SUICIDE SQUAD - GO WATCH IT INSTEAD OF READING A REVIEW - EVEN THIS ONE

Yes, I'll be as short as I can, and no am not sweet talking you into a deal. Suicide Squad​ is a movie that looks like the end product of a bit of muddled editing, there is no denying that but David Ayer​ drops you in the middle of the action in what should be the template for how comic book movies should be made. There is no beating around the bush in the action, nor is there too much of an attempt to pull back fantasy with ground rules. Instead of using tame CGI, Roman Vasyanov​ goes over the top and works with the special effects team to transport us to places. Talking of special effects, the trippy end credits are super groovy.

Deadshot​, Harley Quinn​, Captain Boomerang​, El Diablo​, Slipknot and Killer Croc​ are assembled at a facility by the devious Amanda Waller​. Under the command of Rick Flagg​, they're supposed to take on a few challenges that will ensure their jail terms cut short. But it ain't a cakewalk...and hence their nom de guerre - Suicide Squad. And how does Amanda control them? Well, she has a few cards up her sleeve. And then there is the Enchantress (DC Comics)​.

WillSmith​, Margot Robbie​, Cara Delavigne​, Joel Kinnaman​, Karen Fukuhara​, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje​, Jay Hernandez​, Viola Davis​ and last but not the least Jared Leto​ with a few more I've left out for good reason round off the heavy hitter cast. Almost all of them justify their presence with a few promising to come back in later movies. The attempt to join dots in the DC Extended Universe​ is clear from the get go, maybe a little too clear? But I can live with it.

There are infectious relationships and there are noxious relationships and then there is the relationship that sent little shivers down my spine. If there is a Joker​, then there is a Harley Quinn. The chemistry between Jared Leto and Margot Robbie is resplendent in its weird and disturbing nature. Will Smith is, well Will Smith, but then he fits like a trigger glove into the role of Deadshot. Jai Courtney​ is an under-rated talent - and the movie gives us the impression there is more of the tinny guzzling aussie than what they show us.

Given its nature, we cannot talk about this movie without talking about its soundtrack. Bohemian Rhapsody​, Sympathy for the Devil​, I Started a Joke​, Creep (Radiohead song)​, Sucker for Pain​, Spirit in the Sky​ and much more add to the neat atmosphere that Steven Price and crew have put together to support the chaos that goes on on screen. Lovable is the word I'd use for the badass soundtrack.

Reading the rest of the reviews, I can only say that this is a movie that has been weighed down by expectations that were unreal, probably built up by two superbly cut trailers that should have showed some restraint while they could. Ensemble movies work for David Ayer for a reason and my secret wish is that at some point his intended cut is released to the public.

At Paradise Talkies​, we rate Suicide Squad a fun 2.5 out of a possible 5 stars. But don't just look at a rating and decide, go ahead and give it a watch. You probably wont regret it.

Raman Raghav 2.0 - not so Ugly after all

Our choice of venue was curtailed to Fame ShankarNag in Bangalore, a

cinema that was once a single screen highlight that is now in tatters.

Our feeling on leaving the cinema was not as acute but not very

different about Raman Raghav 2.0. Anurag Kashyap has never shied away

from showing the basest emotions that a human being is capable of, love

and its infinite shades included. It works in Raman Raghav 2.0 only

because he has two very talented actors backing up his slightly weak

spined screenplay - Nawazuddin Siddiqui and Vicky Kaushal.

Given the way 'Bombay Velvet' was received, the expectation behind

Anurag Kashyap's next was always going to be a factor in the way Raman

Raghav was going to be received. A lot of us would have expected Anurag

to have gone all out, but there is a certain amount of restraint that

comes through in his handling of the screenplay. His leads though, have

no such restraints in their portrayal. 'He said my eyes used to glow in

the dark' says one and 'how can you stay with someone who puts anything

into his nostrils, his veins?' says the other.

Vasan Bala's screenplay with Anurag Kashyap - walks through streets of

Mumbai - grime, sweat and ripe(with decay) colours painted roughly on

the screen. While the actual Raman Raghav 2.0 terrorized Mumbai with

random killings, the contemporary Sindhi Dalwai takes inspiration from

him only to paint his own gory graffiti in Mumbais slums. Duality is an

interesting dynamic - crime and punishment, criminals and policemen,

God and the Devil - Anurag Kashyap works with Venn diagrams showing us

where a circle stops and where another begins and where they intersect

but perhaps pulls back too soon - to use his own cinematic language. We

are at times left languishing for more of the whys and wherefores even

though some may argue open- endedness being paramount.

Siddiqui - bright eyed, unkempt and thoroughly scary pulls off another

top tier performance yet never goes over the top keeping everything

under the surface. A short run up of his, helmet clad and dragging a

tyre iron quite literally sends us backing into the seat knowing whats

going to happen next. Vicky Kaushal on the other hand, as has been the

discussion since his performance is a surprise package. A police launda

who cannot bear to keep himself away from any kind of high, his

neurotic and taut performance complements Siddiquis frightening

psychosis but we end up feeling we see too much of (a weakly

scripted)Raghav when we want to see more of Siddiqui.

Ram Sampath has scored the movie and the constant thrumming in the

background helps set the mood for the bashing-in-of-the-skull and

assorted goings on off screen. The camera handled by Jay Oza helps us

waltz through the muck and blood always keeping a perspective of

Siddiqui and Kaushal on screen even when they aren't physically present

in the frame.

Incisive as the acting and story set up is, we still come away wanting

more - two factors contribute to this. The editing could have been a

little more sharper, condensing the story to what it should be and the

screenplay should have been tighter when it came to the why's which is

where the editing might have contributed as well. The hype behind Raman

Raghav 2.0 and the trailers promised devilishness of the kind we were

used to from Anurag Kashyap in Ugly, Gulaal et al. What we realise is

that his latest is not so Ugly.

Our rating - Three and a half stars out of a possible five.

Pure(itanical) Horror - The VVitch

Witches have always been the source of myriad emotions - and that in this, our enlightened age, the 21st century. 'The Witch' (stylized as The VVitch) is more of a fable - almost a surreal catechism. It is not, of course, something that judders your bones and causes you to jump out of your seat. Rather, the atmosphere puts us back in the New England of the Puritans. Would you question God and if you do, well you have pledged your allegiance to the devil is the circumstance in which we find ourselves.

Robert Eggers remarks that the film was made to be a Puritans nightmare, something directly out of the mind of a 17th century New England-er. And such a nightmare, given its time would have to be purely inherited. We are treated to how this nightmare is inherited as well, with a father-son sequence that isn't about bees and bird but more about how humans are born and bred in sin and redemption is a distant dream. Never are we allowed to distance ourselves from the fact that the family who's life we are deposited into do not exactly have a happy life of living off their produce. William, the head of the family,banished from the plantation where he lived and farmed with his then pregnant wife, sons and daughters builds a modest farm at the edge of the woods. The rest of the story is designed to be and works as a beautiful bed time horror story.

Before we get to the actors, I would be remiss if I did not mention that Robert Eggers is first and foremost a production designer, someone who and I quote 'if I got asked for dirty green curtains, I gave them the best dirty green curtains they'd get'. The proof of course is the clawing natural light photography, faithful production design, costumes and imagery. His sense of design extends and is shared by his team in researching New England Puritan history and most of the dialogue and helps in the time travel we are subject to. Cinematographer Jarin Blaschke and composer Mark Korven lend beautifully atmospheric imagery and background score so much so that at a certain point in the tension, silence has already etched a melody in our minds.

The cast in the meanwhile almost seem as committed to the movie as the Vatican was to killing off women of wisdom in the middle ages. Ralph Ineson, Anya Taylor-Joy, Kate Dickie, Harvey Scrimshaw, Ellie Grainger and Lucas Dawson comprise the entire cast save a couple of supporting actors. Not only does keeping a small circle of actors the main cast pay off in terms of keeping us engrossed to their fate, it also shows us the darkness that descends on them. The actors are almost fiercely committed to the movie, mouthing their 'thou''s and 'thy''s with such casual conviction that we are sucked into the soul of their plight. Anya and Kate Dickie in particular and it should come as no surprise are brilliant in their characters.

