Pramitheus Reviews

Baaghi 2 (2018)

Possibly one of the best movies of 2018

[1/10 · 1 April 2018]

Baaghi 2 is a film that beats Shyamalan in terms of twists, Tarantino in terms of dialogue, Sorkin in terms of script & Zimmer in terms of the "BWAAOOONN" sound effect. By the time the movie reached the half-way mark I was so confused. But then I thought that might be intentional. Performance wise Manoj Bajpayee & Randeep Hooda are okay but Tiger Shroff & Disha Patani really carries the movie in the most magnificent way possible. The amount of emotion and vocal inflections in every goddamn scene made my heart skip a beat. What a wow! What a wow! And the action was just mind-blowing. 100 men with AK-47s, knives & AR-15s was no match for one frigging Baaghi, holy cow. Even the guy with the gatling gun was so baffled by Tiger's abs that he couldn't shoot. And the way Ahmed Khan shot those sequences was just unbelievable. I have, however, only one little gripe with the movie. The title should've been Rhea. It's a minor thing but it effects the movie in a broader sense and increases the intrigue for the movie. The producers can send over the money for my humble effort/correction via cheque, cash or Paypal. You're most welcome.

The Exorcist: One For Sorrow (2017) Season 2, Episode 4

One of the best twists in 21st century movies and TV shows.

[22 October 2017]

I wasn't writing any/short reviews on IMDb lately, but I couldn't help myself this time. 'The Exorcist' has officially upped its game. This show just brought the simultaneously running story-arcs together pretty neatly and that reveal was too good. Trust me. I am not spoiling it here for one reason only and that is because you should watch it to experience. Phenomenal stuff happening here.

Justice League Dark (2017 Video)

Moderately enjoyable

[7/10 · 24 January 2017]

I put up this disclaimer before reviewing anything related to comic books and that is, I am not a very avid comic book reader because of it's unavailability here. I keep myself at pace via websites and I am certainly up to date regarding the DC animated movies. Believe it or not, but I've watched all of them.

SCREENPLAY - The story and the dialogues are very 50/50 but thank you DC, for making it R-rated. The banter is pretty good. Especially Deadman and Batman. They have the best punch-lines and Batman's "hmmm" always cracked me up. Without going too much into detail, a part of the movie felt a tad bit like Kingsman. If it's a reference to the comics, which the readers can point out, then it's cool but to me, it felt a bit clichéd. The expository stuff was surprisingly kept at a minimum. There was some of it of course but, I've seen in the other animated movies where everything just comes to a halt and some character is just hurling exposition. The callbacks between Zatana and Constantine sometimes felt over-used. I have watched the T.V. Show of Constantine, so I know what happened in Newcastle but they were ranting about things that happened all over the world. I mean, maybe it's entertaining for the comic-book readers but from a writer's point of view, using the same trope too many times reduces it's effect.

ART-DIRECTION - Let me get rid of the gripes I had about the animation. First of all at around 17 minutes into the movie, Deadman is opaque and transparent even when he hasn't been made visible by Constantine. Second, sometimes the expressions of the characters didn't change with the dialogue. I know it is nitpicking but you'll begin to notice after some time. If that would happen to a live actor, I would call it a wooden performance. Now, the pros. The action sequences were amazing. Especially the second last fight. That really got me pumped up. Earlier there used to be a lot of cut- away's during a fight sequence. The difference here was that each individual fight was done for a longer time before interjecting it with a scene. That increased the intensity of the fights by a notch.

VOICE-ACTING - There were a lot of known actors and actresses doing the voices like, Rosario Dawson as Wonder Woman, Alfred Molina as Destiny and of course Matt Ryan as Constantine. It's so sad that his show got cancelled. It was the only DC character I was invested in, especially due to his performance. Nicholas Torturro was amazing as Boston Brand. I know people will be hypothetically punching me for saying this, but he felt like the Deadpool of the lot. All the others were great as well, no complaints in the voice-acting department.

FINAL VERDICT - At one point I was thinking that what is Batman doing in the middle of all this magic and hocus-pocus. Just then all these magical elements started to deconstruct his character and I was like,"Oh! That's why he is there". It is quite rightfully rated R because there is a lot of violence, but personally, I wanted a little bit more. Maybe I am sadistic but if you agree then give me some assurance that I am not as sadistic as I think I am. Do give this one a watch. I am sure DC fans will, but if you're a fan of animated movies, I am sure this one won't disappoint.

The Light Between Oceans (2016)

The Light Between Oceans(2016) - Predictable but beautiful

[7/10 · 23 January 2017]

Usually when I start the tagline with predictable, it is usually followed by passable or formulaic but this time I have to give it to the movie. The setting of the movie, in itself, is so picturesque and the cinematographer, Adam Arkapaw did a splendid job by using the scenery to complement every emotion and scene.

SCREENPLAY - I haven't read the book, so those who have read it, please don't come at me with pitch-forks. The director, who is also the writer of the screen-play, I think has done a marvellous job because it gave me the feeling that I am actually reading a book. Now, the major problem lies in the fact that you don't read a book in one go. I know some who do, but I don't and there lies the problem. The first one hour has been put onto the screen very aptly, but the second half begins to drag due to over-expository sequences. I think the second half could have been a little more tighter because the second half had more going on in it. Now, you may think that if there is more going on then it should take more time. My answer to that is "No", because the events of the 1st half had made the 2nd half a bit predictable so what is the point of prolonging it?

DIRECTION - The director of The Place Beyond the Pines(2012) comes back after a humongous gap of four years. Dude has something to do with bleakness, right? He is also the director of Blue Valentine(2010) and I never finished that movie. It was too depressing for me. This man knows how to make you smile and then just snatch it all away from you. He has full control over the emotions of the character and the emotions of the audience and he puts that to full use. This movie reminded me of Lootera(2013). If you haven't watched it, I strongly recommend you to watch it. Now, where Lootera succeeds and this movie lags behind is the final intimate moments. It was captured in the first half of the movie so well but completely faltered in the second half. That is why some things during the final moments of the movie felt a bit rushed.

ACTING - I saw a movie of Michael Fassbender a few days ago and now I am seeing this and I am in awe. He doesn't make any major changes in his physicality or any noticeable changes but he transforms into the character he is playing. He has played a mutant, a war veteran, a thief and an assassin, all in the span of one year and he is every bit convincing as each of those characters. Alicia Vikander is also a force to reckon with. She defines the word finesse. It's not in the dialogues in which she portrays her emotions, but it's in the little things. Those little things cannot be taught in an acting school. It's sheer talent and I admire her for that. Rachel Weisz, also gives a subdued yet powerful performance. I think I saw her last in The Lobster(2015), which is also one of my favourite movies. I just saw that they had used multiple actresses for Lucy/Grace for each age and I have to say, all of them were cute and amazing.

FINAL VERDICT - I am no fan of love stories. I have a handful of love stories which I like watching. Though this does not make the list, but it is certainly worth a watch due to the performances of Vikander and Fassbender. I mean, I can watch Vikander and Fassbender for hours reading a book and simultaneously emoting every single moment in it. That too will be worth watching, I suppose.

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016)

Never come back

[1/10 · 22 January 2017]

Let me start off by saying that I am a fan of Tom Cruise from his Mission: Impossible days. I love the guy and he knows that he has a huge fan following but I think he should be a bit more sensitive about it. If you're gonna milk the fandom too hard, you will end up destroying the love that you have and also end up stereotyping yourself. He is good as Ethan Hunt and that's it. He should do that and make other movies that will suit his age. Sorry, I have to admit that Tom Cruise is getting old. SCREENPLAY - I have just started to understand the craft of film- making and as I always say, it's hard. Assigning an aspect of the movie with an adjective is very insulting, but when the writers do not respect the audience by presenting something coherent and interesting, I think an adjective is necessary. So in order to define the narrative, horrendous will do. The dialogue is just juvenile at best. I vaguely remember the 1st Jack Reacher movie. It wasn't any masterpiece, but it wasn't as slow-paced as this one. I understand that they are dealing with more sub-plots and that needs some slowing down, but at what cost? It just becomes plain boring.

DIRECTION - Just remember what I said about my respect for film- making and then judge me. That said, the direction was like walking 100 kilometres through mud. Just dragging on and on. The camera-work was so monotonous. The pacing was completely off. There was no tension. There was literally nothing to help me get invested. Just glaring plot- holes staring right at me. I almost became CinemaSins. I actually found a new sense of respect for CinemaSins because what he does needs a lot of patience. Wait a second, Edward Zwick has directed The Last Samurai, Love and other Drugs and Pawn Sacrifice. I love all three of them and now this? Well, miracles do happen, be it good or bad. Bad in this case surely. There was also that awful CGI. It was pretty distinguishable all the time.

