Oblivion 2013

A friend recently asked, very rhetorically, 'When was the last time Cruise made a bad film?' and my honest answer was that I can't remember. It took a viewing of Oblivion today for it to come rushing back to me - it was 2005, when he bored me to death with War of the Worlds.

Oblivion is set in 2077, which we are told is 60 years after aliens ("scavengers") attacked and lost a war against Earth. But to win the war, humans used their nuclear weapons, which caused the end of the world as we know it, and the survivors had to move to Titan, one of Saturn's moons. Small units are still sent to Earth to continue with the excavation of natural resources - and Jack Harper (Tom Cruise), along with partner Victoria (Andrea Riseborough), are one such unit, coming to the end of their term on Earth and about to return 'home' to Titan. But Jack is plagued with memories of a life on Earth he simply could not have experienced, and a woman (Olga Kurylenko) he could not have known.

When an unknown shuttle suddenly falls out of the sky and on to a site nearby, Jack goes to investigate and comes face to face with the mystery woman of his dreams. Suddenly, he questions all the 'truths' he knows about his life...and the more he learns, the less real everything becomes.

The biggest problem with Oblivion is that almost every scene and idea seems like a lift from another film. The first quarter showcases the isolation of the two main characters' existence - and I was reminded heavily of Solaris (2002), WALL-E (2008) and Moon (2009). In fact, as the story unravels, it takes up so many of the themes already explored in Moon, that the impact is completely blunted. Then there is the guerrilla army that shows up later in the film - and everything, from their costumes to their stance, screamed a mix of post-apocalyptic images already seen in films like Reign of Fire (2002), Total Recall (2012) and Dredd (2012). Add to that, Tom Cruise on a bike (very inspired by his first shot in Days of Thunder 1990) and Tom Cruise flying planes (Top Gun 1986), and nostalgia hits you hard! Of course, after a while I could hardly concentrate on the film I was watching, as reference after reference came to mind. Unfortunately, when I started getting especially bored and annoyed by the plot, memories of War of the Worlds hit me - and it was all downhill from there.

Despite all the criticism I can level at the writing and directing of the film (both credited to Joseph Kosinski, by the way - and he also wrote the graphic novel on which the script is based), the visuals are beyond reproach. The art direction for the protagonists' living quarters is stunning and the cinematography, whether it is for the outdoors or for close-ups, is arresting and beautiful.

I can't even blame the acting. Tom Cruise is perfect in the role. Everything from his confidence to his confusion is portrayed convincingly. He keeps me hooked for at least half the film, without complaint. Andrea Riseborough complements him perfectly - and her expressions, especially in the scene where she is covering for the man she loves, are excellent. And though Olga Kurylenko, Morgan Freeman and Nicolaj Coster-Waldau (he really seems to have walked off of the sets of Game of Thrones, by mistake) don't add anything to the canvas, they don't take anything away either.

Yet, the film simply fails to connect with the viewer. As the plot thickens, it also seems to be stretched pointlessly. The story is so old and so oft-repeated, with nothing really new said in this offering, that I don't understand why this film was made in the first place. In fact, I spent half my time thinking that something unexpected is about to happen, because everything I see is all too obvious - and surely there must be more to it than this. Alas, there wasn't much more and the final 20 minutes were much worse than I anticipated.

I hate to say this, but despite the visual treats and Tom Cruise's undeniable star quality, this film has little else to offer. And as I walked out of the cinema, I realised that I have quite possibly wasted two hours of my life.

Ranthology 2013 - Part:Two

Stoker (2013) - I don't have the words to describe this film. It is a sensation so dark...and delicious...that words are just not enough.  It is a twisted tale of a family with secrets, and on the cards is passion, lust, pleasure and murder...and lots of it all! Park Chan-wook, whose Oldboy (2003) remains one of the most fascinating Asian films ever made, has surpassed his own genius, by taking an idea so simple and presenting it on the most beautiful canvas. Every shot is painstakingly put together...and the entire experience is simply gorgeous. There is a transition shot of hair being combed that turns into a field, that is flawless. Some kooky details (a character who cooks, but never eats; a spider that keeps flitting about; a strangely tanned look, while every one else is as pale as can be) keep the audience hooked, but explanations are never offered...or needed. The ambience is romantic, the costumes are from a bygone era, and every scene has the charms of noir. Nicole Kidman is sensuous, Matthew Goode is electric and Mia Wasikowska, sublime. Stoker is definitely my favourite film of this year, so far. It is a ride that must be taken!

The Paperboy (2012) - Matthew McConnaughey's now made it his business to not be known as the guy who can't keep his shirt on, and instead be taken seriously as an actor. Based on a novel, The Paperboy, is a sweaty, dirty, very violent film - thematically and actually. Set in the '60s, it is a tale of two investigative journalists, Ward and Yardley (Matthew McConnaughey and David Oyelowo), who are out to prove the innocence of convicted murderer, Hillary (John Cusack). On this journey are Hillary's penpal, Charlotte (Nicole Kidman), who has fallen in love with Hillary even though she has never met him; Ward's younger brother, Jack (Zac Efron); and Jack's family maid, Anita (Macy Gray). As the story progresses, it becomes obvious that almost none of the characters are what they seem, and the film gets darker and murkier with each scene. I am sure I did not like the film at all, because it is trashy and almost sickening, but in that, it is a huge success. The actors have done an extraordinary job, whether it is Kidman or Cusack, McConnaughey or Oyelowo, Gray or even Efron. Every one of them has delivered an award-worthy performance and the film crackles all the way through. But the story, coming of age, or what ever it is meant to be, is just a little bit too much for my sensibilities. Still, I recommend it because it is quite an experience.

Compliance (2012) - What an uncomfortable film to sit through! And yet, what a compelling watch! Based on a number on true incidents, this is the story of unquestioning obedience to authority. A fast-food-joint employee is subjected to sexual and psychological abuse, when her manager receives a phone call from a man proclaiming to be a police officer, who says that the young girl has stolen from a customer. The plot is bizarre and unbelievable - it is almost fantastical and obviously not possible that good, decent folk would sink to such depths just because someone told them to. Except the story is very closely based on the actual events that took place in 2004, in Kentucky. So, not only is this possible, it actually happened. The acting is top-notch and the film is very well-made. Highly recommended, despite its disturbing nature.

Oz the Great and Powerful (2013) - I fell asleep in the cinema, it is that boring.

Arbitrage (2012) - Richard Gere's best turn in years, this film is about a rich businessman, Robert Miller, with a perfect family and a successful business, who seems to have it all. Bubbling underneath the perfection is the minor accounts fraud he has committed to make his business look plumper than it is, and the mistress he has on the side. The cracks deepen, the slope gets slippery, one mistake leads to another - till there is nowhere left for him to run or hide. Despite Miller's flawed personality and major crimes, the audience can't help but identify with him and hope that he gets away scot-free. Brilliantly written and directed by Nicholas Jarecki, this film is part drama, part suspense thriller and part black comedy. Both Gere and Susan Sarandon (who plays his wife) deliver perfect performances and it is a treat watching the story unravel. Do watch!

Frankenweenie (2012) - Tim Burton's dark, twisted mind applied to a dark, twisted children's story. Very enjoyable!

Hotel Transylvania (2012) - It tries too hard to be cute, pulls in all the possible gothic and otherwise supernatural characters, and really falls flat on its face. Maybe watch it if you're really bored on a Sunday and have no other DVDs...but otherwise it's quite a bore.

Trance (2013) - A plot so obvious that it literally takes 10 minutes to figure out what's what, and when the 'reveal' finally happens at the end of the film, the attached details are so ludicrous and nonsensical, that the entire pleasure of watching the film gets diluted. Still, the thrill of the thriller is well-paced, and the film is well-directed (Danny Boyle) and well-edited (Jon Harris). Shame about the story, though! James McAvoy is satisfactory, Rosario Dawson is convincing and Vincent Cassel is extremely charming. Worth watching on a weekend when it shows up on television channels; otherwise can be easily missed.

