Birdman 2015 english movie Review

Birdman 2015 english movie Review

Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's Birdman is a film about hope; about love, both lost and found; about finding the best version of yourself and accepting it; about loving what you do and doing what you love. But mostly, it's about a bunch of foul-mouthed washed-up or nobody actors trying to get their first Broadway play off the ground successfully.

Michael Keaton is Riggan Thompson, who is most popularly known for playing the superhero character Birdman in three blockbuster films in the early 90s. He turned down a fourth installment in the franchise back then, and has done a bunch of nothing since then. What makes this situation funny is that Keaton actually played Batman in two films from 1989-92. Riggan even comes equipped with a Birdman alter-ego who talks in a hoarse voice, much like Batman.

So, Riggan decides to mount a Broadway play (initially to disastrous results) with a cast of actors that includes Naomi Watts, Edward Norton and Andrea Riseborough. Also in the mix is his assistant/daughter Emma Stone, his ex-wife Amy Ryan and his best friend/lawyer/producer Zach Galifianakis.

Birdman is like a Broadway play, much like the one the characters seem to be doing. The camera, the actual camera, follows each character around, as a normal person would, as they go about having conversations with each, fighting with each other dressed in their underwear, having sex on top of the stage lights, or simply having a breakdown.

Much like a stage play, the line between scenes is blurred, as one act ends and another one seamlessly begins. The camera work, by now-legendary cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, flows with the grace and delicate flexibility of a ballet dancer, almost floating in the air as it goes from one end of the backstage building to the other.

One aspect of Birdman that is hard to get past is the constant flow of dialogue. If ever a film has maintained a steady barrage of words throughout its running length, it's Birdman. In fact, this film is the most reliant on conversation between its protagonists since the final film in Richard Linklater's Before Trilogy. And the dialogues themselves are a thing of beauty. The characters say things that range from unabashed, no-holds-barred, cuss-filled one-liners that make your either chuckle with glee or lough out loud, to their general insights about life that generally entertain you with how true their social commentary is.

Sample this: Michael Keaton, while imagining having a conversation with his Birdman alter-ego, looks at himself in the mirror and says "you look like a turkey with leukimia". Or when Edward Norton says about a woman at a bar, "she looks like she just licked a homeless man's ass". These are some of the most politically incorrect things that you will hear someone saying, things that should shock and stun you. Instead, you laugh your heart out at the honesty with which the various characters conduct themselves.

Unlike most films about previously successful professionals who end up trying their hand at something new, Birdman is not an inspirational film. Sure, Riggan finds a new side to himself that he didn't know existed by the end, and the play turns out to be successful. But the film doesn't try to manipulate you, trying to pump you up like a "Just Do It" style sports commercial. In fact, the realization dawns upon him during a mostly funny extended fantasy sequence involving a giant bird trying to destroy New York.

Even though the film is about a Broadway play, it's actually much more a sum of all of its key players. It's all about relationships that are built over the course of it, and those that are broken. And director Inarritu, who's previous films have had a large cast of interconnected characters, is the perfect man for the job of handling all of his players.

Inarritu, who also co-wrote the film with Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris Jr and Armando Bo, lets his cast flourish, letting them go at each other in long, uncut, one-shot sequences, as he stands by gently guiding them in the direction he wants to go. He takes a story that doesn't have as much comedic potential on first glance, and makes a film that is deeply funny, yet deeply insightful. He not only blurs the line between different sequences, he also blurs the line between fantasy and reality when it comes to Keaton's solo scenes.

A special mention for Antonio Sanchez, who provides an off-beat, drums-based musical score that only helps in highlighting the comedy within each sequence.

Keaton's performance is one of the most meta moments in cinematic history. Much like the character he's playing, Keaton seems to have found his groove in an uncharacteristic and surprisingly self-deprecatory role. Not only is his comic timing pitch perfect, but the earnestness that he displays in the film's dramatic moments is stunning to watch. Keaton is only surpassed by blinding performance by Edward Norton, as a popular theater actor with his own eccentricities. Every single time Norton is on screen, you start laughing in anticipation of the next abomination that would surely come from his mouth. He does the most shocking things with ease of a kid shoveling dirt in a park.

Emma Stone takes you completely by surprise as Keaton's drug-addict daughter who believes in the power of social media. Anyone, including me, who would've ever doubted her acting capabilities before this film, her monolog outburst against her father somewhere near the middle of the film should shut us up for good. Naomi Watts, Zach Galifianakis and Andrea Riseborough play their parts with aplomb, managing to be funny when you least expect it.

Considering the number of months left in 2015, there might be a small possibility that you end up finding a funnier film than Birdman this year. But I could bet my (insert collateral here) that you won't find a smarter comedy than this genius piece of cinema.

Foxcatcher 2015 english movie Review

Foxcatcher 2015 english movie Review

Foxcatcher opens with Olympic gold-medalist Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum) speaking at an elementary school for a meager $20, which is followed by him going through the motions of his everyday life, eating alone, watching TV alone, practicing his wrestling moves alone, followed by wrestling practice with his Olympic gold-medalist elder brother Dave Schultz (Mark Ruffalo).

As the two brothers wrestle, friendly at first and then more aggressively at the instigation of Mark, you become aware of Mark's sense of insecurity, his feeling overshadowed by his well-liked and well-intentioned brother. In these moments, the film makes an extremely strong start, showing you what the rest of the film is going to be like: sober, somber and intense with a melancholic tone.

Director Bennett Miller's follow-up to the acclaimed Capote and Moneyball is an odd film, in the sense that despite the presence of all kinds of talent, the film never manages to completely exploit all the potential for drama that lies beneath the surface of this true story of two brothers and a murderous psychopath. It keeps you waiting and waiting for THAT defining moment to come, the moment that defines every great film and completely turns the narrative around. But with Foxcather, that moment never comes.

This aforementioned psychopath is John E. du Pont (Steve Carell), a billionaire (millionaire?) philanthropist and wrestling enthusiast, who enlists Mark to join his team Team Foxcatcher and train with him for the World Championships. The character of du Pont is simultaneously the film's biggest achievement and its worst failure.

With the right makeup, prosthetics, camera angles and some supreme acting, the film manages to make du Pont appear like the most ordinary person and the most disturbing person in the world all at the same time. He manages to look creepy even when he's just silently blinking his eyes. He's the kind of guy who makes you feel like taking a bath after just being in the same room with him.