Without going into too many details, 'The VVitch' if it were necessary to be described in comparison would be in the same coven as 'The Shining'. Moody, atmospheric, generative and degenerative, the images flicker across the retinas like out of a crystal ball that has told you the future, murky and realistic at the same time. When a cold dreary sky is offset by a thick brownish grey wood, when the wind blows across a reinforced barn roof and howls down the chimney, when the rising full moon is blurred by the cast of a shadowy fear - 'The Witch' wins you over in the chills it sends down your spine. It is not be missed as a classic concocted in genius fashion in the masterful hands of Robert Eggers, Jarin Blaschke and Mark Korven.

Batman v Superman : Dawn of Justice - A comic fans late (3/5) review

Batman is a comic figure that almost all of us can identify with. The psychological reasons are numerous - starting from the shallow, for example - who doesn't want to be a billionaire playboy who gets to play around with gadgets that can potentially kill and maim! The broader psychological reasons would be along the lines of anyone being receptive to the idea of facing their inner demons and facing them in a way that helps not only them but the society that bereaved them. And the caped crusader became something of an inner answer that resonates with the interpretation of most of the authors who have spun stories around this legend clad in gray and black.

Why go into all that, you ask? Well, because its been a puzzling month for the bat-fan in me. While I abstained from reading reviews before the latest installment featuring the Bat on the silver screen came out, I was aware of the heavy expectations riding on this particular outing. Warner has long wanted to launch their Justice League world and given the success of Man of Steel it was only logical that the sequel be used to hint at it. I say hint but Zack and Charles Roven might have had different ideas and used this as a pedestal. They literally built this universe up and used the latest outing of Batman and the continuation of the Man of Steel to launch an extended universe. Should they have been heavy handed even though they were invested in it? I don't know. But the spate of sour reviews that I read after I watched it, were, for want of any other word, overwhelming. 

Given there has been a lot of objectification of reviews which are supposed to be subjective, here is a quick rundown of what critics' popular opinion is, here's what I think wasn't very good about the movie and should have been addressed for sure -

1. Superman's mum has a name, Batman's mum has a name. Zack Snyder sissies up one of the darkest screen hero's of all time. It is not done, I accept this view, there are no two words about it. I officially hate the name 'Martha' and I totally agree with popular opinion here - this was a bit of a lame-i-fication of the dark knight.
2. Superman's love interest literally has Superman on a leash, be it in the African continent or in Metropolis. Who wants to watch a sappy female lead who sort of takes the movie away from where it is going? To everyone else who disliked Amy Adams' role in the movie - Am with you, I'd say delete her role, maybe drop her off a cliff with Kryptonite at the bottom and be done with it.

And here's where I wont agree with what some of the critics seem to be harping on -

1. Rehashing an origin story - Zack Snyder showed the reason why Batman is Batman - starting from a young boy uplifted by the realisation of his fear to a battle worn warrior who will do all it takes to protect his own. For some reason, almost all critics who dislike the movie seem to be seeking a new sort of handling of the only possible story of the Bat. Me - I see nothing wrong with Zack's take.
2. Lex Luthor - Jesse Eisenberg according to most of my friends in India channels Shahrukh Khan. A fleshed out psycho, someone who does not consider meddling with things vastly beyond his control as dangerous, in exchange for knowledge. For that is his primary aim. The majority of critics seem to this this is a fault - given Shahrukh Khan, I'd say it was if I didn't believe Jesse managed to elevate the role to what was needed in this particular DC universe. There is something frightening about a man who is prepared to give up his humanity just to see what comes next or to put down a force he does not understand, Jesse show us that - scornful 'ding ding ding' included.
3. Too Dark - this was another common verdict. I have no basis for comparison to a statement like that. There have never been consistent sunny skies, happy people or forced humor. I am unsure what the expectation of critics was but the tone set by the film was consistent with the happenings of the past few years in the Justice Leagues universe
4. Too Unfunny - See above, can't say much except that well...its not supposed to be a funny movie!
5. Too serious - There is an alien who has superpowers, there has been large scale disaster and a feeling of unrest and doubt all over the world. In the sister city of where the alien spends most of his time is a vigilante who fights crime primarily by instigating fear among criminals. When they come face to face, to kill or to be killed,  I cannot see any justification to why this situation can be not serious.
6. Too many visions - A story teller usually employs everything he can in terms of words, in a movie the director being the story teller needs to use visuals to get us through a story. Do these visuals need to be in sequence, especially when we are dealing with concepts of multiverses and visions that might not be current? Non-linearity is not seen as an issue elsewhere so in a serious movie I cannot accept it as a serious flaw. In my opinion - almost all the Knightmares worked well

Given the blockbuster nature of the movie, casting was always a question mark and when Ben Affleck was announced as the next Batman, almost the same frenzy as the reviewing ended up with a petition against his casting. But then I was not very surprised to see Ben Affleck owning the character in this Bat universe. Admitted, Henry Cavill can't emote beyond a raised eyebrow, but his story continues on as a conflicted metahuman and comes through a full arc. In case I wasn't clear earlier Jesse Eisenberg could not have played Alexander Luthor better - hungry and greedy to know, to be two steps ahead and to surpass physical manifestations of power and take control.Amy Adams should have been killed off with the supposed Jimmy Olsen character, don't get me wrong, am a big fan of hers but she just sapped Superman's mojo! But the rest of the supporting cast did quite good - Jeremy Irons is perfect (read Batman - Earth One if you want to catch my drift further). We get brief glimpses of the upcoming Justice League and without seeing too much action we can only say that Flash has been cast really well.

A major highlight - Wonder Woman was great, we loved her, the critics loved her because well they can't ignore entire movie theaters cheering when her theme twanged out. Gal Gadot has been called different things, too skinny, not busty enough, does not have a repertoire fit for Wonder Woman but when she smiles that derisive smile after being thrown around by Doomsday - well, that's enough to call bullshit on all her critics. The fact that out of all the rotten reviews if one thing stood out it was Gal Gadot, says something about the strength of her performance. Wonder Woman was always a tough character to have brought to screen, especially given the costume, the lasso of truth and the as yet un-introduced mode of transport she uses. But Gal and Zack ensure our disbelief is suspended and how.

The movie is beautifully shot - am going to be called names for this, but its almost a mix of impressionist and classical painting styles. Shots of chiaroscuro post apocalyptic visions, sharper than normal icy landscapes, brightly lit caves and sombrely lit congressional committees add to a story line where the alien threat on humanity adds confusion to not only the normal population but the meta humans themselves. Visions or Knightmares as they have been termed haunt Batman's consciousness along with a visitation by Flash in full armour asking if he is too soon. Sometimes reading a chapter is not reading the novel. Zack Snyder pays full homage to the comic origin of Cyborg and the abilities of Aquaman and the Flash in the quick peek we get into other metahumans existing among Waynes World (if you'll pardon the pun).

Junkie XL and Hans Zimmer pound out a score worthy of the first time DC's most popular superheros clash on screen. The raw violins, cellos, bass guitars and the metal added to every instrument churning out a tune fits in with the sombre nature of the story where Zack pays homage to a lot of different takes of Superman and Batman meeting in combat. Did I mention Wonder Woman's them? The tribal barrelling of the cello literally makes ones hair stand on end, no wonder the human mind that resonates with certain frequencies, felt the need to cheer when wonderful casting, perfect action and superb music score combined on screen. Batmans' theme in case someone paid a little attention is another of those perfect scores - subtle but noticeable and effective. Overall, what was described as over-loud, in my opinion suited the mood of the movie superbly, especially when the Bat and the Alien face each other off.

I'll quote a friend who is also a great screen writer - 'Movies should not come with instruction manuals'. And that having been said, I do not understand the 'business' of movie critiquing anymore. While it is always welcome that everyone who can express their views should, not even watching a movie but feeling entitled to critique it is something I came across for the first time in the bloodbath that was the review storm for 'Batman v Superman : Dawn of Justice'.

Should the video with meta humans have been left to a post-credits scene is a question that I would answer to with a yes but apart from these points(around 6 minutes of editing like I mentioned earlier) this is a perfectly good addition as a world builder. A few swift cuts, and a bit of repositioning in the narrative would have made this the best comic book movie ever. The latest outing of Batman and Superman is worth three stars out of five and it definitely did not deserve the abuse it received, again in our humble opinion.