GI Joe: Retaliation (2013) - A film boasting a cast of Dwayne Johnson and Bruce Willis should have had some great action, lots of cheesy one-liners and lots of fun. Instead, this one can't decide whether it takes itself seriously or not, and is in turn so boring and bad, that it is just bad. Also, Channing Tatum seems to be making a career out of doing cameo appearances. What a waste of some seriously good casting! Avoid, unless you are a 3D-action-junkie and there's nothing else to watch.

Side Effects 2013

Whether Steven Soderbergh is actually retiring or whether this is a publicity stunt that has been going on for some time, Side Effects is the best film he has directed in a while. I say this probably because I had little respect for Magic Mike (2012) and Haywire (2011) and a number of films that came before those. To be honest, the last time a Soderbergh-directed film really impressed me was 12 years ago...and it was Ocean's Eleven!

Side Effects opens with what looks like a crime scene, with blood smears in the hallway of an apartment in a tall building, and no body in sight. It then immediately jumps back in time to introduce us to Emily (Rooney Mara) and her husband Martin (Channing Tatum). He has been serving time for a hedge fund fraud, and just as he is released back into society, we see Emily losing her grip on sanity. Due to fears that she may resort to self-harm, she is advised to see a psychiatrist, Dr Banks (Jude Law), who promptly prescribes her with a series of anti-depressants, and after consulting with fellow psychiatrist, Dr Siebert (Catherine Zeta-Jones), he finally settles on Ablixa as the best mode of treatment. This leads to some catastrophic results - which then pave the way for the rest of the story.

What initially seems to be a social commentary on the pharmaceutical industry, false advertising and the issues with mental health treatment, soon turns into a psychological drama, dissolving into a mystery and finally becoming a complicated suspense thriller. The less said about the plot, the better - as there is a Hitchcockian feel to the way the twists and turns come about (even though some of them are very obvious), and there is a real old school mystery in the backbone of the film.

Rooney Mara is excellent - at once, helpless and dangerous, a victim and a perpetrator. Jude Law, himself, has done a great job of playing the kind but distracted doctor. Catherine Zeta-Jones overacts ever so slightly, as she usually does. And Channing Tatum is such a strange choice to play a polished member of the financial services industry that I am left wondering why Soderbergh picked him, of all people, to play this character.

There are a number of holes in the script that will be jarring on repeat viewings, but having seen the film only once, I noticed and promptly forgot these - because the film is paced extremely well. The editing is sharp and the audience never loses interest in what may happen next, how ever disconnected some scenes may be. The unique style of cinematography, which is Soderbergh's trademark, is getting a bit old and for this film it was a bit of a mismatch, but again, because of the flow of the story, and the level of performances by Mara and Law, all else seemed less important.

This is not a flawless film, by any standards, but it is thoroughly thrilling and very entertaining. The suspense doesn't lose its edge - and so, without reading anything further into the motivations of the characters, I just enjoyed the ride.

Seedlings (Lamha) 2012

I am generally sceptical of creative output from Pakistan. I have no doubt about the talent in the country, but due to lack of finances and facilities there (and hence, international-level experience), I find myself dumbing down my expectations, which makes it difficult to assess the quality of work, impartially.

So, it was with apprehension that I watched Meher Jaffri and Summer Nicks's Lamha (literal translation is 'Moment', but it is strangely titled Seedlings for the non-Urdu-speaking audience) at the 15th London Asian Film Festival, presented by 'Tongues on Fire'. Imagine my surprise, when I realised I had no need to 'dumb down' my appraisal.

The story revolves around three main characters: married couple Raza (Mohib Mirza) and Maliha (Aamina Sheikh), and a rickshaw driver, Anil (Gohar Rasheed). All three seem to be in a state of melancholy, grieving over some deep sorrow, when we meet them. As the film progresses, it is clear that Raza and Maliha have been driven apart by an unbearable personal tragedy - and that Anil played a very important role in that. Will any one of them be able to forgive the other, or more importantly, themselves? Is there any redemption for a mistake, a 'moment', that destroys lives? Is there any way to move forward when your core being has been ripped to shreds? How can you hope, when there is no hope to speak of?

The best thing about Seedlings is that it does not preach, for even a moment. There is no lengthy dialogue to explain the situation to the lowest common denominator in the audience. It is not an overly complex film, but the emotions it deals with, common as they are, can be difficult to understand. And the film does not spend extra energy on making it simple for any one. It is a journey of self-discovery for the characters, and the deepest insights come from short conversations with secondary characters. It is also a journey for the audience, to try and understand how they feel about the situation.

There are many lengthy silences, aided by a very appropriate background score (by Usman Riaz). Long scenes, where nothing happens, but you can feel an over-arching loneliness. Unlike many Pakistani dramas, where shouting is considered a must to express emotions, even that is used very sparingly. Less is definitely more, in this film.

The acting is very mature. Aamina Sheikh has already won accolades for her portrayal of a woman in constant emotional pain, but Mohib Mirza and Gohar Rasheed are excellent too. They never once overact or cross the lines of believability.

What the film confidently achieves in scripting (Summer Nicks), direction (Mansoor Mujahid), and acting, it loses in production values. The budget is quite apparently limited, but unfortunately, that is also obvious in some technical aspects like cinematography and sound recording, and at some points in the editing too. There is a slight amateurish quality to it all, which makes it less palatable to an audience used to slicker products. I am also curious about why this was shot on a 4:3 aspect ratio, more suitable to television than cinema - but honestly, these are all minor issues.

The lack of sophistication is more than made up by a strong script and detail-oriented direction, and some very involved performances. If a case can be made for independent cinema in Pakistan, then this is Exhibit A.

Ranthology 2013 - Part:One

Gangster Squad (2013) - Smooth, stylish and sentimental, but lacking in substance, this was a fairly enjoyable film, very loosely based on real-life events from the 1940s and '50s. A bunch of cops create an unofficial 'squad' to bring down the mighty gangster, Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn), who has been difficult to nab within the guidelines of the law. Josh Brolin leads the pack, while Anthony Mackie, Robert Patrick, Michael Pena, Giovanni Ribisi and Ryan Gosling make up the team - each officer chosen for his very distinct abilities. Predictably Gosling's character falls for Grace Faraday (Emma Stone), who happens to be Cohen's moll, and that complicates matters further. After a number of sacrifices and and heroic moments, all that is good prevails, as it almost always does. This film tries hard to be another The Untouchables (1987) or LA Confidential (1997), but it does not achieve the formidable heights of either, because the script is just not tight enough. Also, Sean Penn has gone so large with this role that he is [paradoxically] reduced to just being a caricature of Robert De Niro's Al Capone. Definitely an enjoyable film, but it achieves nowhere near the potential it had...

Django Unchained (2012) - Quentin Tarantino's latest has won him pretty much all the major awards for original screenplay, so I have little need to describe how perfectly taut the words and situations in this film are. Django (Jamie Foxx), a slave, is freed in 1858 by Dr King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), a bounty hunter, who needs information about three men that Django can identify. They then start a journey together, in which the former slave becomes very much a partner in the hunting; and in return, Schultz promises to help him find his wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), a German-speaking slave girl who has been tortured and sold to new owners because of her relationship with Django. When they finally do locate her, it appears she is at Calvin Candie's (Leonardo DiCaprio) plantation - and the pseudo-sophisticate Candie is just as merciless as all the other slave-owners we have met so far. Only difference is Candie's senior servant, Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), who appears to be overly subservient in public, but is almost the puppeteer holding the strings in private. It's a Tarantino film so there are plenty of long dialogues, tense scenes, bloody mutilations, surprise deaths, bad language...and weirdly inappropriate moments of hilarity. Acting-wise, Waltz, DiCaprio and Jackson are simply outstanding - and though Foxx and Washington are very good, their efforts are completely overshadowed by the former three. This is a must-see for lovers of Tarantino...and an education for lovers of cinema. May he make many more...

