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 

Exodus : Gods and Kings - "There is only me here."

My one-liner : If you're looking for affirmation of your faith, give this a miss!

Man trying to contemplate the nature of the God(s) of the Egyptians, the God of the Hebrews, the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament never really went archaic. The nature of religion and God are things that make echoing statements in every generation of humanity and is still making striking headlines from around the same area that Moses supposedly led his folk to freedom. What was recorded as the Exodus made a repeat only too often in history and twice as per record to the same section of humanity in cruel fashion. As a word, Exodus signifies the mass exit of a group of people, but as a saga the exodus of the Israelites to their homeland of Canaan has given rise to a lot of different interpretations. Ridley Scotts interpretation though epic, could have used a little bit of tempering which isn’t really a complaint because I enjoyed the movie thoroughly. While it has always been clear that he is an expert in the handling of epics, his handling of faith bordering on mania and in some scenes his own questions of faith paint a truly majestic picture, the only flaw in which might be the fact that it is slightly overlong.

The legend of Moses’ birth is an elaborate tale in itself and given it has had enough exposure, ‘Exodus : Gods and Kings’ spares us the preamble and places us in the company of the Pharaoh Seti, his son Rameses and the latter’s childhood compatriot Moses in consultation before handling an attack by the Hittites. Matching the spirit of the movie, prophecies are handled as vaguely as they are portended. But let me leave that to your viewing pleasure. Within that introductory room we meet the main players in this tale, Christian Bale playing Moses, a brilliant Joel Edgerton as Rameses, John Turturro as Seti, (I would not be playing fair if I did not mention the appearance of) Indira Verma as high priestess of the Pharaoh. The casting list is impeccable in itself with Sigourney Weaver, Ben Kingsley, Aaron Paul, the beautiful Maria Valverde and Golshifteh Farahani who joins Ridley Scotts cast after having appeared in Body of Lies contributing to a cast according to complaints on the internet does not have enough racial diversity or geographically faithful casting.

Biblical mythology and its roots in reality are often a question of faith and religion. Ridley Scott, a self-professed agnostic, takes a measured approach that does not deny either angle its due. The God of the Old Testament is present in all his/her/its fury. The objective of Gods interference in the lives of about four hundred thousand Hebrews lies in the fact that for four hundred years they have been slaves in the wretched and miserable building camps of the Egyptians. Why and how Moses takes the cause upon his shoulders is again the subject of Biblical study and nothing has been missed out from that particular episode. The way the story has been dealt with accounts for much of the viewing pleasure in Exodus : Gods and Kings. The script is the product of four minds - Adam Cooper, Bill Collage, Jeffrey Caine, Steven Zaillian, the latter having been nominated for more than one Academy Award. While the story keeps one engrossed, the narrative could have been kept slightly tighter especially towards the end where we meet multiple climaxes (pun not intended).

Yet again, it would be too much of a complaint if I kept highlighting narrative details, for the story is brought alive on screen by the restrained yet commanding presence of both the leads – Bale and Edgerton. While not much needs to be said about the acting prowess of Christian Bale, Jole Edgerton in the role of Rameses is a revelation proving yet again why he should not be restricted to brawler roles like Warrior(where he did display a subtle sense of how to portray drama). As the despotic and not slightly psychotic Pharaoh Rameses, the paranoia he conveys in both his frantic and measured histrionics are a delight to view. His faith in his brother figure and yet the abrupt change of feeling when he gives thought to the conflict that might result from him is another aspect the script rushes through but the point is conveyed as only Edgerton can. ‘What kind of fanatics worship such a God?’ he exclaims at one point and the poignancy strikes home. Exodus well might be the movie where he starts showcasing his innate genius. Bale plays Moses with studied and questioning calm. His journey of belief and faith, while forming the core of the movie also highlights his internal conflict. Ultimately it is his journey, his unrelenting faith in his actions and his determination to marshal his people to freedom that makes the movie’s length palatable albeit only slightly. Small roles they may be that have been handed out to Sigourney Weaver, Ben Kingsley and Aaron Paul but the gravitas lent by the former two and the gritty camaraderie between Bale and the latter add to the pithy highlights of Exodus.