ACTING - Well, when the screenplay and direction has failed you, what can the actors do? Tom Cruise ( and I say this with a heavy heart) gave a very wooden performance. I think he was trying to be serious and not be Ethan Hunt. It wasn't working. That is because there are no character arcs. Nothing about the character was established from the previous movie that could have been worked into this movie. So he just ended up an impression of Hunt. Cobie Smulders was okay at best. She looked tired for some reason. Again, no character arcs and that didn't allow me to connect with her character traits. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, were just clichéd characters that you see in movies like Taken.

FINAL VERDICT - I haven't read the book, but if it's good then stick to it. Give a pass on this movie. It's certainly not worth the effort and if you know or are in contact with Tom Cruise, just tell him to choose wisely from next time.

The Red Turtle (2016)

Weirdest rendition of Cast Away and Blue Lagoon

[8/10 · 21 January 2017]

Okay, there is a lot going on in this movie. I may be the stupidest movie viewer but even I was able to understand the symbolism of the things that were happening. Some of them flew right past me and I wasn't able to understand but I think I got 40% of what was going on. Swimming into it then.

SCREENPLAY and DIRECTION - This movie has been written and directed by Michael Dudok de Wit and the screenplay is done by Pascale Ferran. There is no dialogue, so fair warning if you're not a fan of that. There are a few grunts and cries but no dialogue whatsoever. If you watch the movie as it is then you can clearly make these inferences. A guy gets stranded on an island and is unable to escape the island because of a red turtle. Every-time he tries, his efforts are squashed by this red turtle. On getting an opportunity to entrap the turtle, the guy ends up killing it and by some miracle, out comes a girl from the cracked shell of the red turtle. I am not kidding. This is what happens. You can consider that the guy is dead in the 1st case and all what we are seeing is a hallucination. Now consider my alternate theory. My alternate theory can be absolute turd because I've no idea of what symbolism I've missed. So I will try to form a theory based on what ever I have managed to grasp. Consider this film as a poem. A poem about the psyche of a man who is lost, which can be compared to him being at the sea. He reaches the island and is stranded. Probably something similar to being isolated from society or it is a metaphor for relationship. He tries to get back to a normal life but is obstructed by this turtle. Now, here's where I am a bit confused. The man was probably running away from the relationship(the island) and circumstances bring him back there. He had an abusive relationship with the woman(the red turtle) but she coaxes him to stay. Out of rage he hurts her badly and realises what he has done and is sorry. Seeing that the man is genuinely sorry, she opens up hence the cracking of the shell. After that it is pretty easy. They start a new life. The kid falling into the crevice of water is something similar to letting go of your kid when he/she is learning to ride a bicycle. The storm is a metaphor for a crisis the family faces. Then the kid decides to go beyond the horizon and explore which is comparable to adolescence . Then comes old age and that's pretty much it. I didn't understand the woman turning back into a turtle. Neither literally nor symbolically.

ANIMATION - Truth be told, it didn't feel like animation. It felt like I was in some other dimension. The physics of the human characters was very good. The colours were so vibrant and everything was so detailed. You can see every single strand of the bamboo leaves. It was extremely beautiful and quite different from what I've seen till now. The fluidity of the movement was a little similar to the Disney Snow White movie. I think each frame of Snow White was hand-painted, and if they have done the same thing here then I must say, the results are excellent.

MUSIC - The music is the only interactive character with the movie. Interactive in the sense that the music is the only thing that lets the audience know about what is about to come or what is the current situation. Usually, dialogues do that job but here you have only music. The music actually helped appreciate the scenery even more. Just imagine listening to a symphony like that while watching the sun set. I could get used to that.

FINAL VERDICT - I'll tell you to see it, definitely give it a watch. Then again it can be a hit or a miss and I cannot guarantee that. It was a definite hit for me but like I mentioned before, there is a good chance you can be put off due to the lack of dialogue but the movie has the capability to keep you engaged because just when you start realising there is no dialogue, you start realising the underlying message. That will certainly keep you hooked.

Trespass Against Us (I) (2016)

Null and Void

[4/10 · 20 January 2017]

I seriously don't know what the hell I just watched. I do remember putting it up in my watch-list because of the trailer and obviously because it stars Michael Fassbender. Still, as I write reviews, I am going to review it because it's not all poop. Now before I go on about this movie, let me make this clear. If there was some deep meaning in it, I didn't get it and I am so sorry. I am saying that because look at the title of the movie. It's so prosaic.

SCREENPLAY - OK, I am really not sure whether there was a screenplay for this movie. I really don't think, because nothing made sense. At least to me, it didn't make any sense whatsoever. They are a family of vagabonds, OK. They rob and come back, OK. They rob again and Fassbender gets caught, OK. There is just some random stuff going on. The only thing that made some sense is that Fassbender's character is kinda scared of his father, played by Gleeson and that's it. As there are no character developments or character-arcs, when something happens, I just couldn't care. Even the kids aren't lovable. The dialogue is strange. I am sure it is some form of dialect from the U.K., and maybe it is authentic but at the end of the day it has to make some bloody sense. I mean, for example take this, "Dogs can only play with cats so long before it's the dog that gets scratched". If you've any form explanation for that, please leave it in the comments.

DIRECTION - When you've got a script like that, I think there isn't anything you can direct. Is it possible to direct with such a vague script? I very much doubt that. Let's talk about the one interesting thing about the movie, and that is the robberies. That had a little bit of context and that is the Cutlers needed money to survive. Adam Smith went to the extent of sucking the context out of that too. I am literally pinching the gap between my forehead and nose. There was nothing. I didn't even have a spurt of emotion while watching this movie, and it has Fassbender in it. Even the father-son dynamic isn't strong enough. To sum it up, the direction was bland.

CINEMATOGRAPHY - The singular thing that kept me watching this snooze-fest was the cinematography and why wouldn't it be good? Eduard Grau has been the D.O.P. for The Gift(2015) and The Awakening(2011). The use of colour was more expressive than the actors. The car chase scenes were something. I think the Fast and Furious franchise needs camera-work like this to bring some realism into their action.

ACTING - I am so sorry but Michael Fassbender wasn't good in this movie. During the silent moments he was expressive with his eyes but whenever he spoke, he sounded so inexpressive. Probably because of the accent or the dialogues but that was some waste of talent. Brendan Gleeson managed to make a character. He came across blunt and dull-headed just fine. Sean Harris as that mad dude, was amazing. Amazing. Seriously, it looks like "what the hell is going on" but that is extremely difficult to pull off and that too consistently throughout the movie.

FINAL VERDICT - It is at the end of the day a pass. Nothing really here worth watching. I know, Michael is here but you will only be disappointed. At the end of the day, I do respect film-making. It's a tough process but it has to make sense, right? If it doesn't make sense to the average movie-goer, then what's the point? Now, if anybody has watched this and has found some inner, deep meaning then please do explain. I say that because whenever I don't make any sense out of a movie, I assume that I am not at that level yet to understand the movie. If you are going to explain the plot, then please don't. There isn't any. If there is some inner meaning? Please share.

F Is for Family (2015–2021)

Bill Burr's voice cracking is reason enough

[10/10 · 19 January 2017]

It's funny how I haven't seen nobody talking about this. The reason can be two-fold. Either people don't want to talk about it because of Bill Burr or I am mingling with the wrong folk. I have been watching Bill Burr's stand-up comedy for sometime now and I was just looking up about what he does other and stand-up and voila! A Netflix animated series. On top of that it's A-rated. What else could you ask for? The setup is great and it reminded me of the town in which Edward Scissorhands takes place, except everyone is swearing and being real. I am not kidding here, I was laughing my ass off while watching the entire series and I binge watched it. Now, fair warning here. If you're a special little snowflake who doesn't understand humour as it is, then please steer clear of this.

SCREENPLAY - The flow in the series is pretty realistic. It doesn't get too gritty and realistic and also doesn't stray off into mindless cartoon logic. The humour is pretty great and it gets funnier if you picture Bill Burr in the situations Frank Murphy gets into. The dialogue is snappy so thumbs-up to Bill Burr, Joe Heslinga, Michael Price and all other co-writers. The thing that struck me most was that in every episode where the scene got really realistic and sad, it wasn't butchered by comedy all of a sudden. They allowed it to sink in and just when you're preparing your mind that,"OK, they are not gonna ease the tension with some comedy" and bam! They hit you with the comedy. It was great timing and it really got me laughing out loud every time.

DIRECTION - I think the entire series is based on Bill Burr's character. I think I even read it somewhere that it is based on his childhood. In the initial episodes there is a sequence which went just like one of his jokes about his father, who used to shout at his mother after a long day's work. Using those stand-up jokes was probably Burr's idea and that helped put his brand of comedy into the series. When I initially saw the art-work, I honestly thought it was going to be a very low budget animated series. I was wrong. They balanced the jokes with visual humour very well. Even though the art looks simplistic, there are subtle things which gives a sense of authenticity to the characters. I'm telling you, this show needs way more appreciation than it got.