Hitchcock (2012) - This film is smart and a lot of fun. Based on the time around the making of Psycho (1960), it covers aspects of master storyteller Alfred Hitchcock's private life: his marriage, his muses and his insecurities. Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren are excellent in the lead roles and this is a perfect accompaniment for a relaxed Sunday afternoon.

Movie 43 (2013) - Calling this a black comedy is an insult to comedy...of any colour. Calling it tasteless is giving it too much credit. This was pure, unadulterated shit. Yes, that's how deep my review is going to be: 'this film was shit'. I never enjoyed previous films by Farrelly brothers, but this latest venture by Peter Farrelly has been universally panned. It's astounding that A-listers signed on for this, and to be honest, they have done nothing wrong. Each separate segment may have seemed like a funny idea - but just two of them together, let alone the entire film, is simply gross-out crap. Farrelly is reported to have said: “Kids, teenagers, 50-somethings who still smoke pot — they’re all going to find something here”. This is possibly the worst attempt at reaching out to the 'lowest common denominator' and the end product is vile, disgusting and pure waste. Watch it only if you have a disturbing curiosity to watch...shit.

Wreck-It Ralph (2012) - Disney's latest animation. Cute. Dull. Forgettable.

Cloud Atlas (2012) - Touted as art, this film bored me so much that I actually walked out. It's not the fact that it was confusing (I knew there were a number of seemingly unconnected storylines and usually that sort of thing rocks my boat), but rather the fact that I could not connect with a single character or story. I did not want to know what happens next to any one of them. I understand that this has been nominated for many awards, but I simply could not sit through it.

Song for Marion (2012) - I have probably never cried so much while watching a film. Vanessa Redgrave plays Marion, who is terminally ill and yet full of life and love. Her seemingly grumpy husband, Arthur, played by Terence Stamp, is in pieces but will not let anyone help or support him. After Marion's death, he severs ties even with his son (Christopher Eccleston), but finds solace in talking to Elizabeth (Gemma Arterton), Marion's community choir teacher. This is a simple story, yet so real, and so beautifully rendered, that it stands out over and above so many other similar stories. The entire cast is remarkable, but Redgrave and Stamp have delivered outstanding performances, where every expression, every glance, every quiver speaks loudly. Recommended only for those who like to bawl once in a while...

To the Wonder (2012) - Ah, Terrence Malick creates another film that critics will rave about, a certain section of the audience will mark as the most beautiful film of the year, media will discuss in profound terms...and the rest of us will simply scratch our heads about. After Tree of Life (2011), I was convinced I had seen the worst film ever made. Well, here is a sequel. Olga Kurylenko, a grown woman, constantly twirls, dances, hops and walks lopsided; she is full of life, you see. Ben Affleck, quietly smiles, follows and watches her; he is a conflicted man, you see. Rachel McAdams, also twirls and dances a bit, but she isn't as full of life as Olga, so she can actually walk in straight lines, sometimes. Javier Bardem is quiet and expressionless; he, too, is a conflicted man. Everyone touches everyone else, then goes away, then comes back to touch, then goes away again. They all speak in half-sentences, and mostly in their minds. They are all searching for something...maybe it's God. I too spoke to God. I asked him to make this torture end. He didn't listen to me for a while. But later, I was saved. The end.

Broken City (2013) - Absolutely nothing new or surprising in this tale of an ex-NYPD detective (Mark Wahlberg), hired by a powerful mayor (Russell Crowe), just before the mayoral elections, to spy on his wife (Katherine Zeta-Jones), who seems to be having an affair with another man. The twists and turns are fairly predictable, yet there is something about this film that is like comfort food. You know exactly what it's going to be like, but also that it will be good, and sometimes that is all you need. A decent 'thriller' straight out of the '80s.

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013) - Hollywood really seems to be running out of story ideas, prompting screenwriters to run to the Brothers Grimm for help. After two bleak Snow White adaptations last year, and a Red Riding Hood the year before, now we have a twisted Hansel and Gretel story, with Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton playing the lead characters. The plot is a bit boring, the action mediocre and the entire film is just a pointless venture, really. Still, as a Van Helsing (2004) fan, I can't be too picky about trashy fairytale / monster story adaptations - so I didn't hate it. Still, this one is not recommended in the least!

Les Misérables 2012

I don't review books on this blog - but I feel compelled to mention the French historical novel, written by Victor Hugo and published in 1862, that I had the misfortune of reading in its unabridged entirety, some years back. Aptly titled Les Misérables, it was a miserable tale of a miserable man whose life is so beset by misery, that it's a mystery how he continues to live.

The idea that Jean Valjean's pathetic story could be used to create a musical, where people sing and occasionally dance, made absolutely no sense to me. The fact that that musical is one of the most successful ones out there, is even more shocking. Still, I refused to watch it. Having read the book, I refused to subject myself to more of Valjean's misery.

The story goes thus: Jean Valjean stole a loaf of bread in his youth, to save his sister's life. He got arrested and instead of the five years he would normally serve for the theft, he spent the next 19 years in prison as punishment for his numerous escape attempts. Finally released back into society, he faces constant hostility for being an ex-convict and so when a priest actually treats him with kindness (despite Valjean stealing from the church), his heart fills with the love of God and His creation. The rest of the story is about him creating a new identity for himself, trying to be a good person, and finding some success and happiness - when *boom* Javert, one of the jail-keepers turns up round the corner and Valjean has to give it all up, go to a new place, create a new life, find some happiness, this time in the form of an adopted daughter...and yep, Javert turns up there too. This keeps happening over and over again - and Valjean barely gets 10 pages of happiness before he is made to run and be unhappy again. Yes it is really miserable.

But when the trailers for the film came out - with Hugh Jackman and Rusell Crowe leading the cast, my interest was piqued and I decided to bite the bullet and watch this musical, onscreen.

So, first off the camera work is pure perfection - from extreme close-ups to sweeping shots, the technique is flawless and the film is a delight to watch. The make-up is quite theatrical and therefore less perfect, but it is still very good (though Jackman's prosthetic teeth really bugged me throughout the movie). The direction by Tom Hooper and the performances he elicited from his cast - very, very commendable. And then there's the singing.

I have to admit, one of the factors that got me into the cinema was the opportunity to hear Hugh Jackman sing - and that was the most disappointing of all voices in the film for me. The songs just did not seem suited to his natural voice and he constantly seemed out of tune, which I am sure he wasn't. On the other hand, Russell Crowe, from whom I expected nothing, sang to his strengths and was really very good. Plus, he looks great in the film and Javert's role suits him perfectly. Besides these two, Amanda Seyfried (as Cosette) and Samantha Barks (as Eponine) do full justice to their roles and their songs. But it was Anne Hathaway (as Fantine) who completely blew me away. Her 'I dreamed a dream' gave me goosebumps, she is that good. And very surprisingly it was Eddie Redmayne (playing Marius), who was the other actor that made me react like that, with his 'Empty chairs at empty tables'. His rendition is exquisite. To be honest, all the actors sang beautifully, except for Hugh Jackman, who clearly can sing well, but his songs just seemed wrong for him.

Does this mean I enjoyed the film - and take back everything I said, like 'how can anyone sing about being so miserable'?
No.
Having seen the musical now, in its cinematic avatar, I still think it's a terrible story, with misfortune upon misfortune ladled on one soul, and his 'goodness' is absolutely sickening. To hear them all sing throughout the film did not make me like the story any better, but instead managed to piss me off a little bit more about why they couldn't just talk to each other in a normal voice!

Still, for people who enjoy this sort of film, it is an excellent offering. If the genre is acceptable, and the story is not a problem, then Les Misérables is at the top of its game.

I really didn't enjoy it.

