Mission: Impossible 3: Movie Review

Finally caught up with this third in the series of a rather tired franchise (hated MI2 with a passion) and caught myself pleasantly surprised. Read on!

Mission Impossible 3 (2006): ***

Entertainment at its nonsensical best. That probably sums up the latest Tom Cruise wannabe-Bond spy thriller directed by JJ “Lost” Abrams. Typical Lost style, Abrams first intrigues the audience with his characters and theme, then raises the bar with breathtaking action and visuals but finally cops out in an irritating, dissatisfying anti-climax. In MI3, add yawningly-predictable to the adjectives. Which is quite disheartening for a film as slick as this where the build-up, the characters, the action, the sleuthing, the gadgetry, everything pointed towards a more impressive shocker of a climax. But alas!

Still, there’s just about enough to justify the admission price. The action scenes, first and foremost of all. The one thing that MI3 will be always talked about are its long-drawn action sequences. Although the very first one-which involves Cruise rescuing a captive fellow agent and ends in a chopper chase amidst a windmill field-is fairly decent, its really in the second one where Cruise’s character plots to kidnap Hoffman’s character from inside the Vatican that MI3 is in its finest element. As if the whole sequence wasn’t exciting enough, the immediately following showdown amidst the top of the bridge with missiles, flying cars, blasts (you get the picture, right?) is splendid.

It’d be sacrilege to even think about things as human as endurance, ability to slide full-speed atop a skyscraper slope and still managing to hang on etc. This is the stuff impossible’s made of. Physics-defying and biologically-inconceivable, if you don’t think too hard, watching these on-screen spies turn into adrenalin-fuelled robots can be great fun.
What gives the action sequences an extra edge is the frenzied, flashily-edited handheld camera-like cinematography coupled with a thumping background score (remember Bourne Supremacy?). Gadgetery and masks–two other staple motifs of the genre are also used with innovation and some of the stuff like planting a time-detonated electrical charge right inside the brain of the captive is very thoughtfully sewn into the screenplay (yes, the hero gets planted with one too), besides being fiendishly clever.

Lead performances are of a high order too and given the writer’s penchant for driving into cliche after cliche after cliche, its really these actors who lend flesh into their otherwise bland characters and a plot-less collage of blasts and chases. Tom Cruise, for once. The energy and the intensity with which this actor enacts the lead role makes even the most humanely impossible stunts believable. Apart from doing the tendon-tearing runs and skyscraper jumps, we are meant to be seeing this “vulnerable, caring” side of his chararcter, Ethan Hunt and suprisingly enough, Cruise rises to the occassion and does far more justice to the scenes with his on-screen wife Keri Russell (who apparently was found recently quoting that her new husband kisses better than Tom–going by which I am not quite sure how this stacks up with my critique of their on-screen kisses but yea, they make a decent couple). Yea, so Cruise really looks very up-to-the-job and rather too serious for the role (so much so in fact that midway through the film you really want to shake him and tell him to take it easy. You want to tell him that he is the hero, and this is his own Mission Impossible. Come what may –he’ll have his wife, he’ll kill the baddie and even manage a promotion at his IMF).

Okay so I digressed. There are two more guys who really make MI3 worth watching once. One’s Philip Seymour Hoffman whose cool composure even when flung mid-air by Cruise is frightening. The opening sequence has him pointing the gun at Cruise’s wife and Cruise chained in front. Watching him count down as he enquires Cruise about a certain “rabbit’s foot” is spine-chilling stuff.

You normally wouldn’t find much comedy in these hung-up-about-action-and-gadgetery flicks, but thankfully there’s some snippets of comic genius by British actor Simon Pegg to be enjoyed. In his own clumsy, self-deprecatingly funny way, as he explains what the “rabbit’s foot” really could be and why the whole of the bad-world in the movie are mad after it is one great scene! His other Brit counterpart, Jonathan Rhys Meyers however gets stuck in the same-old superhero sidekick mode, and so does Laurence “Morpheus” Fishburne.

So, here’s what you have in the end-a brilliant opening sequence, some terrific action and spies for the most part of two hours along with actors who try their level best to convince how surprised they really are by the whole outcome. Take this bait and have a ball.

Or if you are one of those who have the misfortune of watching more than three B-grade spy thrillers, prepare to feel shortchanged. You’ll never know what the rabbit’s foot really is or what the whole fuss was about but still, despite these nibbling frustrating queries, you won’t mind wasting your popcorn, just this once!

Film-watching 2006 (3)

Yes, it is indeed very much evident that I am shamelessly going to fill this blog up with reviews and more reviews. But what the heck. Films are my only respite from the brain-drilling neuroanatomy sessions nowadays (ironic as hell I know) and lamabasting about them is a high I can't get enough of. So, kindly adjust.

Inside Man (2006): ** and 1/2

I was barely done making myself comfortable in my seat when the opening credits started rolling with a shockingly familiar note. It was a Bollywood song that the maker had decided to accompany the introductory footage and my immediate reaction was that of surprise (wow! An Indian track!), which later turned to befuddlement (Hold on a sec! What exactly has Chaiyya Chaiyya to do with some random boring Manhattan shots) but then like a true forgiving Indian I reconciled with the whole concept when I saw like 15-20 people in the cinema nodding and tapping to the beats. A thing to note here–There were only about 40-50 people in total. So moral of the story–Bollywood music rox!