VOICE-ACTING - Bill Burr as Frank Murphy is just awesome. It's just great. He has the high-pitched frustration voice which just adds to the humour. Just like Charlie Day. Whenever he starts freaking out, his voice starts to reach alarming levels and it just makes the situation even funnier. Everyone else in the Murphy family, from Justin Long, Sam Rockwell, Laura Dern, Debi, Haley, everyone was great. Each character had their own distinctive character and in any animated show or movie, that only looks better when the voice-acting is good and they absolutely nailed it.

FINAL VERDICT - Watch it if you haven't watched it already. If you have watched Bill Burr's stand-ups or even heard his name somewhere then watch it. Even if you haven't heard it before, you heard it here, so go watch it. It's a real winner.

Akira (I) (2016)

Sonakshi's stunt double for the win

[2/10 · 18 January 2017]

A.R. Murugaddos should direct only one half of a movie and then just simply give the screenplay to another director. If you see his filmography till now (Ghajini(2008), Holiday(2014)), they all start out great. It is almost grounded and then as soon as the movie hits the half-hour mark, Murugaddos starts going haywire. I maybe panned for writing negatively about a movie basically about women empowerment but let's see if I care. I'll just say this that Ghostbusters(2016) is proof enough that interchanging the gender of the protagonist with the opposite sex isn't the right way to promote women empowerment. If this movie had a guy, doing the same thing which Akira was doing, my review wouldn't have changed.

STORY/SCREENPLAY(?) - We follow Akira(Sonakshi Sinha), a girl from Jodhpur, who from an early age takes on the habit of fighting bullies and eve-teasers. Cut to Akira in present day, where she is being taken by her brother to Mumbai, where she can continue her studies. I mean, not completely against her will. She was reluctant but her Principal coaxes her to move from her small town and go for better opportunities. She joins a college and sudden cut to a corrupt police officer, ACP Rane(Anurag Kashyap) who does villainous stuff and is caught in the act. Then Akira is framed and linked to ACP Rane and then I don't know what happens. I really don't. At one point she is put in an insane asylum, she breaks out and has a Mexican stand-off with Rane. The point till Rane is introduced, the movie has some good topics like acid-attack victims(though it is done extremely crudely), bullying, ragging. Then it becomes extremely formulaic and masala. I am saying that the acid-attack topic is done very crudely is because of the way it is shown. In which part of the town does the whole town comes to see how the victim looks? I don't know.

DIRECTION - As I mentioned earlier, it feels like for the entire second half of the movie, Murugaddos just got drunk and did whatever the hell he felt like. The movie begins with a narration of Konkona Sen Sharma's character, Rabia. Probably I skipped a lot, but I am pretty sure it wasn't sure who Rabia was narrating this story to. The editing is straight from hell. In one shot in particular at about 16 minutes into the movie a breakfast scene is going on. You can see nobody standing behind Akira's brother and all of a sudden her mother appears. Completely out of nowhere! I am clubbing the fight choreography into this section. As it is evident from the title, they should have used Sonakshi's stunt double instead of Sonakshi Sinha. I absolutely love Sonakshi Sinha but you can see whenever she is on-screen during the fight scenes, she isn't at par with the requirements of the scene. Suddenly when her stunt double appears, Akira is doing flips and stuff. It's 2016. Come on already. The audience isn't blind anymore, and what's with happy endings, man? Just put a grim, realistic ending. Ah! You've to make a realistic movie first, right?

ACTING - Anurag Kashyap as ACP Rane clearly kills it as the corrupt police officer. He never has an off-beat scene. Sonakshi Sinha is exceptional when she verbally stands up against the bullies but during the fight scenes, she just ruins it. Lokesh Gupte as Manik had a lot of screen-time, but he botched it up too. I keep saying that the writing is very important. So the writing could also have been the reason.

FINAL VERDICT - Obviously give it a pass but do one thing, please. Just go around the 15 minute mark in the movie where the family is having breakfast and witness the shocking magical appearance of Akira's mother. It's worth a watch.

Sherlock: The Final Problem (2017) Season 4, Episode 3

A bitter-sweet ending

[16 January 2017]

So, after a long wait the fourth season of Sherlock comes to an end. Though not the best season nor the best season finale but this episode had it's moments. I suppose for me the problem was expectations. You can't blame me because everyone has their own set of emotions. As this was the finale I was expecting something more uniformly grounded in nature and that is why the theatrics kept putting me off and I still don't know what is the reason they keep bringing back Mary. It just makes me hate her even more. Without further adieu, let's dive in.

STORY – The story begins with a girl on a plane which is going to crash and as she makes her way through unconscious bodies to the front of the plane she receives a phone call and surprise! It's Jim Moriarty. Cut to Mycroft watching a movie when creepy stuff starts happening, only to reveal that it was Sherlock who was toying with him to get some answers. I know there are questions and I'll get to that later. On questioning Mycroft, he reveals the true identity of Eurus and why Sherlock couldn't remember her and yes, there is no Sherrinford Holmes. It's a place where Eurus is kept because of her dangerous intellect. Nice twist. Then what begins is basically "Saw" but with the Holmes. It had a particularly emotional scene including Molly Hooper. I mean, I usually tear up during emotional scenes but my eyes were over- flowing. The ending is a bit average. The momentum kept increasing and decreasing. Sometimes some of the games made sense, others felt unnecessary. All in all, it was a different kind of a finale.

DIRECTION - OK, I admit it. This season did that to the entire series, what Spectre did to Daniel Craig's James Bond.There were too many unexplained theatrics. I'll point them out one by one. Eurus shoots Watson and that gun certainly didn't look like a dart-gun. I am no expert, but still. The bomb that goes off in 221B Baker Street should have certainly killed or at the least, injured them. Just like Spectre, the end up on a boat en route to Sherrinford. There are many such theatrics throughout the episode but the scene with Molly Hooper was redemption personified. The thing which I wanted was a more personal interaction with Eurus throughout the final moments of the episode and not through a bloody screen. Magnussen was there one on one and Moriarty was obviously there one on one. The build up to Eurus was so great that I felt a bit detached. The dialogues were quite on point but like I said, there should have been a physical Eurus instead of her on the screen.

ACTING - Certainly no complaints in this department. Seriously. They are all so great that I don't want put it in words. Except Art Malik. Why the hell does this guy keep appearing? He was great being chased by Arnie. He starred in a Hindi movie called "Mirzya" where he horrendously overacted through and through and here he is again. It can be the characters he chooses but I don't like his acting at all. It was great to see Andrew Scott again. I have a question though. Will he ever be able to top his performance as Moriarty?

FINAL VERDICT - Bitter sweet will be the apt description of this finale. That's the thing about finales, right? You want your questions answered and your expectation fulfilled and an average finale just brings the entire series down by a notch. As usual there will be a ton of Easter eggs sprinkled in. The one that I caught was the drawing of the dancing men. I am imperative it was a nod to the "Adventure of the Dancing Men". It's kinda sad that there are only 3 episodes to a season and I think that limit hampered this season because this season had one of the best villains and a huge back- story to tell. Then again, just like Watson says,"It is what it is".

OK Jaanu (2017)

The epidemic of passable movies continue

[1/10 · 14 January 2017]

The trend of making remakes is very hot right now in Hollywood. Some of them are good, some of them are average and many fail but if you look closely you'll see one common thing. All the movies are remakes of very old movies. Now if you apply common sense, you'll ask that why do film-makers remake old movies, right? Because they think they can improve upon the originals because of the technical advancements we have achieved throughout the years. Now see what the Hindi Film Industry does. They remake a movie which was made one year ago. I'll try to elaborate this throughout the review.

SCREENPLAY/STORY - OK Jaanu is a remake of the Tamil movie O Kadhal Kanmani(2015). I had seen the movie then because there was a major uproar about it because it was Mani Ratnam's movie. The story follows Adi and Tara who fall in love, live together in an elderly couple's house. The elderly couple is portrayed by Naseeruddin Shah and Leela Samson. On observing their unconditional love, Adi and Tara understand the gravity of their relation and eventually give in to their love- wala feelings. That's it. It was an average story then and 2 years later it is still an average story, but this is bogged down by the extremely bland dialogue and exposition. It almost felt like in the screenplay where there should have been one full-stop, there there were two full-stops. Due to that the conversations were missing a beat every-time. It seemed very artificial. I maybe nitpicking but this keeps happening throughout the entire length of the movie. Now as Naseeruddin Shah is a veteran actor, he makes the dialogue sound real but it sticks out like a sore thumb every time there is a conversational scene between Aditya and Shraddha.

DIRECTION - Shaad Ali made Saathiya(2002) and Bunty aur Babli(2005) and after that took a complete nose-dive with flops like Jhoom Barabar Jhoom(2007) and Kill Dil(2014). No need to be surprised why that happened. Where Saathiya(2002) was penned by Mani Ratnam, Bunty aur Babli(2005) was penned by Aditya Chopra and Jaideep Sahni. I have been watching educational videos regarding film-making and it is difficult. I am being honest here, it is very difficult but when you are remaking something, you can clearly see where the problems were, right? Why repeat them scene by scene? The camera-work is bland and sometimes just off. Just off. Even the scenes with false tension are predictable. It should be unpredictable to the characters as well as the audience or else what is the point. Then comes the songs and the background score. It is everywhere like the Illuminati. Not a single shot has silence. Silence allows the characters, the set-up to settle in the eyes of the audience. The characters are jumping from one song to another, one frame to another so obviously the characters feel plastic and I couldn't even connect. People were leaving the hall before half-time and it is a movie with young, beautiful people who are in love. Bravo!