Pitch Perfect 2012

I know this is the 21st century. I know this because there was a big Y2K scare 13 years ago and just a couple of weeks back I celebrated the start of 2013. So, why are the writers of this latest Hollywood high school musical pretending that it's still the 1970s, when creating comedy with racial and sexual stereotypes was still considered funny?

Beca (Anna Kendrick), an angst-ridden teenager with lots of dark make-up to prove the point, wants to be a music producer in LA; but her professor dad persuades her to attend Barden University for at least a year, with the promise that if she hates it, he will help set up her music career. The condition he lays down is that she has to give university life, including clubs and societies, a real shot. In the meantime, the 'Bellas', an A Cappella club, are desperately looking for new members, after a humiliating loss at the previous inter-collegiate competition (projectile vomiting was involved).

Despite her reservations, Beca is enlisted, along with a bunch of other girls who are presented as clear misfits. There's Fat Amy (Rebel Wilson), black AND closet-lesbian Cynthia-Rose (Ester Dean), nymphomaniac Stacie (Alexis Knapp), and silent but deadly Asian Lilly (Hana Mae Lee). Heading the Bellas is control-freak, blond perfectionist, Aubrey (Anna Camp) and of course, she has a trusted side-kick, Chloe (Brittany Snow). All these characters speak and act in extreme stereotypes (Fat Amy does not exercise and cracks food-related jokes; Cynthia-Rose tries to force CPR and grabs on to other girls' boobs every opportunity she gets; Stacie constantly thinks about and has sex; Lilly speaks so quietly that no one gets her, but she is dark and twisted inside; Aubrey is shrill and obsessive-compulsive about traditions; and Chloe lets Aubrey walk all over her). Of course Beca is the only slightly normal character, but she has oh such difficulty trusting anyone, because her dad left her mum. Her Asian roommate bizarrely detests her for no reason at all and treats her appallingly (which Beca never once reacts to) and she has almost no backbone with anyone except the one person who is good to her - Jesse (Skylar Astin), a member of the rival, all-male A Cappella group, called Treblemakers.

I will not go any further into the story and I have only explained thus far to show how unbelievably stale the premise is - and how awfully repugnant the stereotypes are. The script is replete with nerd jokes (they are weird), racial jokes (Asians are weird), disability jokes (DJ = Deaf Jews...and they're weird), lesbian jokes (gay people are desperate...and weird)....and when all else fails, there are puke jokes. Seriously.

The script was probably written on toilet paper, by monkeys who had no imagination at all. No sorry - scratch that. It was written by Kay Cannon (of 30 Rock fame), based on a book by Mickey Rapkin. Yup, that must be one literary masterpiece. Character motivation is a mystery throughout the story - and the film is completely devoid of any chemistry, between anyone and anything. After this, director Jason Moore should definitely return to television, where he has obviously done well.

Most disheartening aspect of this film was watching Anna Kendrick, who is a good actress, playing a freshman at the ripe old age of 27. If it wasn't for the excellent - and I really mean that - singing voices that almost all the actors possess, this film was the absolute pits. It could not have been more wasteful of cinematic space.

I'm really sorry that my Film 2013 has started off with this trash.

Shorthand Rants...2012

It seems wrong to end the year on my lazy 'shorthand rants', as I have not bundled a bunch of films together for a long while...but due to shortage of time, here's my final post of 2012:

Seven Psychopaths, the latest offering from writer-director Martin McDonagh, is a fitting follow-up to his remarkable In Bruges (2008). Erratic, unpredictable and ever-so-funny, it's about a writer, Marty (played by Colin Farrell), who is struggling to put a story together and with the help of his dog-thief friend, Billy (Sam Rockwell), he decides to write about seven psychopaths. As Billy and his associate, Hans (Christopher Walken), make the mistake of kidnapping the beloved dog of a crazy gangster (Woody Harrelson), all hell breaks loose and Marty gets more inspiration than he ever needed to furiously finish his story about psychopaths. The similarity between this film and In Bruges is that both stories have a protagonist, who gets embroiled in a much bigger problem than he ever imagined - and between a crazy friend and a crazier enemy, he has to find some way to survive the ordeal. Both films are well-written and tightly edited - so if you liked the former, you will love the latter. I know, I did.

Life of Pi is one of those books that sucks you in and leaves you with a slightly nostalgic / slightly hopeful feeling. It has generally been regarded as 'un-filmable' - but Ang Lee accepted this challenge with gusto. The main plot of the film is about Pi, a young Indian boy, who gets stuck on a small lifeboat in the middle of the ocean, with only a Bengal Tiger for company, for months. Saying any more than that will probably take away some of the surprises from the story, but trust me, this is no Castaway. The struggle for survival and the amazing experiences that we witness, conclude with a choice we make as individual viewers - and that is possibly the most interesting and heartbreaking side of the novel - and of the film. There are few films that match or surpass a really good book, but Ang Lee has done absolute justice to this almost impossible-to-film story. The computer-generated tiger looks and 'feels' more real than if it was standing right in front of me. Suraj Sharma, who debuts here, has delivered an outstanding performance, especially if you consider that most of his role required him to be interacting with a green-screen. The supporting cast is excellent too, with Indian actors of the highest calibre (Tabu and Irrfan Khan) - and to put it simply, Mr Lee has made a perfect film.

Jack Reacher proves yet again why Tom Cruise is such a Hollywood icon. Despite constant scrutiny and criticism of his personal life (his religion, his love-life, his never-to-be-forgotten Oprah interview), some of which seems to spill into what people think of his professional contributions, the man just keeps delivering entertaining films. He is an excellent actor (Born on the Fourth of July, A Few Good Men, Magnolia), who is also a bankable star (Top Gun, War of the Worlds, Mission: Impossible series) and is not too afraid to take some risks occasionally (Vanilla Sky, Tropic Thunder, Rock of Ages). At 50, he manages to look fresh, and considering the stunts he still insists on performing himself, he is definitely very fit. I should probably say something about this film, which is based on Lee Child's novel called 'One Shot', the ninth one in his series of Jack Reacher suspense thrillers. But considering how I have started this with the allusion that Tom Cruise is a great entertainer, suffice it to say that he completely embodies the screen version of Jack Reacher - a slightly stoic, slightly ascerbic, extremely intelligent investigator, who is also a cool-headed, killing machine when the situation calls for it. The eponymous character is introduced, built and performed to perfection - and I thoroughly enjoyed this film.

It almost seems like the year ended on a high note, as I loved my last few outings at the cinema - but unfortunately, one of the last films I saw this year was Midnight's Children, directed by Deepa Mehta and based on a novel (and scripted) by Salman Rushdie. It is by far, the worst film I saw this year (tough call that one, as Cosmopolis is a also strong contender for this trophy). Terrible dialogue, bad acting, interminable scenes and excessive length, are just some of the issues with this film. Of course, I have never been a fan of magic realism, but I honestly think this was the least of the problems with this joint venture between Rushdie and Mehta. What an absolute downer!

Anyway...70 cinema outings and innumerable home viewings later, 2012 is over. Bring on the next round!

Argo 2012

Who'd have thunk it? Ben Affleck can finally act - and direct - after over two decades in cinema.

Argo is loosely based on a real-life CIA operation to rescue six American diplomats from Iran. It's the year 1979, and Iran is in the midst of a revolution, during which the US embassy is sieged and its staff held as hostages. Six diplomats manage to escape and hide away in the Canadian ambassador's house. When news of their situation reaches Washington, Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) is called in as a consultant on rescue operations. He comes up with a plan involving a cover story about filming a Hollywood sci-fi movie in Iran. Despite the preposterousness of this plan, it gets green-lit due to a lack of better ideas - and Tony sets out to execute a hare-brained mission, rife with uncertainties.

What Ben Affleck has accomplished with this film is that elusive quality that most films find it difficult to achieve these days - suspense. It's a spy thriller and unless you have done your wikipedia research before heading to the cinema, you really don't know whether the Argo mission was a success or a failure. For this reason alone, the film is worth watching.