The film per se (almost forgot about it) is your typical heist thriller. So there's a lot that is expected and some that isn't. The players essentially remain the same–the evil, all-knowing, ever-so-sharp mastermind out on a mission as some kind of social police on the more influential people (Clive Owen) vs the conscientous, give-a-damn cop(Denzel Washington). And so does the game. Which leaves one with little guessing to do. Only two questions keep you sat till the end–do the robbers actually manage a successful heist and if yes, then how. Like every decent thriller, Inside Man manages to answer these whys and hows alright but with little newfound energy. Its all been-there-seen-that stuff and the film's screenplay is replete with now-hallmark sequences of heist flicks (from the phone conversations, the tactics, the climax, scenes like the bad guy deliberately bumping into each other etc). Okay so they threw in a drop-dead-persuasive female broker (Jodie Foster is told not to wipe off her I-know-it-all smile and she doesn't) and the humanitarian banker with a dark past. So what!

There's little by the way of actual plot and whatever there is, just isn't worth the £5 you spend. There's little sense of dread (we are shown flashforward-ed footage of the hostages being interviewed throughout which negates anything catastrophic even before the actual "hostage" situation unfolds) and a dull sense of surprise here and there. So, except for some racist humour and self-important dialogue (both tastefully done), the film has only one other thing to offer — Washington, who still manages to be an absolute fireband that he is and shows that even a film as mediocre as this just can't keep his infectious enthusiasm down. If you must, watch Inside Man for him.

PS: They play Chaiyya Chaiyya again in the end credits as well.

Hostel (2006): ** and 1/2

American Pie meets Wolf Creek in this latest Hollywood slasher flick. Its a ludicruous premise of tourists being drilled, torched, cut open, sewn back, sawed into by pleasure-seeking rich businessmen in a remote Slovakian slaughterhouse after luring the victims into a whorehouse of a hostel, but one that manages to sustain your attention with shock and shock value alone.

Made in the back-with-a-bang "raw" horror flick format (imagine Saw, Wolf Creek, Texas Chainsaw) that packs in the graphic gore of the 80s and captures the victimised Generation Y in all its grit and grime, its a small patch on the genre-defining films for sure but because it doesn't take itself way too seriously, its good fun. I was actually quite surprised to see humour in such a film (especially two sequences–one, where a nervous sawyer runs towards his screaming chained victim with a motorised saw and just when the blade's about to chop the victim's shoulder, the sawyer slips on the victim's blood and ends up cutting his own arm and leg in half and the second–another American sawyer starts babbling about the best way to slash a person), scenes that were almost as entertaining to watch as when the director neatly sews up different angles of the plot into a redeeming climax (Redemption is something unheard of in the unforiving modern day horror films).

And then there are the usual long silences and loud sudden bangs and thuds which no self-respecting Hollywood horror film can do without. The last 15 minutes of Hostel rock bigtime with eyes torched, danglings eyeballs cut, car-chases, accidents, suicides, gang of kids stoning people to death (absolutely unmissable!), more fingers hacked–all done with ample spray of blood. The length of the film is just right with the director not making gory or the buildup sequences overtly long and the acting is also pretty consistent. Actually, the first half an hour can be quite bland for those who have the ability to look beyond the shockingly high amount of nudity. I don't have that, so I ended up enjoying the whole film.

Its a no-brainer (don't think too hard about how its possible to scream with more force as your Achilles tendons are slashed in quick succession and your thighs are screwed into the chair, and don't even go near how three otherwise sane guys who are having enough fun and sex in Amsterdam can be lured into going into a remote town halfway across Europe just by a few nude pictures of chicks and you'll be fine), but it delivers its thrills and chills in a clever little well-hyped (Quentin Tarantino presents!) package that makes for a decent enough matinee watch. Enjoy!

King Kong (2005): ***

A blockbuster movie that works. Not bigtime. But well enough to warrant 1 and maximum 2 viewings. I remember getting so overwhelmed by the special effects in the cinema first time around that I had noticed little else. A recent DVD watch cleared things up. Jackson has masterfully milked the whole storyline of any scope for jaw dropping visuals but the over-ambitiousness in the art direction just can't hide the mediocrity in the treatment of the actual story. The characters are a joke. Okay, so for a blockbuster movie, you don't need to spend reels on showing layers in characters, but seriously, except for the lead female Ann Darrow, the others are so predictably sketched, you see their intentions and actions coming like an hour before. There really isn't anything even remotely identifiable in these caricatures (supposedly "real" people) with everyone filling up space just because Jackson still is punchdrunk with LOTR format and want this to be another three hour epic.

With a one sentence long story and the pressure of delivering another safe blockbuster, clearly he hadn't had an easy time. But by infusing such stupid moronic sidekicks, the already long buildup sequence has been rendered absolutely unwatchable. Amidst the mess though, the unstoppable CGI fest once the adventure dice starts rolling still stacks up as reasonably watchable stuff and almost all the (preciously few) moments between Ann Darrow and King Kong are in absolute sync with the spirit of the story and the genre (Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis–way to go!). The finale strikes a chord alright but with the puny space that the the beauty and the beast are rewarded with in the preceding three hours, all you remember after the viewing are the dinosaurs falling off cliffs and monster spiders and carnivorous giant leeches. Not all good news then!