ACTING - Probably the worst performance yet by the leads and they have been in Aashiqui 2. So that's saying something. I am sure they are good actors but they were absolutely emotionless here. There was no chemistry, at all. On top of that there was the background score which was screaming, "FEEL THIS! FEEL THAT!". Arre! let the actors emote, please. Naseeruddin was great as usual. The actress who played Adi's sister-in-law had one scene and she nailed it. Leela Samson was bland too but I couldn't figure it whether it was because she was playing the character with Alzheimer's disease or not.

FINAL VERDICT - The only redeemable factor is how beautiful Shraddha Kapoor was looking in this movie. Go on judge me, see if I care. As far as the movie goes, wait for it to come on DVD or TV. If you want to sleep then you can probably go. You'll have a good sleep because of the 2 hour run-time. You can suffer a minor cardiac arrest due to the horrendous rendition of "Humma Humma", other than that it is a complete snooze fest. I am sure nobody from the Hindi Film Industry will be reading this but please, if you're spending so much then make a good movie because if you've nothing new to say then why say anything at all.

Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016)

A sequel well wasted

[3/10 · 13 January 2017]

I absolutely loved the 1st Alice, which was directed by Tim Burton himself. It brought a feeling of awe and madness and that was very much lacking in this sequel. Well, calling it a sequel isn't correct because it has absolutely no connection to the 1st one. The characters are there but the story has no motivation. The only thing that really made me happy was listening to Alan Rickman's voice, one more time.

STORY - Alice has been gone from the Underland as well as from the real land for a long, long time. Things have changed. In the real world, Alice's ex-fiancé has taken over her business and when she comes to know that she is about to lose her medium for adventure, Underland calls her for help. Hatter is distraught and is dying out of grief and Alice must help him. In order to help him, Alice goes to Time himself in order to fix the past and thus mend the present. This could have been an interesting story but the screenplay starts to fall apart after 45 minutes of screen-time. There is no real character motivation and everything seems to fall in the correct place with no real explanation. Like how did Iracebeth meet Time? How did she even return because as far as I remember, she was sent to exile. It was so convenient when Alice falls into the wrong timeline and finds out about the exact things she has to fix. I know it's a kid's story but there was no fun in it. Everyone was so weepy and emotional and that brings me to the director.

DIRECTION - So, this one is not directed by Tim Burton. It is directed by James Bobin who has directed the Muppet movies and Ali G. Now that explains a lot. I just don't understand that why doesn't a director return for the sequel? I mean, you started it. Just see it through! James Bobin just sucked out the fun. I know the original was cheesy and over-the-top but it was fun. A bit exposition heavy but it added to the character of the Underland. This movie just expected us to assume where something is taking place. Last night I was watching a video about the flaws in BvS and there the Youtuber mentioned that BvS didn't have a sense of place. Gotham and Metropolis look the same. The characters are kept in close-up so you don't feel the place they are in and that detaches the audience from feeling anything real. The case here is almost similar. The 1st movie always introduced the place where the characters were entering, due to which I'd know that where the characters are. Here it was just jump, jump and jump. I don't want to include a separate section for CGI and editing so I am including it here. The editing wasn't snappy enough. If you'd remember the tea- party scene in the 1st movie, you'd notice that it was very quick and that made that scene more humorous. Here, they missed a lot of beats and it wasn't only limited to the tea-party scene but the whole movie. The CGI felt extremely off at times. The lighting was wrong in the opening scene as well as when Alice meets Hatter for the 2nd time.

ACTING - The acting was very bland. They were doing the same thing that they did in the original. Johnny Depp felt a bit off but I won't blame him. The worst of the lot was Sacha Baron Cohen, who was actually doing a Borat impression the whole time. Again, won't blame him.

FINAL VERDICT - I hate it when sequels just bank on the success of the 1st one and doesn't improve on it. What is the rush? Make a proper script, take your time and give us a good movie. If you've haven't seen this one, don't. Just re-watch the original. This one is certainly not worth your TIME.

Dangal (2016)

wins hearts and the gold

[10/10 · 12 January 2017]

If I would I've seen this movie in 2016, it certainly would have been in my list of best movies. If you're going to this movie thinking Aamir will be flexing and showcasing his acting prowess then well and good but the girls are the highlight of the movie, hands down.

SCRIPT - Major props to bringing out a story which is inspiring and one which India needs right now. The story is kept grounded in reality. No over-the-top gimmicks. The songs blend in very well with the premise. None of the scenes linger on for a long period of time. There was a very natural flow to the story which helped engage the audience for 2 hours and 41 minutes. Even movies like Mary Kom or Bhaag Milkha Bhaag started to drag by the end but hats off to Piyush Gupta and Shreyas Jain. I have said this that dialogue shouldn't seem like dialogue unless it is a musical or a re-imagining of a play. The dialogue in this movie is a lesson as to how dialogue should be used. Little nods and grunts and expressions serve more than an explanatory conversation. I am not a fan of narration and I wasn't really liking it here either. It was fine for the light- hearted scenes but the serious scenes required silence but I can give it a pass. The only scene which felt a bit off is where Mahavir gets locked up in a room before the final fight. If it didn't happen in reality then it was really unnecessary.

DIRECTION - Chillar Party was a movie with some serious message but was a little preachy and Bhootnath Returns went full preachy. Nitesh Tiwari toned down that preaching to a very natural level in this movie. Every single topic that has happened or still happens in a family was touched upon. Beginning from the sleaziness of men to child-marriage to the sacrifice parents make, everything was utilised to the advantage of the movie. None of that brought the movie to a halt. The first half of the movie had a good amount of comedy and that gelled into the second half with ease. The thing that many might not notice that there are no pay-off scenes except for the last scene. If the audience reaches a peak before the ending then the pay-off wouldn't have a solid effect, if used multiple times. Pay-off scenes are those scenes where the characters are shown to be doing things in extra slow-motion to have an orgasmic effect on the audience and the director cleverly used it at the end in order to give proper tribute to the art and the character.

FIGHT CHOREOGRAPHY - This section needed a category of it's own and quite deservedly. I saw Mary Kom, Sultan and Saala Khadoos which had extensive fight scenes and all of the movies had extremely lack- lustre fight scenes. The camera moved too much in order to cover up the actor/actresses' incapability to fight. In comparison to all those movies, here the camera just followed the fighters. No wide- shots of the fight from the audience's perspective because that allows the stunt double to come in. All the fights had the actresses in the scene and hats off to all of them for their dedication.

ACTING - Like I said before, the best performance among some amazing performances was of the newcomer Fatima Sana Shaikh. That said, it will really be unjust to name one performance as the best performance because everyone was amazing in this movie. Aamir Khan, Sakshi Tanwar, Sanya Malhotra, Aparshakti Khurana,Zaira Wasim, Suhani Bhatnagar,Ritwik Shore and Girish Kulkarni gave amazing performances. As Aamir had put on so much weight, that altered his physicality a lot which enhanced his performance to another level. Sakshi Tanwar should be doing more movies. She gave a very subdued and nuanced performance. Sanya Malhotra as the grown up Babita had very few scenes but her eyes spoke when she didn't have any dialogue. Zaira Wasim and Sulhani Bhatnagar were awesome, just awesome. I was in awe how they are able to emote so much at their age. Ritwik Shore and Aparshakti Khurana together made Omkar a memorable character. I think they had some of the best scenes in the entire movie. I wanted to kill Girish Kulkarni after Ugly and after this I still want to kill him and that's a compliment. The side actors who formed the audience and little roles like the Dangal organiser and the guy who had sleazy theatre also gave substance to the movie.

FINAL VERDICT - I am sure everyone has seen this movie by now and if you haven't then please do. It's a complete movie and it is very rare to see a complete movie, without gimmicks nowadays. I loved how they had such eye for detail because they gave that damaged effect to Aamir's ear. Many wouldn't notice it but it's great to that they did to provide authenticity to the character and the movie. It's a 10/10 for me and one of the best movies of 2016.

Sherlock: The Lying Detective (2017) Season 4, Episode 2

Trippy and a brilliant twist ending

[10 January 2017]

Have you ever been high and gone through a lecture that is really important and after a 15 minute shut-eye you remember only glimpses of what had happened earlier? I have, literally. The 1st half felt exactly like that and I'll tell you why.

