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.

Shorthand rants...

There is a bunch of films that I have watched over the past couple of months that I never got a chance to rant about...and rant I must. So here goes:

Easy A (2010) came highly recommended by friends I trust and yet I did not trust them about a teenage comedy. Big mistake. The film is an absolute delight! Olive is an ordinary high-school girl, who jokingly tells her best friend after a boring weekend that she spent the last couple of days living it up with a boy. The rumour mills are immediately set ablaze and she earns herself a huge reputation, which she initially tries to quell and later milks to advance her financial and social prospects. It's an amusing story, held together by excellent scripting, characterisation and editing. Emma Stone is brilliant as Olive and there is a stellar cast to support her. Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson, who play her parents, are equal parts nuts and equal parts endearing. Of course, I will never be able to hear Pocketful of sunshine without it invoking hilarious images from the film. Don't be put off just because it seems to be just another teenage comedy. It really is much more than that.

Biutiful (2010) is the latest Alejandro González Iñárritu film, starring Javier Bardem as Uxbal, a man caught between life and his mortality, needs and his guilt, hopes and his nightmares. The film was heavily nominated for various international awards (including the Academy Award) and won quite a few along the way. Iñárritu uses his usual style of interlinking multiple threads to show the audience various sides of a story - and the film has moments of joy, always underlined with deep melancholy. I tried really hard to like it as much as everyone else, but it somehow did not touch me as much as I hoped. In fact, it left me quite cold and I couldn't wait for it to end, so I could move on to something a bit more interesting. A shame really - as I continue to wait for Iñárritu's next Amores Perros, 2000, which just doesn't seem to get made.

Reservation Road (2007) - an old one, which I decided to watch for Joaquin Phoenix, and did not find disappointing. The film shows us two sides of a tragedy - the accidental death of a young boy - from his parents' and from the perpetrator's points of view. Beautifully crafted, it continually puts the audience in an uncomfortable position, where taking the moral high ground is no longer that easy. Mark Ruffalo plays the troubled 'killer' and his pain is just as raw as the traumatised father's (played to perfection by Phoenix). The story is a simple slice of life, where things are never completely black or white - and this film has an abundance of grey. Very well-made.

The Tree of Life (2011) is a Terrence Malick film, which has been praised by almost every critic out there and has not only left me unimpressed, but so angry at the praise, that I am not sure if I should even write about it. I feel positively stupid for not liking it, as everyone else seems to have 'got' it, whereas I found it lengthy, boring and completely interminable. I wish I could sum up what the film was about - there was the creation of the world, some dinosaurs, some human birth and death, a lot of whispering to God, some cliché-ridden characters and rites of passage situations, and a whole lot of pointless wandering. People keep saying how beautiful the film was and I'd honestly prefer to watch a few hours of Discovery Channel than waste my time on a film that is so 'artistic' that it alienates the ordinary audience completely. Brad Pitt and Sean Penn are two of the stars in the film, but it's not about them and they don't carry the film forward, so I don't think I can blame them. In fact, I would like to blame Malick himself for making such a pretentious piece - but then I don't know what I was expecting from the man who is the creator of the worst film ever made, The New World, 2005. And with this rant, I will either lose some of my meagre audience for ever, or will have gained a couple of readers.

So many films...so little time.

Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara 2011

Finally, a Hindi film worth reviewing!

Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara is Zoya Akhtar's second film after Luck by Chance (2009) - and she has once again written and directed a slick, well-put-together, entertaining film. Coming from a family of talents (dad Javed Akhtar - poet / lyricist / screen writer; mum Honey Irani - actress / screen writer; brother Farhan Akhtar - actor / director / producer / singer / writer), she obviously has no problem fitting right in - and though her second film is much like an updated version of her brother's Dil Chahta Hai (2001), she has proven herself by directing two very different films in two years.

ZNMD is the story of three friends - Kabir, Arjun and Imran - who take off on a 3-week road trip in Spain, which serves as the 'bachelor party' before Kabir gets married in India. The trip is to include challenges that each one of them has dreamt of since college - and each challenge is a surprise to the others. With this seemingly fun-filled adventure serving as the backdrop, the trip tests relationships, strengthens some bonds, breaks others and answers questions each one of the characters has been struggling with. Love is found and love is lost - but the holiday establishes one thing for them all - life is short and has to be lived to the fullest.

There is never a dull moment in the film - the dialogue (penned by Farhan) is crisp and witty, the situations are fun, but believable, the characters are identifiable - and the film allows the viewer to go on a dream holiday with some of the coolest people ever, from the comfort of their seats. In this and so many other ways, the film reminds me of Dil Chahta Hai (just without the interminable Akshaye-Dimple love story). Farhan manages to be in and around so many films where male friendship is rendered with the loftiest of depictions - makes me think he's either had some really great friends in his youth or he's making up for what he doesn't have by being in films about great friendships.

Hrithik Roshan (Arjun) plays an ambitious, money-minded, focused man and has delivered a very balanced performance - which is always a surprise when it comes to him, as he has a general tendency to try too hard and end up looking forced and annoying. Abhay Deol (Kabir) is as always a pleasure to watch - he's relaxed, natural and absolutely comfortable in what ever character he plays - and this film is no exception. It's good to see him in more mainstream films, as he has so much potential and it would be sad to see his career die a quiet death in unwatched off-beat films. Farhan Akhtar (Imran) doesn't need much discussion - he's consistently good in pretty much every film that he's involved with. Here he plays the most flawed of the three friends and manages to be endearing all the way through. Other actors, including Katrina Kaif and Kalki Koechlin, have short roles, which they do full justice to. The film rests on the three actors though - and they're all excellent.