Kapoor & Sons - Since 1921 - It is all in the closet

Indian families aren't simple places to grow up in. Not only do we have a convoluted family tree because of joint families living together from aeons ago, we also pass down sensibilities via the family way. Children are very often asked questions like - 'who do you love more, your mother or your father?'; 'why can't you be more obedient like your brother?' ; 'why can't you be more soft spoken, like the girl across the street?'. And these are questions that not only have answers drilled deep into young minds, they also imprint behavioral patterns in them. No wonder then that dynastic families of actors are even more complicated - well 'Kapoor and Sons - Since 1921' definitely isn't a movie about film dynasties but it does have Rishi Kapoor - who after a long series of strange characters, plays a lovable nonagenarian in a clan that has its full cupboard of skeletons.

The movie is directed by Shakun Batra and starts up like 'The Darjeeling Limited' does - as a sort of comedy of dysfunctional family members. The nonagenarian having had a genuine heart attack after playing at dropping dead for a long time results in the homecoming, at least for a short while, of his two grandchildren - the perfect son Rahul who is a published novelist living in London and Arjun who aspires to be a successful novelist and is working bars in America while trying to reach his goal. Their mum and dad, played by Ratna Pathak and Papa Kapoor(played by Rajat Kapoor - not of the other Kapoor clan) have their own issues. The sojourn of the grandsons provides a platform for all the actors to gather together on the stage and takes us through what I feel is one of the best comedy dramas of contemporary Hindi cinema.

Shakun Batras innate understanding of characters and typical situations in a family almost feels too good to be true for a Bollywood movie and leaves us highly satisfied even though the acting is a little rough around the edges in the younger department - Siddharth Malhotra and Alia Bhatt seem a little wooden while Fawad Khan(free of the trappings of inane comedies like the earlier movie he did with Sonam Kapoor, the title for which I do not even want to remember) is definitely going places. His angst as a 'perfect son' remains slightly unbalanced on the other end by Siddharth Malhotra's (who for the most part is convincing) overly taut jawed performance of a younger sibling who has always been compared to the elder and cannot seem to catch a break. Alia Bhatt acts as herself for most of the movie but fails to emote in the one crucial scene she is required to. All in all, the direction keeps us engrossed to the point that we don't notice the acting hiccups - mostly.

By stages, 'Kapoor & Sons' leads us down a laugh gallery into dark alleys and then proper melodrama. Where it succeeds is that not one bit of our journey feels strange - there is almost a constant feeling of identification with what the characters are going through. Every relationship needs a lot of work to substantiate it as does every family which inevitably has buried secrets. The difference in this Kapoor family is that the patriarch is not a french beard sporting accented gentleman, the sons are not swaggering mules who think they are imports when in fact they are exports. The characters are for the most part, grounded and identifiable and the location - Coonoor, ties it all down neatly into a movie with verdant highs and shaded lows and tangible middles. Par for the acting being low, I would still rate this one of the best Hindi dramedies of late.

We at Paradise Talkies rate it 4 stars out of a possible five.

Star Wars : The Force Awakens - a tick in every box

Not that that is ever a bad thing - a tick in every box. But sometimes the fastidiousness of the ticking does make us not want to relish a movie as much as we otherwise would. George Lucas opened the minds of the 70's to adventure that wasn't strict science fiction - it bundled romance, villainy, hope and the idea of an all encompassing 'force' that just stuck with audiences and would not let go. So much so that when he made his average prequels (don't have too much to complain about 'Revenge of the Sith'), a movie commentator observed that the movie does not even need to be watched for it to turn a profit, such was its success as a franchise. But we digress - post his 4 billion USD landfall profit from his sale of this lucrative franchise to Disney, George moved away from the creative cockpit. The world has waited with bated breath over the past three years to see what J.J.Abrams can bring to the cantina table and the verdict is - he does not disappoint.

Episode VII - The Force Awakens is everything that a moviegoer would want from a blockbuster - the return of characters beloved to fans, the continuance of a superb music score (more on that in the following paragraphs), a story that springs surprises and leaves us euphoric with a pace that sags in the middle but otherwise punches through to light-speed more often than not. At the same time, it would be remiss of anyone who has followed the original trilogy to not notice that 'The Force Awakens' is in fact more of an up to date remake of 'A New Hope' with the nicer bits of 'The Empire Strikes Back' and 'The Return of the Jedi' thrown in. Does that warrant the price of whatever you pay in your neck of the woods for an IMAX ticket(believe me, no other format does this movie justice) - I would say go for it, especially if you're not an old fan and are new to the series(not that there are too many of you weirdos around).

The casting choices are excellent what with the trio from the previous trilogy showing their age. Peter Mayhew and company are back as Chewbacca, R2D2 and C3PO. The newer generation (pardon the ugly pun) is represented by Daisy Ridley, John Boyega and a sublime Adam Driver. Given we all know Harrison, Carrie and Marks' prowess in front of a camera lets move on to the newcomers. Daisy Ridley plays a desert scavenger who's destiny inevitably is what we are going to learn about in the movies to come. It is a little disappointing to see the brilliant Oscar Isaac restricted to a few scenes with a bit of smart trigger happy dialogue bits and a bit of pizzazz. John Boyega plays his part well as a stormtrooper whos not convinced about his day job. There are a fair bit of cameos but Max Von Sydow's extremely small role as a possible force adept disappointed me. Maybe we'll get to see a bit more of him? Daniel Craig, Simon Pegg, JJ's friend Grunberg all have cameos including that person who originally played the most active Ewok(yes, I know his name and no am not being rude). A note on the CGI only characters - we never get to see Supreme Leader Snoke in person - he seems to tower over everyone in a couple of holo-transmits but Andy Serkis is once again relegated to mocap histrionics as is Lupita Nyong'o who plays Maz Kanata(another possible force adept perhaps). Also before I forget we've got a female captain of Stormtroopers (plus you'll see that the First Order has in a span of 30 years gotten more or less gender equal as has the Resistance) in Captain Phasma(we never get to see Gwendoline Christies face behind the gold stormtrooper helmet).

Now that we've gotten everyone else out of the way, Adam Driver can be discussed. We get introducted to this new helmeted warrior who's working with the First Order as egged on by Supreme Leader Snoke and in conjunction with General Hux(did I miss out on mentioning Domnhall Gleeson? Well, he's there and is menacing and we get to see his face stretch across an Imax screen contorted with..er..menace). A lot has been spoken of his portrayal of this character that we are sure is going to arc across the current set of three episodes. Without giving away too many spoilers, his portrayal of a wayward son being tempted by forces he wants to align with but realises are way beyond his control is brilliant. Petulance, anger, curiosity, helplessness and sheer menace ripple through in his performance. Yes he does smash up equipment and generate what can only be interpreted as amused consternation among the storm troopers when they are not in complete terror contemplating what he's going to do next. But the crazy uncertainty gives us a lot of tense expectation as well. His tall, gaunt frame and almost innocent eyes add to the darkness of Kylo Ren's presence on screen. Of all the positive additions to the new cast, Adam Driver stands out - tall, force-enabled and menacing.

This would also bring us to another positive continuance of the Star Wars saga - John Williams. In my fan-deluded view, I would venture to say his score is almost driven by the force. This story, as was 'A New Hope' plays out along the formula of a modern space opera and while Mr.Williams ensures we realise we are watching Star Wars, unlike JJ, he keeps this a creation of its own. Be it Rey's theme which is slightly melancholy or the track that accompanies a chase of the millenium falcon(did I forget to mention its possibly one of THE best flight chase sequences choreographed?), the music pops a very slight hint of a trumpeting fanfare or a melodic interlude on strings that will tap into your nostalgia. The score literally creeps through Kylo Ren's abductions and blasts through an X-Wing attack, it reminds you of Han and his royal love and gives you goosebumps when it flows into the Force theme. For want of a better word to describe this and without any intention of landing a pun - the music by John Williams is stellar.