Derailed (2005): **

I confess. The day I'll get over my crush on Jennifer Aniston will be the day I'll stop watching hogwash like Derailed the very day its released. Since the possibility of my recovering from Aniston-mania are remote, I might as well focus on the positives of this flick. First, there's Aniston. The ultra-feminine, svelte, lissome smooth talking lass is cast as a-hold your breath-seductress and boy, does she rock or what. As far as I know, this has to be her first foray into an out-and-out serious venture in the thriller genre, and the actress gives it all to a role that has shades much darker than we are used to seeing Aniston play.

The film's pretty atmospheric too and the competent acting from the small ensemble is enough to make you forget for a moment how hackneyed the actual twist is. For any thriller worth its salt, the "twist" is an acid test. Which Derailed fails. But with the kind of enthusiasm and naviety the director lets the layers unfold, its a delight to see someone so sincere in his craft. Sadly enough, I turned out to be way too clever for this one.

More reviews to follow!!

Film-watching 2006 (2)

Taken me ages to write another one of these collection of short reviews, but having finally done with it, feels great. So here they are…

Crash (2005): ****

Its hard to point at, but definitely something bad inside you dies everytime you watch Crash. Quite a thing to say for a movie as exaggerated and as cynical of people as this is. But what the director doesn’t forget in the process is, to pay a homage to humanity. We as humans are capable of doing some of the nastiest crimes, utter some of the harshest words and yet its the same us who do the kindest and the most charitable of deeds without as much a shrug. Its one befuddling contradiction-one that can’t be resolved by any amount of debate. Is it the circumstances? The people around us? The genes? Or the upbringing? Crash tries valiantly to capture this contradiction in a microcosm of a racist LA, and succeeds.

If ever there was a book published called “The Encyclopaedia of Racism”, even that would have found itself wanting of content and emotion in front of this 110 minute video crash course. Boasting of a screenplay that’s written solely to focus on nothing but racism, the film captures almost everything–from confused communication and everyday stereotyping to victimisation in a criss-cross tale of 15 characters who experience everything from bitterness to fear to paranoia to relief thanks to each other in a span of two days in the chaotic racism-infested LA. Or so Paul Haggis would have us believe.

Its a daring attempt at film-making, but one that really leaves one wanting for more. The characters and the situations they find themselves in, despite the criminally short time-frame awarded, are real and raw with a capital R. To boot the awesome concept and direction are the realistic dialogues and an unforgettably moving background score which transports the viewer into the pain and anguish unfolding on-screen, minutes into the movie. The cascade of situations where each of them “crash” into each other brings about some of the most viscerally gut-wrenching yet totally identifiable sequences ever seen on the silver screen. When one sees a racist cop molesting a decent black woman and the same cop saving her life hours after that, its an eye-full sight of irony and humanity. Ditto when one sees a Persian shopkeeper shooting at a Hispanic locksmith and the latter’s daughter leaping that very instant on to her father, or when an otherwise cold and vexed wife of the District Attorney hugs her housemaker–possibly some of the most uplifting scenes you’ll ever see.

A deeper look and one realises that none of the sequences in this collage of a movie are there for their sentimentality value alone. Like the scene where a young cop ends up killing a black guy even though minutes ago you saw him getting disgusted over his racist partner who molested a black woman for no reason. Its a powerful scene where you, the audience, is as shocked as the shooter and the realisation of racism running unconsciously through one’s psyche is laid bare in just a few seconds of a lone close-up shot. Crash has a liberal dose of such intelligently crafted scenes yet not for a single second one’s aware of the manipulation thanks to the emotional punch the film carries from the opening shot right to the credits.

The picture just wouldn’t be complete without a mention of the splendid work each and every actor has pitched in. Towering above them all though, for me, was Sandra Bullock whose 15 or so minutes as the perennially irritated and pampered Jean in the movie filled me with so much respect for the performer in her that no amount of Miss Congenialities, Speeds and Two Weeks Notices could ever have. Thandie Newton, Matt Dillon, Ryan Phillippe and Terrence Howard are all in full form, each stamping their presence on every second of their screen time, yet managing to remain true to their characters. For eye candy, there’s Jennifer Esposito as possibly one of the most drop-dead gorgeous female cops EVER and for humour, there’s the rapper Ludacris babbling on about how buses have big windows so white people could smirk at the coloured people travelling in them and how its more respectable to loot a white man rather than a “nigger”.

Cerebral and emotional, topical and jaw-droppingly original, this Racism for Dummies is one “crash” course you can’t afford to miss.

Wallace and Gromit in the Curse of the Were Rabbit (2005): ** and 1/2

For the team that gave us the awesome Chicken Run five years ago, this new kiddie fest telling yet another fable of a braindead inventor and his dumb hound is a disappointment. Unlocking the mystery of the monster behind the local village’s garden destruction, the film packs in as much humour and action as an episode of Teletubbies. What saves the day however is the character of sensible Gromit whose mouthless face with nothing but the huge button eyes to express is a visual treat. Watching him head-slap, frown, roll his eyes, arch his eyebrows and getting doe-eyed is the sole reason why you don’t press the black square on your remote 30 minutes into the film. Then there’s the claymation. The ample usage of “real” objects means watching even mundane stuff like vegetables getting pulped out is quite cute. And there’s seemingly an awful lot of effort to make every character, every artifact look just that- cute in a made-from-dough, pinch-and-dent-me way. A shame then, that there just isn’t enough content to justify all the painstaking effort put in the visuals. The film just doesn’t pick up, the tired dialogue just doesn’t have that crackling British wit and except for a few puns and innuendoes here and there, it all ends with a funny but decidedly average showdown. Watch-it-and-forget-it affair!