An epic such as this already has visual grandeur written into the legend in the halls of the Pharaoh, in the desperation and poverty of the camps of the Hebrews, in burning bushes and parting seas. Also well known to everyone would be the curses the Egyptians were subjected to. In bringing these visuals to the screen, Ridley Scott and the visual effects crew apply as pragmatic an approach as possible always trying to balance out the nearly plausible with the possible intervention of something that might be divine.  While PVR cinemas in India needs to realize that running their projectors in economy mode for a 3D movie is not really a good idea, the grandeur of Egypt at its peak is conveyed beautifully. I will not give out spoilers here but rather leave it to the viewers to enjoy the rest of a visually well sculpted movie.

Exodus is not the first of movies where the deeply personal question of faith, belief and God plays a major role. What makes it an effectively thought provoking and enjoyable movie is the fact that everyone involved has their own questions and answers about faith. In echoing current scenarios of war and religious persecution Ridley Scott only affirms for the umpteenth time as others have done before him that what was once a practice that aimed at peace has only of recent times brought war and cruelty to the fore. In all the animals that ‘God’ might or might not have created the tendency to murder or torture as a means to an end is seen only in what has ironically been termed humanity. 

Exodus – Three stars and a half

All the worlds a (reality television) stage

Before going on to explain why I think ‘The Hunger Games – Mockingjay Part I’ is a case of too little butter spread over too much (dry) bread, a note of thanks to the local radio station for giving us free tickets to catch the film in its delayed opening weekend in India! The current installment of the Hunger Games’ ‘forced’ quadrilogy is darker still than the excellent ‘Catching Fire’ but proves to be too long to sustain interest in everything that’s going on on-screen. I found out after our viewing that my co-viewer and post-movie-plot-debater found that she was unable to sustain her focus for too long as well.

Working off a script by  Peter Craig and Danny Strong and directed by ‘Catching Fire’ helmer Francis Lawrence, Part I of the Mockingjay – the end novel of the Hunger Games trilogy has fallen victim to producer induced greed in dividing itself into two parts(and thankfully not more!) a la Hobbit and Harry Potter. The resulting take provides us with dark entertainment for about nearly half or a bit more of its total running time of a hundred and twenty three minutes.  The cast hasn’t changed except for the welcome addition of Julianne Moore as Alma coin, more on her neat and tidy performance in about a minutes worth of reading. Phillip Seymour Hoffman in one of his last roles plays Plutarch, Elizabeth Banks  who is sublime as Effie Trinket, Woody Harrelson in a narrowed down and sober Haymitch portrayal and other usual but brilliant supports such as Jeffrey Wright, Stanley Tucci and Donald Sutherland round out the truly stellar cast that we have already been introduced to.

From my point of view of a spectator, Mockingjay reminded me more acutely than ever that the revolutionary tale started off as a description of a cruel but popular reality TV show which was supposedly played out to the death of participants but ultimately was shown to be scripted by the moneyed and those with vested interests. On a larger scale the games themselves were ones that reminded the subjugated of their subjugation. The mockingjay herself and almost everyone else in the story ironically seem to be playing out roles scripted by others for each and in turn carries out their part to generate a perceived benefit be it for themselves or the assumed benefactors. Credit has to be given where credit is due in that the striking similarity of ground zero ‘reporting’ is almost the same as what has been happening in Palestine or Iraq and the grittiness of some scenes reminds us that in spite of the stretched nature of the plot the ominous goings on haven’t really stopped.We are never too far from war and combat even though our protagonist is involved in only a single scene of direct combat.