To return to a story that has been well established and taken through an arc at some length is always a dicey project to undertake. And when the fan base is skewed heavily in favour of a movie that was first released in the seventies and has more man-boys(and women-girls) in its fan following, it does make sense to endeavour to please them. But is that the prerogative of an auteur is the question people are asking of JJ, Would you rather not displease the fans and ensure the box office is a kicker or would you bring a little originality into the picture? Ah well, the question has been answered to the pleasure of (apparently), the mild discomfort of a certain number and the open scorn of a certain other demography. My verdict - 'The Force Awakens' is a good addition to the Star Wars saga but I would certainly not rate it on par with the mind-blower that I had expected. And yes, that does skew towards being judgemental - but I will side with those of us that yield ownership of a creation to the creator but appreciation of it purely to the patrons. After all, we are not talking about modernist art, we are talking about a well loved and established science fable.

My rating - 7/10

Wild tales - colour me amazed!

There is a certain thing about multi-story movies that make them not really the best of movies to be able to appreciate. For one, sometimes there is no clear border of when something ends and when something starts. And sometimes, thats what is necessary but does not exist, at other times there is no flow and its like your feet are stuck in the swamp of one short and cannot move into another. Amazingly, none of these things happen in Relatos Salvajes, Damian Szifron's extraordinary Argentinian surprise. I was not surprised to see that this excellent feature was nominated for the Best Foreign-Language Film Oscar in 2015 given its beautifully clever, entertaining and cohesive wit.

The stories that are brought together as neatly as the packaging of a cake in 'Bombita' are more often that not dark and laced with perhaps darker humour. 'Pasternak' to start with starts ringing the ominous bell in the viewers head within about 2 minutes and while we have an inkling of whats to come, it brings out the shadowed areas in ones psyche by making us actually relish the happenings on screen. One does not have to be intelligent to guess whats coming next but did the director actually think of what he's stirring up in the viewers mind? I would rate this one of the best opening takes among almost all of the movies I've seen in the past five years.

The second short 'The Rats' reminded me of something I noticed in Agatha Christies 'Murder on the Orient express'. Sometimes, there is a notion created around a character that literally smells and the subtlety with which the notion is created provides a lot of satisfaction, no doubt to the auteur as well as the viewer. No one likes a condescending man, but is that enough for revenge thats best served with ketchup? Moral boundaries are a thing of the past in todays swift moving non judgemental world but when an individual insists on having moral boundaries, the only thing to check is the expiration date and the only thing to wonder about is, does a thing get more or less strong after its exprired? What better way to leave a question unanswered if not with a question itself.

The third short 'Road to Hell' is explained expertly by a question my wife asked of me when we were in the middle of it - Are they trying to discourage me from ever taking a road trip in an unknown country? Class differences are a big part of contemporary life - have you ever overtaken a slowpoke who tries to keep you from moving forward in a fast lane and then given him/her the finger? If you answer yes or even if you answer no, this little short is an explosively darkly humorous look at actions and consequences. It even led me to wonder about the false bravado of all of us man children when it comes to maybe a little bit of verbal provocation. An excellently edited bit of cinema, again we do not feel its been almost an hour into the movie when we get to the end of this.

Modern and large cities often have issues related to their locally legislated laws when it comes to utilities. The next short reminded me too much of the city I currently live in - Bangalore and also a few other cities from around the world. There is a part where the frustrated protagonist of 'Bombita' explains that just working for a thief does not distance one from the thievery. The exasperation of an average city dweller is made to go through our brain like a fever in this story of a normal man taking on almost the role of a revolutionary when the system brutally forces him to do so without explicitly targeting him. Every one of us is part of this macabre system and so is justice. As one of the women in 'The Rats' explains - too many of us watch the evil around us without doing anything about it. A good movie almost always succeeds in the amount of empathy it generates and 'Bombita' is a wildly successful little short.

Which brings us to 'The Deal'. I was reminded of Salman Khan in not too subtle a way and that again shows the winning nature of this movie. True cinema is nothing but a reflection of real life and the deal through its corrupt shades of black, grey and yellow shows us the truly pathetic nature of governing bodies and the people who are supposed to bring us justice. It resonated more in my hollow skull because of a recent incident where I saw a cop came over to collect 10 rupees from a bhel puri stand and the similarity world wide is underlined only in the corruption of it all. In my mind I had another title for the short movie popped in - The Negotiator.

The last short left me with one word in the back of my mind - bittersweet. What better than a wedding scene - one of the best and most raucous to boot - than to frame a twisty bendy dark tale of romance and human nature around. Without going into details the fickle nature of modern relationships is analysed in great detail in wide, zoomed, tracked shots that follow people around in the banquet hall of what looks like a high rise hotel and moves between its kitchens, corridors, the terrace and back to the banquet hall. The human mind sometimes only accepts what it wants and nothing else - no less no more and sometimes it breaks down and other times it puts itself together. As someone once said it is the seat of savage grace and 'Till death do us part' puts this in perspective.

These are probably winners as individual short stories, but when put together there is something about them that flows like a dark rippling current in the background of all these stories. Sometimes it causes our heart to jump into our throat, our eyes to widen, our inner mind to smirk with satisfaction and at other times it just makes us nod along in approval and acknowledgement. In this participation that Szifron entices out of us with his movie, he wins and wins in a fashion that makes him an international director to watch out for and his movies, features that we would want to await.

Five stars in my book.

Cinema Paradiso - a long delayed review

I was musing over the state of cinema in India, sitting all alone in a cafe, sipping on a much too sweet coffee concoction when the similarity of the over saturated beverage reminded me of the censorship that has been going on of late, trying to 'over sweeten' our cinema, purify our souls, so to say. A movie that I had watched and rewatched within a 2 month period in 2004 exploded back into memory and made me realise that if I do not write about it now, it is as much a sin as putting up with the censorship in its current state in Indian cinema.

I am reminded of the character of the priest in Giuseppe Tornatore's classic. A subtly vengeful vessel of Gods virtue, the priest is the purveyor of the local cinemas' latest flavour and suggests cuts that he deems necessary to preserve the virtue of the local people. The ring of his altar boys bell signals a scene that needs to be cut by the projectionist - most often a scene that has a kiss. A scene is framed - a bell rings, the movie stops, the projectionist cuts the scene out and throws the discarded film into a corner where it piles up into a tribute of smooches that was meant to be seen but will never grace the screen of 'Cinema Paradiso' - the local movie house in Giancaldo, Sicily. The priest from just after World War II is the same bane that has landed in Indias censor board - regression.

The two principal characters of the movie Salvatore, a young boy and Alfredo, the projectionist live within their shared home of the projection booth. The former is drawn to cinema from a very young age, the other is steeped in it and often quotes classics to sound his opinion. Failing in his attempts to chase the young Salvatore away, Alfredo slowly accepts his presence in the projection booth. While watching Alfredo struggle with the unwieldy old projector with its high nitrate (yes, remember Inglourious Basterds?) devoid-of-kisses films, Salvatore discovers his metaphorical parents - Alfredo being his father and movies nurturing his hunger for cinema just as a caring mother would.

My wish after my love for cinema blossomed has always been to have a theater like Cinema Paradiso in my neighbourhood showing a random mix of movies, albeit my fantasy would have been movies playing as the director intended them to be seen. The audience themselves are a story unto themselves - communicating with the characters on screen as though each of them were an unruly director, claiming the movie for their own. Romance blossoms, friendship gets sealed, wine consumed and the movies play in a pall of overhanging cigarette smoke. An ode to cinema, we see Chaplin, John Wayne and a load of other movies being played in Cinema Paradiso. But the vessel of virtue having established his dictat, the characters may romance to the point of giving each other burning looks but their lips never meet. 

Jacques Perrin plays the grown up Salvatore who is pulled back to his childhood village when he learns of the death of old Alfredo, played by Phillipe Noiret. His childhood(young Salvatore played by Salvatore Cascio and the adolescent self by Marco Leonardi) is recounted for us, his love, his angst and his deep relationship with cinema developing and maturing for us to see. What blossoms in the fire of desire is also sometimes lost in the same fire. And we pass through his rites of passage leading into the death of cinema. His love and our love for cinema though are kept burning through Tornatore's passionate recounting of what almost seems like his own young age. 