Chicken Little (2005): ***

With every critic panning it left, right and centre this short and cute 3D animation came as a cute surprise. It packs in a lot of old-world cheese and charm reminiscent of Disney together with the wit more at home with today’s CGI animations. And it manages to do both of this, in style. If you are into contemporary Hollywood, there’s simply no way you can miss out on the terrific spoofs on almost every modern-day alien-invasion blockbusters. The best part is they never stop coming. From Signs to War of the Worlds, the chicken here loves to poke at everything alien. Even otherwise, if you look beyond what is essentially a non-stop spoof collection, the story of a chicken out on a rescue mission alongwith 3 (too cute and) nutty friends manages to grip you. Alien-invasion is new ground for CGI animation anyways and its good to see the cutie-fluffy things doing exactly what they should be doing with the genre–having fun. Just watching them playing baseball, dealing with pieces of sky falling, getting abducted by aliens, rescuing each other… its a non-stop roller-coaster that had me in splits every second minute.

Except for some cheesy, Disney moments when the chicken who everyone, even his dad, love to not believe in takes the centrestage (In true Disney fashion there’s also a song with a sulky chicken little roaming everywhere). So yea, if you are anywhere in double digit age, this redemption angle isn’t something that’ll choke you, but other than that its an hour and a quarter of fun you wouldn’t mind having.

Enigma (1999): ** and 1/2

Another of those movies that I always found on the library shelves staring at me but just couldn’t be bothered to pick up. Am a self-confessed hater of everything historical, but with so many copies on the shelves, so many fiesty Kate Winslets staring at me, no sir, I couldn’t help having a peek at it. The conclusion then–its not a bad film by any stretch of imagination. But neither isn’t a very good one. Set in a British code-breaking center circa 1943, i.e. the Second World War and following an intelligent genius (employed to break the then suddenly-changed Enigma code used by the Nazi U-boats) whose lady love has suddenly vanished, its a tale with a good enough sweep of espionage and codes in that era. But that’s a given as its adapted from the famous Robert Harris’ book. What’s worrying is that all the characters are flat. The cliched love triangle enmeshed with the history (which by the way, is grossly inaccurate anyway) is a yawn really and there really aren’t any “real” surprises in-store. What saves the day however is the awesome Winslet whose enthusiasm to go beyond the sketchy character and infuse humour doesn’t go waste. No, she isn’t the fiesty lady that’s pasted on the DVD cover, but a fat, geeky sidekick of a ball who lights up the screen everytime she enters.

Sideways (2004): *

Yet another film I was gutted to hate. And indeed, I actually ended up hating it. Alexander Payne is like the most unbelievably overhyped contemporary film-makers who, sadly the whole media is hell-bent to profess as the next best thing today to Charlie Kauffman. The sadder part, however, is that the movies he makes aren’t even average. They are crap. About Schmidt was crap. Sideways is a truckload of that, and more.

I wouldn’t have bothered rating or reviewing it, but because I knew what was coming thanks to About Schmidt, the film became bearable enough to watch. Its fun when you watch a movie only to tick away everything you don’t expect it to be. Like I didn’t expect it to be a realistic tragicomedy revolving around two men in mid-life crisis. And it wasn’t. I didn’t expect it to be even remotely as funny or remotely as profound as its projected out to be (the DVD cover is slapped with countless 5 stars by acclaimed newspaper critics, who should really be kicked hard, shot dead and have publicists written in their obituaries). And it wasn’t. I didn’t expect it to tell anything substantial in the two long hours it ran for. And it didn’t. You see the trend here? There’s a difference though. Just when you think the director couldn’t have done any worse than About Schmidt you are greeted with utterly stupid and done-to-death sequences. Like the car in which the two lead guys travel is purposely banged into a tree to cover up one of the guy’s bandaged nose (which apparently is a gift of this Asian girl who he was f*cking hard for days and who found out about his engagement).

The only really “funny” bit in the movie is sex. There are some very un-appetising sights of ungainly obese people having sex, of dialogues like “spank me hard”, of nude men running behind guys who banged their wives last night. And then there’s this bit about wine, which for those who care to listen, is some sound advice on Pinots and Cabernets and Merlots, which is the only reason I gave the movie a star. So, that’s really Sideways has on offer.. some juvenile sex humour and some “Wine-drinking for idiots”. Any takers?

Cypher (2002): *** and 1/2

Apparently, if you swear by sci-fi and you haven’t heard of Vicenzo Natali, you should hang yourself. Now. Or rush to the nearest DVD store to rent this movie. Exactly what I did. And boy, what a treat. Watching this is like playing Sudoku. The twists, the turns, the thrill, the revelations—the film hits you hard every 15 minutes. Although the premise of an unsuspecting man finding himself amidst the labyrinth of corporate espionage in his new job isn’t something that’ll set your heart racing, but slide in the DVD and get ready to be puzzled, re-puzzled, re-re-puzzled and then un-puzzled in the climax.