Picking up where ‘Catching Fire’ left off, Katniss Everdeen is in the company of friends and new political benefactors or detractors as seen from the perspective of the District 13’ers or the Capitol. The mockingjay has inspired people everywhere in dystopian Panem and has concreted herself as an image representing revolution and freedom. The devious President Snow has the rest of the captors at hand and as ever threatens and delivers manipulation in multiple ways.  The addition to the list of people Katniss has to deal with are District 13’s president Alma Coin and her able wordsmith Plutarch Heavensbee who have an agenda for Katniss and her ever growing popularity as a rebel. But will Katniss find herself obliged to support an agenda when her concerns lie with the tributes who have been left behind in the Capitol? Julianne Moore excels in a restrained but quietly powerful portrayal of Alma Coin, a president who means well but where does her passion for her people come from? It pains us to see Phillip Seymour Hoffman on screen in portrayals of characters that seem to have been created with him in mind. But that is only an illusion as it is the genius of the actor that makes us feel so, his portrayal of Plutarch is excellent and layered. The refreshing surprise in the movie, though it is never really a surprise that she carries off this role so easily, is Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket. In spite of her limited means she shows us what it is to truly adapt and accessorize 

The core of Mockingjay remains a plot that would have been easier to view and appreciate if it had been left untouched. I can recount at least four scenes of between four to five minute lengths that do not serve to build characters or to take the plot forward. Film makers need to figure out their priorities when making movies, while it is understood that a producers interest is in the return why manipulate a movie at the cost of itself ? Franchises such as Harry Potter and so called trilogies that have had their ending part split citing reasons that range from moronic to exaggerated in one broad spectrum have only made it difficult for people who appreciate good cinema justify the cost of the tickets. As compared to its predecessors Mockingjay is a distant third to the excellent 'Catching Fire' and its introductory first chapter in spite of it having its merits.

For want of better editing and restraint, the Mockingjay – Part 1 rates three stars on our scales with full credits to the cast for excellent performances.

John Wick - its never just a f***ing dog..

I am sure you would not need to avenge a stolen '69 Mustang but when someone dares to touch your little beagle, whether or not its the last gift from your dying wife, there is only one person to call upon to avenge you - John Wick.  A film that has death breathing down life’s neck from its start to finish, it proves that sometimes stories can take the back seat when scintillating action choreography is driving stick like a charging mustang.

The pleasure of watching Keanu Reeves where he belongs, as a master assassin with an almost Zen like calm in the middle of knockout punches, assault rifles, expert killers and their ilk is almost overwhelming as it comes rushing back. It is almost as if at 50 years of age, Keanu just like John, is pulled back into the action where he belongs and has thrived. He looks lean, fit and dapper in the dark suits he wears in spite of the impossible action frames he is a part of. The cast that surround him are by themselves no strangers to the drama action genre - Michael Nyqvist, Kevin Bacon, Ian McShane, John Leguizamo and others lend visual flair and sharp company to Reeves.

The story behind all the action is not very uncommon - expert assassin retires for his wife’s sake, wife is stricken down and presents something in her memory to the husband. In this case its a beagle that’s the definition of cute and something ugly happens to it that brings back the ugliness in the assassin sending him on a last kill or be killed spree. What makes John Wick stand out apart from Keanu Reeves’ cold and athletic delivery of violence is the sleek and stylized mien of the entire movie.  The movie will not work if the antagonists do not antagonize too much and boy, do they. Iosef(played by Alfie Allen) is the son of notorious Russian mobster Viggo(Michael Nyqvist). What he does made me want to squeeze the life out of his snotty self, indicating he's played his part well. Michael Nyqvist threatens with his cold gray eyes and manages to convince us that his bare hands are practically all he needs to keep us cowering in our seats.

The helmers of this bloody revenge story - Chad Stahelski and David Leitch are no strangers to stunts, Stahelski in particular having served as stunt double to Keanu when he channeled Neo Anderson so effectively in 'The Matrix'.  Leitch apparently has body doubled for Brad Pitt in 'The Fight Club' and for Matt Damon in at least one of the Bourne movies. Their experience is evident in the fluid and shattering violence depicted on screen. There is almost no weird and juddery camera moves to convey action, rather the camera handled by Jonathan Sela presents each shot in neat and calculated precision without subjecting us to motion blur. The story is presented in a tightly edited(Elisabet Ronalds) package, almost as neat as Ian McShanes little cocktail club.

It would also be remiss not to mention the production values that take us to an entirely different dimension of New York city. People familiar with the graphic novel version of 'Wanted' would recognise the stylised dimension of a world of crime and assassins existing parallel to the here and now. Common law is not something that exists in their world and the differentiation is exact and displayed in sharp contrasts. A funeral is shot in such near sepia that it almost appears void of colour, a club that literally gyrates in red, a cocktail bar thats all smooth green and a church thats for reasons unknown is grey. Visually the movie easily scores top marks.