Then there is the detailing. From clothes to cars, colours to commodities, immense attention has been paid to the period. Of course, I'm not an expert in this area and I am sure there will be many who will write about how a certain logo did not come into being till three months after when the film is set, or a certain phrase did not enter common parlance till a year later - but as far as the average viewer is concerned, you feel transported to a time three decades back. I only wish he hadn't used the exterior of the Blue Mosque as an establishing shot, to then have a scene inside Hagia Sophia (it's just a little confusing), but this is a minor quibble.

The level of acting and writing is more than satisfactory all around, and Ben Affleck looks more convincing and likeable in this role than he has ever done in his usual American sweetheart characters. I guess the fact that he does not use his typical Hollywood grin to get through this role, is what really makes it work! As a director, his job is to convey the story in a gripping manner and that he has done extremely well. His Gone Baby Gone (2007) showed promise, but was not powerful enough to convince me. And I thought The Town was actually quite a weak film. But with Argo, he has definitely established himself as a very competent director.

There is already a lot of criticism about the black-and-white depiction of Iranians in the film, and the downplaying of the Canadian contribution to this mission. I agree with some of the criticism, but I haven't forgotten that I chose to go and watch a Hollywood film on the subject, rather than read properly researched reports. As long as this film is seen as a cinematic re-telling of events, and not as an actual historical docu-drama, it is an entertaining, suspenseful two hours of Hollywood - and therefore highly recommended.

Silver Linings Playbook 2012

Why is everyone raving about this film? It has been winning awards at festivals and is pegged as one of frontrunners for the Oscars. I fail to understand why.

Pat (Bradley Cooper) is bipolar and obsessed with getting his estranged wife back. Last time they had been together, he had caught her red-handed with her lover, whom he beat up - and consequently got institutionalised. Now, almost a year later, he has one mission - to convince her that he has got his emotions under control and is rebuilding his life. He then meets recently widowed Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence) who, herself, is suffering from various neuroses and they unwittingly help each other overcome their mental problems. Throw in some other dysfunctional family members - OCD gambling dad (Robert De Niro), over-indulgent mum (Jacki Weaver), self-centred brother (Shea Whigham) - and we have a recipe for what is cutely termed as a 'comedy-drama'.

The problem is that this film simply does not connect. The comic situations are over-the-top and unconvincing, the dramatic scenes are unreal and none of the characters are endearing enough for me to empathise with. It seems that David O. Russell (screenwriter/director) has taken a fairly important issue - mental disorders and maladjusted individuals - and made a bit of a mockery out of them. I understand that the film is based on a successful novel by Matthew Quick, so Russell isn't completely to blame for the treatment of the characters, but as far as I am concerned it is quite an 'inappropriate' film. The lead pair have acted well, De Niro is hamming throughout (I guess he has nothing left to prove, considering his immense body of work, but still!) and the other secondary characters are delivered with no real investment from the actors.

Maybe, I'm being harsh, but I really would like someone to explain to me, why this film is being touted as such a wonderful piece of work that it deserves to bag all the awards and accolades. What am I missing?

The Master 2012

This film should be renamed The Masterclass in Acting. 

Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) is a traumatised World War II Naval veteran, who is having difficulty adjusting in a free, post-war society. Suffering from alcoholism, he fails at sustaining a stable relationship and a stable career. A series of chance events lead him to meet Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the leader of a philosophical, yet oddly scientific, movement called The Cause. Dodd provides Quell with the leadership and the hierarchical order that he has sought since the end of the war, and also the impetus to rebel against authority. Thrown in the mix are other influences including Dodd's wife, Peggy (Amy Adams), who completely believes in her husband's work, and his son, Val (Jesse Plemons), who points out that his father is making stuff up as he goes along.

The Master is a strange, complicated story, with layers upon layers of emotion, social and political statements, and simply phenomenal character studies. It is an uncomfortable watch almost throughout, because the themes and personalities it focuses on are borderline vile, and the entire feel of the film is dark, darker, darkest.

Philip Seymour Hoffman is brilliant, as always, playing the narcissistic leader of an experimental 'cult', which some say is loosely based on Scientology. His benevolence is just as creepy as his sadistic exercises and Hoffman is very much 'the master' of all such skin-crawling roles. Amy Adams, as the fanatical wife, is just as convincing. She's a remarkable actress who matches Hoffman's brilliance in every scene.

As for Joaquin Phoenix, he is right up there, with the best actors in the world. Very much like the incomparable Daniel Day-Lewis, Phoenix can completely mould himself into a character, and in this film everything (from the way he walks, to the way he talks), has been especially crafted for Freddie Quell. He is on screen in almost every scene and he made me uneasy all the way through. He is like a caged wild animal (special reference to the scene where he is, in fact, caged) and looks ready to explode all the time. He has dropped a lot of weight for this role and he constantly looks hungry and ready to attack. He is simply a treat, albeit a very sickening one, to watch - and you can't help but watch him in awe, he is that powerful.

In previous years, I have loved Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia (1999) and There will be Blood (2007) for many reasons, but above all it was the level of exquisite performances he was able to extract from his actors that blew me away. As far as The Master is concerned, I did not like the film so much (maybe it was the subject matter, maybe it was the story, maybe it was the taste in my mouth throughout the film), but in terms of directing his actors, this man is a genius.

Also, this review simply can not be complete without mentioning the unbelievable cinematography by Mihai Malaimare, Jr. Every single shot in the film is a beautiful image that should be nominated for an award mightier than the Oscar. In one word, the camera work is incredible.

I can not recommend this film as I personally didn't enjoy it. But I am glad I watched it, for the mind-blowing acting, cinematography and direction.

Jab Tak Hai Jaan 2012

Yash Chopra - a name that any one with the slightest interest in Hindi films will have come across a few times in their lives. If the multiplicity of Hindi cinema can be unfairly categorised as a genre called "Bollywood", then Yash Chopra is to this genre what Hitchcock is to mystery, Scorsese is to gangster and Luhrmann is to grandeur.

Having directed his first film in 1959 (Dhool ka Phool) and his last in 2012 (Jab Tak Hai Jaan), Yash Chopra has at least one film to his credit in each of the last seven decades. That may be a feat in itself, but what is far more noteworthy is that he moved with the times, changed his style over and over again, and never once compromised on quality. It used to be said that while other directors would film in India and pretend it was Europe, Chopra would film in Switzerland and pretend it was Kashmir. Despite his tremendous success with social dramas like Waqt (1965), Deewar (1975), Trishul (1978) and Kaala Patthar (1979), he is best known for his romantic films. He defined 'real love' for more than one generation - and it is Kabhi Kabhie (1976), Silsila (1981), Chandni (1989) and Lamhe (1991) that people instantly associate him with. He created a world of beautiful poetry, memorable music, idyllic walks in the park and snow-capped mountains; he gave us graceful women in chiffon saris, who are as bold as they are beautiful and dashing men, who can be just as rakish as they are ethical - smart people all of them, with a taste for the finer things, be it lifestyle or literature. When you bought tickets to watch a Yash Chopra film, you knew you were entering a different world - conservative and yet unconventional, dripping with class but grounded in reality - and you would not be disappointed.

At age 65, he directed his 'youngest' film, Dil to Pagal Hai (1997) and raised the bar even higher for what would be considered hip and cool in Bollywood. Then nothing for seven years and out came Veer-Zaara in 2004, one of the very few films of his career that I did not like. It was old-fashioned, boring and strangely out of step with the times. Had the king finally lost his touch? I had to wait another eight years to see this trailer (anyone who has visited my blog before will know that I do not post pictures or embed videos, so this is a special concession for the grandest of directors):

And then we heard the news - only a month after his 80th birthday, and less than a month before the release of his latest film, Yash Chopra passed away. Such is his legacy that he will never be forgotten. But it is with a heavy heart that I review his last film - one I hoped would be his crowning glory, but is instead one of the weakest contributions to his vault of exceptional films.