Cinema Paradiso sealed my affinity to cinema in a few simple and some very complex ways. In sharing my love for cinema I have of late been projecting onto a wall at home movies and shows that I love and like to watch, I get delighted in some surprising ways when I least expect it. Even with that, I can barely start to imagine the strong effect that cinema would have had in a post war village with not much in the way of entertainment. A scene that also sealed itself into memory was one where the image being projected is reflected out of a window onto a town wall. A strange feeling in the pit of my stomach makes me yearn for the images that my mind produces to be thrown across such a wall so people may see them, relate to them, encourage them, complain about them, swear at them - and none of those images would be censored. No one person or group of people may be allowed to censor a persons right to express/project their views, their stories, their love onto the wall of viewership. India where cinema has such a profound effect on peoples thinking would benefit a lot if its censor board gleaned the spirit of Cinema Paradiso. In the spirit of saluting cinema, I make this my first post in 'Our Paradise Talkies'.

PT rating - 4 stars and a half

How to get closure from misogynists and other things!

Written on 10th September 2015.

Dear Abhishek YS Gowda and family,

I am taking to the social media because I believe in the power of the pen or my keyboard case in question. An incident happened between us today and I was not able to voice myself because -
1. You asked me to ‘shut up' and
2. I suffer from an anxiety disorder
Let me explain a little about my anxiety disorder. I don’t take well to high stress situations. I start crying, not because I want to but because thats what an anxiety attack results in. I lose my breath. My chest aches. I tremble. And I feel faint. You witnessed it today. I was sobbing and struggling to breathe and that only seemed to spur you on. I dont blame you. My brother too does not quite understand anxiety attacks (Sorry dear brother, I know you love me!). However, this is not my issue of focus today. Depression is extremely poorly understood in India.

The purpose of this open letter is for you to see reason. Was there need for you to shout at me and exert authority? Lets reminisce. I parked my car at an approved, designated legal parking place by the park on 15th A main road in Yelahanka New Town. The same place I park my car everyday. At this point of time I did not realise that you had done the most commendable, selfless deed of all. You had cemented the pothole in front of your house. To warn people to not go over the cement you had placed half a brick and some tiny granite pieces. You wanted the traffic on the road to pass through, not on the road but through the parking space, where I had so unwittingly parked my car. I apologise. I sincerely do. I did not have the common sense to observe that there were tiny pieces of bricks on the road in a locality where house construction is common. I did not stop to notice that a few scattered red bricks that a car with the lowest possible ground clearance could run over was your actual signal to divert traffic flow away from the precious cement patch. 

But this was no reason for you to flatten my cars tyres, eh AGs? Not just did you flatten the front tyres of my car but your entire family so kindly awaited my return to give me an earful. Naive me! I actually thought that the tyres were punctured (not flattened out of malice) and I called my brother for help. I recognised the lady who was yelling at me from old memories! I recognised the husband of the lady, he recognised me. How could he not when we have a bit of history? Nice man confessed to his “boys” flattening the tyres and tried to diffuse the tension by offering to get the tyres fixed! I backed off. 

Why did I cry? I was crying like a baby because I felt helpless. Alone. Cornered. Punished for legally parking a damn car. I could’ve called the police. But why bother? What would be the outcome? Do you even know what I mean? I get so discouraged, and yes, DISTURBED by this society you and I live in. It has become absolutely pointless to follow rules, pay tax, to look after 15 stray dogs, to encourage the education of 13 children in a government school, to set up a free library, to think its absolutely okay to share personal wealth, to want equality, to expect accountability, to prevent chopping of trees or to stand up for equality. I mean, why should I bother when there are people like you out there to punish me and hurl impertinent gender comments at me?

You know nothing about me but you judged me! You abused me because I complained about living in this bloody country. Why should I feel proud about living here when someone like you can work outside the law and get away with it? Or should I feel proud of all the bravado my fellow Indian brothers displayed because a girl stood up to question them?  Obstruction to public property, road or parking space is a punishable offence. If you had obtained permission, kind BBMP or BTP would've supplied you with barricades and we could've avoided this situation altogether! Forget BBMP or BTP, we could've avoided this situation if you had a little bit of patience to give me the benefit of doubt. Benefit of doubt that I probably would not have parked my car there had I noticed the cement repair. Instead you indulged in vandalism, which my patriotic friend, is a criminal offence. 

You disrespected me for talking in English (which I do when I’m anxious! Did you notice how much I stammered?) You said I should've lived in England because I studied there for a few years. You called me names. You did not care to listen or see why. Know what? You could not have been more wrong! Did you know that I never wanted to leave India in the first place, even if it was to study, and I did so only due to personal circumstances? Did you know that the first English publication I ever bought and read was Freedom at Midnight by Lapierre and Collins or that I once scored a 124/125 in Kannada. Did you know that I want the peacock throne back in Delhi (along with half the wealth the Britishers took) or that Kingfisher is my favourite beer?  Did you know that my favourite song in the whole wide world is the title track of Shankar Nag’s Geetha or that I love Guddada Bhootha? Did you know that I strongly want Girish Kasaravalli to win DadaSaheb Phalke or that I believe Kannada should be a compulsory language in every school in Karnataka? Did you know that I go to the Sahyadris every monsoon because thats where I think heaven is? Did you know that all I have ever wanted to do in terms of a profession in life since I was 15 years old is to farm, to settle down in my mother's village near Doddaballapur where I was born and may be let my life be of some use to people who'll let it? 

I stand by what I said. I hate living in this country. I'm a normal human being. I cannot be strong all the time. Not when my beliefs, principles and actions are questioned by people who have none. Not when I'm being exploited. Not when regular people think its their right to punish me. I will hate living in this country for as long as I will be stared at, for as long as I run into paedophiles from my past who have gotten away scot free. For as long as I will be bullied for being educated or yelled at solely because I am a woman, I will hate living in this country of double standards and will say so, out LOUDLY, when a woman comes to me and says "You're a girl. Learn to behave like a girl! " to defend her SON. 

But I’m not leaving. This is where I belong. I cannot change the way every person thinks but if I can help one, I will! 

I don’t know you. I don’t judge you. Please don’t judge me harshly because I’m a girl who wears pants and talks back to boys. I have a bloody opinion about MY country because I care! Even if its in English! I pray you understand!

P.S. This is post is not related to any other Abhishek Gowda who is not a resident of Yelahanka, Bangalore.

Birdman – A thing is a thing, not what is said of that thing

‘The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance’ appears as an alternative title to ‘Birdman’. Walk into the theater having known nothing about the movie and the virtue of ignorance will dawn upon you as well when you walk out. Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu and his merry men have crafted a movie of such supreme emotional impact that the end, if you are like me, it will leave you both dejected and elated. The fifth feature film to be directed by Inarritu is a layered dramedy dipping into the darkly comic nature of human ego and psyche, self deprecating, uplifting and sublime all around. The director shares writing credits with Nicolas Giacobone, Alexander Dineralis Jr and Armando Bo all of whom will end up being quizzed about its ending for quite some time to come.

In casting Michael Keaton as Riggan Thompson, a washed up post middle age actor who has not done anything of significance since playing titular comic hero in three movies, Inarritu stages his first coup. While Keaton assures us that his life is nothing like Riggans, people will make the unfortunate comparison and it does not help that there are numerous easter eggs pointing to little things that I am sure you will have fun identifying. But that does not make Birdman special, what does is a few unique things that Inarritu knew would make or break the movie. The treasure box cast, apart from Keaton, includes Ed Norton, Naomi Watts, Andrea Risenborough, Amy Ryan, Emma Stone and Zach Galifianakis. And no, it isn’t the simple fact that the cast is stellar. The almost magical quality of the movie comes from the delightful but painfully difficult process of combining extra long takes seamlessly to showcase the movie as one long continuously shot video. Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki(of Gravity fame) and Inarritu come up trumps in this department and score a fantastic win because of the way the comedy and the drama work in spite of the movie running like one long shot.

‘Birdman’ lampoons notions of blockbuster movie making and along the way a number of big names are dragged down into the satirical genius of the dialogue that goes on between the troubled actor, who is acting/directing/co-producting an adaptation of a Ray Carver’s plays, and his friends/crew. ‘Ambitious’ says Ed Norton to Keaton, spouting the first of many brash truisms while playing a method actor and probably pulling his own leg. A quick readup or a quick viewing of the many making-of featurettes available(though I don’t recommend this before you watch the movie) will give one an idea of the painstaking amount of choreography and rehearsal that has gone into achieving the end product. Delving into one characters reality while maintaining the reality of things taking place around that  character is difficult enough to achieve without having to keep the interaction between the other characters fresh. That is where the stellar quality of the cast really shines through. Most of the movie occurs within confined quarters(New York’s iconic St.James theater) with the climax alone leading us away from the square.