In spite of a repeated story line, there are almost no untied strings left for us to contemplate. John Wick may return, but would he?

Three and a half stars.

Nightcrawler - If it bleeds it leads!

Looking up Nightcrawler on wikipedia so I'd have the cast and crew mentions accurate for this review revealed that they are categorising it a 'crime thriller'. As such I would move it over into the territory of 'pyschological thriller' just as easily. Jake Gyllenhaal's character, Lou Bloom, can only be described as a sociopath climbing the rungs and stumbling on an elevator to ascending stages of depravity.  A couple of movies came to mind, one when looking at Lou's final strut and another on recalling the events of the movie for this review. The latter is 'Taxi Driver' which also highlights the mental ascent of a loner to increasing stages of anti-social characterization. Nightcrawler deals with the always on camera of a news-gatherer in the city of angels, gathering up sins on video and declaring its motto via the dialogue of Bill Paxton - 'If it bleeds, it leads'.

Working from a script he wrote, Director Dan Gilroy(brother of Tony Gilroy) takes us through the darkness of LA and Lou's mind systematically. The story does not let us give up and zone out at any point with Dan reminding us that none of the thrills or the evenly spaced laughs, black comedy as it may be, comes free or cheap. It almost feels like the view we get of Lou is one of the inner reaches of his  mind, the part where there is a small stage whisper that is always prompting him to claw rather than reach. Robert Elswit handles the camera for Nightcrawler giving us a sort of a night-mode modern noir view of the city, never completely dark but shady enough for discomfort. There are parts when the background music by James Newton Howard  almost approaches a sort of retro pop level of cheeriness, beautifully contrasting with the images on screen.

Jake Gyllenhaal needs no introduction as an actor capable of carrying off the darkness of a character in a disturbingly nonchalant way but as the titular Nightcrawler his dialogues delivered in a casual almost cheerful monotone are sometimes plain scary. His evolution from someone who steals and deals scrap metal to the owner/director of 'Video News Corporation' leads us on a dark odyssey with Lou at the helm. His home is shown to be a single room with a bed facing a stark lcd screen that runs the news. Lou stares, thinks, plans and sometimes chuckles and the most passive of his actions disturbs. He is an avid learner, someone who is able to rattle off leadership and management principles and jargon(probably from the latest TedX) and is a skilled researcher as well. His mind does not stop there, beneath the pallor of his skin is a darkness that Jake Gyllenhaal plumbs with seemingly no effort but the depth of his skill is evident in the coldness that settles against his behavior in the minds of the viewers.

Jake is supported by a cast which is put together brilliantly well. Rene Russo as the newsdesk chief of one of the hundred pulp news channels of LA walks the extremely delicate line between victim and other dark shades with her usual ease. When pushed into a corner, should one decide the corner is home? Maybe but what if the corner always has been home? Characters that dip in and out make us question the depths of human behaviour as well. Riz Ahmed (of the superb adaptation of 'The Reluctant Fundamentalist') gets recruited to be Lous cohort in night time video gathering sessions. Seemingly flat, the characters layers are peeled as is Bill Paxton's, the latter playing a competing Nightcrawler who initially shuns Lou's approach but tries to recruit him later, a sequence that ends with my favourite bit of Gyllenhaal in the movie.

The movie also showcases the nature of news channels that sometimes deliver and deliver without questioning if its through a curtain of tears. Its not only Lou who cannot take no for an answer and takes 'by hook or crook' to a new level of videography but it is the entire ecosystem in which he thrives. The extreme levels of motivation that come forth from someone who is introduced to us as a normal and capable everyday guy only serve to question our own judgement of people as we go along. Lou does not change but our perspective of him is guided through so expertly that by the conclusion there is an illusion of something having crawled into the night space of our minds. As mentioned in the first paragraph, another movie came to mind when Lou struts in front of a police station - Kevin Spacey's self imposed limp disappearing at the end of 'The Usual Suspects' and inexorably the thread that exists between great movies gains another fibre.