But where the film looses out is exploring the psychology of du Pont and what drove the man to commit one of the most notorious murders in sporting history. We're barely able to scratch the surface of the character that was du Pont, also know as the "Golden Eagle". By the end of the film, the only relationship of his that we have any level of understanding of is the one he shared with his mother, where he had the tendency to try to prove himself worthy of her approval.

Also surprising are the time leaps that the film employs, with the final jump in time spanning years. Important storylines and characters are completely obliterated from the film, giving an incomplete picture of the real events. Even the critical moments that director Miller and writers E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman choose to film are sometimes glossed over.

But in between all the inconsistencies and omissions, the film manages to keep you involved somehow or the other. Mark's descent into insecurity, taking up cocaine use on du Pont's beckoning, his spiraling during the Olympics tryouts and his binge-eating are some of the smaller details and emotions that are captured extremely well by Bennett Miller. The same goes for the big finale, which is shot in a very understated manner, magnifying its impact.

The cinematography by Greig Fraser is commendable, whether it's in capturing the snow-capped mansion of du Pont or, more importantly, during the wrestling scenes. Even though wrestling itself isn't at the front and center during the film, the few short sequences that do feature in the film appear as authentic as you could possibly expect them to be. The musical score by Rob Simonsen and West Dylan Thordson is minimalistic, which is exactly what the film required. The film could've definitely used crisper editing, though.

The one area where the film shines bright and sunny is the performances. Tatum turns in an uncharacteristically restrained performance as Mark Schultz, the film's main protagonist. Sure, it may not be career-changing performance for the guy, like Dallas Buyers Club was for Matthew McConaughey, but he never sticks out like a sore thumb. Plus, his athleticism and beefy build make him a great choice for the role.

Mark Ruffalo is his usual reliable self as Dave, giving it his all. Both him and Tatum are never less than convincing as wrestlers, and more importantly, brothers. Ruffalo gets a role that is suited to his personality, as the gentle and helpful soul, and gives a watchable performance.

But the film is lead with pride by Steve Carell as John du Pont, a performance that should help him break out from his mold of comedy films. As the deranged, jealous, drug-addled ornithologist, Carell gives a stunningly creepy performance, the kind that should chill you to your bones. Apart from his prosthetically-altered appearance, he even subtly modifies his gait, stance and posture to maximize the unnerving effect that his character has on people surrounding him. It might not win him an Oscar at the end of the day, but it should win him plenty of applause from cinegoers worldwide.

When you're walking out of the theater, you cannot help but feel that Bennett Miller (an otherwise superlative talent) seems to have missed a trick or two with Foxcatcher. He has a keen eye for capturing the smaller moments, interactions and showdowns between characters, but he loses sight of the big picture in this case. A better treatment of this thrilling true story could've morphed the film into one for the ages.

Instead, you're left feeling incomplete, like you're missing out on some pieces of the puzzle that was the mind of John E. du Pont. Mark Schultz recently criticized the film and Miller for completely making up the personalities of all the characters in the film. What he really should've been mad about is a perfect opportunity for creating an epic sports murder-drama squandered away by some measured filmmaking.

Mortdecai 2015 English movie Cast,crew & Review

Mortdecai  2015 English movie Cast & crew

Genre: Action, Comedy

Art dealer Charles Mortdecai searches for a stolen painting that's reportedly linked to a lost bank account filled with Nazi gold.

Director: David Koepp
Producer: Johnny Depp, Andrew Lazar, Patrick McCormick, Gigi Pritzker, Christi Dembrowski
Production Co: Mad Chance Productions, Infinitum Nihil, Huayi Brothers Media

Music Director: Geoff Zanelli
Cast: Johnny Depp, Ewan McGregor, Gwyneth Paltrow, Olivia Munn, Aubrey Plaza, Paul Bettany, Jeff Goldblum, Oliver Platt, Michael Byrne, Ulrich Thomsen  Complete Cast & Crew

The Theory of Everything 2015 Movie Review

The Theory of Everything 2015  English Movie Review

There has been a sudden influx of biographical dramas these past few years. Biopics today are like Tom Hanks - who doesn't love them? Audiences love them, critics love them, and they make good money more often than not. But while making a biopic, a filmmaker has to walk a thin rope. Neither can he border on hero worship, nor can he afford to understate the subject's achievements. A perfect balance has to be found, a task easier said than done.

This week's The Theory Of Everything has Stephen Hawking as its subject. The film is adapted from Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen, written by his wife Jane Hawking. But instead of your typical biographical drama chronicling a person's extraordinary achievements, the film instead provides you an intimate look into the private life of The Hawkings.

The film starts off from the first time that Stephen meets Jane, two students who have a chance encounter at a college party. They debate the existence of God, phone numbers are exchanged and a whirlwind romance begins. But soon, Stephen finds out that he has a disease that'll make him lose all motor functions and muscle movement with time, and doctors give him just 2 years more to live. Despite the odds facing them, Jane never gives up on their love and the two get married.

The love story is cut-into by a scientific discovery/theory by Hawking every now and then, but the main focus of the film remains on the progression of Stephen's disease, Jane's unwavering commitment to him and the life that they lead together. The film explores how their beliefs are tested and how their love holds up over exactly what Stephen based his first thesis on: time.

The advantage of concentrating so narrowly on their personal lives is that the film never really gets into the hero worship zone, like we saw with Angelina Jolie's Unbroken a few weeks ago. Director James Marsh instead chooses to portray Stephen Hawking, one of the greatest minds in the history of the world as just another ordinary human being unfortunate enough to be afflicted by the disease. He humanizes the man, and tells his story in a most simple and intimate manner.

On the downside of this very approach, the fact that he chooses to not focus on his scientific achievements removes the awe factor from his life. Hawking is an inspirational figure across the world because of his achievements despite his personal hardships. When people in the film say that they feel blessed to meet him, you cannot possibly agree with them because you haven't been told of his success in the scientific field except in the most vague manner.

Even if you're left feeling that you've got to know only one side of the man, there's still enough drama and layers to the characters to leave you highly fulfilled. The first half of the film pretty much breezes by, setting up the characters, the situations and the drama wonderfully. The establishment of the different shades to Hawking is done masterfully, especially when it came to his dilemma of physical cosmology vs existence of God.

