The Wolf of Wall Street

The yardsticks of judging films of a certain genre seem to be dug to the depths of inflexibility. We now know exactly when to expect a slow motion sequence, when to break into tears of pity and when to clap for a motivating monologue. And when an amateur rebel of a director comes around with something unconventional, we are ready to pan him down with a misguided sense of knowledge. Conventions, with their now predictable structure have crippled the audience and critics alike. Films, especially the popular ones, have become mere opportunities for wannabe's to broadcast pseudo-intellectual inferences and opinions.

Not us! We know what we're talking about.

An intervention is called for. And not from anybody vulnerable, trying hard to make their mark, but from someone well established and authoritative enough to righteously shove the intervention into people’s throats, basically-a big Daddy. Enter, Martin Scorsese.

A vigilante filmmaker with a large cache of cameras? We need Nicolas Cage to play this guy.

The Wolf of Wall Street is a surprisingly surprising film. With a biopic, that is unusual. Scorsese has challenged the film fraternity by using a genius technique which is disturbingly successful only when it is hidden. The film does not necessarily track the turning points in Jordan Belfort's life, what it does though is that it shows all the instances that highlight the intricacies of the character. These instances might not lead to the next phase of his life but they sure tell you what kind of a person Jordan Belfort is.

There are two separate questions- What is the story of Jordan Belfort? And who is Jordan Belfort? 'The Wolf of Wall Street' answers the second question. Does it do so reliably? We will never know, because it is based on a book written by the man himself. All we can do is laugh at his insanely money, drugs and sex driven life, as it slides down as much as it possibly can. And we get ample moments to laugh. So many moments that you start to feel guilty for laughing at a hard working man's tragedy. But hey, he is a crooked man isn't he? What might have been an immensely intense biographical drama becomes an immensely engaging study of a character. And does it come to a conclusion? Well the story does, but the character doesn't.

The character just keeps drinking.

So go watch it for Dicaprio's potential Oscar winning performance and Scorsese's relentless efforts towards quality film-making. Watch it for the humor and for the seeming light heartedness. Watch it for its aggrandizement of everything wrong, and for the challenge that it puts to your mind. Consume it all as food for thought. It is tasty food.

The Wolf of Wall Street is not unconventional. It is neo-conventional.

IMDB Rating: 8.7/10 (This rating will probably decrease in the following weeks)

Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 76%

Should you watch it: Yes

My Rating: 3.5/5

Aatma : Shit hit the (horror) fan !

This is possibly how the job interview of the director of ‘Aatma’ went-

Producer A: What can you offer us? Do you have any new ideas to revamp the genre?
Director: I want to make a horror film.
Producer B: are you any good?
Director: I want to make a horror film.
Producer A: Why should we appoint you as the director of this film?
Director: I want to make a horror movie.
Producer A: I think we should appoint him, he is motivated enough.
Producer B: yes, he wants to make a horror film.
Director: I want to make a horror film.

I am a conscious phobophile. Not the one that goes to amusement parks and vomits his guts out while laughing out loud, sitting on a rollercoaster. I am the one that goes to watch horror movies and vomits out popcorn while gasping out loud, sitting on the edge of the recliner seats. I just made it up- the latter part- to make the introduction of the review a more poetic and an artistically consistent experience. Because I believe that when a film is not entertaining, its reviews surely are.

Yes, I am a conscious phobophile, perhaps placed somewhere in the centre of the phobophile measurement scale, but a phobophile nonetheless. Nothing connects to me more than fear does. And do not misunderstand this love of fear for love of exploitation; the lesser the gore, the merrier the horror movie experience. Because then you know that they have better things to focus on, rather than the obvious ones that waste everybody’s time.

The reason I emphasize on my genre preference is to take the following point home- it takes great effort to disappoint an audience on all counts, but it takes a miracle to disappoint the fans. You might say that it is easier to disappoint the fans because they have been analyzing the genre for a substantial time and expect more from a horror film than the rest of the audience do. I disagree. I say that they go to whimper, love to whimper and relish even a small helping of whimper generation.