Jab Tak Hai Jaan is the story of Samar Anand (Shah Rukh Khan) and his undying love for Meera (Katrina Kaif), a girl he meets in London, while he busks, waits tables, sells fish and runs errands to make a living. Meera is the daughter of a rich man and is ostensibly strait-laced, but Samar recognises the playful imp within her and that is who he falls in love with. Complications arise when Meera's unwavering faith in God, and her insistence on bartering with Him, leads to her ending her relationship with Samar. Heart-broken and dejected, he returns to India and, with a death-wish, joins the bomb disposal unit of the Indian Army. While posted in Ladakh, he meets young and bubbly Akira (Anushka Sharma), who falls head over heels in love with him, a feeling that Samar is no longer capable of reciprocating to anyone but Meera. Hence, we get a love triangle, one that does not have an easy solution - and that is what the film is about.

If my description of the plot sounds flat and uninteresting, please remember to place some of the blame on Aditya Chopra, who is responsible for the story and dialogue, and part-responsible for the screenplay. It is shocking to imagine that he is the man behind one of the most successful and entertaining Hindi films of all time - Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge (1995). For this film, he has simply put together snatches of Hurt Locker (2008), Kabhi Kabhie and Trishul, and fleshed up the basic triangular structure of Veer-Zaara. 

Anushka Sharma plays the quintessential go-getter, a wonderfully 'alive' daredevil - and a rather annoying character most of the time. She looks, for lack of a better word, hot, dressed in the shortest of shorts and cotton vests, but she has gone a bit too large in her acting. Katrina Kaif, who had just started showing some promise in her acting, has delivered one of her most placid performances in recent times. Her facial muscles seem incapable of showing subtle expressions, and in this film, she is not even trying. But, she too, looks beautiful (though a bit chubby around the waist) and so all is well in the world. Shah Rukh Khan, on the other hand, is all charm and emotion, and at 46, he pulls off the mid-thirties look with aplomb. Unfortunately, in half of the film, he is meant to be in his mid-twenties and roughly three decades of smoking and drinking have left too many tell-tale marks on his face that undermine all his efforts at looking young. Still, it's SRK, the King of Bollywood, and his acting more than makes up for his appearance. With just his eyes, he conveys a thousand emotions. My only problem with his performance was the fact that after 20 years of vowing never to kiss his heroines onscreen, his cringe-worthy attempts in this film were a big mistake - resulting in many an awkward moment between him and Katrina. His scenes with Anushka were much better handled and they have far more chemistry than he and Katrina ever achieve.

There are way too many flaws in the execution of this film. The story is archaic and the twists are straight from the 80s. The scenes with the army almost always had a couple of soldiers carrying their rifles in the most comic manner. The scenes with Anushka carrying a video camera were even worse. Had a lesser director been at the helm, this would have been forgivable, but when Yash Chopra blunders, who do we turn to? This is a weak film in parts, and simply awful in others (yes, I am referring to the London bomb disposal scene and the unnecessary cameo-infested sequence at the vineyard). The audience keeps waiting for it to lift, to go somewhere - but it never does.

The music is good in general - but considering it's AR Rahman we are talking about, it is fairly mediocre. The choreography is excellent though - and Katrina is mind-blowing in the salsa-capoeira-street-inspired dance sequence. 

There is one thing in the film that I can not fault at all - and that is the cinematography. Anil Mehta is pretty much a genius with the camera, but in a seriously flawed film, he has delivered shot after impeccable shot. His work deserves a review of its own! Also, the location scout(s) should get a special mention. London has never been this well-explored in a Hindi film before and it was gratifying to see not only the typical tourist spots, but also the areas that only Londoners go to. 

All in all, it absolutely breaks my heart to give my final verdict on this film: it is sub-standard. But the colours, the actors, the style and of course the fact that it's a Yash Chopra film, his last at that, will ensure that Jab Tak Hai Jaan will be seen by all Bollywood fans and will be generally enjoyed, and possibly praised.

Hell, even I may go and watch it again!

Skyfall 2012

I had no intention of reviewing this latest James Bond offering, but I keep hearing from people how wonderful this film is, and I really can't take it anymore. So, here are my thoughts:

It has been 50 years since James Bond made his first appearance in an Eon Production (Albert R Broccoli and Harry Saltzman). Dr No (1962) established the Bond character we have come to know and love for six decades, and set standards that we still measure the 'sequels' by. In this time, the face of Bond has changed (from Sean Connery to George Lazenby to Roger Moore to Timothy Dalton to Pierce Brosnan to Daniel Craig), but the concept of the 'suave spy' has remained constant. Yes, he may not exactly be the secret agent that Ian Fleming had created when he started writing the novels but, like Sherlock Holmes before him, James Bond was re-imagined for the audio-visual medium. Unlike Holmes though, Bond's film characterisation has been fiercely protected by the Broccoli family, and has been far less arbitrary since his first screen appearance.

After 40 years and 20 films and 5 actors, Bond got a reboot. Daniel Craig stepped in and we went back, all the way back, to Casino Royale (2006). I was one of those who were quite apprehensive and unconvinced about the choice for this lead. Yes, Craig is a decent actor, has a strong screen presence and is fairly attractive, but he just did not look like Bond. It wasn't just that he is blond. It was the fact that if I wanted Roger Moore replaced, I'd opt for someone like Pierce Brosnan (and we had him)! And if I wanted Sean Connery replaced, I'd go for Clive Owen. Daniel Craig seemed like a replacement for Timothy Dalton, who, let's face it, was just a little less forgettable than George Lazenby. What's worse is that the trailers showed Daniel Craig pouting sexily in all his scenes, whether they were romantic, stylish or action.

Anyway, the film came out and I grudgingly went to watch it. Pouty or not, Craig put my fears to rest. The characterisation had been adjusted to suit his persona and with a little more hand-to-hand action thrown in (as per post-Bourne blues), this Bond was fresh, spirited, intelligent, suave and yet somehow inconspicuous, as a spy should be. The flamboyance was toned down, the dialogue un-cheesed and the storyline simplified to create an engaging, more believable film. Casino Royale and Daniel Craig won me over, in spite of myself.

That is why when Quantum of Solace (2008) came out, it actually hurt my feelings. I had finally opened my heart and mind to a new Bond, accepted the differences between him and Brosnan and I then got served an exceedingly boring, unbelievably irritating film, giving me no reason to root for the world's most famous spy.

So, I waited another four years, in the hope that the magic of Casino Royale will be recaptured in Skyfall. Alas, I was so very, very wrong.

Opening Scene: Fans of the past films will remember some of the more iconic opening sequences from The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) and GoldenEye (1995). Casino Royale had a perfect, stylish, brilliant opening scene as well. Skyfall's opening was lengthy, boring and trying too hard. As much as I love Istanbul, it seems to be the filming location of choice for way too many films these days, and I'm getting a little tired of the rooftops of the Grand Market now (see Taken 2). Even the lengthy, over-the-top boat chase scene from The World Is Not Enough (1999) was classier in comparison!

Theme Song: Bond films have given us some very popular theme songs over the years. Nancy Sinatra's You Only Live Twice, Shirley Bassey's Diamonds Are Forever, Paul McCartney's Live and Let Die, Tina Turner's GoldenEye, Garbage's The World Is Not Enough and Madonna's Die Another Day to name just a few. Chris Cornell's You Know My Name (Casino Royale) wasn't amazing, but it was still good enough to set a tone for the film. Skyfall's song, despite having amazing Adele's vocals, is really no great shakes. It's too reminiscent of an age past, but is a little all over the place. I'm not about to download it in a hurry.