For a change(especially after Babel and Biutiful), Inarritu seems to have had a lot of fun with ‘Birdman’. Have I said enough about the movie being made to look like one continuous take? I can see your urgent nod and so I shall stop about that. He takes us through narrow corridors, backstage areas, make up rooms, theater balconies and Broadway rooftops on a journey of magical realism. And while he walks us through there is the punch of a fresh score by Antonio Sanchez that is mostly just drums and cymbals urging us on. Why the Academy of Motion Pictures thought it should be rejected is beyond me. Be it as it may that most of it is just classical music, putting music together for a movie like this is award worthy by itself. While Keaton gives us a forceful performance as Riggan with a moving and almost lacerating delivery of histrionics, Edward Norton (did I mention this before as well?) makes fun of himself while challenging Riggan and his quest. Naomi Watts’ character making her debut as a Broadway actress excels in a role which while neurotic has brilliant light and heavy themes. Zach is barely himself but still shows his acting chops in a character that seems to have been written for him(Scorcees you say, ah well maybe..). Emma Stone (incidentally the actor who according to Keaton and Norton messed up the most in the long takes) gives us another peek into her brilliant side playing Riggans troubled daughter with youthful ease.

When the end credits roll, and the last ‘fuck you’ has been directed by one indignant personality to another, the sense of exhilaration resulting from being a part of something unique is powerful. What is clear is that this is a movie that has come forth from a lot of hard work and maybe a greater amount of love. And when there is true labour of love, the end result is usually spectacular, only ‘Birdman’ is a little more than that. In making me consider that it might just surpass ‘The Grand Budapest Hotel’ this year in terms of its cinematic excellence, Birdman is pure unadulterated fun!

Five Stars.

Whiplash – There are no two words in the English language more harmful than ‘Good Job’.

A snare erupts, the cymbals whisper, the bass kicks in gently, the tom toms remain silent and the blood drips onto the drum kit. Throughout whiplash the tension is as palpable as a Michael Mann gangster flick, tangible and waiting to erupt. Director Damien Chazelle says that he made ‘Whiplash’ based on his memory of being a band student in his high school. Hopefully his memories aren’t as sharp and sometimes as traumatizing as the lead character Andrew Niemans.  The movie being Damien Chazelle’s debut, one wonders how much of a push he would give himself, ‘Whiplash’ being one constant push towards excellence, a tough hard push that does not wait for wounds to heal.

Miles Teller, whose last enjoyably transformative performance was in ‘The Spectacular Now’, plays Andrew Nieman in what could be for his career a massive qualitative boost. Notwithstanding the fact that he plays Stretch in the upcoming Fantastic Four reboot, ‘Whiplash’ would definitely provide him enough rooting in the drama genre to not be labelled a comic movie actor. Wikipedia tells us he has been drumming since he was 15 and practiced more intensely for his role as a first year student of the top music school in New York, Shaffer Conservatory. Also present in said school is Terence Fletcher, conductor of the best Jazz band in the school and naturally Andrew wants to be a part of the band. His perseverance is tested in 106 minutes of sharply cut ear-drum pleasing jazz goodness that gets a little nerve wracking from time to time.

Which brings us to Terence Fletcher, as played by J W Simmons - a no-nonsense Jazz expert who can spot tempo differences and match a 300 beats per minute tempo with around the same number of expletives when he finds a single instrument out of tune or a single beat missing in his score. While he has a quick ear for talent and attempts to use as much pressure as the earths crust on a spare bit of coal to bring out the diamond in his rare proteges, he does not care that he appears to everyone else a monster. I confess I was physically intimidated while watching Simmons’ kind face (that I remember from Spiderman and Juno) transition into spittle-flying, rage contorted, suture-like-vein-lined profile while he yelled into a face and drilled their impotence into them. As of last night Simmons holds 40 nominations(according to Wikipedia) out of which 34 have won him best supporting actor awards and 3 including the honor from the Academy are pending. Sadly for the other nominees, this visceral performance that matches some of the best efforts from the previous Academy category winners even matching some of the best method acting by the likes of Christian Bale in ‘The Fighter’, might just have the edge over them.

Damien Chazelle has accomplished something that isn’t exactly new but is definitely novel in that there are sequences where he manages to bring in the same amount of tension as a life or death situation to the interaction between a band conductor and his musicians. Miles Teller under the ably driven direction of Damien makes us appreciate the literal blood and sweat that goes into the percussive goodness that’s always a little underappreciated in most music. Jazz is something I am new to and to get a hit of what it sounds like while being put through the roller coaster that is ‘Whiplash’ is an experience that, if you are like us, will leave you clapping really loudly when the end credits roll(which we did, even though there were just the two of us watching the movie). The life of anyone who chooses to excel at something they love doing is not going to be simple. Add to that the best mentor that life can offer you being the person you want to be able to make proud but his methods aren’t exactly orthodox not to mention, well, human.

The two words that are capable of most harm in the English language are ‘Good Job’ says Fletcher while ruminating on his methodologies. In an age of over appreciation where every kid gets a gold medal for participation and every average job is given appreciation unquestioningly, Fletchers quote will resonate with almost all of us who strive for excellence. But how far can one push and be pushed until one loses ones humanity in the quest for perfection. ‘If you don’t have ability, you wind up playing in a rock band’ says a poster of Buddy Rich. Would you rather play in a rock band and enjoy what you are doing or would you skin your hands on your sticks playing that perfect ‘Whiplash’ so one of the best conductors of Jazz can smile at you with his eyes? The question is definitely not rhetorical and neither is it a simple yes or no. That in a nutshell is ‘Whiplash’, one of the best movies of 2014 and a movie that made me gain a little more respect for drummers.

Four stars.

Clint Eastwood is no stranger to war movies. His style of moviemaking though is something that all of us who’ve followed his efforts over time have come to be familiar with. With ‘American Sniper’, Eastwood departs a little from his usual style to present us with what looks like a normal cut and dried combat movie transitioning into a lot more within the span of its 133 minutes. The difficulty of a directing a war movie wherein the brutality of the story needs to be captured while placing the viewer in a position where the action is detailed and immersive but not overwhelming is converted into a skill by very few directors, Eastwood being one. Late in the movie a man describes the main character in the movie, Chris Kyle, to the latters’ son as a hero. The definition of heroism or the ambiguity of it forms the constant undercurrent that we are drawn to in ‘American Sniper’.

‘American Sniper’ revolves around the life of American Navy SEAL operative Chris Kyle portrayed on screen by Bradley Cooper. The flash backs to Kyles younger days show us a Texan cowboy inspired by a childhood principle that’s burnt into him to ‘protect his own’ leading him to joining his countrys defense forces specifically the SEAL’s. Deployed to Iraq and bearing the honor and pressure of being the sniper  ‘Legend’, as the troops in Iraq end up calling him because of his very special and eerily accurate sniping talent, the earnestness of Chris Kyle is brought out in what looks like a simple but would have been a tough job for Bradley Cooper given his usual self-assuredness . The very first shot shows us that its not the few ounces of pressure on the trigger of a long gun but the decision behind pulling the trigger that is the cause of trauma in the wars that are being waged.

Justifying his nomination for the best actor Academy, Bradley Cooper transforms himself into Chris Kyle by bulking up physically and aids Eastwood in providing the most direct perspective of Chris Kyles war – Kyles own point of view. Eastwood does not bother with justifications, ramifications or reasoning and instead puts us alongside Kyle. What starts off seeming like another clichéd approach to a war that was questioned more than any other in recent times, ‘American Sniper’ moves into more personal territory as we accompany Chris on his tours and his adjournments back home. Kyle who responds to a trainers question about a target with the reply that he is at his best when his target is breathing justifies to himself the taking of lives with the answer that each one he takes saves numerous others. The question never leaves him and Bradley Cooper’s brooding performance serves up his situation to us without any diluting. Eastwood and Cooper present us the side of the war that insists that violence is not being doled out because it is a quick means to an end but because it is necessary. Posing a dilemma on screen is not something that is simple but we are often posed with them during the course of the movie and therein lies the difference in Eastwood’s directing style. Interspersed with the gory results of Kyles impeccable aim are flag wrapped coffins being sent back home and there is no one answer to the question of morality in the time of war.