Before I go dissecting the movie, I need to present a justification for watching the movie in the first place. Why would a critic have to do that? Isn’t he/she supposed to disregard the trailers and his/her own conscience in order to rate the movie objectively? This would be true in most of the cases. But if you are familiar with the quality of the current Indian horror film churn-out, you would have to be a nutcase if you want to pay to watch one yourself. I fancy thinking that I am not a nutcase, therefore the justifications- Firstly; the Bhatt camp has monopolized and ruined (in that order) the Indian horror cinema. This movie was an exception. Secondly, Nawazuddin Siddiqui had smitten me with his performance in Gangs of Wasseypur, Kahaani and Peepli Live. I trusted his choice of script.  I wonder if he would also come up with a justification list after watching the movie himself. Thirdly, the plot-though a cliché, but a newer one- promised to explore multiple emotions and directions than the usual haunted house paradigm.

Promising posters have become a reason to suspect foul play

Aatma is a story of a woman trying to save her daughter from being taken to the afterlife by a possessive, psychopathic, cuckolded and (before I forget) dead husband. Towards the beginning of the film, we learn that the daughter has been kept away from the truth of her father’s long absence. So when he comes late at night (when her mother is fast asleep) and tucks her in with a bed time story, the girl doesn’t suspect oddity. Soon her father starts accompanying her to her classroom and helps her with the classwork. The father also tells her that he loves her more than her mother does and that he is going to take her away with him, away from her evil mother. The little girl is also oblivious of the fact that this loving man, her father, is/was a wife beater.

History testifies to the fact that the villain needs to be a better developed and a more real character than the hero himself. Be it Darth Vader or Voldemort or Raoul Silva from Skyfall, all these people-though fantasized and exaggerated their antics are- are more like us, they faced real conflicts in decision-making and survived them only to die at the hands of their respective contrived, utopian and idealist figures- the Heroes. Aatma had a great potential to build a great villain. And with a casting triumph like that (Nawazuddin Siddiqui), their job was half done! But the ham-up operation was led by a team of headstrong genre-terrorists that interpreted the ‘holy book of horror’ wrong. The hero/heroine in this case- It’s like all the other cases, they are always right. Only in horror movies, they get to be dumb as well.

An ideal way to make this film would have been the adoption of a moody approach. Things should have taken time to unravel. The relationship between the father and the daughter, the father and the mother and the mother and the daughter should have been explored to the point we started caring about them. Even if they had ascended to melodrama, I would not have complained. The idea of the story does provide an opportunity to discover sentimental passages that could lead to an enthralling climax, full of emotion. But then this is a lot of wishful thinking. Let us see how the film’s been executed (pun intended) in this particular universe of ours-

The film opens with a song that could have been used in the background during the spooky scenes. As soon as the opening credits are done with, the film jumps into the plot, perhaps too early! This is the perfect place to explain with an analogy- instead of putting the first gear, the film directly puts the fifth one and as for the climax, it chooses the only one left- the reverse gear.

Once you spot a logical loophole in a film that you wanted to enjoy, the experience just gets ruined. In this particular film- why does the mother not sleep in her daughter’s room when she knows that a psycho ghost comes visits the little girl and has already threatened to take her away? Why does the woman never make an escape strategy throughout the film? Why expect the ghost to just give up its escapades for no reason? Every time the dead husband makes his nightly appearance, this woman- probably suffering from short term memory loss- hops, skips and shouts with shock. The antagonist himself is not a very stable character. This particular ghost has got his ideology wrong! His counterparts will cringe in embarrassment when they see how illiterate he is in the art of haunting. He kills all the random people for no reason, even if they do not come in his way. This might be the film’s alternate way of telling us that he is a psychopath. The problem is, they waste a lot of time saying that. There is no limit to the variety of ways in which the movie annoys you- A certain character in the movie (that of a cop) is investigating the random murders committed by this misguided ghost of ours. He gets to annoy us by repeatedly reminding us, in a pseudo-ominous tone- “Yahan kuch galat ho raha hai…” This exercise is used to bring us back to the edge of the seat, even as the film reaches its climax. They got it right in a way. The film was so bad in developing any sense of fearful progression that we had to be reminded by this guy time and again.