Four stars and two thirds.

Big Hero 6 - huggable action!

It just seems right to mention that the first movie I have watched after Interstellar is 'Big Hero 6'. Movies have long been a part of my life and the impact of watching a well crafted movie based on grounded facts is always a pleasure. Envitably the experience makes one biased about the movies one watches right after but 'Big Hero 6' stands tall by its own right. Animated movies have gone more and more into either the fantasy, rom-com or whatever genre while ensuring that they always always set up themselves like an origin story. Some are endearing and have an impact, most serve as a bridge to serving up more of the characters they are targeting for endearment in the first movie. Where 'Big Hero 6' stands among the two categories is something thats worth the watch.

The apparent Japanese manga influence is because the movie is based on a Marvel comic of the same name which hopefully would be worth checking out to see how faithful the adaptation has been. The environs of this particular movie adaptation are beautifully crafted with the story based in San Fransokyo, an amalgamation of the tram-filled streets of SF with the glaring neon lights and momo bars of Tokyo. Produced by John Lasseter via Disney and directed by Don Hall and Chris Williams 'Big Hero 6' plays an interesting twist on a comic characters,  the primary of which here is programmed to be non violent.

Hiro(a coincident no doubt, voiced by Ryan Potter) is the central character, a 14 year old more interested in using his natural robot building and programming skills in winning bot fights than honing them in schools. His brother Tadashi who is a grad student in a school of research worries about his kid brothers future and tries to get Hiro interested in his school. We meet other characters there such as Honey Lemon, Wasabi, Gogo and Fred who are into high tech research with Tadashi and a professor who inspires Hiro to rethink his future. The story line then delves into a predictable plot line of loss, cause for revenge and the eventual and inevitable rise for a bit. Hiro thinks up ways to get into the school and is skilled enough to do so when a tragedy puts him in a period of dormancy where his 'mood swings' get the better of him. His love for his brother and his brothers ideals poured into a project that helps him pulls himself out of his mourning makes up for the racy middle and ending acts.

Which brings us to the 'Stay Puft' like balloony robot from the trailers, Baymax. Tadashi introduces Hiro to Baymax, his healthcare project, who has but one goal in life - the patients health care and their satisfaction as derived from it. Activated by simple catchphrases like(no, not ok google!) 'Ow' Baymax quite literally drags Hiro from his lethargy into what is initially a quest for revenge. But on the way Hiro finds out that there are noble things written into the code of a healthcare robot that humans can stand to use in their view of things as well. Baymax is meant to be endearing and anyone who does not fall for his spell must have a cold non-emoji oriented abacus for a CPU. His central philosophy of healing and doing so in a non violent way is one of the best take away messages I've encountered in Disney features this year. By himself and in combination with his partners Baymax uses thrusters to fly, rocket powered punches to defend more than attack and forms an indispensable companion to Hiro.

The director and screen writers Robert L Baird and Dan Gerson have adapted Man of Actions marvel characters in a slightly more accessible manner. When I was a kid, there were science fiction stories and animated shows that captured my interest but I cannot help but envy the current young audience who get such fun intro to concepts of robotics, engineering and science. Not that the movie is a 'Introduction to Robotics' lecture but its a neat showcase of said concepts. Blending a normal, heartfelt, 'huggable' to use the words of Baymax story into an action, animated avatar finds a successful vehicle in 'Big Hero 6'. Bring the kid in you and treat yourself to Baymax's satisfying health care!

Three and a half stars.

PostScript - An appeal to moviegoers - Please switch off your mobile phones and if you find yourself having to answer an urgent call take it out of the cinema. One of us in our party of two found ourselves in the awkward position of having to stand up and ask the person behind us to step outside with his phone. The plain arrogance of people who refuse to stop talking loudly or have a conversation on their phones inside a movie theater is astounding! On more than one occasion we've been looked upon by said sick parties as crazy people who're taking away their basic right to interrupt a movie session by answering their phones. Take a stand - the next time the person next to you or in front of you or behind you in the cinema takes away from your enjoyment as a paying moviegoer - embarrass the crap out of them. The entitlement exhibited by this group of posterior orifices should not be allowed!