STORY - Episode 2 picks up from where Episode 1 left. Watson and Sherlock both are coping with Mary's death in their own ways while a serial killer is on the loose. I was afraid that Mary will be back in some way and oh hoy she was. I am sorry, for some reason I don't like her. So as Mary had mentioned in the tape to save Watson, here we get to see the entire video where Mary mentions that Watson will come to help Sherlock only if he is in real danger, or something like that. I am paraphrasing. So Sherlock goes after Culverton and through this process bridges the gap that Mary was afraid Watson will create on the event of her death.

DIRECTION - The first half-hour or so was very quick. The pace was enough to grope the facts but not take in anything else. I was almost out of breath till the episode reached it's peak moment. One thing I'll say is that this episode had many tear-jerking moments. One scene where I almost lost it is when Watson was beating up Sherlock. It was relatable because it has happened to me in real life, where I can see my friend losing it and I want to beat the sh*t out of him just to snap him back to reality. It was really touching. They really are overusing Mary. Till the end it felt very unnecessary, very unnecessary. One more thing that felt unnecessary was Ms. Hudson's car chase. I think I was expecting more from Culverton, but that's just me. I think it has something to do with the TV rating that they can show only some amount of gore. I really wanted to see Culverton act out or at least speak about the murders he has committed like Samuel L. Jackson in "The Hateful Eight". The twist ending was brilliant. It was there in plain sight but I am sure nobody noticed it.

ACTING - Toby Jones killed it as Culverton Smith. The fact that I am left with the feeling of wanting to see more of his character is proof enough that he was awesome. Creepy and had a 'Jack The Ripper' vibe to him. I swear I saw his pupils dilate during the last act. Benedict Cumberbath, as usual, is great. He brought back the eccentricity in that scene where he starts reciting a poem or a play. It is really difficult to reach that height of eccentricity without being under the influence of drugs. So kudos to Benedict for pulling that off. Most of the teary moments came from Martin Freeman. He brings so much intensity to the most humane character. Just amazing.

FINAL VERDICT - Well, it was obviously better than the 1st episode. It has me interested for the final episode and also worried what's it gonna be about. Sherrinford will obviously be in the centre of it, but why jeopardise Sherlock and Watson? Ohh, look at me speculating. I am happy that this series exists and I am alive to watch and enjoy it.

Stick Man (2015 TV Movie)

Nice and fun

[8/10 · 6 January 2017]

Well, I didn't know this was a Christmas short. It somehow ended up in my laptop and now that I've seen it, I thought why not review it especially because it has Dr.Watson or Martin Freeman in it.

It's a fairly simple story with Martin Freeman's Stick Man, who lives with his family and one fine day decides to go for a jog and finds himself in an adventure he wasn't really expecting. That's it. No complications, no hidden meaning. Simple and fun.

The animation had a stop-motion kind of a feel to it. I mean, it looked like stop-motion but nowadays animation has reached such heights that it's difficult to tell the difference between actual stop-motion and artificial. Stick Man's youngest kid is the cutest Stick I've ever seen. The dialogue in the movie consists of rhymes that are said by various elements in the movie like the frog or the pigeon etc. It was basically Toy Story with twigs, oh sorry, Stick Man. Martin Freeman really plays these funny, frustrated characters really well and he conveys it only by the grunts when he slams into an oar and also how his tone changes every-time he says the poem.

Definitely give it a watch. It's only 27 minutes long which has 5 minutes of credits in it. It reminded me that shorts and even full- length films can be made just for the fun of it and this one made me feel like a kid again.

Ebar Shabor (2015)

Ebar no more

[3/10 · 4 January 2017]

In a Quora post, somebody asked me that which film industry has degraded the most and the instant answer that came to my mind is the Bengali film industry. Being a Bengali, it is sad that I've to say this. I try to find the good things but the Bengali film industry has such a huge rift between commercial and art-house films, that the directors or producers have clearly lost all perspective. Commercial cinema makers don't care so they just make movies for the lowest common denominator. Art-house movie-makers apparently have a social circle of their own. They pat their own backs about what they have made and they don't care about the real flaws in their movies. It is a continuous loop which keeps repeating every year and nobody seems to bring any change to it.

DIRECTION - There is a single most fundamental flaw in Arindam Sil's direction is over-stretching ever single scene. Arindam underestimates the audience very, very much due to which he has to extend every scene showcasing a certain character's attributes. That reduces the suspense, and when the suspense from a detective movie is gone then you clearly lose interest. This has happened again and again starting from Buno Hansh to Har Har Byomkesh and now Ebar Shabor. There is no tension, is what I am trying to say. It's a detective movie and everything feels like a drag. The audience is being dragged along with the character, the side-characters are being dragged by unnecessary scenes and the music is just poking you irritatingly. I have seen Indie movies and movies made by graduate students with more maturity in their movies. Everything was so rubbed in my face that I felt like screaming," HEY! I get it". There is even an interval without a cliff-hanger. Can you believe it? The purpose of the interval is that you're interested that what is going to happen in the next half. It just comes to a halt without any rhyme or reason. Har Har Byomkesh managed to kept me interested because it has a story which was written by one of the most acclaimed writers. Here Arindam Sil tries to give a similar feel and that brings me to the screenplay.

SCREENPLAY - The screenplay was just too pretentious. The screenplay was so busy trying to glorify Shabor Dasgupta that there wasn't any room for character development. Shabor doesn't have any character arc. He begins a prick and ends a prick. The movie doesn't take time to show us his perspective. Instead it takes time to show the daily life of every other character and even that doesn't lead to anything, at all. Even a single joke that revolves around the educational background of Shabor's assistant is used a total of 7 times. Every single scene had so much in it. There is a sleazy character and there is no effort to support that with witty dialogue-writing. Instead, the whole scene is littered with pictures of naked women and magazines with naked women. There is a poor guy, he is the ex-lover of the victim. How do you show it? Make him smoke a lot of beedi which shows he has no money and make him blurt out expletives. You see what I am saying? There is no subtext or subtle story-telling. Everything is rammed down your throat. Hell, the opening scene had absolutely no significance at all. There was a long narration where something was mentioned that the man killed himself out of depression. That's it. It began in such a way that I was convinced that had something to do with the story. I have no idea that if it was intentional or not but it kept bugging me until that narration began and I was frustrated to know that that opening scene had no significance. Now, when you have such a screenplay there is a mighty tool which can help it feel tight. That is editing. That brings me to the most disturbing aspect of the movie.

EDITING - Let me start with this. A guy is getting onto a bike. A man is getting off the seat so that the owner can sit on the bike. That's it. That scene has 5 cuts. Before the interval, Shabor meets Mitali's sister and that scene has 4 cuts. Just to establish the surprise. Reason? No reason. The chase scene is sometimes sped up and again slowed down because it has no substance. There are no consequences and in order to cover it up, bucketfuls of editing is done to make it look snappy. The music. What was going on with the music? It sounded like somebody just slammed his/her head on a keyboard and slapped it in the respective scenes. The music didn't compliment the scene or convey the emotion. It was that random. Coming to the camera-work and I am putting it in this section because I don't want to dedicate another section for that. The camera-work is horrendous which makes the editing even more difficult. Different types of camera are used to show one single scene, ranging from a cheap camera to a go-pro to a standard camera. Now when the camera shoots back to another part of the frame, the change in the type of camera becomes obvious and that just put me out of the seriousness of the scene every time.

ACTING - The only performance that is even worth mentioning is Ritwick Chakraborty. He brought out the character right from the get go. Others were just themselves. At this day and age we know what a detective looks like and Saswata's Shabor doesn't look anything like one. June, Debolina and Dipankar Dey are way over the top. Abir, Payel and Swastika were basically playing themselves and that's that.

The Accountant (2016)

Formulaic and passable

[6/10 · 3 January 2017]

This movie had so much potential and yet, it falls flat on it's face. I mean you have Batman and the future Jim Gordon being directed by the guy who directed Warrior. What else do you need? Oh ya, a believable story.

DIRECTION - At the end of the movie when I saw the name Gavin O'Connor and rechecked how I felt about the movie, I felt even more disappointed. This wasn't what I was expecting. Nowadays you cannot trust a movie on the basis of trailers. Truth be told, I was expecting this movie to be the amalgamation of 'A Beautiful Mind' and 'Jason Bourne' but it falls into the category of passable action movies that I've seen in last few years like, 'Dead Man Down' or 'The Drop'. The whole just felt so bland and formulaic. It was like he tried to present us a puzzle but didn't have the capability to construct one. Every single thing fell right into it's desired place, without explanation. The director delved so much into the back-story of the accountant via flashbacks that he shortened the time to explain what is happening in the present day scenario. That obviously led to glaring plot-holes and very less character development.