Another flaw is that the movie ‘tries’ to be intelligent. It tells us of things that are happening off-screen, through random dialogues (badly delivered). Now most filmmakers use this trick to focus on more important plot points. This film wasted those plot points off screen. What WAS kept was stupidity. Here is an example; our Sherlock Holmes explains a murder scene to our heroine-

“Unke sharer par koi ghaav nahi tha”
“Phir who kaise mari?”
“Unka Galaa kaatkar maara gaya”
“Par aapne toh abhi bola ki koi ghaav nahi tha”
*ominous pause*
”Unka gala andarse kaata gaya tha”

*audience mocks the situation with sarcastic sighs of realization*

And worry not; the film is full of these. The little girl was just attacked by a supernatural ghost but was saved at the last moment by her mother. The mother takes her away to spend the night at the neighbor’s place (why? The house is not haunted, the little girl is! Why endanger the innocent neighbors?). There a friendly woman tucks the girl in with her own and reassures the mother- “she is safe now”. How do you know? You have no basis to prove that statement! Just because a dialogue is necessary, you don’t have to speak baseless stuff. Times like these, we should go with the Hollywood staple- “everything is going to be alright”. It’s a broad statement that doesn’t talk about now. It talks about the final state of being. So even if things go wrong in the immediate future, you cannot be blamed. For uttering that one baseless dialogue, I guess the neighbors deserved the endangerment. 

Kid's possessed by a ghost! These guys put the 'no' in in'no'vation! 

When it comes to acting, what you have got to do in a horror movie is, firstly, be cynical when it comes to walking the corridors. Definitely, do not switch on the lights, because that way the disable the ghost. And secondly, act like you were being chased by a monster. The child actress cannot be blamed for her performance, but we can say that she was not motivated at all. Bipasha Basu must be proud that she is doing different stuff than dancing to item numbers, wearing skimpy outfits, but watching her in movies like Raaz-3 and this one, you want to pick her up (like you do in those strategy games) and place her in a place more respectable… the shampoo commercials, maybe? No she does not do a bad job; she could have definitely done a better job, only there is not much of a job to do. It’s more than dancing in skimpy outfits, but it’s sillier. As for Nawazuddin Siddiqui, he has just had his adrenaline shot to fame with his Gangs of Wasseypur stardom. He will have to choose his scripts carefully. I have to admit though that he was arresting in whatever little screen presence he had. He was one of those good ideas that were kept off the screen, you see?

Finally, if I were you and I was reading this article, I would pan the critic for

1.       Wasting so much time in watching a movie he knew was not going to be any good

2.       Wasting so much time in writing a review for the movie nobody is going to watch any way.

Perhaps I would be right in doing that. It is not hard to see that shock horror is on the verge of dying. But it has been dying for a long time. There are superior genres. Genres that make you laugh, the ones that make you think about your life and the ones that inspire you. Horror in itself has been made into a cheap way of earning money. In olden days people used to go to magic shows to get dumbfounded, now we go to horror films. People will never stop testing their courage. They need to be motivated regularly. They need to know that they are not afraid and they need to feel intelligent. These needs are satisfied by today’s horror cinema. The genre will always remain on the verge of dying. What a sad state of immortality. I am reminded of a particular episode of The Twilight Zone, in which a man makes a deal with the devil. He trades his sickness for immortality, only to be imprisoned for life!

I do not regret watching this film. It was a waste of time, but it was laughably bad. Everybody in the auditorium laughed their guts out. They had a good time wasting their time. 