Its smart as hell, but sadly not swanky enough. Because Vicenzo Natali is no Spielberg, the production values are a bit naff. Though the camera angles and close-up shots are intelligently chosen to mask the tackiness, its still visible. The good news is that the terrific script and brilliant acting (Jeremy Northam and Lucy Liu) are enough to forget about the visual hiccups. Fiendishly clever, this futuristic thriller is right up there with the Minority Report.

Maybe Baby (2000): ** and 1/2

Directed by the famous author, Ben Elton, this is a small British film about a couple who are trying their hardest to conceive a child with the husband also going through a writer’s block (a pain when you have to submit a fresh script to the BBC). In true British fashion, the dialogues and the acting is excellent throughout. Its the terrific, smooth verbal acrobatics that separates a good British comedy from a nasal American one (ouch! that hurt, didn’t it?!) and Maybe Baby is good proof of that. Again, not a modern day classic, but a harmless, little film chronicling a struggling couple in a tragicomedy format, and excelling in that. The climax isn’t exactly how you’d expect a typical romcom to end, but that’s where the charm of this film is.

Some Bollywood, for a change:

Rang De Basanti (2006): **

There are some bad films for which I just can’t give a cold shoulder and huff the whole experience all away with a wave of my hand. And that’s because I am bloody p*ssed off with the film-maker. Exactly what was he thinking when he wrote the final 20 minutes of this movie. For the uninitiated, it sports of a braindead climax where four modern-day guys bump off the country’s defence minister after their friend crashes alongwith his MIG aircraft (fitted with cheap spares thanks to corruption in fund allocation etc for which the minister is held responsible). The hot-blooded quad then surrenders in a radio-station where they all get brutally shot and bombed at by a police force behaving more like some counter-terrorist unit. And then comes the absolute disgrace- the film-maker goes in a self congratulatory mode and we see TV stations playing messages of “inspired” youth. He wants the audience to believe that some kind of revolution has been started. Given the success of the movie and the moolah its raking, the audience has taken the bait and everyone’s coming out of the cinema, adrenalin-filled, ready to kick some ass. Almost everyone seems swept by the idea of making the corrupt politicians stand in a line and shoot them, stab them, smack them, slap them.

I won’t start a monologue here on how things work in real life, and how worrying it is when I switch on the TV and see young kids coming out of cinemas playing RDB and shouting at the Star News camera how “cool” DJ was in killing a minister, but what I can’t help and ask is whether this film even deserved to be made? I mean, for sure, adults can see through the whole allegorical sham of killing, but what about the young teenagers?

What’s more worrying is that the film’s a big hit. And why not–its shot stylishly, it had the most hummable music, some terrific acting, fairly relatable urban characters (don’t we just love them since DCH) and some really good flitting between past and present. All of which sucks you into the on-goings so badly that when the godawful climax plays, you are bound to justify the heinous crime the lead males commit. And don’t even get me started on the parallel that the writers create of this dumb and frivolous mini-gang with the likes of Bhagat Singh and Rajguru. You continue to applaud the fantastic cinematography of the scenes of the bygone era and how neatly they sweep through the numerous events until it slowly dawns that something more shameful is about to unfold on screen. And it does. The readers who have seen the movie know what I am talking about. The climax is just bizarre. More bizarre than Rakesh Mehra’s whole of last film (Aks) put together. But then for someone who made Aks, its not a surprise that this is his idea of New-age patriotism. What’s really upsetting is someone as intelligent and as perceptive as Aamir Khan being a part of this mess.

As for me, I’d rather re-watch a Swades, a Yuva or even a Nayak than coming anywhere near this ideologically flawed (for want of more demeaning words) and repulsively stupid film.

Phew… this is turning out to be one monster post. I guess I’ll save up the rest of my mini-ops for the next batch.

Film-watching 2006

Since books and movies are the only entities to motivate me enough after a busy day to blog, this time around I thought about treating my readers to a cocktail of everything I have been watching since the year dawned. So read on:

1. All or Nothing: **** and 1/2 (2002)

A film I couldn’t find fault with. And a film that’ll forever be in my favourites list, All or Nothing is possibly one of the most realistic, honest and unmanipulated chronicle of three working class British families and their everyday struggles. In a mere 100 or so minutes I was so totally sucked into this world populated by these so-sincere-I-could-touch-them characters that I laugh-cried, cry-laughed, sympathised, agonised, empathised, felt disgusted and scared and sorry with them, for them. Boy, Mike Leigh (the same guy whose Vera Drake in 2004 hogged many a nomination–but failed to impress me) alongwith a super-efficient cast (especially Timothy Spall and Ruth Sheen) and technicians should be applauded for this piece of utter cinematic brilliance. Its sheen comes not from any new-age CGI or some profound psychobabble but from the faithfulness, optimism and compassion with which it recreates a the same world we dwell in. Spellbinding!

2. The Insider: *** and 1/2 (1999)

Just for Al Pacino’s tour-de-performance as a no-holds-barred-die-for-honest-journalism producer of a news programme, and some of the most engaging dialogue to be found in a Hollywood film, this male version of Erin Brockorwich deserves your time. Top this with a haunting background score, Michael Mann’s assured direction, deft editing and you have a film that just doesn’t let go of you. Boasting of a topical, real story of a tobacco research biologist who blows the whistle on the tobacco industry that’s influential enough to buy off the press, the media and sinister enough to hide the debilitating illnesses that cigarretes are so capable to cause, its only Russell Crowe’s staccato performance as the whistleblower in dilemma of thinking about his own family’s or the society’s good that evades the film from becoming truly exceptional.

