness capture his attention; her pride amuses and fascinates him; and soon he professes his love to her. It is at their wedding ceremony that Jane discovers the dark secrets he has been hiding from her and her fairytale romance turns into a nightmare from hell. How she deals with what fate throws at her, at every stage of her life, is the story of Jane Eyre, the woman who survives it all with her head held high.

Mia Wasikowska would not have been my first choice to play the most dignified of heroines in classic English literature - but I was pleasantly surprised by her in this film. She plays Jane in a fairly different way from how I imagined her to be, but I can't say that she plays her badly. Mia brings a measured level of naiveté and hope, laced with a reserve, that is interesting to watch. Having Judi Dench in the cast (playing the housekeeper), is like the director showing off that he has important friends. She isn't entirely wasted, and definitely lends a touch of prestige to the project, but the role could have been delivered by almost any one else. Jamie Bell and Sally Hawkins, along with the rest of the supporting cast, play their parts well and bring in the right dose of 'creepiness' to this master Gothic romance. But it's Michael Fassbender, who once again takes my breath away, with his perfect delivery of Rochester. Part-tyrant, part-wretch, despicable one minute and desperate another, he brings the animalistic appeal of Rochester come to life. It doesn't take him long to own the screen and the audience and, like Jane, we wait for him to return to Thornfield, every time he departs. He literally makes the scenes crackle, just by being in them.

Well-put together, well-directed and executed, this is a worthy Jane Eyre and manages to suck the audience into its dark world of lies, deceit and horrors without ever seeming to be trying too hard. Highly recommended.

I'm Still Here 2010

When Joaquin Phoenix announced his retirement from films in 2008, the news divided the camps pretty quickly into people who believed it and were stricken, people who believed it was an elaborate hoax, people who didn't believe it at all and thought it was a publicity stunt...and people who thought it was a very cleverly staged project. I fell into the last category.

Having admired Joaquin's acting for years, I distinctly remember watching him talk to the press after receiving the Golden Globe for Walk the Line (2005) and thinking that he is genuinely uncomfortable with crowds and does not know how to deal with praise and attention. He came across as a humble guy, who loves his job, and does not quite know how to handle the perks. Every interview or public appearance I saw since then just reinforced this image of someone who does not speak intelligently or confidently, but still tries to be nice when confronted with a mic and a camera. So, the entire retirement announcement, and Joaquin's subsequent appearances, where he seemed clueless about how rude and arrogant he sounded, just did not seem to fit the bill.

A lot has been written about how disturbed his upbringing was, about how the drug-induced death of his brother further destroyed his sanity, about how he is sometimes not able to tell the difference between reality and a character - and who knows all that may be true - but I just think that what ever his inner demons may be, he's not really insane - and Joaquin Phoenix, the rapper, did not only look insane, but also completely unprepared for this new career. For an actor, who is so true to his characters, so well-prepared for his craft, being this unaware of the music industry and his inaptitude as a rapper, reeked of a staged stunt. Soon, there was talk of Casey Affleck directing a documentary about Phoenix's new life and I was sure of my initial suspicions.

It has taken me a while to get to I'm Still Here and though quite disturbing at some points, I found it amusing. If Affleck and Phoenix genuinely went out to make this film, as they claim, to illustrate how most celebrity reality shows are staged efforts, then they have done a good job.

The film starts with Phoenix's turmoil about his professional life, about the lack of creativity in his so-called 'creative' career, and his conclusion that he will express himself through music, as that's what he feels he can relate to. We then chart our way through the announcement, the reactions from friends and media, the attempts at building the new career, the spiral into drugs and debauchery, and most cringe-worthy of all, the disintegration of all Phoenix's relations with his staff and associates.

Way before the end credits, where real names of some of the main characters in the film are revealed, it's quite obvious that this isn't a real documentary. The absolute lack of family members or friends in the story, the excessive focus on drugs earlier in the film and next-to-none later, the reactions of some of the people (Ben Stiller and P. Diddy, so very clearly trying to deliver to the camera) are dead give-aways. There are scenes, which are so over-the-top, it's hard to believe they're real (even though we all have read stories about celebrities treating staff in a worse manner, drunken and drug-fuelled parties that are far more out-of-control, and egos that are far more inflated), but there are moments in the film, where we can't help but believe, in spite of ourselves, that this may not be Phoenix's story, but it could be any one else's story (Joaquin runs out of his car into the bushes and breaks down about how he's told everyone he's quit acting, but has now made a mess of singing, and has 'fucked' his life).

The film may have been conceived with the idea that reality shows aren't real, but through the course of its narration, it highlights the pressures a celebrity is constantly under. How a decision, how ever misguided, is covered by the media and is mocked at every given opportunity. The coverage Joaquin Phoenix received, over the year after his announcement, is used in the film. The disastrous David Letterman interview, the spoofs at awards ceremonies, the discussions on entertainment news shows, all portray how quick everyone is to put celebrities on pedestals and remove them when required and trample over them, without much effort from them for either position. One of my favourite scenes is when a reporter comes to speak to Joaquin and says that all reporters standing outside are discussing how this entire thing is a hoax, but he can see how Joaquin is actually really into his music. Joaquin beats the reporter at his own game and says that he finds it disrespectful that anyone would consider this a hoax or a joke, because this is his life, and they're implying that his life is a joke. Joaquin goes on to tell the reporter that he may pretend that the other reporters are asking this, but it's obvious that the reporter himself is asking this question. The indignation that Joaquin is faking through the film, could have been real if this film was real. And it would have been fair.

Casey Affleck and Joaquin Phoenix are two very interesting actors of their generation, who have put together an interesting film (albeit, a bit too long), which is successful not for the reception it got itself, but rather for the reception that its making got. Worth a watch.