One thing is for sure. As the crow's been flying, this has become a paradoxical statement-

' I have a good taste in movies. My favourite genre? Horror '

As for ‘Aatma’, there was not a singular scary moment. Don’t watch it deliberately, only accidentally.

Rating:  0.5 / 5

Killing Them Softly (2012)

I have always been keen to watch movies, good ones or much awaited ones, on the very first day of their release. I like to watch the very first show. I give myself a false sense of superiority and gain some enjoyment seeing a film before anyone else. Sometimes not only do I get to experience the pleasure of watching the film before others, but I also get to tell the ones who didn't show much interest to begin with that there was a film they could watch. A good film. A film to look out for. This is one of those films.

A quick plot review makes it sound like one of the many post-Scorsese gangster tales which involve a lot of well written moderately profound dialogue and some stylized violence. Here's the IMDB blurb Jackie Cogan is a professional enforcer who investigates a heist that went down during a mob-protected poker game. 

I went in expecting a heist gone wrong. I expected Brad Pitt to be the stone cold ruthless assassin type, great for action sequences imparting wisdom in forty words and two pop culture references. I expected Ray Liotta to be a mob boss getting riled up and spitting out his words at the camera.

A few of my wishes came true. What I truly witnessed was an allegorical tale of the recession. An economy supported by gambling breaks down. Troops are sent in to rectify the situation and bring the economy back to its feet. But the troops aren't as effective as expected. Beneath a layer of cool criminal speak lies an essay on America and the events that unfolded during the time period of the 2008 presidential campaigns.

What enhances the film and its core idea are the writing, the direction and the cinematography. The cinematography is superb. I wouldn't be surprised if the cinematographer got a nod come Oscar season.  A few scenes stand out in my head; a character injects himself with heroin, a character gets shot. The writing and the direction are intelligent and well paced. The acting is top notch. Brad Pitt is stellar as usual and Scoot McNairy gives an authentic performance.

I had one complaint. I greatly admire the use of allegory in film. But sometimes the allegorical elements are too blunt. District 9 was subtle with its references to apartheid. This film is just too ham fisted with the direction at a few points. The allegory is not there for us to pick up. It's hammered home, repeatedly. And that ticks me off, a little.

All in all a good film. One of the better ones of this year. The film  has the potential to remain a good film or to be hyped as a great film as it deals with issues close to America (remember The Hurt Locker? Neither do I).

IMDB Rating: 7.3/10

My Rating: 7.5/10

Watch it in the theater? Yeah, it's good.

OMG Oh My God! (2012)

Today I succumbed to boredom and watched a Hindi movie. Why don't I watch Hindi movies? Before you Hindi speakers start commanding that not only should I know Hindi but I should watch plenty of Hindi movies here are a few reasons (in bullet points):

• I cannot comprehend Hindi completely. I need a friend to translate some of the more difficult (shudh Hindi) words. I am from West Bengal. We speak Bengali there. You know, one of the other 18 official languages of India.
• Hindi films are just not as good as international cinema. Notice here that I said international cinema and not Hollywood. There are many great Hindi films out there. But I found out that it takes me a larger amount of time researching the quality of a newly released Hindi film than to actually watch the film.
• Even films with different concepts and/or new ideas have the same formulaic crowd pleasing shit shovelled into the script.
• Too much plagiarism.
• Too many songs.
• Overall corniness.

As you can see I have my reasons for not watching Hindi films. However, today I went out of tedium and my love of Paresh Rawal.

The film begins like a generic comedy. It generates chuckles from the juxtaposition of a religious background, devout wife and a holy idol and stature shop, against the atheist shop owner Kanji Bhai (Paresh Rawal). I was prepared to walk out of the movie when I heard the Prabhudeva-led item number "Go Govinda". I believed that was the movie subtly telling me and my godly friend Govinda (a.k.a. Krishna) to get the hell out of there as it was going to get painful. 