Everything about this film is top-notch, including the music, visuals, editing and the general 'feel'. The main star of the show is the script though - whether it's the 'bag-wati' story or the chit-chat about Doordarshan, the underlying humour is natural and at times a bit Tarantino-like. And the end credits are definitely a homage to the You Tube sensation 'JK Wedding Entrance Dance'. But it's all done in a very classy manner - and that is what puts Farhan and Zoya at the forefront of this generation of Hindi film-makers.

An excellent film - and well worth a watch.

Dhobi Ghat 2010

Despite being an avid Hindi film viewer, this is the first Indian film I am writing about. It deserves a 'review' here partly because it has managed to impress me and partly because it has made me pretty angry.

Released internationally as Mumbai Diaries, the film follows the lives of four characters in Mumbai: Munna, the washerman(dhobi)-by-day and rat-killer-by-night, who works two jobs to make ends meet and aspires to be an actor as so many others do in this city of opportunity; Arun, the acclaimed artist, who shuns his adoring audience whenever possible but lives a comfortable life thanks to that very rich audience in this city of affluence; Shai, the US-based investment banker, who is on sabbatical and spending her time photographing the dirty areas of this city of extreme poverty, which people in her social circle would not tread into; and finally, Yasmin, who comes to this city of dreams, with hope in her heart, but finds, like everyone else, that this is also the city of disappointment. Four inter-woven lives - against the backdrop of the fifth very prominent character of the story - Mumbai, the city itself.

The casting, acting and direction, throughout the film, is flawless. Kiran Rao, a first-time director and writer, has done a fantastic job. Aamir Khan (Arun), Monica Dogra (Shai) and Kriti Malhotra (Yasmin) look the characters and perform them well. But it's Prateik Babbar (Munna), son of actor-politician Raj Babbar and late actress Smita Patil, who takes your breath away. His face manages to portray vulnerability, street-smart, shyness and jealousy without ever showing any signs of effort. Like Kunal Kapoor and Sharman Joshi before him, he can carve a nice little niche in Hindi films, if he continues to be an actor, rather than trying to become a Bollywood star.

In all this positivity, where is the anger I speak of, you probably wonder. Well, the film manages to break away from Bollywood clichés and classic narratives, by being song-and-dance-less and by not giving the audience an obvious resolution - the end - which is normally expected from Hindi films. In all this, and so much more, it has managed to bring in European sensibilities and, through that, has found respectability amongst film viewers and reviewers all over the globe. But what it has not managed to do is to break away from emulating another cinema.

Classic 'Bollywood' (regardless of how much that name is hated in India) was very much based on classic Hollywood narrative and over the years has developed its own identity (hence the issues with the derivative name). Hate it or love it, Bollywood speaks a different cinematic language, which is very much its own (and is shared by other South Asian cinemas). So, breaking from the convention is worth appreciating, but breaking from it to make a European film instead is not exactly heroic.

In fact, it's not even a general language of cinema that Dhobi Ghat borrows from, which would have been very acceptable. It very specifically emulates the style of Mexican auteur Alejandro González Iñárritu, whose films are very popular in Europe (as well as, all over the world). The effects of a person's life on other lives, the interlinks between human beings, the disparity between people belonging to different socio-economic classes and the use of cityscape images as well as shots of people going about their business in the city - used together these are such signature themes from Iñárritu's films (Amores Perros, 21 Grams, Babel) that it's difficult not to see the obvious 'inspirations' for Kiran Rao's work. And then there's the music...simple, but melancholic...a little haunting. As if I needed any further proof for my claims, the end credits of the film named Gustavo Santaolalla as the composer for the film. Santaolalla just happens to the Argentinian who has composed the music for almost all of Iñárritu's films!

So, a film I would have appreciated for its 'different' storytelling and excellent performances - and would have criticised for the absence of an engaging story - is a little difficult for me to like, because of its very obvious borrowing from a genius director's work.

Still, a good watch - and definitely recommended.

Case 39 - 2010

An over-worked social worker, Emily Jenkins (Renee Zellweger), reluctantly takes on her 39th case and helps save a 10-year-old girl from her abusive and obviously insane parents, just as they are trying to kill her by putting her in an oven and turning it on. Emily then tries to give the little girl a new life, 'a new beginning', not knowing that what she's doing has far more sinister consequences for her and everyone she is close to.

Too many films try to be scary and thrilling these days - most just manage to be gross slashers, and very few are able to completely creep us out like the horror films of the 70s. Case 39 has the potential of those films. The best thing is that the film's trailer does not give the story away, which in today's overly-informative-trailer-age is a huge plus.

Highly recommended at the cost of a few sleepless nights.

My Sister's Keeper 2009

Since I missed it at the cinema, I put it on my DVD list, but I was in no hurry to watch this film, as I had presumed this was another tear-jerker with no real story. Of course, I should have realised that it was Nick Cassavetes' tear-jerker, so it wouldn't be all that ordinary...

In short, Kate Fitzgerald has had a rare form of cancer since she was 5. Her sister Anna was especially conceived to be her donor, her 'keeper' in a way. This is Anna's story, but it's also Kate's, their mother's, father's and brother's story. It's the lawyer's story and the doctor's story. It's a beautiful, painful story, where everyone is right, but wrong too.

Stellar performances from Sofia Vassilieva, Cameron Diaz, Jason Patric, Alec Baldwin, Thomas Dekker and Evan Ellingson. But the film rests on the small and so very capable shoulders of Abigail Breslin. She was good in Little Miss Sunshine (2006), but she's breathtaking in this film. Nick Cassavetes has once again made a film that makes you laugh and cry and love and die with the characters.

Excellent and highly recommended if you like to weep with your movie, sometimes.