The rest of the cast composed of Sienna Miller and a diverse and varied set of people playing characters comprising Chris Kyle’s comrades at war, trainers at the Navy SEAL facility, veterans and of course the Iraqis, hold their own against Bradley Coopers defining performance. The editing is kept taut and to the point without unnecessarily burdening us with details while at the same time keeping information within its scope as deemed by scribe Jason Hall who has adapted it from the eponymous book.  The production design intrigued me with Humvees and actual sniping guns including the TAC 388A being used lending the movie the authentic point-of-view feel that it demands.

As reports would have it, Chris Kyle’s father seems to have met Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper(who co-produced) and after assuring them of his respect for them also assured them that he would unleash hell on them if his son’s story was not given the respect due to it. The subject matter being the cause of various international debates neither Eastwood not Cooper will be the subject of Mr.Kyle Sr’s threat given that they have managed to bring us a view from the other side of the looking glass. By the time we finish witnessing Kyle’s fourth tour we are of the state of mind where we tend to agree with his decision not to rush home but to first have a drink while waiting in a bar stateside. The scary nature of war where pressing the trigger has definitive results in terms of life and death, the reasoning behind the press of the trigger leading to more compunction than triumph is reason enough to respect the soldiers of war when their sole aim is to obey their orders and protect their brothers. What needs to be questioned is the necessity of war and violence which we will as part of my review of ‘The Imitation Game’.  Kyle’s story could have had a very Hollywood ending what with the effect of the war still apparent in him if not for his real life end. A different flavor of Clint Eastwood where he leaves the story behind the man to tell the tale.

Three and a half stars.

Predestination : What came first – the chicken or the egg?

My one-liner: What the f***?

The Spierig brothers (if like me you don’t recognize them yet, then after this movie you will) are German born Australian film makers. Their second feature with Ethan Hawke is a mind-bender of sorts that not only poses questions about time travel but also about the whole concept of being, at any one point of time, one entity and nothing else. Continuity is shown as a spun loop in a clever and satisfyingly open ended manner with relatively new entrant Sarah Snook playing a tough role with ease thus making Hawkes’ role seem almost like a foil. Watching it in the cinema would mean there is a strong possibility of returning to watch it again, however if one were watching it in the comfort of home, rewinding a few scenes is going to be inevitable.

Ethan Hawke is not unknown for his adventurous choice of movies, be it the horror thriller ‘Sinister’ or the Spierig brothers’ previous venture ‘Daybreakers’, the two time Academy Award nominee brings a grounded rootedness that make it seem like to have cast anyone else in the role would have been a folly. In choosing to star in the feature version of ‘All you zombies’ by Robert.A.Heinlein, Hawke once again shows his keen sense of picking out winners.  More of a revelation is aussie newcomer Sarah Snook who stars alongside Hawke and by the end of the movie corrects the notion to Hawke starring alongside her. Her innate sense of confidence and mature acting serves to only highlight her natural resemblance to Jodie Foster(does not take away anything from Sarah Snook) and her performance sort of lingers even after you finish watching her last shot in the movie.

The story loops around different decades but the brothers Spierig establish the ground rules very effectively within the first 25 minutes or so. And having those rules established makes viewing the movie and understanding the basic storyline that much easier for attentive viewers. The attention to detail is impressive, reflecting different eras like the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s etc in an easy and believable way without overcomplicating things. One thing that sort of didn’t completely make sense was the title itself, yes the word is bandied about a few times but never really explained in detail. However this could be a case of me being a little dimwitted and maybe the next couple of viewings (believe me, it will happen with you as well) will straighten things out. The make-up and special effects are beautifully understated and work very well in combination with the tone of the entire movie. Be it a 70’s era bar or a retro-futuristic training center from the 60’s the production design is excellent.

A lot can be said about the story but ‘Predestination’ is one of those movies where viewing it is an absolute pleasure as is figuring out the plot line. The trailer gives a simple picture of a temporal policing organization that prevents crimes(a la Philip K Dick stories). An agent is sent back to prevent the devastating attacks of the ‘Fizzle Bomber’. In his journey back in time he meets a man who names himself ‘The Unmarried Mother’ and says he can relate to the agent the best story he’s ever heard. A question posed to us again and perhaps again is that when confronted by the man who ruined one’s life what would one do when there is a guarantee of getting away with anything. Would death be such an easy thing to deal out or inflict? Time paradoxes are wonderfully interesting subjects that have been overdone in movies. But from time to time there comes along a movie that not only piques and sustains interest but prompts us to watch the movie a couple of more times for the sheer enjoyment of figuring out a puzzle. Full marks to the Spierig brothers, Michael and Peter, the latter of whom has also handled the background music superbly.

Three and a half stars

The Imitation Game review – Are you paying attention?

'The reason people like violence' – explains Turing in ‘The Imitation Game’ – 'is because it feels good and humans find it deeply satisfying. When the satisfaction is removed, violence and cruelty tend to become hollow'. Alan Turing, played by Benedict Cumberbatch, is shown trying to break the Enigma code, used by the Nazis during the Second World War to control and communicate with their troops across Europe, while facing the usual resentment that is faced by geniuses who more often than not end up being labelled odd. After an hour and a half of entertainment the movie leaves us  sad (for the second time in January) and critical of humanity and its unrelenting persecution of the majority perception of normality.

‘The Imitation Game’ is a movie that is not to be missed, if the obvious current form of Benedict Cumberbatch isn’t reason enough then there are quite a few reasons that assert said sentiment – Morten Tydlums direction, Graham Moore’s screenplay adapted from the book ‘Alan Turing – The Enigma’ and last but not least Alexandre Desplats haunting soundtrack. The single dialogue that I found annoying because of its repetition forms the core of the movie – Sometimes it is the people no one imagines anything of who do the things that no one imagines. As has been made obvious by the previews, the movie revolves around the small group of people, more specifically Alan Turing, who designed a code breaking machine as part of the British War effort and led to the ending of the Second World War. Without giving away any details the movie also deals with the delicate and deserved rights of homosexuals. Homosexuality as a behavioral pattern has been with us for ages and yet there are laws declaring it illegal(still) in parts of the world. One such (thankfully now obsolete) law cut short the life of Alan Turing, the man who pioneered digital computers  and ironically the winner of the Order of the British Empire for services rendered during the war. In showcasing the life of this unsung genius ‘The Imitation Game’ highlights the immensely ‘too little too late’ nature of the so called ‘Royal Pardon’ granted to Alan Turing by the Queen in 2013.

Benedict Cumberbatch is not new to playing iconic characters or dragons. As Sherlock, Khan Noonien Singh and as Smaug he gave us performances that brought joy to a viewer interested in the study of forceful personalities and their meticulous portrayal on screen. While it is excusable to initially be reminded of a more introverted Sherlock(if that is possible) when seeing Cumberbatch on screen as Turing, it is inexcusable if within the span of about 15 minutes, his nuanced and studied take cannot be appreciated. In the glassiness of his eyes, in the less flamboyant diction, in the dentures worn to take away the sharpness of his face and to influence his speech, Cumberbatch is at his best in conveying the genius behind his arrogant façade while still making the viewer sense his vulnerability and the melancholy within. The brilliant cast is augmented by Keira Knightleys intelligent portrayal of Joan Clarke, Turings partner during their work in Bletchley Park. Clarke is recruited by Turing after his elevation to head of the project and she works with him in breaking Enigma and more importantly in connecting him more with his project mates. The latter group has among them Matthew Goode playing the dashing Hugh Alexander and Allen Leech playing John Cairncross, all of them under the watchful beady eyes of the MI6 and its head Stewart Menzies played brilliantly by Mark Strong.

Turing is introduced to us as a calculatedly arrogant mathematical genius volunteering for work in Bletchley Park and reluctantly being allowed to join the group working on breaking Enigma by Commander Deniston(Charles Dance). What follows is history with a few dramatic overtones but largely a study of the nature of Alan Turing and his work. Given that his work and ideas have been kept secret for over 50 years and have been brought to the fore only recently the movie allows us to glance into the tense inner workings of the team that managed to solve what was regarded by the world as an unbreakable code. Morten Tydlum in his debut English feature makes sure the movie does not seem like a science lecture while including a decent amount of technical knowledge  for the enthusiasts (though I would have liked Keira Knightley to pronounce Euler the right way). The production values are excellent starting from the look and feel of Britain during the war, specifically during the Blitz down to the costumes of the cast and extras. Alexandre Desplat delivers yet another beautiful soundtrack with melodic flair conveying the tension underlying in the narrative while never missing the gravity of the situation.

