Iron Man (2008)

Director: Jon Favreau
Screenplay: Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby, Art Marcum, Matt Holloway (based on Iron Man by Stan Lee, Larry Lieber, Don Heck, Jack Kirby )
Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges, Gwyneth Paltrow
Music: Ramin Djawadi
Time: 126 minutes
Bottom-line: Occasionally rusty, but otherwise a smooth ride

As far as superhero films go, to me, the Batman trilogy is still the best. But when it comes to superheroes themselves, Iron Man is one of the finest ones from Marvel. Robert Downey Jr. stars as Tony Stark/Iron Man, - arguably his most famous role in his film career. I have not read the comic books yet, but the film manages to impress even people like me. And even if you are personally not a fan of superhero films, Iron Man is worth a watch.

Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/ Iron Man

“Playboy, philanthropist, genius, billionaire” – these are the words that describe Tony Stark (Downey Jr.), a brilliant industrialist who has inherited control of Stark Industries, which specialises in making defense weapons. When in Afghanistan with his friend, Col. James Rhodes (Howard), to demonstrate a new, powerful missile, he gets attacked and captured by a group of terrorists, who ask him to make the missile for them. Stark’s fellow captive Yinsen (Shaun Toub) has installed an electromagnet in Stark’s body to prevent shrapnel from reaching his heart. While Yinsen and Stark agree to make the missile, they actually build a powerful electric generator and a suit of armour to escape. Stark eventually escapes, and decides to build a stronger suit and use it to protect the people. He calls himself ‘Iron Man’. But, little does he know that one of his friends is planning to bring him down, and also the good deeds he is planning to do.

Howard as Col. Rhodes )left), with Downey Jr.

This, along with Zodiac and Tropic Thunder, was the comeback film for Downey Jr. I wouldn’t call his acting great, but somehow he brings a certain charm to the role, which no one else can do. Wikipedia says that actors were given freedom to create their own dialogue, and he uses that opportunity to provide some humour along with his stylish acting. I don't think it would be an overstatement to say that the character would have been a flop had anyone else played it. Howard was okay, and Paltrow had her moments here and there. Jeff Bridges was awesome. He plays Stark’s second-in-command, Obadiah Stane.

Paltrow as Pepper Potts, Stark's assistant
and love interest

Iron Man is strong in technical aspects. The score was good, and the visual effects were stunning. The action scenes were filmed well too. But where Iron Man gets rusty is in the storyline. The first half is perfect, mixing comedy, thrill and drama in the right proportions. The second half concentrates more on action (from the time Stark flies to Afghanistan). The climax fight looked pretty much like a video game. I mean, a fight between two robots is okay, but why all the unnecessary destruction and stuff? This is one of the main reasons why I don’t like superhero films, but well, I guess this sort of action is what most of the audience prefer. Watch out for a post-credits scene; the significance of it would be known in 2012.

Bridges as Obadiah 

But this stylised film from Jon Favreau still provides a decent amount of thrills, and loads of action. Downey Jr. is impressive, as is Jeff Bridges. The film is boosted by its technical aspects, but when it comes to the story, it gets a little awkward. But among the Marvel comics’ superheroes, Iron Man is my favourite, and I think in general, he is the most popular one, mainly thanks to Downey Jr.

My Rating: 3.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 93%

12 Years a Slave (2013)

Director: Steve McQueen 
Screenplay: John Ridley (based on the book by Solomon Northup)
Cast: Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender, Lupita Nyong’o, Benedict Cumberbatch 
Music: Hans Zimmer
Time: 134 minutes
Bottom-line: Gut-wrenching and powerful; not for the faint-hearted

The winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture of 2013 (the first film made by a black director to win the award), Steve McQueen’s 12 Years a Slave is one of the best films I have seen, and is also perhaps the best picture ever made about slavery. Starring Chiwetel Ejiofor and Michael Fassbender in the lead roles, the film is based on the true story of Solomon Northup, who wrote a book about his slavery (with the same title) in 1853. As one of my readers wanted me to review this film (and since I was able to watch it only now), here it is!

Ejiofor as Solomon

1841 - Solomon Northup (Ejiofor) is a free black man living in New York, who is extremely talented in playing the violin. Two men approach him with a two-week job offer, which he accepts. Next morning, he finds himself in chains; he realises that the two men had drugged him and had sold him as a slave. He is shipped to New Orleans, where he works under William Ford (Cumberbatch) – a plantation owner – who appreciates Solomon’s skills. He is then transferred to the control of Edwin Epps (Fassbender), a cruel man who believes that punishments are sanctioned by the Bible. The rest of the film covers Solomon’s experiences in his twelve years of slavery.