3. Munich: **** (2005)

After the rather mediocre War of the Worlds, the movie-making machine philandering as Steven Spielberg came up with this unrelentingly violent drama chronicling the hit squad employed by the Israeli Govt after the Palestinian terrorists captured and killed off 11 athletes in The ‘72 Olympics in Munich as they hunt down the eleven suspects. With terrific and terrifyingly genuine reconstruction of the era, replete in a thriller format, laced with jaw-droppingly real performances and some of the grittiest action on the big screen ever–this dark and urgent epic worked for me by forcing meditation on the sheer futility of the terrorist attacks (then, now, whenever), the revenge strategy employed at that time and the hellish psychological impact it has on the assassins.

The tone, the atmosphere, the background score is grim-to-the-point-of-suicide, and it excels in disturbing, shocking even the most desensitised to screen violence with its rawness, and also simultaneously brings about the sheer magnitude it takes to kill a human and then live with the burden amazingly. Spielberg’s masterstroke is evident as he cuts out the whole harrowing footage of the athletes’ captivity and murder and scatters them throughout the movie, with every successive clip gorier than the last as Eric Bana goes into a lucid thinking frenzy (watch the climactic sequence where Bana reaches an orgasm as the final clip of the athletes being savagely killed at gunpoint plays in quick succession-a bizzarre, indulgent yet highly effective sequence) And I haven’t even said anything about the very good and plausible political commentary.

4. The Descent: *** and 1/2(2005)

After a long time (since 28 days later to be precise), a horror film that truly terrifies. Six backpacking, cave-digging female explorers venture into a labyrinth of underground caves and find themselves amidst crumbling walls and cannibalistic predators. If the thought of watching six femme fatales in flesh-hugging bodysuits isn’t motivation enough, there really are some genuine shocks, creeps, slashes and gore galore. Its also commendable how the screenplay and the script writers have made a deliberate attempt at steering clear of the cliches, have roped in a convincing thread of betrayal amidst the team and how much thought has been given to the camera-angle and light-play inside the caves to evoke a true sense of claustrophobia. The result-a bloodcurdling film that leaves you hating the caves and swearing to yourself you won’t venture anywhere near these godforsaken places atleast for an year. (call me a wimp, you can!)

5. The Blair Witch Project: * (1999)

Backpacking and expedition came under some more axe with this supposedly inspired-by-real-events farce of a horror film. Though I was close to commending the makers for going the brave way and trying to instill horror by leaving it all to the viewer’s imagination, its really the tackiness of the whole thing (the video-camera footage is eye-wateringly shaky) and the general stupidity of the lead characters (who are basically nothing but swearing and screaming motor-mouths) that makes you wish the “Blair Witch” skins them alive in front of your eyes. Sadly, even that’s not to be. All one sees is an upturned video-camera and some ambush sounds, and yes the rolling credits. Really makes you go “what the f*ck was that?”

PS: Fans of this movie-Please fit a video-camera in your attic and watch the footage every morning to be “freaked” by the insect sounds and sudden wisps of insects flapping by. If that doesn’t do the trick, put the lens cover back on and leave the camera on for the whole day. Seriously guys!

6. The Godfather-Part 2: * and 1/2 (1974)

Another proof of how absolutely lame and repetitive sequels can get. Another proof of how hype in Hollywood is inversely proportional to substance. And another proof of the stubborn “am-successful-will-repeat” mentality. Taking the reins from the masterpiece that the first Godfather so irrefutably remains, this one attempts two tracks–Vito Corleone’s childhood and Michael Corleone going legit and in the process, degenerating to become this cold-blooded, alpha male. The film’s biggest undoing is its over-indulgence (the camera never tires of capturing long, listless faces which mouth either Italian 90% of their time on screen or seemingly profound English monosyllables during the rest) and its length (at a hefty 3 and a half hours, this one dilutes and super-dilutes any impact the script might have packed). As a genre signature, there’s a lot of glorification of crime and romanticization of gangs which I am not particularly a fan of. The film elicits almost zero emotion from the viewer and there’s nothing more painful than sitting in front of your TV for a whole 4 hours with a straight, bored face. Dull, dull, dull!

7. Underworld: * and 1/2 (2003)

Now this is going to be difficult. Writing about this movie means recalling some really painful moments of film-watching, which thankfully my brain has decided to repress in some un-recoverable region. Its not as if I expected a film like Underworld to respect my grey matter, but it did one better by insulting even my other senses–that of sight and hearing.

Still managing to remember bits-and-pieces, there was no emotion/humour, the CGI was decidedly tacky and the action sequences were downright boring and shamelessly plagiarised. Like some bad 2 hour advertisement video for leather bodysuits and hair styling gels, it went on and on about some war (yawn) between vampires and werewolves running for centuries with the latter likely to be extinct. Just then enters the heroine who discovers there are more beasts than her “boss” has been saying there were. And then starts the hunt to find out exactly what are these werewolves hunting normal humans for. Not to forget another boring thread of what started the actual war between the two quasi-beastly families (more yawn) which is just Romeo Juliet replayed. So amidst all those stoopid chases (which really never excite), lame hidden “alliances” you just sit as the credits roll saying to yourself “is that it?”.