The second half turns to tell the story from Jane's perspective. Being the wife of a paralyzed genius isn't as much of a joy as the outside world would imagine, and the realization dawns upon her that she can no longer do this alone. It's in these portions that the film begins to lag a bit. While you certainly empathize with Jane and her frustration, having sacrificed her entire life for her husband's, you cannot escape the feeling of having seen similar situations in other films previously.

What's impressive, though, is that at no point does director Marsh or the writer Anthony McCarten try to gain the sympathy of the audience by emotionally manipulating them, something that is a permanent fixture in similar stories of the triumph of human spirit. In fact, they portray their leads as well-rounded beings with their own moments of weakness. Marsh does an especially great job, interspersing the tearful drama with a few light-headed moments. He takes the facts that are in evidence, and he weaves together a film that is engrossing for the majority of its running length.

Even in its weaker moments, the film manages to stand tall on the shoulders of its strong leads. The dawn of the rookies has been upon us for some time, and Eddie Redmayne continues the trend with his portrayal of Stephen Hawking. It's one thing to vaguely act like a person and a completely different thing to actually become one. Redmayne is so skillful as Hawking that you couldn't possibly tell that he isn't actually wheelchair-bound. The physicality of the role itself is an impossible achievement, but every single aspect of it, from the posture to the movement of the fingers to the manner of speaking to that incredibly innocent yet mischievous smile, Redmayne nails down everything to perfection. For the most part of the film, he has to convey his character's myriad of emotions only through his face, but the actor doesn't skip a beat. Every single micro-expression on his tortured face is him one step closer to nabbing this year's Best Actor trophy at the Academy Awards.

Felicity Jones is equally adroit as Jane Hawking, following Redmayne's lead in most sequences. She conveys the loneliness, dissatisfaction and the urge to stray that her character feels in her life with utmost expressiveness. Not only does she look elegantly beautiful, but when the opportunity presents itself for her to shine in the second half, she grabs it by both hands and impresses you with a pitch-perfect performance. Rest of the cast members provide able support.

The film starts off well, only to lose some steam in the second half. But there's hardly any damage done, with James Marsh's accomplished direction righting the ship. Marsh and writer McCarten also find the most ideal ending you could possibly imagine, rewinding the clock to the first time that the duo first met at the party, mirroring Stephen's wish to reverse time to the beginning of the world. Add to that, Redmayne's faultless and applause-worthy portrayal of Stephen Hawking is something you're not likely to forget any time soon. If that's not enough to make you leave the theater impressed, I don't know what is.

I (Ai) Movie Review

I (Ai) Movie Review






Shankar, who wears his commercial tag like a medallion, has an addiction for making big commercial films. While he's been quite successful at it all these years, it has slowly started to have an adverse effect on his films to the extent that even the presence of a bankable star, say Vikram, doesn't add much value to the output.

In his much anticipated film "I", Shankar proves that only he can take a wafer thin story and turn it into something outlandishly beautiful yet complex, leaving you with an afterthought -- "Why can't he ever make smaller films for a change?"

Mostly known for making message-oriented films in which the hero singlehandedly takes on the system, Shankar attempts to tell a romantic tale in his latest offering, said to be made at a budget of over Rs.100 crore.

Vikram plays a bodybuilder, Lingesan, who idolises Arnold Schwarzenegger and supermodel Diya, played by Amy Jackson. If the posters of Arnold decorate the walls of his lower middle class home and his gym (which is named after Arnold), there's a box full of women's products endorsed by Diya in his bedroom.

In a funny scene, when he's caught red-handed by his friend and asked what he is going to do with all the products (holding a pack of sanitary napkin), Lingesan nonchalantly says he will use it as a pillow.

In these refreshing initial moments, Shankar helps us understand that Lingesan has extreme liking for Diya but doesn't love her yet because of their social and cultural divide. There's a wonderful scene where Lingesan's mother asks his friend what's wrong if her son is fond of a model he sees on television, newspapers and hoardings?

In any other film, he would've stalked her to the point she eventually gives in. Here, Shankar doesn't tread that path and that's a big relief. Then, the story takes a detour when Lingesan turns overnight into model Lee, soon becoming a sensation in the glamorous world of advertising and earning the wrath of a few. It is from here that Shankar's "I" ends up becoming a big budget mess and an old-fashioned revenge drama.

Shankar likes to take his audiences to vast, unknown locations even if it's not required. This time he travels to China, shoots in some picturesque locations and makes Vikram feature in a well choreographed action sequence. It's here he makes Vikram and Amy fall in love.

He feels the need to create a love triangle and introduces a gay makeup artist, played by Ojas Rajani, who lusts after Vikram. It's a shame that Shankar resorts to playing with the sensibilities of a gay character, openly mocking at the sexual orientation.

Vikram may have worked tirelessly gaining and losing weight for his role, but that doesn't make the film any less disappointing. In both the roles, as a body builder and a hunchbacked man, he makes one take notice of his potential and how far he can go for cinema.

Amy Jackson chips in with a surprisingly decent performance and has worked hard on her lip sync, at least in some crucial scenes. Upen Patel, Suresh Gopi and Ramkumar come across as misfits in their respective roles. There are far more good looking local actors who could've played Upen's part convincingly.

Given the lavish budget, "I" is visually grandiose and that's not a surprise. But the visuals don't make up for the weak script. Even A.R. Rahman's music doesn't make much of a difference but for remaining mostly soothing and melodic. Returning after a gap of three years, Shankar should've gauged the pulse of the audiences who now prefer short stories over a three-hour film.

All that's big may not necessarily be great. Hope Shankar realises that much better films can be made on a smaller canvas and much lower budget.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Movie Review

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Review

Over the years, the iconic Spider-Man has enthralled millions and with each new edition, be it comics, television series or films, our expectations soar for a fantastic action-packed drama.

Unfortunately, the much-awaited, Marc Webb's "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" is a damp squib. Cluttered with numerous sub-plots that lead to textual inconsistency, it offers a bland, insipid and a tangled fare packed with adolescent angst and predictable action.

This film takes off from its prequel, "The Amazing Spider-Man". It begins with a flash back in a sepia-toned sequence beginning at the OsCorp Industries. The sequence explains the mysterious disappearance and death of the scientist Richard Parker (Cambell Scott) and his wife Mary (Embeth Davidtz).