Interstellar - Where Gravity watches from the front seat

For the first time in a movie theater, I sat with my hands clutching the seat rests, holding on to ensure I don't fall when the thrusters fire. I craned my neck to ensure the scope that was in field of view was just right to manoeuvre. The images projected on the eighty foot screen in front of me were not only believable for the most part but were in their entirety what one would expect of a partnership between technical masters like Chris Nolan and Hoyte van Hoytema. Quentin Tarantinos remarks on the epic scope of the vision of the Nolan brothers(the other being Jonathan) made sense when we sank back into our seats in saturated satisfaction at the end of the near three hour journey.

Nolan would be accused of being over-ambitious, the sheer soaring visuals of the movie justify his ambition. After having forced myself to not read any reviews and having read some of them now, the incredibly polarised reviews offer more than enough proof of how novel an experience the movie has been for everyone. Refusing to let film go gently into the night, Nolan has filmed in 65 and 70 mm stock on regular and IMAX cameras opting for practical miniature based effects and relatively very little CGI. The resulting imagery is spectacular on an IMAX screen be it the dust bowl that earth has been left behind as or the rings of Saturn in the background while the interstellar travellers find their way.

While paying homage to some of the most impressive science fiction movies that have been made such as '2001 - A Space Odyssey' and 'Contact', Nolan crafts a movie that is mostly epic, part drama and part thriller with a lot of theoretical physics thrown in. A pioneering spirit is not something that he has not been likened to and Matthew McConaughey as Cooper in the movie seeks answers to why the Earth in its depleting state where nothing but corn grows should be allowed to die with humans standing by in their current 'caretaker' roles when they were born explorers. A-list actors comprise the rest of the cast with Nolan usual Michael Caine playing Astrophysicist Dr.Brand and Anne Hathaway playing his daughter and protege. Mackenzie Foy plays Coopers daughter Murph with Jessica Chastain playing a grown up Murph and these four characters form the links in the prime layer of a plot that is neatly convoluted.

The first act unfolds in about forty five minutes and shows Nolan’s urgency to take things outside the earths sphere of influence. Cooper lives with his family and is closest to his precocious near-prodigy of a daughter who is convinced that there is something thats not natural in the way books keep falling from her shelves and dust forms patterns. Cooper embarks on a journey to save humanity and finds that its not Earths gravity thats difficult to escape from but the fact that his journey might take him away from watching Murph grow up. His son played by Timothy Chalemet(and later on by Casey Affleck) and father played by John Lithgow accept Coopers decision without question but Murph is unable to reconcile with her father and closest companion leaving her without giving her a return date. The departure from Earth to enter a wormhole and find a potential future for humanity forms the second act leading up to the question of whether or not Coopers and Murphs relationship forms a closed loop. Nolans collaboration with theoretical physicist Kip Thorne unveils to us a space vista thats more grounded in science than most other depictions. The space ship Endurance is a novel and for all assumptions a practical design with modules that can be used for landing and exploring analogous to shuttles that dock with a long range module. What could have been avoided is the 'Astrophysics 101' nature of some of the dialogues. In comparion movies like '2001..' offer imagery that is not explained but provokes thought and the initiative to find answers none the less.

Nolan has never been one to go easy on the viewers, much to the pleasure of the audience, when it comes to challenging ones imagination and Interstellar is no different. Not only does it offer a chance to travel to places never seen before but it is sure to spark physics based arguements among the initiates and the uninitiated alike. Right down to the two AI robots(for want of a better word to describe them) the respect afforded to physics is overwhelming. TARS and CASE are designed as collapsible quadrilaterals composed of jointed single units that pivot and reassemble as required. They have programmable honesty and humour settings which gives the people dubbing for them license to unleash at times their genius(quite literally). Gravity, Relativity, Black Hole theories and the ability to survive stasis in unfavorable environments - all these and more including a cameo by a much loved actor sum up to a movie experience that I have never been subject to before. The pure joy of being seated in a movie emporium and realising that the fare for the ticket has just resulted in an experience instead of a mere passing of time is unparalleled. Which is not to say there are no negatives but I will leave it to the pedants to talk about. There being so few movies that enable the thought process rather than leave it in limbo(no pun intended) Interstellar can only be described as a movie experience par excellence.