8. Ocean’s Eleven: *** (2001)

Nowhere quite as good as Ridley Scott’s Matchstick Men (2003) which managed to pack in more charm and repeat-value with much fewer stars, Ocean’s Eleven still is an enjoyable watch-it-and-forget-it affair with precious little working against it as a con thriller. Its directed, acted and shot exceedingly well and the twists and turns catches even the most avid movie watcher by surprise. The con-job at the heart of it strikes the right balance between plausibility and convenience and with no heavy-duty conflicts/ scenes/ deaths/ redemptions, its really a film you don’t mind munching away on a lazy weekend. Sure leaves you with one big smirk on your face. Good one!

9. The Pianist: *** and 1/2 (2002)

A thoroughly watchable Holocaust drama, with some really effective, well-directed scenes and Adrien Brody’s earnest performance to boot. But quite not as moving or as profound as I had thought it would be. Its different in the sense that it follows a a character who really isn’t in there facing all the atrocities of Holocaust, but is outside the hell-ring, shuttling through flats, living at the mercy of acquaintances and peeking through flats and toilets out on the street.

The film almost achieves masterpiece stature in its first half as it effortlessly captures a throbbing-with-life Polish Jewish family (three cheers for the superlative cast) and packs in some really difficult scenes like a wheelchair bound old Jewish man being thrown off the balcony, Brody’s old father slapped on the street and rebuked to walk off the footpath, a Jewish boy bringing food to the ghetto sliding through a passage hole in the wall but caught by the German guards who crush his legs by a through beating killing him right there, decent Jews made to randomly dance on the road– just about every scene uptil the families are sent off to Auschwitz is jaw-dropping.

With a choking separation from his family, the good part of the film’s next 1.5 hrs chronicle Brody’s character fending for himself alone as the beautiful city (and the world) around him bears the brunt of the times. Brody however makes all of this 1.5 hours watchable, almost doing what Tom Hanks did to a never-ending Castaway. Yes, it sure is quite fresh to see a viewpoint of a meek bystander of that era who slided between the atrocities and there indeed are some classic old-school morals–that of patience and perseverence being the only worthy virtues to have , and how sometimes (especially where you won’t be much use in, or be killed as just another animal) the bravest thing to do is to escape and hide as ultimately being alive is the biggest achievement-well honed into the script. Sure as hell, its one of the most unmanipulative and uncliched accounts of the era, and boasts of truly an exceptional first half and a credible redemptive climax–but even all this isn’t enough for me to watch all of it again. Maybe its the Holocaust–there’s only a certain amount of it that you can take in a movie and rewatching serious movies like these isn’t exactly the perfect recipe for an “enjoyable” movie night. So yea.. good, serious stuff.

10. The Polar Express in 3D (2004): **

Either its really me or there clearly is a huge dearth of good 3D movies being made. Whichever way, the Polar Express remains one of the strangest and possibly the most bizarre kiddie film ever. A Christmas-doubting young boy is woken up 5 minutes to the Eve by a train which he then boards and a long, fantastical trip to the North Pole (basically a Christmas-present factory) later starts hearing the Christmas bell ring. A storyline as simple as this is stretched to a sleep-inducing 1 hr 40 minutes and when you have to gulp all of it down wearing glasses that go all the way from your forehead to your nose, you are in for some real trouble. I would have happily forgiven the screen-time if only there was some quality 3D. What one gets for a wallet-ripping £12 is just the same old 3D cliches where the camera follows the steam locomotive dropping from cliffs, and rising, and dropping, and rising again. Not impressive.
What really nails this movie experience as truly bad is the animation itself. In some demented state of mind, the producers have plonked in millions to make a whole animated movie out of “performance capture” (a digital technology famously used on the actor Andy Serkis who morphed into a terrifyingly real Gollum in LOTR and Kong in King Kong)– a move that backfires completely. All the kids in the film look clinically depressed, on-the-verge-of-jumping-off-Polar-Express creatures who are in desperate need of some Prozac. Their hyper-moist eyes and stoned-into-place facial muscles make every dialogue jar, every monologue grate. There’s none of the cleverness and wit that one associates with the animations and the tired fable just goes on and on with one silly hot-chocolate song paving way for another christmas carol. The only redeeming sequences are when the whole train slides over a huge frozen lake setting off a frenzy of cracks and a lost ticket being followed by the eager camera all the way upto a vulture’s nest and then coming back into the same chair car.

Overall though it remains a confused and a thoroughly bad experiment in animation that sends its very target audience–the kids– either screaming in disgust or dozing off. As for the adults, you just heard me moan for a good two paragraphs.

Done with rating and ranting on the first 10 films I watched this year. More reviews to follow in my next post. So keep reading!

Brokeback Mountain

Brokeback Mountain: ***
Munich: ****

2 movies that made the most noise. So much so that I had to get my lazy arse up and rush to the nearest cinema to see what the chatter was all about. And I have to admit that there indeed was some substance to be found amidst the pile of hype that both of these were buried under. As if the rating hasn’t already declared, its Spielberg’s historic recreation of a government employed hit squad that comes up trumps. Both of them vying for the Best Film at the Oscars and in my humble opinion, even though I am gutted that they’ll hand it to Brokeback.., Munich is a more deserving candidate.