A few minutes later I was thankful that I'd not left as the movie had swiftly descended into one of my favourites, religious satire. Kanji Bhai disrupts a religious festival and is cursed by a Hindu priest. His shop is destroyed and the insurance company refuses to reimburse him for his losses as the earthquake that destroyed his shop was an "act of God".

It is here that Paresh Rawal gives a marvellous performance as a non-believer. And Mithun Chakraborty proves that he's still got it as he lampoons religious cult leaders with all their quirks and vanities. This film had me hook, line and sinker, the dialogue was funny, thoughtful and logical. 

Suddenly a wild Akshay Kumar appears! 

And I felt that the film had lost me. What could have been a ground breaking film descended into the murky waters of "this is India, so no atheism allowed". You see, in a film that challenged the very existence of God the filmmakers decided to introduce God.

Overall I have to say that I liked the film. It put forward some well written arguments. It challenged Big Religion and all the scams, rackets and insanity that went along with it. But I kept thinking that this film could have been much better without God making an appearance. It could have been a spectacular struggle of man against society and his eventual hard won triumph. It was the struggle of man against society and his eventual hard won triumph. The spectacle was cheapened by God's arrival. This film asks the right questions but it falls short. This is the sort of film that should teach a person to question their beliefs. To think and question instead of blindly following. To offer a different point of view. What it does is question our rituals and our inane practices. It tells us to not fear but love God. It does a good job of that. 

I'd hoped that it would question God too.

IMDB Rating: 8.9/10 (sometimes you shouldn't trust IMDB, this is one of those times)

My Rating: 6.5/10

Should you watch it: Yeah, why not? It is funny. And for the atheists/agnostics who like me had hoped for more, here's a George Carlin routine that never gets old:

The Cabin in the Woods (2011)

Role call!

Dumb girl, who is a wuss, but likes to explore dark corners of a haunted place – Present.
Another dumb girl, who is horny most of the time and wears clothes that are scanty enough- Present.
A dumb boy, who is handsome and well built enough to be the alpha male- Present.
Another guy, who talks weird stuff and thus gets all the promo dialogues- Present. 
Yet another guy, who doesn't have any particular traits, but gets to die creatively- Present.

There we have the perfect dumb college group which goes to the woods to spend their weekend, just to be killed one by one. Don’t we just love it? It is like the Bond movies, basic mathematics! You have the formula- blasts, international level oil conspiracies, deceptive sexy ladies and a spy who speaks less and shoots more. They bring it to us every 5 years and we compare it to the one that came before, which had suffered from the exact same fate. It is never as good as the last one. All said and done, we hoot, whistle and jump when every time they repeat that stuff. Some clichés are necessary. Some things should never change. Even if we criticize people for the way they are and nag them to change, when they do change- we miss them for the way they were. Remember when James Bond shed tears in Casino Royale? It broke the fans’ hearts for all the wrong reasons. 

My favorite genre is horror. It’s ironic but I feel comfortable watching horror films. Nothing ever changes. So we can always sit back and wait for our predictions to come right. There is a pattern and we criticize it. We are pretty familiar with the horror house architecture by now. Stupid decisions are taken and we get to shout out loud at the characters. You feel intelligent, as you feel you would do better int terms of a retreat strategy when your bedroom door slams open in the middle of the night. “Let me see what resources I can optimally utilize to beat this intangible spirit which can kill me any minute”.

What I don’t like is when somebody messes with the stereotypes. The Cabin in the Woods is therefore a source of discomfort.  It has everything in the right place before it starts playing with the plot in a different way, playing with the pure idea.

Pornography and voyeurism are uncomfortable topics when we talk about them to the society. But they have a market. What if they are liberalized and further commercialized? What if the human race gives in to the lust? After all there’s money where there is thirst and hunger. But this is not the first movie to tackle this topic. David Cronnenberg made a disturbing thriller back in 1983, called the Videodrome. And I am sure there are a few more.  It is a good idea. It is a horrific idea. Good for a thriller. But wait a minute, what about the dumb youngsters in the forest? What about the cabin in the woods? Hey don’t blame me; I am as confused as the screenplay.