After establishing this, the film then shifts gear full throttle to a present-day action-packed sequence, where their son, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) continues to fight crime as Spider-Man.

Interspersed with; dynamically energetic shots of the web-slinger swinging between skyscrapers and chasing a rogue truck driver with silly tongue-in-cheek wisecracks and more than a few visual gags, the sequence is everything you could want from a Spider-Man movie. If Webb's entire sequel had operated on that level, it would have been remarkable and a different story to tell.

But instead, in this version, Spider-Man, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) is in a soup over the affairs of his heart. He is distraught with pangs about; his relationships with his girlfriend Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), his best childhood buddy Harry Osbon (Dane DeHaan), his fan Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx) who later transforms in to the villain Electro. He also pines to find the truth about his biological parents.

And in between all this emotional mesh, he gives us a dose of his "Spider-Man" antics.

The lean Andrew Garfield nails Parker's inherent awkward-yet-earnest goofiness. He is mischievously charming while romancing his real-life girlfriend Emma Stone on screen and at the same time he touches your heart in the powerful scene with Sally Field who plays his Aunt May.

The modestly radiant Emma Stone enthuses subtleness into her character, Gwen Stacy. She brightens the stage when she is with her beau. Similarly, Dane DeHaan stimulates the screen as the young damaged and arrogant billionaire who is defenseless and yet spiteful.

Jamie Foxx, in his one-dimensional avatar is impressionable. But unfortunately his imprint along with all the other the characters in the film have a fluid charm because in the larger scenario, the characters are pretty superficial and are treated just as comic book characters, without depth.

Here, the fault lies not with the actors but with the script delivered by Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Jeff Pinker. The orphaned sub-plots loosely tie up the story in totality. Unfortunately, no justice is done to extract the optimum out of each of these story lines as well as the characters involved.

The background score and music by Hans Zimmer is lively and invigorating and different from his previous works. The numbers, "I'd love you more than you are gone" along with "It's On Again" are worth a mention.

Visually, with fine production values, it is a treat to watch cinematographer Daniel Mindel's work shot on 35 mm film in the anamorphic format. These frames seamlessly merge with the computer generated images and are layered well by Paul Massey and David Giammarco.

The 3D is pretty ineffective in nearly ninety percent of the film. It's only in a couple of shots when the shrapnel flies in the air that one flinches. Otherwise Spider-Man's plunges et al work equally well in the 2D version.

Overall, there is nothing amazing in "The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Belle Movie Review

Belle Movie Review

Director: Amma Assante

Starring: Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Tom Wilkinson, Emily Mortimer, Sarah Gadon, Sam Reid, Miranda Richardson, James Norton, Tom Felton

I have an old friend who believes without question that the trailers you see before a DVD are a perfect indication of the quality of the movie you are about to watch. I must admit that she has been spot on much of the time. Her theory was going through my head while I was viewing BELLE as I remember seeing the trailer for it in theaters and feeling utterly unmotivated to see the film. I wondered about the hypothesis in reverse: Perhaps, it is those films whose trailer looks SO awesome that in the end fall short, and vice versa. That is certainly the case with BELLE. It’s hard to grip viewers with thrilling, breathless, sleep-at-the-theater-the-night-before anticipation for a period piece given that they are usually low on pyrotechnics, super-suits and Jason Statham. With his shirt off. Sweaty. I digress. BELLE is not only a very good story based on factual events, it is a good film and it is an important film in my opinion.

If we are going to talk about slavery films, I debated heartily over 12 YEARS A SLAVE which I feel fell short of its potential and failed to hook me emotionally. I am very lonely in my position in regard to that film but I’m fine with that. While I do not want to reduce my opinion to mere gender differences it may very well be because I am a woman that my passion, rage and heartbreak were roused by BELLE, as it is a film as much about women and their roles, value and place in society as it is about slavery. It delivers several threads woven seamlessly together and it works. It fortunately doesn’t devolve into hyperbole and bodice ripping like so many historical films. I’ve got nothing against some good bodice ripping mind you but its a cheap thrill compared to intelligently presented ethical discussions. And of course, there’s a smidge of love story thrown in for good measure.

BELLE is based upon the life of the real Dido Elizabeth Belle (1761-1904) who was the illegitimate daughter of Admiral Sir John Lindsay and a slave known as Maria Belle. Lindsay took Belle, played by the bewitching Gugu Mbatha-Raw, to be raised by his uncle the First Earl of Mansfield, William Murray (portrayed by the unparalleled Tom Wilkinson) and his wife (played by Emily Mortimer), who had no children of their own. Already in their care was the young Lady Elizabeth Murray (Sarah Gadon) and it was thought it would be good for the Lady Murray to have a companion her own age. William Murray was also during that period serving as Lord Chief Justice of the King’s Bench (great title I say) who was, by virtue of his judgment in Somersett’s Case, instrumental in abolishing slavery in England. In the film the pivotal case involves a slave ship with a tragic end but it matters not – the life of Dido Belle, the trajectory of the legal case, marriage for position and power versus love and a ruthless portrait of women’s place in society all play well together in the film. The irony of the Lord Chief of Justice having to raise an illegitimate half black girl is not lost on the audience. It is in fact the very tension between what he believes, feels and lives in his own home versus what he is charged to rule upon which gives the film its core dramatic tension and force. The outcome of Murray’s decision will either uphold and condone the British slave trade, or strike it down and alter the entire nation, and that serves as a intelligent skeleton for Belle’s personal story.

Additionally, we are given a painful view from the standpoint of the women of the age and the sad reality that their standing in society and ‘net worth’ are the only values they have. Marriage is but a business deal and to act out of fondness or, god forbid, love, is unimaginable. While I hesitate to make an analogy between women’s caste and slavery it is hard to ignore that women were bartered for money, position, land and power. They had zero self-determination whatsoever. Where then does that leave our Belle? A black woman who is higher than a slave, but cannot eat with her family or at a formal dinner because of others’ “defendable objections.” There is a turning point in the film which allows Belle to believe that she has choices, perhaps more than many young women, but in the end it still leaves her – in her own words – nowhere. She is family to the Murrays, but not completely. She is independent and safe, but not really. She is marriageable and beautiful, but not enough. Because she is black. Black enough to be a diversion and “exotic,” but too much to be equal. The scenes in which this ugly truth is displayed made me squirm more than anything graphic I’ve ever seen in another film about slavery. It may be because of the seemingly intelligent civilized society that is the setting of BELLE, and that is why we shudder – we want to believe they know better. Maybe they do, but not to act on it early or frequently enough. No matter how beautiful, intelligent and talented Belle may be we are never far from being reminded that a crushing blow lies just moments away and once more the rug will be pulled out from under her shoving her firmly back in her place. Nowhere.