Coming to Brokeback Mountain first. In noway is this gay cowboy drama as profound or as powerful as every critic in every newspaper, every online daily claims it is. Granted, its good cinema–but giving it the status of the best to come out of Hollywood is insulting the film industry, if I can be polite enough. Since Hollywood fever caught me only back in 2003, despite my continuous valiant attempts to be abreast with the plethora of movies released and classics over these few years, I have never felt drawn into the celebrity culture–the interviews, the scandals, the break-ups, the awards, the casting coups etc etc. Which meant that I was more or less oblivious to the presence of the lead actors as A-list stars. Okay, so Gyllenhall caught my attention in the godawful Day After Tomorrow last year. In arguably, one of the most artificial and stilted performance I have seen on the big screen. So I wasn’t all that jazzed up when I looked at the star cast. Which, in a way, is good because when I was watching the movie, I wasn’t hung up/awed by/clapped at the courage of two A-list actors kissing on screen. I mean if BM was made in Bollywood (strictly hypothetical folks… don’t worry, it won’t happen EVER), I’d be applauding it (or more so-the actors) for being brave, courageous, forthright and what not. Yes, I could have been biased by the star-status.

But BM is free of any such biases of mine. And to start on a positive note, credit has to be given to Ledger as the lead who pitches in one of the most true-to-character performances ever (I have read the short story and Ledger is indeed well cast). The guy sure does make you wince with his silences and laconic speech but thanks to the length of the movie, he grows upon you like anything and towards the end, he’s one of the strongest reasons why you are not dozing off in your seat.

At its heart, BM is a tragic love story and with the skill of Ang Lee, the film does manage to tug at your heart enough to choke. Yes, the film douses you into half an hour of pity and sympathy for the doomed lovers and gives you ample time to meditate on the sheer injustice and prejudice imparted by the heartless society to homosexuals (no seriously, I really was sitting with one hand on the chin and really wished they got together and pondered over the fate that would have awaited them if they’d gone ahead with their relationship. At this point I also found myself mumbling “f*ck this society”). Proof enough for effective direction and focussed screenplay.

But all isn’t quite right in BM. For once, its far too long, and way too brooding. Especially the opening hour. Its a faithful translation of the short story, granted, but the absolute absence of direction, progression for a whole one hour sends all the wrong signals to the sleep centre. And sure enough, just as the movie was catching steam, I was groping for my Airwaves gum to keep myself alert. And then there’s the mumbling. Again, when did sporting a Southern accent meant you shouldn’t open your mouth. Atleast the director and the lead guys seem to think so. With a thick accent, the dialogues are just as comprehensible as a foreign language. I didn’t mind it that much as they are lifted almost line to line from the short story but I sure saw and heard numerous tuts and frowns on the fellow viewers’ faces. On a retrospect though, maybe speaking with one’s mouth almost closed is probably one of those classic signs of repression in Ledger’s character. In fact as I think about it, there’s so much about Ennis suggesting he’s uncomfortable being himself (hands in pocket, funny gait, odd constricted body language–typical signs of self-hatred, repression)

Overall, a good enough, if a bit rosier and romanticised translation of a piece of literature, BM’s got a terrific scene (one hell of a cinematic moment this one… when Jack and Ennis have a final confrontation and Ennis breaks down) and a terrific performance from Ledger as its only trump cards. The length, editing (or the lack of it), the brooding nature in the first half dilute the impact that the gritty short story packed. But still, good refreshing piece of cinema that’s quite direct in showcasing the problems of being a homosexual (being in closet, getting on with what society perceives as “normal life”)–something that its publicity designers shy away from and we have “universal love story” etc etc plastered on every hoarding, every poster.

To remind myself of my favourite scene, here’s the dialogue of the same:

Ennis Del Mar: I’m gonna tell you this one time, Jack fuckin’ Twist, an’ I ain’t foolin’. What I don’t know - all them things I don’t know - could get you killed if I come to know them. I mean it.
Jack Twist: Yeah well try this one, and I’ll say it just once!
Ennis Del Mar: Go ahead!
Jack Twist: Tell you what, we coulda had a good life together! Fuckin’ real good life! Had us a place of our own. But you didn’t want it, Ennis! So what we got now is Brokeback Mountain! Everything’s built on that! That’s all we got, boy, fuckin’ all. So I hope you know that, even if you don’t never know the rest! You count the damn few times we have been together in nearly twenty years and you measure the short fucking leash you keep me on - and then you ask me about Mexico and tell me you’ll kill me for needing somethin’ I don’t hardly never get. You have no idea how bad it gets! I’m not you… I can’t make it on a coupla high-altitude fucks once or twice a year! You are too much for me Ennis, you sonofawhoreson bitch! I wish I knew how to quit you.
Ennis Del Mar: [crying] Well, why don’t you? Why don’t you just let me be? It’s because of you that I’m like this! I ain’t got nothing… I ain’t nowhere… Get the fuck off me! I can’t stand being like this no more, Jack.

Jack Twist: God, I wish I knew how to quit you!
Ennis Del Mar: Well, why don’t you?

The scene alone is worth the admission price.

PS: Munich review to follow soon.