Then there was some talking about mythology, shoved in were various film references (I bet the cabin in the movie is a tip of the hat to Sam Raimi’s cult horror-comedy trilogy- The Evil Dead). At one point of time I even felt like I was watching the demo of a Japanese video game. All of this packed in a glittery blood red cover of modern, comic book style, graphic filmmaking.

It’s been some time since we saw a good horror caper. Gore and sex have adulterated the genre. Clichés are a thing of the past. Now we have everybody trying to revamp the whole genre. The Cabin in the Woods is one such experiment. Sometimes, the inconsistency of 

thought had me distracted. Too many ideas, not even one well exploited.

Imagine this situation. You finally visit your favorite restaurant on a hard-earned weekend. You order your favorite dish. The place is too busy and confused so they get you something else that’s equally tasty. You are too hungry to complain so you let it be and start enjoying the food. You have just gotten accustomed to it, when the waiter, without a warning, takes your plate away and serves you with something else. It is tasty too, but again- not what you ordered. You forgive him yet again and decide to have whatever you can get, fill your stomach and leave. Sadly, the restaurant has different plans it doesn’t stop switching your dishes. It is their idea of new and innovative service. Pissed off, you leave.

It is not a bad movie, but a bad horror movie. Rather, wrongly branded so. But a good thriller? Sure. Comic-book fans would love it too. After all, it is produced by Joss Whedon, the guy behind this year’s massive blockbuster- The Avengers. These guys surely had it in the back of their mind that they were making a movie about horror movies and not a horror movie itself, but that’s the problem- they had it in the back of their mind.

If only it had made me whimper and made my goose-flesh squirm. On the contrary, my geese had popcorn and flapped their wings off indifference.

IMDB Rating: 7.3/10

My Rating: 2.5/5

Withnail and I (1987)

This film is about two struggling actors whose squalid habitat would make Tyler Durden proud. One looks a bit like Lennon and is poetic, he is the eponymous "I". The other is handsome, upper class, foppish and perpetually drunk, he is the titular Withnail. These two youths take a fun alcohol fuelled journey to the English countryside to holiday in a shack owned by Withnail's uncle Monty. It is a comedy which at some moments will darken your soul.

This is called black humour folks and the only other film I've seen in this league is Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove.

This film is also about two struggling actors whose squalid habitat could be described as truly pitiful. In fact their entire existence seems pathetic as they fail to get work and pass their days drinking themselves into premature liver failure. One is anxiety prone paranoid who lets his friend dictate his life, the other is Withnail, a high-brow alcoholic. They embark on a disruptive journey to the English countryside full of drunken mishaps. It is a tragedy that will at some points make you laugh.

And that is why Withnail and I is a cult British film. The interpretation of the events in the film lies solely in the eyes of the viewer. And despite being billed as one of the greatest examples of black comedy  I believe that was the intention. One of the many stories about its production is about the determination of the director to not use any of the takes that made his crew members laugh. Another story mentions that the film was almost shut down three days into production because one of its producers thought that it had no discernible jokes.

Have you seen Inglourious Basterds? Do you remember the scene where Lt. Aldo Raine asks a German to point out where the Nazi artillery and snipers are located on a map and when he refuses has him beaten to death in front of two other soldiers. Another soldier is shot in the back and the last soldier when as by Lt. Raine immediately divulges the information. This scene is funny. It made me laugh. It made the characters laugh. But if you really think about it this was a very uncomfortable scene and this terrified soldier should not have made us laugh. Withnail and I is like that, there are scenes that are hilarious and instantly quotable, but there are so many moments that make you chuckle which just shouldn't.

In my mind it also raises a question. At what point does amusing become depressing and vice versa? Would this still be a black comedy if the exact same events had taken place but his time the characters were injecting heroin into their bloodstreams?