It would also be remiss of me not to mention that there is an emotional thread that runs through the movie. Nolan has often been described as a heartless auteur whose cold and calculated plotlines are meant to satisfy the story line and nothing else. I have found this to be false in more than one occasion and Interstellar relies on the characters' and the audiences' emotions to deliver its story across space and time. Anne Hathaway's role does not offer her scope for histrionics but her story loop none the less is one of despair, hope and duty which she duly conveys with expected aplomb. The chemistry between Cooper and his daughter surpasses vast interstellar distances and thus time and McConaughey is perfect with his texan drawl and salt of the earth portrayal of Cooper in transcending these physical boundaries. 

Based on our experience, it would be best to embark on this stellar Interstellar trip on an IMAX screen. The visuals and the excellent visceral score by Hans Zimmer pummel us in multiple G and suspend our disbelief in zero G situations. In calling this the 'Movie experience of a year' my fellow movie enthusiast Archana minced no words. Nolan has proved again why he does not need to rehash a storyline or follow a comic book dictated timeline and that executing a high budget original screenplay takes only the almost infinite care and meticulousness that has gone into bringing Interstellar to life. A five dimensional movie that has been delivered to us in glorious 2D.

Four and a half stars.

Gone Girl - disturbingly brilliant!

David Fincher is not a bad director at all, he's a master of edge of the seat material that usually involves dark doings or violence against women. But 'Gone Girl' would not have challenged him on the screenplay level as that aspect of the movie has been more than ably handled by the author of the titular tome Gillian Flynn. Having read the book a while back I was expectant but not very expecting of the movie and Fincher executes well and delivers the right emotional twangs mingled with the thrills Flynn's page turner provided.

Point of view movies(not to be mistaken with the soon to arrive point of view perspective movie) are not uncommon but to look at things from literally two sides of a marriage sometimes needs a neutrality which is not what Gone Girl is all about. A husband walks into his house on his fifth anniversary to find signs of a struggle and his wife missing. Quite naturally he raises the alarm but seems a little disconnected. Why that is forms part of the near two and a half hour twist-and-turner. A fairytale romance of guy meets girl in big city, blows her socks off for all intentions and gets married. Wife being a trust fund daughter of difficult parents adores him and really does love him. But does love survive time and turbulence also forms a part of the dark entertainment thats guaranteed from the movie.

The casting is smack on the money with Ben Affleck neatly pulling off the blocked writer with the shitfaced grin(a very important part of his character study), which convinced me that the rest of the movie was going to be pretty good as far as he is concerned. Starting out as the guy who's bound to have all the answers in exacting form when posed questions by a prospective beautiful companion for the night, Affleck plays his heart out as the husband going dark on a marriage which has its layered shades. His chemistry with his twin sister Margo, difficult as it was to establish in the book is brought out as sharp as the razor edge it walks in the source material. Did he have a hand in the violence surrounding his wifes disappearance? Affleck leads us into the story beautifully. Which bring us to Amazing Amy, Rosamund Pike deserves an academy award this time around. Yes, the movie is not really what can be considered Oscar worthy but to convincingly play a character thats as disturbed as is disturbing is a challenge that has been made to look like a cakewalk by Pike. Neil Patrick Harris departs from his usual slapstick camaraderie roles to essay one that carries a certain depth in and of itself, suffice to say his handling of the role is more than perfect. There is a list of supporting characters whose performances can be summarized in saying that from every suburban housewife neighbour to disgruntled detective, individual performance lives up to the spunk or the scorn demanded by the role.

Stylised and dark as it is, the soundtrack by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross once again provides superglue factor in keeping the viewer and their attention riveted to the screen. Sound design complements the on screen material so well that sometimes a drawn out groan almost sounds like a continuing death rasp when in fact it is the background that sets up the goings on in front of us. The music plays out like a beautiful summer song accompanied by a dentists drill. Accomplices in crime as they are with Fincher since 'The Social Network' the composers are not strangers to the moody and ominous pictures that he paints and aid him tremendously here as well.