Mbatha-Raw is absolutely captivating. She effectively communicates both strength and vulnerability with just her gaze and delivers her lines with conviction and power. Wilkinson is as usual flawless and it is always a joy to watch an actor who has the skill to turn a mood with the mere inflection of a syllable. Emily Mortimer too shows restraint and delicacy staying far from what could have been a stereotypically passive and shrill wife. Sam Reid plays John Divinier, one of Belle’s potential suitors. His character is pivotal in the film and allows for a meeting of the mind and spirit with Belle. However I found myself wishing that Reid had more sheer physical presence. I felt that I was watching an 18th century surfer dude and it left me yearning for his physicality and manner to match his character’s passion, beliefs and drive. He is just a bit too soft and young to visually covey what his fine dialogue does.

The film is deftly edited and that is saying a lot these days. It moves along smoothly and swiftly, giving us only necessary details and visuals, and there is little that is superfluous. Director Amma Assante has one previous feature film under her belt and evidently has an aptitude for working with her female characters in particular. It is not that the men in BELLE are one-dimensional, especially not Wilkinson who moved me to tears more than once, it is more that they are mere pawns placed among Belle who allow her to see her path more clearly.

It is a lovely film visually but it does not dwell on the landscape as a crutch as so many sweeping historical sagas tend to do. Giant green carpets of lawn and columnar manor homes can make up for a multitude of sins in screenwriting. BELLE is purely character driven and asks of its audience important questions:. What, exactly, is freedom? Are we free only in comparison to some construct or constraint? What are we willing to risk to do the “right” thing? How do you effect change when you are an instrumental part of the machine which created and upholds inequality and suffering? I am not saying BELLE answers all of these deep quandaries, but it does a lovely job asking the right questions and showing us about love, family, principles and honor.

Devil’s Knot Movie Review

Devil’s Knot Review

Director: Atom Egoyan

Starring: Reese Witherspoon, Alessandro Nivola, Colin Firth, Bruce Greenwood, Dane DeHaan, Mireille Enos, Kevin Durand, Stephen Moyer and Elias Koteas

I find it impossible that any filmmaker could make one of the most notorious crimes of the 20th Century feel uninspiring and distasteful at the same time. For all of the notoriety amidst the fact-based disturbing subject matter, and one that continues to shock and surprise to this day, Atom Egoyan’s DEVIL’S KNOT (based on the same-titled book by Mara Leveritt) comes as both pointless and perplexing after what has come before.

Admittedly, Egoyan was always going to be up against it. Bruce Sinofsky and Joe Berlinger’s acclaimed and exhaustive trio of PARADISE LOST documentaries, not forgetting Amy Berg’s more recent and equally unforgettable WEST OF MEMPHIS, surely meant there is little more we needed to know or could learn about the troubling true horror story. Some could argue that allowing dramatic licence would shed new light on the controversial case and bring it to the attention of even more. Although possibly forgetting that could well have had an adverse effect on all of the good work built, even if some claim that the film was written to us remind us that six families lives were torn apart that summer in Arkansas, and not only three lost to a life behind bars. Certainly screenwriter Scott Derrickson wanted that to be conveyed when I spoke to him about his script late last year. Instead, DEVIL’S KNOT feels like an intentional attempt for Reese Witherspoon to land herself another Oscar, and by roping in British fave Colin Firth to add a little more weight, we’re ultimately left with something bordering on shameful.

For those of you unfamiliar with the harrowing events leading up to the incarceration of the West Memphis Three (Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley Jr.), young 8 year-old’s Steve Branch, Christopher Byers and James Michael Moore we’re found savagely butchered in a muddy ditch on the Robin Hood Hills on the 5th May, 1993. Increasingly under-pressure detectives finally setting their sights on the three teens. A love of heavy metal music, wearing black and an interest in the occult seeing them perfect candidates to close a desperate case for a community baying for blood.

Witherspoon dominates the film as Pam Hobbs, whether throwing eye-rolling suspicious looks across the courtroom or perfecting her stereotypical “poor white trash” Southern drawl, assuring us it’s all about her in a tragic tale that had so many more victims. For a passionate investigator, who instinctively knew something didn’t smell right with the police’s inept inquiry, Firth is surprisingly lackadaisical in his approach to playing the legendary Ron Lax. As for the rest of the impressively starry and talented cast? Wasted. Every single one of them. That word “stereotypical” cropping up again. You have to question some of their motives for getting involved at all with so little for them to chew on. A possible trip down the red carpet come awards season? If there is anyone deserving of praise it’s Nivola. He at least offers something suitably complex to the role of Terry Hobbs, and with his character’s part in those events now coming under scrutiny, you can’t help but pick him as the stand-out.

Given that Witherspoon is one of those who fought for this part, the most offensive aspect about film comes with part of the final crawl: “Pam Hobbs continues to fight for the truth about her son”. For a project desperate to preserve the memory of those three murdered boys and remind us it wasn’t all about a miscarriage of justice, they neglect to mention that another two sets of parents must certainly feel the same.

Bad Neighbours Movie Review

Bad Neighbours Review

Director: Nicholas Stoller

Starring: Seth Rogen, Rose Byrne and Zac Efron

If you’re familiar with the previous films of director Nicholas Stoller, like FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL and GET HIM TO THE GREEK, the chances are you’ll have a good idea of what to expect from his latest effort, BAD NEIGHBOURS (aka NEIGHBORS to give it its Stateside moniker). Like his earlier work, it’s crude, silly and laden with an unhealthy number of dick jokes. But while the likes of GET HIM TO THE GREEK was sustained (just) by the occasional laugh out loud high point, BAD NEIGHBOURS is disappointingly devoid of any real stand out moments.