This film also presents us with some fascinating characters. If you're not looking for character study then you can find the characters make marvelous caricatures. And behind them is great acting and clever writing. Richard Griffiths (Uncle Dursley form the Harry Potter movies) gives a cracking performance as Uncle Monty (hmmm...me thinks a connection there is). And Richard Grant's Withnail is unforgettable. Watch this film. You'll either like it or love it. Don't get fooled by the gloom of my review though, this film will definitely make you laugh.

IMDB Rating: 7.7/10

My Rating: 8.5/10

Hearts in Atlantis (2001)

In a not very happening town, on a not very happening street, lives an eleven year old boy called Bobby Garfield. Bobby-o wants a bicycle that his single mother can’t afford. But every kid is hasty about becoming a grown up and every grown up is understanding. So Bobby-O tries his best. His mother is cynical, therefore never happy. And Bobby has to make do with an adult library card as a birthday gift. The relationship as you must have guessed by now is going downhill. The approaching of teenage makes things worse. Enter, an old man, who takes the word “strange” as a compliment. Mr. Ted is their new neighbor and also the most enigmatic personality Bobby-O has ever met.

No I have not revealed anything. It would take more than that to reveal the thick plot of Hearts in Atlantis, a film that almost tricks you into thinking that it doesn’t have any plot to it.

The film has enormous names to boast of. Anthony Hopkins plays a major character and the movie itself is based on Stephen King’s collection of novella of the same name. Had I revealed these trump cards before, you wouldn’t even have cared to read the review any further. But that is where we miss the point, don’t we? Does a film become great just because of the names associated to it? Or does it become great because those great people had some belief in the story? Something clicked in Stephen King’s mind when he wrote those stories. Something clicked in Hopkins’s mind when he was presented with the idea. Now there’s a reason to watch a movie.

A mention of Stephen King’s name raises a question- is it a horror movie? Well that depends on your interpretation of the word ‘horror’. Is it all about seeing the ghost beneath the bed? Or is it about thinking of the ghost beneath the bed? The latter one is the kind of horror that King specializes in. The concept of horror in this movie is a little more profound. The fear of losing to time, the fear of realizing that our heroes are human, that our parents make mistakes too and that nothing is permanent. Not even our home. It may never be the place you dream of going back to.

Anthony Hopkins gets into the skin of Mr. Ted and becomes a mystery to us, right from the moment he pops up as the new neighbor. His eyes tell a different story in every movie. This time they are hiding something, something terribly painful and horrific. The movie then invites you inside, makes you feel welcome, hands you a hot cup of evening beverage and settles down to tell a story that might not be very new, but engaging and moving nevertheless. Important relationships are explored here. Painful realizations, reinforced.

To dump this movie into a particular genre would be unjust. It is a piece of storytelling you might want to indulge in when you are alone, on a rainy Sunday evening. Your state of mind just might give you a new comprehension.

Hearts in Atlantis, just like Kubrick’s The Shining, focuses more on the stuff that is not supernatural. It understands King’s writing and creates memorable images from the most trivial of instances. Isn’t that how memories are made in the first place?

It is not a great movie, it’s far from it. But there’s nothing wrong with it.

IMDB Rating: 6.8/10

My Rating: «««««

Moon (2009)

As you might have guessed from the title of the movie it's set on the moon. "Sarang" is a lunar base for mining helium-3 at the far side of the moon and it is manned by a sole crew member Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell). An artificial intelligence assistant named GERTY (voiced by Kevin Spacey) is his only companion. We are told helium-3 is an energy source and it is found in abundance on the moon. Sam is serving out a three year contract with Lunar Industries Limited and is down to his last two weeks. Sam Bell has a wife and a two and a half year old child back on Earth. Soon conflict arrives, but not in the form of an alien bent on eating him but something far more (pause here for effect) human.