SCREENPLAY - You bring in a complex character with a troubled past into a shady scenario. Now tell me, why would you want to decode the character through flashbacks? Let him stay that way because he is the accountant. We don't need to know what he was and why he became what he is through flashbacks. The 1st scene itself was enough to show the rift between the mother and the father and also the relationship between the brothers. There are so many flashbacks that I don't even know what the current plot was. I could have watched it a second time but I don't have the courage or the energy. As I mentioned earlier, these recurring flashback scenes didn't leave space for the characters who are involved in the case. Anna Kendricks' character felt so poorly written and unnecessary. The dialogue was very flat and didn't have any weight. When you're building a drama then conversations are very important or the characters don't pop-up. On top of that, what did the investigation lead to? If you think about it, if you subtract J.K. Simmons and his side-kick from the entire film it wouldn't make a damn difference.

ACTING - Ben Affleck is absolutely at his best right now. You give the man anything now, he will absolutely nail it. Despite of the plot- holes and no character development, this man stayed in character the whole movie. Rest everyone was passable. Jon Bernthal is a great actor, as I've seen his acting skills in the Daredevil, but here he is just meh! Seriously, every other actor just played a few scenes to get their paycheck and that's it. Ben Affleck had the most work and like I said, he nailed it!

FINAL VERDICT - Nothing much to watch here. Very sad to see so much potential being wasted as if it doesn't matter. That's what bugs me. If the producers have so much money, then hire good scriptwriters and make a proper movie. I mean, you make an average movie and put up a good trailer, the movie will remain in the theaters for what? One week? You make a great movie, it will remain in everyone's minds forever.

P.S. - I noticed the little Easter-egg, if it was one, of the Superman comic in Wolff's cupboard.

Sherlock: The Six Thatchers (2017) Season 4, Episode 1

A slow start

[3 January 2017]

After 2 years of eager waiting, my favorite detective is back. There was a Christmas special that was aired last year which bridged the ending of Season 3 and what is to come in Season 4. I always feel grateful that Sherlock is 1 hour long. Does it work this time though? Let's see.

STORY - The story begins where "The Abominable Bride" ended. Sherlock is brought back to the MI6 for questioning and what does he think about Moriarty's cryptic message. Mycroft has doctored Magnussen's murder so that it looks like one of the soldiers had killed Magnussen and not Sherlock. That allows Sherlock to roam free and delve into the apparent return of Moriarty. Well that's at least what I expected. The story goes into the case of a strange murder of the son of a wealthy family. That part was heart-wrenching when we get to know how the son died. On taking this case, Sherlock unravels a much more deeper plot behind a missing bust of Margaret Thatcher and brings back the mysterious past of Watson's wife, Mary. The six Thatchers is identical to the story of the six Napoleons. That's where the story starts to digress. I can't speak for everyone but I hated that they brought back Mary into the center again. It felt really unnecessary and over-stretched.

DIRECTION - Rachel Talalay brought the slow-burn effect in this episode. The usual rush was gone. It was almost like we were being guided because of the 2-year gap. It was fun until the Mary part began. It almost felt like Spectre, where they go to far-off places just to reveal that they could have resolved it earlier. I mean, Sherlock follows Mary to the middle-east I suppose. If you are following her for so long then just stop her instead of going so far and wasting so much time! The thing that should be learnt from the entire Sherlock TV series is the use of jokes. They don't make you laugh and distract you from the seriousness of the situation. It feels like a sprinkle of water in order to freshen you up. Yes Marvel, I am talking to you in particular. Loved the twist ending though. It was almost similar to the Study in Pink, where the most common person was the villain and not just because of villainous purposes, but because of how the society treats such characters. I also liked the fact, how they balanced Watson against Mary by not giving him the moral high-ground and also fleshed out Watson as a grey character instead of the symbol of virtue that we think he is.

ACTING - In the 1st scene I was slightly taken aback by his eccentric behavior and I was like,"Why is he doing like that?" and then I remembered that he is not Doctor Strange here. He is Sherlock Holmes. It's fun to see him play these intelligent characters with such finesse. Suits him perfectly. Martin Freeman brings a new shade to Watson with each season. Be it for his acting or the writing but you can deduce the jump from one season to another, just by following Watson. He is the most relatable character and Martin Freeman makes him more relatable. Returning roles of Una Stubbs, Rupert Graves, Mark Gatiss, Louise Brealey and Amanda Abbington are always fun to watch because their characters grow with each episode and also adds to the character of Sherlock.

FINAL VERDICT - I absolutely hated the fact that they stretched Mary's character to the 4th season. A bit glad that hopefully it's over, unless they pull a 'walking dead'. I really wanted this episode to dig deeper into the Moriarty case as there are only 2 more episodes to go, but that's just me. I had a few gripes about how some major things went off unexplained. Like how they killed off Ajay. You don't just barge into a room an shoot someone in the back. If you're suspicious then you shoot em in the knee-cap, especially when there are 3 people with guns drawn at each other. The other was how they didn't address the fact that Mary drugged Sherlock to get away. You can't always blame Sherlock for everything. All in all, I was in between liking it and being a bit disappointed but still a nice way to start the New Year. Happy New Year everyone.

Don't Breathe (2016)

Mentally unstable Daredevil in the house

[9/10 · 26 December 2016]

Rob a blind war-veteran's house, how hard is that going to be you think? Well, if it's this guy you think you want to rob, you better give it another thought. Fede Alvarez rebooted or remade (one of the two) Evil Dead and now he comes up with this?! He is the master of R-rated thriller/horror, no doubt about that. If you have read till here but haven't watched the movie yet,I'd suggest you to go watch the movie 1st. It will definitely be worth it. Then come read this, this review ain't going anywhere. Those who have watched it though, carry on.

DIRECTION - Even though Evil Dead didn't receive any critical acclaim but I absolutely loved it. Fede Alvarez knows how to mix music, lighting and believable characters and serve it as a beautiful dish. Well, by the end of the movie I don't think so the word 'beautiful' will hold up but you know what I mean. I was kind of confused with the opening shot. I thought, why show the conclusion? Now, I know what is going to happen? Then when you give it a few more minutes and things start to roll and take shape you forget about the ultimate consequence and get way too invested. The last time I was so invested in a horror/thriller movie was the Descent. I was absolutely shattered at the final reveal in that movie and it happened again with this one. The movie did falter at places like the characterisation. There is always a douche, a damsel and the hero character. The trick is to humanise them and make them believable. The damsel is a mixture of a damsel and a hero and the hero is a mix of damsel and hero. Well the douche is still a douche. The ending particularly is amazing. If you pause the movie at the right moment, you can see him standing right there. I think.

CINEMATOGRAPHY - Right from the aerial shot in the beginning of the movie, you know the movie is going to have the right tone. The colour grading is perfect. Most of the movie is in low light, dim light and even no light. Pedro Luque deserves a standing ovation for his amazing work. It is very difficult to capture claustrophobia and invoke that feeling in the audience even though you are not claustrophobic. I can't praise his work enough. I am actually using one of the shots in the movie as the featured image because it is that amazing. Marvel needs a good cinematographer. Just saying. Here is a guy. TAKE HIM ALREADY!!

ACTING - I tip my imaginary hat to Stephen Lang. I haven't seen much of him after Avatar but man that was something. Psychotic, strong, unhinged, ferocious and I am still defining his character. He is Stick, Daredevil, Logan and Batman all mixed up into one. It was amazing. He has very few lines and he does some amazing job without saying anything. Great job by the young cast of Jane Levy and Dylan Minnette. They started very wooden and clichéd but right after the action started they brought on their A-game.

FINAL VERDICT - Certainly going up in my Top 10 movie list. I love movies that leave you disturbed. I mean if it intends to do so then you should feel disturbed or else the movie hasn't done it's job. Definitely, definitely watch it. I can't emphasise this enough. It's so great to see so many different kinds of movies being made. The movie is so well balanced between two dark sides and you feel morally obligated to choose a side. I love the mental duel that a movie provides and through this process it reminds the audience and film-makers the craft of engaging the audience while also creating a great movie.

Army of One (2016)

Oh Nic Cage!

[2/10 · 25 December 2016]

I don't understand whether Nic Cage is too good for us to judge or so atrociously bad that he numbs your mind to the point where you can't make a judgment? On top of that he stars in this kind of a movie. I won't put up a poster in the featured image, I'll just put this snippet there to judge the absurdity of the movie.

DIRECTION - After Borat and the Dictator, I was expecting the absurdity to be very high but when the words "True story" came on screen, I started questioning that was this a story worth telling? It looked like Larry Charles didn't know which direction to go with. To go completely crazy like Borat or keep it sane for the general audience. I think he tried to balance it out and created nothing. He starts out somber with an eccentric character, assisted with a narration and then a countdown of his days in Pakistan. In Borat the comedy was so raw that I felt pity for the character and the movie was aware that it was presenting itself in that way. In this movie there is an urge to become mainstream due to which the off-beat comedy doesn't reach the desired level.

STORY - I again ask this? Was this a story worth telling? Really? A guy on dialysis went to Pakistan and then got hyped by the news and then it got made into a MOVIE? I mean when you listen to it, it might seem amusing but to make into a movie there should be something interesting in it. There was the odd love angle that kept barging in whenever things started to gain momentum. There was no need to humanize this person because you are sailing on the strangeness of the scenario. Why try to ground it in reality? I don't think there was any real script here. They just heard the story, got the highlights, put in some fillers, smoked a lot of weed, got the distributors high and made it into a movie.