Gadgets, Cars, Guns: These have been signature items for Bond films, but with the reboot, there has been a concerted effort to tone these elements down. In Skyfall, this being the 50th year and all, there are corny references, for the aficionados, to past films' gadgets: a pen that explodes, an ejector seat in a vintage Aston Martin DBS, etc. And finally, in this third instalment of the renewed franchise, Q is re-introduced (played by Ben Whishaw). He will probably develop into a character less disdainful of Bond, than previous Qs (Desmond Llewelyn and John Cleese). But, in this film at least, all he offers is a radio transmitter and a personalised gun. *Yawn*.

Villain: This is probably the most disappointing factor of Skyfall. Raoul Silva is meant to be deranged, out of control and very dangerous because he knows all the inside secrets. He seems to have been modeled on the Joker and Moriarty, a true nemesis for our protagonist, created from the same mould as Bond, but one who took a different turn when abandoned by M. But for some reason, he is not scary; he is simply annoying. Javier Bardem, how ever brilliant he may be considered, has given one of his worst performances, by completely over-acting in all his scenes. Considering how outrageous some of the previous Bond villains have been, it actually feels strange to say this, but this character was not very 'believable'!

Women: Another essential for Bond films: beautiful women. In recent times, especially in Brosnan's films, they became actual characters that moved the story forward, rather than the helpless, irritating damsels they used to be previously. This is why Skyfall's female 'lead' Severine, (Berenice Lim Marlohe) was such a disappointment. Not only is she completely useless, she is not even the most attractive distraction! And the twist with Naomie Harris's Eve character was so blatantly inspired by John Blake's revelation at the end of The Dark Knight Rises (2012) that I actually groaned in the cinema.

Recurring Characters: Laying the overdue groundwork for the arrival of new recurring characters and departure of old ones in the third film, is just lazy. And that's what this new Bond series is: lazy. Since Casino Royale, I have wondered why Judi Dench stayed on to play M for this new Bond. She seemed out of place and almost out of her depth, which is a strange thing to say about such a legendary actress. There has been no chemistry between her and Daniel Craig. She has just appeared tired and haggard and very disinterested in him, and he has always seemed uncomfortable in her presence. She abandoned Brosnan's Bond during a mission once (Die Another Day, 2002); his reaction to that was pain, but a grudging understanding and respect. When she abandons Craig's Bond, he really seems not to care. There has never been a connection between them. If only they had replaced her when they rebooted the franchise, we wouldn't have had to go through three films of uncomfortable moments.

Title: I've seen better. The mystery created around 'Skyfall' during the word association test Bond has to take, fizzles out so badly when you finally find out what that word means to him. Come on guys...think of titles like 'You Only Live Twice' or 'A View To A Kill' or 'Octopussy'...then think 'Skyfall'. Ho-hum.

Story: Ah what a patchwork job this was. Scenes and themes have been lifted directly from previous (recent) Bond films (Bond gets abandoned by M, Bond breaks into M's house, MI6 building blows up, etc etc). Then there's the lack of consistency. So Bond can't really shoot straight any more, he fails his tests, he can't kill Silva who is right in front of him in a tunnel; less than a week later, he is a sharp-shooter again and is able to kill an army of men in a dark house. What? Despite having the most advanced medical facilities at his disposal, Bond sticks a knife into his shoulder, pulls out remnants of a shattered bullet lodged there for months, and delivers these to the afore-mentioned facilities. Why the drama? Don't ask. Kincade (Albert Finney), the gamekeeper of Bond's estate is oh-so-wild and clever, and saws a rifle off for better control...as you do. Couple of scenes later, like an idiot he uses a bright torch in an open field, while trying to escape the enemy, who can now obviously see him a mile away. WHAT? Was this script written 50 years ago, when cinema logic used to be a little bit skewed?

The problems with this film are not Daniel Craig's fault. HE is not the worst Bond ever (Lazenby and Dalton have ensured that), but the promise he showed six years ago is now wearing thin. The writers and directors really need to work harder to keep the Bond tradition alive - and yet, keep the premise palatable for a new generation. What they seem to be doing is mixing old Bond, with new Bourne, with future Bond and making some weird concoction, which will not withstand the test of time. This 50th anniversary offering is weak and unfortunate.

Instead of the terrible references they pulled, it would have been so much better if the producers had got all 5 previous Bonds together (they're all still alive), dressed them in dinner jackets, and sat them around a card table in a casino. Even without a single dialogue, just an exchange of looks, between them and Daniel Craig, would have delivered a scene to remember for ever. That would have been an homage.

Skyfall is a fairly tedious, interminable film, devoid of logic and grace. It's not the worst action film ever, but it is definitely one of the lesser Bond films.

Do watch it though. I hear it is 'brilliant'.

The Reluctant Fundamentalist 2012

Mohsin Hamid's novel, The Reluctant Fundamentalist, was a relevant story when it was published in 2007. Five years later, its cinematic adaptation deviates very little from the original storyline, and yet remains relevant as ever.

After the kidnapping of an American professor in Lahore, his colleague, Changez Khan (Riz Ahmed), meets with American journalist Bobby Lincoln (Liev Schreiber), at a small tea house in Lahore. Over the course of their conversation, Changez's life story unravels in flashbacks. A Princeton graduate, he lived the American dream - a high-flying job on Wall Street, an upper-class American girlfriend with serious emotional baggage (Kate Hudson), a Gordon-Gecko-like boss (Kiefer Sutherland) and such brilliant prospects - without ever losing the usual comforts of a middle-class Pakistani family back home. Life was good. And then the 9/11 attacks happened, bursting the bubble he lived in. As people around him start treating him differently on account of his ethnicity and religion, Changez himself starts seeing the world, and his own place in it, differently. But is the reality of the world around him enough to shake his own fundamentals? Is he really the 'fundamentalist' they see him as?

The story is quite powerful, not least because it is the voice of the 'other'. Changez's love affair with America and Americans, which turns sour through no fault of his own, isn't a far-fetched tale. The blatant xenophobia that gripped American society, after the Twin Towers were attacked, has been well-documented and analysed for years. This is one date from the recent past that effectively changed the course of history, for ever. Here we see its effects, first hand, on a character we find easy to like. But Changez's story is not just about the wider political issues; it is about his own life falling apart, it is about the identity crises he goes through, it is about the realisation that while he appears to be one of the 'villains' to people around him, he has actually become a 'victim' of their changed perception.

The novel, narrated in its entirety in the first person by Changez, poses many messy questions and leaves the conclusions ambiguous. The film, on the other hand, does tie up loose ends and concludes on a far less ambiguous note. I have heard this often, and it usually is true, that a film based on a novel, is never really as good as the original text. This is probably because when you read the book first, you imagine, on your own, how the characters look, speak and behave; you effectively direct the film in your own mind and another film maker's vision just does not measure up. 

Still, there are rare directors who can raise the written material to new heights with their renditions. Mira Nair is one such director.

Salaam Bombay! (1988) is considered her masterpiece and Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love (1996) earned her some notoriety, but for me it will always be Monsoon Wedding (2001) that is her most important contribution to cinema - as it straddles a line between commercial 'Bollywood' films and 'Alternative' cinema, yet comes out a victor of 'World' cinema. When she was signed on to direct Vanity Fair (2004), it surprised me a little less than Shekhar Kapur directing Elizabeth (1998), but it seemed a bit odd to imagine her presenting a 19th-century, quintessentially English novel by William Thackeray. And yet, despite the odd casting of Reese Witherspoon as Becky Sharpe, the film is a decent adaptation, with interesting changes to the original characterisations and even more interesting embellishments to the atmosphere of the time. Next, she took on Namesake (2006), a particularly flawed first novel by Jhumpa Lahiri, who writes such beautiful short stories. Mira turned a mediocre novel into an excellent, moving film and extracted phenomenal performances from Tabu, Irrfan Khan and even Kal Penn. For years, her name was attached to Johnny Depp's project, an adaptation of Gregory David Roberts' Shantaram, which never got made. And now, she's back with an adaptation of another best-selling novel.