This is the debut feature film of Duncan Jones (Source Code) and it's incredible to see what he has done with a budget of 5 million dollars. Interesting side note: Duncan is the son of a certain David Robert Jones also known as David Bowie; Duncan himself used to be known as Zowie Bowie. The direction was crisp and clear. Sam Rockwell as the only human to appear for most of the duration of the film delivers an incredible performance and never fails to lose our attention. That is a testament not only to his acting abilities but also the script and it's terse yet dramatic tone which gave me goose bumps. This film could have been transformed into the regular science fiction explosion fest with the wrong people (Michael Bay) but I'm very thankful that the director made it the way it is, small and quiet. It could be argued that that film was cheated out of an Oscar nomination or two, as both the acting and the writing were superb. But then again this was the year the Academy failed to nominate Matt Damon for his role in The Informant and it awarded Best Original Screenplay to The Hurt Locker over Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds.

Three other aspects worth mentioning here: the cinematography, the art direction and the music. It will surprise you to know that in this day and age of CGI madness a science fiction film was made using mostly models and some good camerawork. The music was supplied by Clint Mansell (Requiem for a Dream, Black Swan). Mansell's claim to fame is Lux Aeterna from the film Requiem for a Dream is used by every jackass who wants his play or movie trailer to sound dramatic and morose. The soundtrack is just perfect for the film as it escalates the drama without distracting the audience. Another noticeable Oscar snub. Does the Academy hate the British? Maybe it tried to be apologetic by giving four awards to The King's Speech the next year.

This film has been lying dormant in my computer for about a year and I'm a little angry at myself for not watching it earlier. I recommend it highly for those who appreciate the thoughtful sci-fi films like 2001, Blade Runner or Sunshine.

IMDB Rating: 8/10

My Rating: 8.5/10

Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

Moonrise Kingdom was released over two months ago in the United States. I waited in anticipation for a film that was touted to be the best film of the summer. But I'd forgotten that I lived in India. I would be lucky to see a film that did not rely on explosions to fuel its plot forward. I was relieved to find out yesterday that it had finally arrived to cinemas in India and rushed to watch one of the first shows.

The story takes place on an island; a rustic, colourful setting that accentuates the story and its charm. The plot begins with a boy running away from his summer camp and a girl fleeing from her family. We find out that they have been corresponding for a year and this escape has been planned. A rescue party  comprising of the girl's parents, a policeman, the camp's scoutmaster and his scouts fan out and search for them. Hilarity and romance ensue. I do not want to reveal any more of the plot as I'm afraid that it will harm your viewing experience.

The adults are played by a star studded cast, the sort of cast only a summer superhero movie could afford. Bill Murray, Edward Norton, Bruce Willis, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand and Harvey Keitel. The above line represents millions of dollars worth of acting power and billions of dollars worth of entertainment value. But you'll forget all of those people as soon as you see the young lovers. Played brilliantly by Kara Hayward and Jared Gilman the two young protagonists run the show. Their characters are so well written that you wish to know what happens to them a few years down the line. And the actors playing them are such natural actors that you wish to know what happens to them a few years down the line (and you hope that they don't turn into Lindsay Lohan).

Everything else about this film is as exceptional as the acting and the writing. The camera-work and the director's use of colours and symmetry add a warmth and charm to the film which makes everything seem natural and true. Moments of childishness rather than bringing out the jaded adult bring out the carefree playfulness in us. I even found myself wishing that I had run away with camping equipment as a kid. Sam, the boy scout, puts established badasses like Han Solo to shame by virtue of sheer ballsiness. And the music. It just ties the film together. Quirky and zany, the music is simple and effective. If I had to sum up the film in one word it would be "charming". The charm of the film lies with its story and characters and the way it all flows seamlessly. Seriously, I would not change a single thing about this film. I'm looking forward to viewing more of Wes Anderson's work.

P.S. - My new favourite cinema theatre is PVR Cinemas at Phoenix (Pune). Nine screens and tasty snacks, what more do you need?

IMDB Rating: 8.3/10

My Rating: 9/10

Worth going to the theatre for: Yes, definitely yes!