ACTING - Nicholas Cage finally unleashes his entire absurd eccentricity on-screen. There are good moments where he becomes the character with the voice modulation. Then again he returns to his classic shouting and eye-widening. It was cringe-worthy and not funny at all. The only times I chuckled was because of the thought kept hitting me that,"How did this get made into a MOVIE!!"

FINAL VERDICT - Drink a lot, smoke a lot of weed and watch this movie. Trust me, you're going to have a ball! It is so absurd that you'll laugh like anything. I won't give tell you to give it a pass if you are in contact with your weed dealer or you have a liquor shop near you. Get high and watch it with your friends. There is a massive chance that they might shun you as your friend for convincing them to watch it. On the flip side, there is also the chance you'll enjoy it.

War Dogs (2016)

Boring to the point of putting you to sleep

[5/10 · 24 December 2016]

I think the title sums it up. Jonah Hill's laugh is annoying as anything and so is this movie. Hell, I'd say it's worse than Jared Leto's "attempt" at the Joker laugh. Just like the laugh, the movie is a half-ass attempt at being as cool as Fight Club or Ocean's Eleven but all of it amounting to nothing other than being boring to the point of putting you to sleep.

STORY & SCRIPT - The story is about two high-school friends who meet over a funeral after a long time. Miles Teller's character,David works as a masseuse and has an incredibly hot, Spanish girlfriend. You want logic here? Look away. As David can't make both ends meet Efron(Jonah Hill) offers a job in his company, so that he can support his family and also help Efron make the most out of the loop-holes in the American system. As this is based on a true story, I really can't say that which is more absurd, the plot or the story- telling. The script is woven over this plot, which sounds like a joke you tell at a party and everybody has a good laugh. But here, that joke is extended to a 2- hour long film full of phone-calls and talking and narration. There is so much narration that you will start thinking that why are they showing the film, just read the script and get it over with.

DIRECTION - Now it is clear that Todd Phillips was indeed a one-time wonder with the Hangover. Maybe it was a stroke of luck or stroke of genius but it isn't working now. The levels of absurdity which was promised in the trailers are missing. Like I said, if you have to make a party-time joke into a movie, you better have the substance for it. The movie begins with a semi-dark-comedic tone and then it goes all dark and gloomy. This is in the first 40 minutes. The rest of the movie keeps going up and down regarding tone. It's all over the place. The characters aren't given time to build up. Few small, stereotypical, easily relatable situations and a truckload of narration. That's what the director used to establish the characters. On top of that, the movie suffers from the Suicide Squad syndrome. Songs everywhere. Just everywhere. There is a scene in the movie where three things are happening simultaneously:narration, characters talking and music playing. It was just horrible.

ACTING - Other than Bradley Cooper's small role as a shady agent, everyone was what they are. Miles Teller was Miles Teller. There was no actual room for character building because of the exposition and narration by his character. Jonah Hill is awful. Either he is shouting too loud or he is laughing. I hate that laugh. If it was intentional, good job, Jonah because it really took me out of the movie.

FINAL VERDICT - Give it a pass. It does boast of two of the youngest and finest actors right now in Hollywood but watch it if you want to know how stupid the American Defence system is. I mean, that's the only takeaway from this. You won't remember the characters, nor the story. Yes, you'll remember that laugh.

Hell or High Water (II) (2016)

Dust, Bullets and a story about Family

[8/10 · 24 December 2016]

This is the type of movies I want to see Ben Foster in. Not in Warcraft with that golden wig and casting spells. Felt really good to see Ben Foster in this movie. Many might give this one a miss because of the mellow trailers but it's a good movie. No doubt about that.

STORY & SCRIPT - The story revolves around two brothers who are planning to pay their debts by robbing banks and two ageing officers who apparently are the only ones following this case. Jeff Bridges' character, Marcus Hamilton wants a last swan song to end his career with, due to which he is hell-bent on catching these mystery robbers who are going from one bank to another. Toby and Tanner are polar opposites of each other. When one is hot-headed, the other is smart and cool but both of them are sincere about their family. The story has a very slow pace and after the consecutive robberies the movie almost comes to a halt. It allows the dust to settle before the final showdown. The ending in particular was beautiful. It had me engaged about what was going to happen and when the credits rolled I was left thinking what will the final confrontation between Toby and Marcus will be like and that's what a movie should do.

DIRECTION - It was bold of the director to maintain such a slow pace to such a simple movie. We could see the ending right after the halfway mark but do you know what kept me interested? The characters. The interactions. Most of the times in movies when I see two characters interacting, I feel like people don't like like that. At that moment the movie just looses me. In this movie, the interactions felt natural. There were silent moments which left room for character building. The racial undertones in the characters didn't stick out. It felt rather natural because unlike Tanner, Marcus was racist just to tease his partner. That scene when Marcus finally gets his revenge got to me. Not kidding. Every character felt well-rounded from start to finish. Right from the waitress(both of them) to the main characters. I liked the final reveal of Marcus' body and you hear a rattling noise and you see that death was right at his feet. Just the bearer of it changed.

CINEMATOGRAPHY - Let me get rid of two minor gripes. One was the sky at the beginning of the movie. It felt very artificial. Second was the fire. The CGI was really off. Probably due to budget constraints. Other than that the landscape shots and action scenes were very well shot. The bleak tone of the scenario was very aptly captured. As the movie was not rushed you have the time to actually take in the scenery, making the scenery a character of the movie. ACTING - Ben Foster was the highlight of the movie and I am happy that he was. Blunt, brute and stubborn but with a heart of gold. He felt like he had dug his hands deep into this character and he delivered perfectly. Chris Pine also showcased the finer side of his acting prowess after starring in cheesy roles and of course as Captain Kirk. Jeff Bridges, was also in his comfort zone and boy was this a step-up from R.I.P.D.

FINAL VERDICT - A very mellow and probably underrated too but a must watch for people who love a slow paced movie. Due to the movies grounded tone, I felt fresh because lately I have been seeing all these cheesy movies with weak scripts botched by production houses. Very few times a movie with such a cast delivers and I can say this that this movie delivers and delivers well

Befikre (2016)

Cringe-fest

[1/10 · 13 December 2016]

Befikre. Holy poop on a stick splattered on the big screen. Now that should have been the tag-line of the movie. A 2 and a half hour long, or less, or more(I don't care) absolute cringe-fest. Aditya Chopra's return to the director's chair, Vaani Kapoor's return to acting(if you dare to call that acting) and Ranveer's first ever collaboration with his Guru was hyped up so much even before the trailers came out, that I was thinking that it was going to be another classic like Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi or Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge. Oh, the disappointment. Before starting this, I would like to wholeheartedly apologize to my favorite stand-up comedians Kanan, Kenny, Biswa, Naveen and all those whose videos I have watched and laughed, for such a cringe-worthy portrayal of such a difficult but fun job.

DIRECTION - Kaha shuru karu. Pehle shot se shuru karta hu. This has to be the most uninspired movie I have ever seen. You don't expect this from Aditya Chopra. Somebody joked that it looked like the movie had been made by Uday Chopra. Now that I think of it, Uday Baba wanted to get into direction. The scene where Dharam(Ranveer) enters his new apartment does create a doubt that whether this movie has been directed by Uday Baba or Aditya. Like I mentioned before, it's a cringe-fest. There is scene after scene after scene which makes no sense, is incoherent and unrealistic to the point of puking. Ranveer and Aditya went on a rant saying that this movie is them being Befikre of all the norms of the society and being care- free. They went to the extent of being so care-free that they forgot that they are making a movie and not a cringe-compilation for YouTube. Or maybe they were. Who knows? Every director from the 90's should just be banned from portraying today's generation. According to every director, today's generation = SEX, BOOZE, PARTY, LOT'S of money by doing some easy job. Sir, that's the recipe for a Honey Singh video, not a mainstream movie!!

SCRIPT - Script? Tell me if you find one.

CINEMATOGRAPHY - Same old, run-of-the-mill, glossy, tilted camera shots. Indoor shots and outdoor shots are so, so bland and tasteless. In a scene where Dharam is following Shyra(Vaani) and Shyra is explaining the various tourist spots Dharam keeps comparing them to places in Delhi. It actually felt like strolling through any other place. I mean if you've chosen to shoot in Paris, then show it properly instead of using some stock footage coupled with a few songs. If you can't then just shoot it in Delhi and save the effort of boasting that the movie is about love and is shot in the city of love.