Mohsin Hamid's The Reluctant Fundamentalist, though quite profound in its subject-matter and written in an unconventional style, is not a great piece of literature. He may be limited as a novelist, but thankfully his script, co-written by Ami Boghani, has better fleshed-out characterisations. And it is definitely to Mira's credit that she has not only done justice to the themes in the book, but has delivered a far superior product. 

Her lead actor does not disappoint either. Not enough praise can be levelled at Riz Ahmed for his brilliant portrayal of Changez. He is an emerging British-Pakistani talent, whose string of politically-charged films and music put him in very good stead for this role. And he has already 'played' this part for Radio 4's 'Book at Bedtime' series, so he may not have needed as much time in figuring out Changez's motivations, as another actor might have. Riz's face records every emotion so effortlessly - from innocence to awareness, from joy to silent rage - it is quite breathtaking. In fact, in the first flashback of the film it is almost jarring to see the switch from the hardened features of the protagonist now, to the bright, young, hopeful look he carried in the past. Also, I was particularly impressed by his Urdu accent - yes, in the long eulogy at the end (written by Javed Akhtar), you can hear his struggle to get it just right, but it's barely noticeable unless you are a Lahori yourself. Best of all, his accent in English never becomes caricaturish - being a British Asian, it must have been difficult for him to deliver the convincing Asian-American accent that private-school-educated Pakistanis often have. Riz has carried the entire film on his young shoulders and there is not a single scene to which he has not done full justice.

As for the other performances, Liev Schreber is excellent and the scenes between him and Riz have the kind of chemistry that the writers could only have aspired for. Veterans Shabana Azmi and Om Puri, as Changez's parents, and Lahore-born newcomer Meesha, as his sister, deliver strong, natural performances in their very short appearances. Nelsan Ellis is typically charming and Haluk Bilginer brings his usual poise to the canvas. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for Kate Hudson and Kiefer Sutherland. Their characters seem half-baked at times - and for some reason, their acting is quite unreal and unconvincing in some scenes. Kate's scenes with Riz lack the chemistry essential to the story and Kiefer's last scene is a tad over-the-top. Though not actually bad, theirs are the most disappointing of contributions to this otherwise strong ensemble.

The cinematography is exquisite - from the hand-held camera work for indoor scenes to the beautiful shots of the various cities the story travels to. And as usual Mira Nair's choice of music for the soundtrack is simply brilliant. She has selected well, from the vast array of Pakistani music styles, with Kangna, a mystical qawwali by Fareed Ayaz and Abu Muhammad, Atif Aslam's classical-based Mori Araj Suno and Overload's rock-based Dhol Bajay Ga. Mira, who is not from Pakistan, has managed to recreate Pakistan on screen with far more authenticity in dialogue and soundtrack than most of her peers from India have ever done (except for one odd use of 'bhaiya' instead of 'bhai' at the beginning of the film - you will almost never hear the former term in Lahore).

The Reluctant Fundamentalist is an important film, a film that matters. Its success will hopefully facilitate dialogue, debate and discussion about the harsh times we live in. It is not a masterpiece though, and it is not Mira's best work. But it is a vast improvement on the book. And while the writing, direction and editing of some peripheral scenes could have been much better, the overall experience is quite excellent.

Definitely recommended, even if only for the mesmerising effect of Riz Ahmed's intensity.

Taken 2 - 2012

In 2008, when Taken came out, I went to watch it with no expectations. And like many other viewers, I was blown away by the slick action, limited dialogue and crisp execution of the script. Above all, it was seeing Liam Neeson pull off an action role with finesse, and lending class to what was essentially a Steven Seagal film, that I found so impressive. I could never have imagined soft-spoken and graceful Neeson to be so deft with weapons and hand-to-hand combat. Within minutes, he shifted from genial to menacing - and from the first time he threatened to find and kill his daughter's kidnappers, he convinced me that he could and would do just that.

So, when trailers for Taken 2 came out, I was instantly excited. But you see, I forgot that lightning never strikes the same place twice.

Taken 2 is the story of Bryan Mills, a retired CIA operative, who in the previous film managed to track and kill members of an Albanian human-trafficking-gang, who had kidnapped his daughter during a holiday in Paris. Some time has passed since then and life is slowly returning to normal for Bryan, his daughter Kim, and his ex-wife Lenore. Brian gives driving lessons to Kim, like a father would, but watches over her personal life, like only a secret service agent can. In the meantime, the leader of the afore-mentioned Albanian gang is seeking revenge for his son, who Bryan had killed. Things come to a head when the estranged family decide to holiday together in Istanbul and the Albanian gang strikes again - this time to 'take' them all. How Bryan saves not only his life, but his family's, is what the film is about.

Yes, the plot is razor-thin, but most action films have even thinner story-lines. The lack of a meaty premise is the least of my problems with this film. I have too many other issues. So, where should I start?

The dialogue is awful and the ensuing scenes, awkward. Family moments look forced and uncomfortable, because the things they are saying to each other are unnatural and clunky. The first 30 minutes of the film just seem a bit pointless and scenes are tacked on to each other without flow. By the time the real action begins, all the characters have managed to irritate the audience with their listless interactions, which really doesn't help to build any empathy for when they finally get taken.

Then there's the flawed action routines. Where Taken had succeeded in establishing Liam Neeson as an ageing, but quick-witted and limber trained agent, Taken 2 really struggles in delivering a single well-choreographed fight sequence. The camera work is all over the place and is camouflaging the main lead's limited participation in the action scenes. The special effects are jaded and unconvincing. To paraphrase a friend, even the blasts were over-acting.

The thriller elements are just as flawed. For example, the 'clever' little methods, with which Bryan Mills gets his daughter to find the location where he is being held, are actually fairly unscientific. In fact, his own system of noting where he is being driven to, though inspired by Sherlock Holmes, is quite ridiculous (he categorises a call to prayer as 'man singing', which for a long-time international CIA operative smacks of pure ignorance and ineptitude; and seriously, in a city of almost 3,000 mosques, is a call to prayer the best 'milestone' to navigate with?). The pièce de résistance of this badly-constructed action film, is a terrible car chase scene, that has been teleported from the 80s - possibly from a Bollywood film of the time - where there is a constant exchange between father (who is passenger-seat-driving) and daughter (who has not even managed to pass her driving test on an automatic car in the US, but in Turkey is a fantastic getaway car driver on a car with a stick-shift). Bryan keeps shouting 'Move', 'Go Faster' and 'You Can' every 5 seconds; Kim keeps responding with 'Dad' and 'I can't'. The script for this scene should be framed - 3 sheets of paper, with these phrases and nothing else.

I wish I could say that Liam Neeson's acting saved the day, but it really didn't. He is so detached from his character that he might as well have been going through an out-of-body experience. Famke Janssen, as Lenore, hardly has anything to do. Somewhere early on, she gets hung upside down once, and so spends the rest of the film in a strange haze - it really makes no sense why she's 'playing dead' like she's been tortured for days! Maggie Grace, as Kim, was quite endearing in the first film, but here she is just annoying. Even the villain is the most useless bad guy, ever - and his gang of amateurish cronies are too ill-equipped to be scary gangsters! It's not just their acting that sucks - it's everything about their characters and screen presence that needs an overhaul.

Supposedly the location, Istanbul, is a character in the film. The director has made sure with every second shot to establish and re-establish that we are indeed in Istanbul. Here is a shot of the Blue Mosque. Here is another shot of the Blue Mosque. Now here is the Blue Mosque with the Turkish flag in the forefront. Here is the Bosphorus - how do we know that? - well, there's a Turkish flag on the boat and of course, a silhouette of the Blue Mosque.

Taken 2  is not a mediocre film; it is simply a bad film. Pierre Morel, the director of the previous film, is no genius. But Olivier Megaton has done such an abominable job of directing the sequel, he should be banished from film-making for ever.

If it wasn't for the fact that I could not stop laughing hysterically at the terrible dialogue, acting, scripting, direction, special effects and soundtrack, I would have been cursing myself for falling victim to this horror of a film.