In one of his best performances, Benedict Cumberbatch reduces us to tears in some of the sequences, the best of which he shares with Keira Knightley. As a genius mathematician who’s love has been shared ironically as a binary split between a man and a machine both of which have been transitory in his life, Cumberbatch conveys the loneliness that has been wrought upon him not only by himself but by society as a whole. As a subject of investigation by detectives who are brought to his doorstep after complaints of a break in, Turing’s dismissal of them only provokes them into searching for skeletons in his closet. He is seen remarking upon the toxic nature of cyanide which is now suspected as the means of his suicide at the young age of 41. The Turing test and Turing machines, both terms deserving of a google search and thorough read are but two of the massive advances in mathematical machines and science showcasing what could have been if only Turing were not the subject of societal castigation. In composing this review with automatic font setting and formatting and the easiness with which I am able to reach you, esteemed reader, we have both Turing’s immortal genius to thank.

Four Stars

The Hobbit : The Battle of Five Armies – There and Back Again, emotionally so

My one-liner: Unfinished businesses, my precious, unfortunately!

Ananth's review
Some of us have followed Bilbo’s journey with the dwarves with great expectations, expectations that were forged upon and justified by the excellent Lord of the Rings trilogy. Sometimes the expectations were met, sometimes they were exceeded but never as a unit does ‘The Hobbit’ trilogy prove itself to be as well made as its sequel trilogy. Peter Jackson is a director of high capabilities and his screenplay for the Lord of the Rings written in partnership with Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens was a textbook example of how to adapt a fantasy with a moral that branched randomly into different story loops. The same trio with the addition of input from Guillermo Del Toro initially wanted two movies to be made out of a relatively small tome. A lot of us felt this was acceptable given the idea was to add bits in from the appendices which have a rich collection of lore. However when it was announced that three movies were going to be made in the place of two, studio greed not much different from dragon greed was suspected and now has been proven true. In saying all that, I am not taking away credit where credits due. ‘The Hobbit : The Battle of the Five Armies’ is the best of the hobbit trilogy but that, sadly, is not saying much. While it has been stripped down to bare action in its 144 minutes, there are bits of unnecessary drama thrown in as well with a single redeeming story loop.

Just as the ‘The Return of the King’ completed the quest of the fellowship, Bilbo’s journey with the dwarves is brought to completion with ‘The Battle of the Five Armies’. It wouldn’t be wrong to call this a war movie given that almost 45 minutes out of its 144 minute running time is spent on visuals of war. While from a technical standpoint the war scenes are very well made, from a personality standpoint some of Peter Jackson’s usual grit has been polished away. From the start of the trilogy, I’ve found that CGI orcs somehow cannot bring back the visual acuity that the Uruk Hai’s hot breath fogging in the cold air from the rain around Helms Deep did. It is indeed funny that, without having intended to, one of the characters in the movie yells out ‘Oh, come on!’ when the next flurry of CGI creatures is unleashed onto him. Elves are made out to be these magically agile creatures evidence Legolas’ fluid reverse swing onto horse back in ‘The Two Towers’ however the only thing missing during some of his visuals in this movie is an arcade games background. What shines through though is the strength of the CGI work in showing us Erebor, the ruins of Dale, the wrecking of Lake Town, the forbidding Gundabad and Sauron’s current stronghold Dol Guldur. Images that will stay with us when we re-read the books and for that we have John Howe and Alan Lee’s  vision of Middle Earth and WETA workshops implementation of them to thank.

The story of the dwarves and their quest forms the core of the book with Bilbo’s journey intertwined with them to provide the reader a pair of eyes to the spectacle. The moral of the book and the dwarves journey has been so blown up as only a trilogy worth 745 million dollars with the potential to reap a 3 billion dollar revenue can. ‘The Battle of the Five Armies’ finds a brooding Thorin who has succumbed to his lust for gold and treasure. Richard Armitage who was brilliant in the Desolation of Smaug pulls off the almost evil Thorin to a T, rising to claim his heroic right when all else has failed and in effect he has escaped his ‘illness’ however not before causing massive loss of life. Among the rest of the dwarves playing their requisite roles Balin remains the voice of reason. Billy Connolly is wasted as Dain Ironfoot, his make up makes it hard to even recognize him under the prosthetic layers. The unnecessary romance between Kili and Tauriel the elf is another deviation that takes away from the core of the movie and bores us en masse every time Tauriel spouts a dreamy dialogue exalting the power of love. Her king Thranduil maintains his agenda and delivers some really soppy dialogue as well in a couple of scenes involving Tauriel. Somehow it makes us think, without any prejudice of course, that the female half of the screenplay writers came up with these romances and triangles and as a lover of Tolkiens mythologies I do not see how it contributes to the story arc even a little bit.

Benedit Cumberbatch as Smaug wreaks his avenging havoc on lake town before the title comes up and is in turn dealt with by some inventive bow-work from Luke Evans playing Bard the Bowman. Luke Evans plays his role with the required maturity and restraint and does not give in to bombast. While some may think children repeatedly screaming for their father with anxiety written upon their faces is an emotional frame, the sound of ‘Da! Da! Da!’ made me want to somehow correct them as quickly and viciously as I could. Lake town, Bard, the Master(Stephen Fry) and his wormtongue equivalent Alfrid(Ryan Gage) actually provide for entertainment. Apart from some fan pleasing cameos from Cate Blanchett(Galadriel), Hugo Weaving(Elrond) and Christopher Lee(Saruman) when they come to the aid of the caged Gandalf(Ian McKellen) there isn’t too much that they are need for. Tragic is the omission of more screen time for Beorn which would have been fulfilling but I suspect the extended edition might have more things to celebrate. There isn’t too much more to be pleased about in the movie bar one more story arc.

Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins, the hobbit around whom the studio-coffer-pleaser has been written provides the single ray of sunshine in the entire movie apart from Richard Armitage’s brooding take on Thorin. Martin Freeman is the ultimate Bilbo, loyal to a fault even when he needs to betray to prove his loyalty, he brings forth the true and warm nature of Hobbits that Tolkien would have wanted us to experience. His chemistry with Gandalf and his faith in both Bard and Thorin are brought to life by his ingenious and whimsical portrayal of Bilbo. He does not care much for riches, war or for the vagaries of the wide world. In the book all he wants is a full pipe, a cozy armchair and a fireplace to stretch his hairy feet to and while the burglar aspect of his characterization is built up slightly here his is the performance that stands out most. Having been dragged out of his comfortable little hole under and over mountains to face a dragon and to end up being part of a war, Bilbo comes up trumps when the situation demands it ensuring that the faith of his friend and wizard Gandalf was not misplaced.

It is with sadness that we anticipated the ending of the Hobbit trilogy. Being the Middle-Earth-on-film fanatics that we are we badgered the PVR cinemas staff a lot in the days preceding the movies release given the tickets were not available for booking. At the end of the movie it would be unfair to say we were not slightly underwhelmed and while sitting through the end titles marking the end of our journey through middle earth on the big screen it wasn’t a few times that we reminded ourselves that the extended edition might fix some of the things that we found wanting. Peter Jackson’s work or labour of love as he calls it has been immense and he has dedicated a large chunk of his life to making these movies. While they will always be known as his swansong, there is no taking away from the fact that ‘The Hobbit’ trilogy could have been handled way better and maybe with a little less heavy handedness. Pandering to the fans would be language that is too strong to be used with someone of Peter’s acumen but in catering to them he has also done them a disservice in not providing with Bilbos journey what might have been a more triumphant return to Middle Earth. However while bidding farewell we cannot forget the immense pleasure derived from watching talented people come forth into our reckoning – Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Evangeline Lilly, Lee Pace, Mikael Persbrandt and the return of crowd favourites in Legolas, Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman(who incidentally kicks more ass than any 92 year old could or should). The moral of ‘The Hobbit’ perhaps was not as clear as it should have been to Newline, MGM, Wingnut and Warner Brothers – Greed is folly.

Three Stars