A good movie in its entirety is all that a fan paying good money looks out for. A review of movies like 'Gone Girl' and a fair few others cannot be complete if viewed in India without going into detail and recording for posterity the hypocritical posterior orifice type characters that comprise the Central Board of Film Certification of India. Manning their prudish scissors and other such douchey tools they strive to save the Indian populace from the brazen and adulterous nature of Hollywood movies. There is no dearth of completely misogynistic suggestive and objectified brazenness in Indian cinema, especially in movies such as the vacuum fluff that was 'Happy New Year'. However the Censor board chooses to cut out minutes of 'full frontal nudity'(easier to access than the days newspaper), 'thrusting movements'(you only need to watch any south Indian movie and its unjustifiable 'item' songs to find a couple of thousand such) and dialogue with 'American slang for genitals'(I distinctly remember a Tamil film song which described copulation in ugly and sly disguised terms being allowed to screen with a general certificate). In a country and a city where headlines of child abuse echo blaringly every day, would you rather the adults be adults regarding topics that you deem taboo or titillate them by making such topics taboo. It does not take genius level intelligence to figure this out but thanks to David Fincher for allowing the babboons their cuts rather than disallow us from watching a brilliant movie(the last one we missed out on being 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo'). In closing do not miss the movie in spite of the 'intercoursing' Censor Boards 'American slang for female genitals' attitude.

Rating - Three and three quarter stars

Annabelle - starring Annabelle!

From the producers of the enjoyable retro take on horror 'The Conjuring' comes a prequel that looks very promising in its promos - 'Annabelle'. Titular doll having been featured as capable of moving itself on a whim while fixating everyone with a disturbing grin in 'The Conjuring', this movie goes into a little more detail about who puppets it about and how it came to be.

I for one can list about three scenes where my heart jumped to my mouth, but the deficiency of scares is not what makes the movie dangerously close to being mediocre. Director John R Leonetti works on a script by Gary Dauberman that tries hard to make us sit down and take notice of how Annabelle became Annabelle-ish in the first place. The cast headed by Annabelle(yes, it looks coincidental, just normal not demonic) Wallis and Ward Horton play retro American couple Mia and John who are expecting a baby. Tony Amendola and Alfre Woodard round out the main cast playing the Forms' priest and neighbour respectively.

The first half hour keeps us interested by mixing in the Manson murders and the advent of the cult-culture in America. Cue expectant mother and a truly disturbing intrusion after the introduction of Annabelle the doll as a gift from her doting husband. Sound, scene and character set up, even dialogue proved to be elements that worked well in 'The Conjuring'. Strangely all those successful elements do not fully feature in Annabelle. A tracking shot to reveal previously unnoticed elements from the backdrop works well in horror but when a left to right pan is all we see in every scare inducing scene even the most non technical among us will feel the stirrings of a yawn. One other haunting question(if you'll pardon the pun) that you might leave the theater with is what happened to the grafitti kids?

Negativity aside, 'Annabelle' proves again that the classics can never go wrong by borrowing elements from 'Rosemarys Baby' and from pulp Satanic horror movies where the devils hand in dealing with deceit features as a plot element. A scene in a storage vault in the basement is probably one of the best implementation of a haunting in a long while. Talking about which plot elements are never really developed to a serious end. Ominous cartoon warnings, neighbourly noises, the role of the Church, the curious vulnerability of Church entrances - none of these things are provided enough screen time or a proper explanation as to why it did or did not work. Mia is almost thrust into a nervous mother with postpartum problems before things take a devilish turn leading to the climax.

What leaves us exiting the theater with the lingering afterthought of why couldnt this movie have worked is the fact that there is scope for 'Annabelle' to have been a horror classic. Call it the writers reluctance to make this doll dance to its full evil potential or a reworking the movie could have sunk its teeth a little more into dark territory instead of stopping at sewing machine and popcorn tricks.Curious about where else it has worked well? I would suggest 'Angel Heart' and 'Rosemarys Baby' for a satisfying and disturbing horror kick.

Annabelle - Two stars and a half