Mac and Kelly Radner (played by Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne respectively) are a young couple with a baby girl, attempting to settle down and start a home. But when a fraternity house moves in next door, the constant partying and wild antics soon ruin their idyllic vision of suburban life, forcing Mac and Kelly to rid themselves of the late night revellers by whatever means necessary. Of course, the frat boys, and particularly their president (played by Zac Efron), are not so easily discouraged, and what ensues is series of zany schemes and crazy pranks that just aren’t as zany, crazy or indeed funny as they ought to be.

Imbued with a general sense that the whole thing’s been hastily cobbled together, BAD NEIGHBOURS is just too formulaic to be as outrageous and wild as it might like. Though the film does its best to perpetuate the mythology of the fraternity house partying like it’s 1999, it’s all far too forced and in the end feels limp and hackneyed. Though Efron puts in a good effort with a character that is generally unlikeable, he and his frat boy brothers, with their barrels of weed and homemade dildos, feel like the ill-conceived rejects of a straight-to-video AMERICAN PIE sequel. But all that could be forgiven if there were just a few more laughs.

Aside from an incident in which Mac falls fowl of a hidden airbag, too many jokes fall flat and it actually feels pretty lazy. When you’re watching Seth Rogen milk his wife’s engorged breasts or you’re confronted with a character who can induce an erection at will—without doubt, the comedy low point here—you know you’re scraping the barrel.

Curiously for a comedy, BAD NEIGHBOURS is actually at its best when it’s not trying to make you laugh. As the frat boys approach graduation and stare their future in the face, Efron and co. are forced to consider what it means to move on and enter the real world. And, while Rogan is on autopilot as the same lovable stoner he’s played in pretty much every film, he and Byrne manage to generate a decent, likeable chemistry with some enjoyable back and forth banter. Thanks to this pairing, BAD NEIGHBOURS actually comes to a rather sweet conclusion, reasoning that maybe it’s okay to settle down. Maybe it’s okay to grow up. If only Stoller had taken his own advice.

For all the sex, drugs and genital humour, BAD NEIGHBOURS is an experience that is actually pretty bland. So if you want a generally enjoyable, occasionally amusing romp, you’re better off sticking with GET HIM TO THE GREEK. And honestly, I never thought I’d say that.

Blue Ruin English Movie Review

Blue Ruin Review

Director: Jeremy Saulnier

Starring: Macon Blair, Devin Ratray, Amy Hargreaves

Make no mistake, this is the revenge movie of the year. A cold-blooded yet emotionally gripping independent marvel which feels like it arrived from thin air and swept through the scene like an unstoppable but refreshing wind. A story worthy of a Hollywood classic, direction reminiscent of a modern-day Hitchcock and a cast that wouldn’t go amiss in a Coen Brother’s masterpiece. It’s a sharp, unforgiving indie rollercoaster that grabs you by the throat from the off and never let’s go until those credits roll. A character study on a character we shouldn’t morally like, the fastest slow burner (if that’s cinematically possible) to grace our screens in recent years and a sure-fire hit destined for a cult status. It’s bold, original, uncompromising and absolutely captivating…and it just so happens to be little unknown filmmaker Jeremy Saulnier’s first foray into independent cinema.

Actualy, allow me to correct myself because right now Saulnier should be anything but unknown. Many debut features are merely just a dip in the water, a taste of promising things to come and if ‘Blue Ruin’ is Saulnier’s practice run then Hollywood undoubtedly has a new master craftsman on their hands. Hitting the ground running at 200mph, Saulnier’s efforts are clearly realised when the whole piece feels as if we’re going at 5mph. It’s this sublime technique which builds its’ resilient suspense from the opening credits all the way through to the very end. It’s Hitchcock in the modern redneck era, Nolan with a gritty edge or Greengrass getting personal.

We start off in Delaware, USA. A middle-aged scruffy looking man takes a bath in a middle class peaceful house. We already gather that this isn’t his home and before we know it he jumps out of the window with nothing but a towel and his well accomplished beard. From then on we follow Dwight, a very clearly disturbed vagrant living in a derelict car and eating from bin bags. One morning he is informed that his parent’s murderer is released from jail and so ensues a trail of vengeance and utter destruction.

Where this differs from previous revenge flicks is that it focuses on the conscience, the psychological trauma that follows after any blaze of bloody violence. This is all down to Macon Blair’s unforgettable turn as the film’s lead. Blair manages to move away from the stereotypical homeless man of Hollywood and allows us to witness a humanity, a twisted sense of emotional abandonment and a sudden realisation that this could happen to any of us.  Already famously compared to the Coen’s debut ‘Blood Simple’, Blair’s presence, intentional or not, steers more towards Shane Meadows’ DEAD MAN’S SHOES whilst also making room to honour previous vengeance stories such as GET CARTER and KILL BILL. However, this is something entirely different, it feels intimate and personal and as a large majority of Saulnier’s family were involved in the production and the film dedicated to a Saulnier, it feels that this has been something he has been waiting to shout from the rooftops for a long, long time.

As debut indie features go, BLUE RUIN is unprecedented filmmaking. Funded by Saulnier himself and from the help of public funding, it’s a prime example that an industry level film doesn’t always need the industry to make it happen and it’s a credit to the creator and its’ lead that they managed to tell a story that numerous Hollywood folk have been trying years to accomplish.

The year’s first best indie gem and the most ambitious debut in recent years. An unavoidable calling card for Saulnier and Blair and an overdue reinvention of a worn out genre. This is a slick, suspenseful and unbelievably gripping film which will hopefully get the attention it deserves.

Delivery The Beast Within Movie Review

Delivery The Beast Within Review

Director: Brian Netto

Starring: Laurel Vail, Danny Barclay, Rob Cobuzio, Rebecca Brooks, David Allan Graf, Lance Buckner, Peter McLynn

‘In 2009 Kyle and Rachel Massey agreed to document their first pregnancy for a reality television series,’ reads DELIVERY’s first intertitle. ‘The show would never make it to air.’

This is Paranormal Uterus Activity. Styled as a behind the scenes documentary concerning the shelved television series in question (also called ‘Delivery’), the horror of THE BEAST WITHIN is derived from its faux documentary formula.