ACTING - AAHA! AAAHA! AAaaha! Oh no, I am not praising the acting. That is 50% of Ranveer's lines in the movie. I am a huge fan of Ranveer. I loved his acting in Band Baaja Baarat, LvsRB, Lootera, Ram-leela and DDD but, then he does movies like Gunday and Kill/Dil and Bajirao Mastani and now THIS! In this movie he overdoes everything. Except for a scene which come 46 minutes into the movie. It last for 2 minutes and then poof! Gone. On top of that he is given lame dialogues, lame characterization. I mean he is a stand-up comedian and his punch- lines are as flat as Vaani Kapoor's chest. ooooooh! Now that I've explained Vaani's sex-appeal, let me describe her acting. It was drier than the Sahara desert. You think that joke was bad? Go watch Befikre.

FINAL VERDICT - Just don't watch it. If you've reached here, then I think that you've understood by now that I will tell you to not to watch it. If someone dares you to watch and that too without pressing the skip button then I wish you all the best. Store it in your tools for torture(If you have one. I have one) to use it on your enemies.

The Magnificent Seven (2016)

Remake of a remake done good

[8/10 · 8 December 2016]

I was fairly concerned with a remake of a remake but the name Antoine Fuqua gave hope. His movies like Training Day, Shooter, Tears of the Sun and Southpaw are some of my favourite movies. Not all time favourite, but the type of favourite where you can just sit and watch it for the nth time and still enjoy. This adds to that list. It's such a well-made movie and such minor improvements made to the original remake that there are very few complaints.

STORY – The story is kept the same. A small village is terrorized by a baron and the villagers are divided on whether to cave-in or revolt. So some of them ask out for help to a gunslinger after witnessing his feat of heroism. This hero embarks on a journey to rope in some of the finest assassins to help this village and help get them their village back. Simple story set in a Western-themed time. So far, so good. The premise was acceptable when in it came out in 1960, but in 2016 the expectations are bound to increase. Still, I am going to give them props to keep the story the same as the original. I had watched the original 1960 remake a fair time ago but I do remember that there was a point where one of the characters Chico, infiltrate the bandits to know about their plans and that adds a layer to the bandit gang. That they are so naive that they don't even know who their band members are, plus it shows that they are actually running low on supplies. Here though, there is no such moment except Red Harvest going to check out and coming back and reporting and the villain Bogue, is shown to be one dimensional with no such compelling background and is a villain for the sake of being a villain.

DIRECTION(and dialogue) – I understand this is a remake but I think a few changes should have been made which would have made the movie a bit more relevant. I don't know that whether it was for the sake of promoting multiple races or the demand of the script but when the directors have sought to do it, I think they should have put some more substance into that angle. Here's why. In 2016 everybody appreciates character development and moments which build up an ensemble team. Here the writers didn't explore that part. They just copied and pasted the process of their bonding. There wasn't any definitive moment where the whole group could fall apart because they were from different backgrounds. I mean, I can assume people then were less simpler but human nature isn't that simple. Maybe I am overthinking, but a few more altercations showcasing the different mindsets of the variety of characters would have elevated the movie. The dialogue was top- notch. It didn't have any amount of cheesiness to it like Western movies usually have and it was fun. Other than that, the action scenes were amazing. No doubt about it.

CINEMATOGRAPHY – The film was mainly comprised of outdoor shots. My favourite shot was before the actual fight when Chisolm is sitting on his horse in the field looking at the village. It was beautiful. The original remake had a lot of outdoor shots of them riding from place to place but it was done so many times that it became very boring. Here, somehow it looked awesome. I mean, making horse-riding look cool in 2016 isn't easy. You have to give credit for that. I can say that because I recently saw a movie Mirzya, in which horse- riding was an integral part but boy, did they make it boring. So yes, horse-riding when done right looks pretty amazing.

ACTING – How can you expect this cast to do bad acting? It's impossible. Denzel Washington, awesome. Denzel Washington just plays these grey characters with a heart of gold with ease. Now, when you have Denzel Washington shooting and horse-riding you better thank the movie gods for making this happen. Chris Pratt, again, awesome. He is the perfect guy to star in action-adventure movies. He isn't plastic like usually action-adventure stars turn out to be. He is like a modern day Harrison Ford. Good to see Andy Dwyer travelling in space, chasing dinosaurs and now gun-slinging. He strikes the perfect balance between humour and action. Ethan Hawke, awesome. I hope he gets more movies. He does what he does best and he does it with dedication. Here he did the PTSD affected Goodnight very well. Vincent D'Onofrio, awesome. He was like a gentle giant. I liked the voice change that he did. I think it was his own improvisation and it fitted well. Byung Hun Lee mainly played off Ethan Hawke and it was good. Matt Sensmeier didn't have much scope but he did his part well. It didn't feel like a caricature. OK, Haley Benett is extremely beautiful. Had to say it. Her character never lost the fact that she has suffered immense loss. Props to the writing department for that too for not striking an unnecessary romance out of nowhere. She was strong, compassionate and humane without being too weepy. My major gripe, like I said before was Peter Saarsgard. I don't know if it was the writing or the acting but Bogue didn't really stand out for me.

FINAL VERDICT – I didn't like that last CGI burial scene. I mean, why don't just shoot that scene? It looked really out of place. OK! This is a very good remake. Watch it if you haven't watched it already. Certainly not any benchmark for remakes but this is the optimum level which should be maintained to make a remake. Or else, just don't. Certainly a benchmark for Western style movies and any action movie.

P.S.– I really didn't expect Matt Bomer to die so early in the movie.

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children (2016)

Tim Burton's X-men

[6/10 · 5 December 2016]

I am sure many are familiar with the novel of the same name but I wasn't and thus I don't know about the time it was published but a school with children with superpowers, mentored by a super-human and an extremely confusing time-line does sound a bit too familiar in 2016. As I am a fan of Tim Burton, I was very excited but much of it fizzled out after the first half-hour or so. Still, I managed to watch it so here goes.

STORY – Jake, is the grand-son of a mysterious man, Abe. Jake's parents tell Abe that he has dementia and that is why he tells all those strange stories. One day, Abe is attacked and in his dying hours he gives Jake a cryptic message to go to an island and meet Miss Peregrine and save the Ymbrynes. He convinces his father to travel to Wales and in a chance meet he travels back in time and meets Miss Peregrine and her Peculiars. There he comes to know that there are multiple groups of Peculiars who live in time-loops to stay as immortals and are guarded by these mentors who control these time-loops to save them from the evil Peculiars who want to kill them to eat their eyeballs!? Gross. Now these evil Peculiars have their goons called Hollows who basically carry out their bidding BUT they are invisible. Now, here comes in Jake, who has the same power as his grand-father and that is that he can see those Hollows. So he should help the Peculiars and help preserve their time-loop. Now, this is a pretty simple story where a misfit is entrusted with a huge burden which he should overcome to be accepted and triumph as a hero. So, to be fair the whole plot is predictable. Still that shouldn't have been a problem if Tim Burton would have upped the ante and made the whole scheme feel not only a war between Hollows and Peculiars but one which could also affect the mortal world.

DIRECTION – Tim Burton has a style of his own. A characteristic, dark-humour along with an artificial set which gives the feeling that the film is set in a not-so-realistic place. Here that feeling was a bit diluted in nature. I remember watching Sleepy Hollow and the creepiness factor was so high. Or even a bright movie like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, with all it's colors and dance numbers had a creepy feeling to it. Miss Peregrine's doesn't live up to that expectation. The outdoor shots feel dull and bland. The time-loop system isn't established properly leading to fair amount of questions and plot-holes regarding it's effects. The powers of each of the Peculiars, especially the Twins, aren't used properly. You can say that it is according to the book, but in the 21st century, you can't always go by-the-book. People have become far more logical and they can see through shoddy writing. I loved the stop-motion animation that was mixed in with real-life during Enoch's demonstration of his powers. THAT felt creepy and disturbing. The finale felt very, very lame. As I said there weren't any stakes and the use of a single frame for every action, kick, punch didn't increase the intensity. The CGI was okay. Again, the ending was not clear because the time-loop theory, at least to me, wasn't explained.

ACTING – Acting was nothing spectacular. Everyone had a one note theme and no wow moment. I particularly loved Pixie Davies as the super-strong girl. She had small moments where she really shone. Hats-off to Cameron King as Millard. Being invisible and still emoting is a difficult job. I was expecting that there will be some scene where he will get to show his face but he didn't and hats-off to that. The teenage romance of Jake and Emma is so boring, particularly because of Asa Butterfield and Ella Purnell's lack- lustre performance.It felt unnecessary and avoidable because Asa Butterfield can't emote when his grandpa is dying, then how is he gonna emote LOVE, which is a difficult emotion in itself.Eva Green and Samuel L. Jackson stroll through their roles as the two opposite poles of this peculiar world.

FINAL VERDICT – The whole film felt very dull and drab. I know, Tim Burton's movies have that kind of a feeling but usually his movies urge you to snuggle under a blanket in winter and watch his movies because his movies have lot of emotions and plenty of acting which even increase the stakes which are apparently very small. This movie falls flat and to be honest, it was difficult to make my way through this. If you have read the novel and if you think you can connect with it, then sure, go ahead and give it a try. Casual movie-goers can give it a pass.