This strict adherence to the tried and tested guidelines of the genre results in a convincing mock documentary. The first twenty minutes of the film depicting the non-broadcast pilot of ‘Delivery’ almost in its entirety, is a triumph, uncannily resembling the material on which it is based.

Viewed on its own, the pilot sequence would excite any US constructed reality fan. The onscreen graphics are suitably kooky, the goofy chitter-chatter knowingly inane and the embedded music omnipresent. Kyle (Danny Barclay) and Rachel (Laurel Vail) are judged just right. They are cute without being unbearably saccharine or schmaltzy.

This section, though, isn’t without its problems. Whilst it is a fine method of introducing and developing characters, it is notably deficient in scares. That in itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing for a first act, the trouble is that the show-within-a-film lacks the anticipation of a scare because we, the audience, know that this is meant to be a fit for transmission, 8pm documentary about expectant parents. It’s like standing in the base in a game of tig. You can’t be got at and you know it.

Comprising of unused footage from the abandoned project and littered with talking heads, the remaining hour and ten is the pay-off for persevering with this initial barren land of horror.

Unlike the ever fashionable torture porn that elicits a visceral pleasure from the dismembering of beautiful people, DELIVERY is very much part of the old school. An old school that teaches that a fear of seeing protagonists fail can be a just as potent method of delivering horror than the butchering of barely sentient department store mannequins.

Other than the central premise of a haunted pregnancy, the drive of THE BEAST WITHIN is about real people with real problems, engaged in real domestic pacts that force their hands. The couple stay in their seemingly possessed home because they can’t afford anywhere different, and an abortion is never considered because these are two people motivated by love and optimism.

We know this because we see the characters interact, this is again thanks to the reality television element of the piece. Not a flippant, throwaway gimmick as I had anticipated, but rather the film’s crutch. To have made DELIVERY about any other couple would have sacrificed the authenticity of the sequence of events. Without Kyle and Rachel being followed about with cameras, the narrative would have felt more accidental, coincidental and scattergun.

It’s not all serious however. The film also succeeds in gently prodding and playing with overused horror tropes, affecting a kitschy TEETH-like tone. The revulsion of animals, nightmares, spooky paintings, religion, technical interference, the list of targets is almost endless, yet it does not detract from the film’s main job of causing us to jump from our chairs.

Come at DELIVERY: THE BEAST WITHIN from whichever angle you like and find yourself presently surprised. It is an exciting directorial debut from an undoubted new talent.

DELIVERY: THE BEAST WITHIN is release on VOD on 27th May and in limited US cinemas from 30th May. UK fans can catch it on DVD from the 12th May. 

Walk Of Shame Movie Review

Walk Of Shame Review

Director: Steve Brill

Starring: Elizabeth Banks, James Marsden, Gillian Jacobs, Sarah Wright

All title and director surname puns aside and all anguish let go of with the rolling of the credits; it is no surprise that ‘weak sauce’ comedy-caper WALK OF SHAME is living up to it’s name at the US box office. With scantily even a good thing to say about Elizabeth Banks, who lets face it – we ALL love to love, it’s obvious that writer/director Steve Brill hasn’t put pen to paper in 14 years. I’m assuming he hasn’t been on a date in as much time either, at least not to the pictures.

It should be doing all right as a date movie shouldn’t it? After all that’s exactly what it is. Don’t get me wrong; I know there is absolutely, positively a place for trashy, easy-watching comedies. I love a good cabbagy movie. Forget DRILLBIT TAYLOR but Mr. Deeds, which is another old Brill one, is believe it or not one of my favourite Sandler flicks! But just like in the vegetable world, there is ‘savoy’ (good) cabbage and then there’s crap cabbage. WALK OF SHAME is not a savoy cabbage! The oh-so thin plot, which boils away to literally nothing, goes like this…

Meghan (Elizabeth Banks) is dragged out drinking at a club in downtown LA by her two annoying besties Rose (Gillian Jacobs) and Denis (Sarah Wright). After being dumped by her fiancée and losing out on a huge promotion at her job as a news anchor, it’s pretty much exactly what she needs. In a heartbeat, she meets Gordon (James Marsden), the guy of her dreams who drives them back to his place in Meghan’s car to get it on. Short story short – she prepares to tip toe out early to go home but luckily hears a voicemail informing her that the job could once more be hers, IF she makes it into work on time and delivers a final convincing news reading. My oh my. She must be so excited because she somehow ends up out on the street moneyless, carless and cellphoneless. Hmm. [Insert hole here] With nothing but a strangely undermining look at her skills as an independent woman to employ, she is a babe in the woods. ‘Lost in the hood’, she is naïve and innocent in an attention grabbing canary yellow dress.

It could just be me, but I think a sense of what is an acceptable standard in comedy is fading. In all seriousness, that yellow dress is about the only bright thing about this film. With a lot of forced narrative and few very forced laughs for a comedy; the shapely dress and the poster image of the girl in it are about the only honest elements on offer that actually feature in the film. They will no doubt contribute to a large portion of what tickets do sell; each participant a moth to the proverbial flame that is fatal patterned conformity. I suppose the template can result in success, but this relies wholly on plot developments that include interesting character and scenario coming together to form the opportunity for good humour. In this instance, like so many disposable films before it; I felt completely exhausted before the pointless journey had even begun. I recently turned off WE’RE THE MILLERS only thirty minutes in and THIS was even worse. Go back to 1994 and BABY’S DAY OUT offered more childish high points.

I can’t help hoping that Banks jumped unknowingly on the offering of a lead role following her delightful casting in the ongoing THE HUNGER GAMES franchise. A momentary gem in THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN and a total diamond in ZACK AND MIRI MAKE A PORNO (Smith Knows how to work her); she also works overtime in many a successful TV show too, like 30 Rock and Modern Family. I’m not sure what Marsden’s excuse is but in my opinion this project is completely beneath the both of them. I really dismay to think of so many worthy independents struggling so hard to gain recognition and cinema release, when such pathetic and lazy productions are polished up into glossy products and spoon fed to the masses. WALK OF SHAME might look attractive tonight and you may wanna be spoon fed our little bird, but trust me you will regret it. Take my advice and do what the filmmakers seemingly did at every turn. Don’t give yourself any grief. Take the easy way out.

Million Dollar Arm English Movie Review

Million Dollar Arm Review

Director: Craig GillespieStarring: Jon Hamm, Suraj Sharma, Madhur Mittal, Pitobash Tripathy, Lake Bell, Aasif Mandvi, Alan Arkin, Bill Paxton, Allyn Rachel Rating: PG Running Time: 120minutes The only other movie I’ve seen of Craig Gillespie’s was MR. WOODCOCK, and if you had seen that, then you might understand why I was a little concerned with how MILLION DOLLAR ARM would turn out. Thankfully, Mr. Gillespie did not disappoint! MILLION DOLLAR ARM is based on the true story of how sports agent, J.B. Bernstein, started the Million Dollar Arm competition, after his business was going broke. Bernstein needed baseball pitchers so he started a contest (and eventually a reality show) called Million Dollar Arm that took place in India. It was a contest where the first place prize was one hundred thousand US dollars and the second place prize was ten thousand US dollars. Both however, were brought to America to start training to try out for a Major League Baseball team. Most of the boys who tried out have never watched or played baseball which adds to the thrill and fascination of this story. To sum up the movie without completely spoiling it, the audience witnesses the yearlong journey in store for the all three of these characters. The story is amazing. Very uplifting, encouraging, and quite funny, too! I assumed this movie was going to be a complete drama with maybe two funny parts, but I was proven wrong. I felt every emotion throughout the entire film: happiness, anger, sadness, confusion, joy, nervousness- it was all there! When you can make an audience feel all of that in one sitting, you are well on your way to having a successful movie. What also helps is having a phenomenal cast.  Jon Hamm is listed as the top-billing star, but I want to give a round of applause to Suraj Sharma, Madhur Mittal, and Pitobash Tripathy.  They were definitely the stars of this movie. I believe they are all from India, so they were able to channel what it is like to come to America for the first time because I am sure they all went through what the real Patel and Singh went through; culture shock. I could feel their emotions and at one point cried with them because they were so believable. That, my friends, is astonishing acting. Everyone else in the movie was great, too! With actors like Jon Hamm, Alan Arkin, and Bill Paxton, you can expect an authentic story to be portrayed. I never heard of Lake Bell until tonight, but she played her character Brenda so well, you could not tell me she isn’t like Brenda in real life. If you love sarcasm, you will love Brenda. The soundtrack was outstanding. There were a few songs that featured some popular names, such as Kendrick Lamar and Wale, but A. R. Rahman composed the majority of the songs. If you’ve seen SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, then you’ve heard some of his material before.  Not only were they really fun songs, but the timing and usage was dead on. It helped with the pacing of the movie and helped enhance certain scenes like Bernstein traveling through India, and the scenes were the boys are training for the competition. Credit must also be given to the editors and producers for their music choices and editing. Great cuts, great transitions, absolutely fantastic work! I only have two criticisms with this movie. I was bit confused at first because it’s called MILLION DOLLAR ARM, but the contestants didn’t make a million dollars. After thinking it over, I suppose the millions went to the business people from all the publicity they recieved, or it is fancier and cooler to say ‘million dollars’ instead of ‘one hundred thousand dollars.’ In any case, this title is extremely misleading. The writers can’t be blamed for that though, because this is based on a true story, so if that’s what it was called in reality, at least the film is staying true to the facts. My second criticism would be that towards the end of the movie, it dragged for like 3-5mins. However, it wasn’t enough, to put a damper on the entire thing. Overall, MILLION DOLLAR ARM is a must see. If you have children, definitely take them to see this movie. It teaches us about different cultures. It’s a great reminder of how fortunate a lot of us are to live where we live. The different settings throughout the movie make that lesson very clear.  The ultimate lesson is best said with the quote: “The man who has won millions at the cost of his conscience is a failure.”  When you see this movie and everything that the stars went through, you will learn how to appreciate and cherish the most important things in your life: family, friends, and yourself.

Son of God English Movie Review

Son of God Review

Director Christopher Spencer's "Son of God" is a far cry from a faith film as it impassively encapsulates Jesus' life in the backdrop of the Jewish-Roman conflict of that era.

Documented through Jesus disciple John's point of view, where at the very onset of the film, he admits that for the Jewish people, "God was always there in the struggle for the promised land, he was always by our side", the action takes place in Jerusalem, Nazareth and Galilee, where the life story of Jesus unfolds.

A quick summary of events like Jesus' humble birth, his meeting with his first disciple Peter and later rallying others through his teachings, the political undertones between him and the rabble-rousing Barabbas, Jesus attacking the moneylenders and tax-collectors and confronting the crowd when an adulteress is about to be stoned along with the various miracles he performed, are mechanically executed like a tableaux that leads to the finale, the crucifixion, which is powerfully accomplished in detail.

The film ebbs at the ultimate resurrection and finally the camera dramatically zooms into Jesus's eye at the denouement with an assurance, "I will come soon".

The narration alternates somewhat awkwardly, between everyday naturalism and pious theatricality.

Lazily scripted, this is not Spencer's interpretation of Jesus' story as he has blindly followed his source material, the Bible. The film is just a compilation of scenes that highlight Jesus' life journey. The account does not offer in-depth or analytical insights that would lead to any logical take of the events. Instead, it chronicles more like a documentary for a TV channel.

With weak and flavourless dialogues like; "Just give me an hour, and I will give you a whole new life," or "When Jesus spoke, I followed him. Others followed too," that are stoically mouthed, the acting of every character in the film too, is very mechanical and without emotions.

Portuguese model-turned-actor Diogo Morgado plays Jesus with a soft-natured geniality, but lacks the charisma or the zest to portray a strong character like Christ. The only scene that strums a chord at your heart is seeing him suffer while being nailed on the cross.

Roma Downey as Jesus' mother, Mary with her youthful features and no emotional connect between her and her son, seems to be a misfit.

Darwin Shaw as Peter, Amber Roose Revah as Mary Magdalene and Greg Hicks as Pilate had some meaningful scenes and they offer relative justification to the role they play.

Technically, the film's production design is average. The dramatic camerawork of Rob Goldie offers some picture postcard visuals, especially at the Sea of Gallilee and other exotic locales. The music by Hans Zimmer and Lorne Balfe has rich orchestral score and the outfits by costume designer Ros Little adds that zing to capture the era.

Unfortunately, even with an ace technical team, the film is bland and not spirited enough to hold the audience.