Fassbender as Epps

Ridley’s screenplay is a faithful copy of Solomon’s book (I’m guessing this from his acceptance speech at the Oscars), and McQueen uses the story to do what he does best – gives such an experience that after watching the film, you will really feel the harshness of slavery. The film is far from a pleasant watch, but that’s what makes it so powerful. Some scenes are really brutal, like the one where Solomon is lynched and the scene where Epps lashes Patsey (Nyong’o), a young female slave. I appreciate McQueen for not worrying about the public reaction and going on with his decision to portray in a brutal but honest manner (and that’s what he is known for anyway).

Nyong'o as Patsey

Ejiofor, like McConaughey, was also unheard of, before this film. His acting was solid, and in some scenes, he does so well that we empathise with him. He also won the BAFTA award for his performance. Michael Fassbender has been part of all three of McQueen’s feature films, and his Oscar nomination (his first) was justified. He really brings out the cruel nature of Edwin Epps. Lupita Nyong’o is impressive in her debut role, though her screen time is fairly short (she won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress). Others like Benedict Cumberbatch, Paul Dano and Brad Pitt (who makes a small cameo towards the end) have given good performances as well.

Cumberbatch as Ford (centre); Dano as
John Tibeats (right), with Ejiofor (left)

The period settings and the costumes are authentic. Zimmer’s score is excellent, as is the cinematography. But, as I said before, McQueen specifically captures most of the violence in the camera; so, watch out for some unpleasant scenes. Though it is a great film, 12 Years a Slave is not a film about which you can say, “I’ve seen that film loads of times!” It is a film whose one watch leaves an effect so strong, that it will be a while before you can recover from it. McQueen has created a masterpiece, and he did it with full commitment and cooperation from Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender and Lupita Nyong’o, and the rest of the crew.

So, while I still think Gravity is the most enjoyable film, and the best in terms of technical aspects, I now feel that 12 Years a Slave certainly deserved the Oscar for Best Picture more than Gravity. But I think Cuarón deserved Best Director, because he made a masterpiece out of a simple one-line story, while McQueen had a strong story to support the film. But if you ask which is better, I would say that both are equally brilliant, each with their own positive factors.

My Rating: 4.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 97%

The Hunger Games (2012)

Director: Gary Ross
Screenplay: Billy Ray, Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins (based on the book by Suzanne Collins)
Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson 
Music: James Newton Howard
Time: 142 minutes
Bottom-line: The modern portrayal of heroism

Recently I have been watching a series of ‘survival’ films, like Life of Pi, 12 Years a Slave, and (in a way) Dallas Buyers Club; The Hunger Games is the next addition to that list. Based on Suzanne Collins’ best seller, the film stars Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson in the lead roles, with Stanley Tucci and Liam Hemsworth in the supporting roles. The film is a faithful copy of the book.

Set in the dystopian future, the story takes place in the nation of Panem, which rules over twelve poor districts. As punishment for a past rebellion, each district must contribute a boy and girl, between 12 and 18 years of age, to participate in the annual ‘Hunger Games’, where 24 competitors should compete in a vast arena (which can hold any environment) until one person alone survives. The games are televised, and the winner is given a lot of wealth and fame. From District 12, the contestants (or ‘tributes’) are Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence) – a skilled archer – and Peeta Mellark (Hutcherson). How do the two of them, along with the 22 tributes from the other districts, compete in the Hunger Games? Watch the film and find out!

Lawrence as Katniss

I like the basic idea of the story – where Collins combines various themes like heroism, survival, media, showmanship etc all into one. Since this is teen fiction, there might be controversy if the violence in the film/book is suitable for them. But since I have seen much more violent films, I didn’t really care about the violence in this film. But that apart, the story is quite thrilling from the start. The ending is a bit awkward, and felt bland to me. I felt that the book was a satire on the media – how people do anything to win support; how the media can control the world we live in, how prestige and showmanship and public support can affect one’s life and so on.

Hutcherson as Peeta

Lawrence’s acting is not one of her best works, but she is perfect for the role, except for the fact that the book describes her character as ‘weak and starving’ (and Lawrence does not look like she is starved). Stats say that among the top 200 highest grossing films, not one has a female as the hero, except The Hunger Games. So, in a way, the story sort of encourages females to be brave and strong. And the character of Katniss – like Harry Potter – is the hero that teenagers of today want to see. Very few teens can appreciate the heroism of characters like Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch, or James Stewart as George Bailey, but most of them can understand why Katniss is a hero. Josh Hutcherson as Peeta Mallark has also done well.

The book

The settings, visual effects and Howard’s score are superb. But the camera work – overall – was sloppy. The ‘shaky-cam’ technique works well in war films, but here, it just made the film a ‘rough ride’. The camera shifted too often and it was too shaky. The cinematography could have been greatly improved. But the thrilling story and excellent acting overcome most of the defects of the film, and The Hunger Games could be the next big thing in teen fiction, after Harry Potter. I am not sure if all adults would find it entertaining, but for teens, it is a thriller that should not be missed!


My Rating: 3.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 84%

Life of Pi (2012)

Director: Ang Lee
Screenplay: David Magee (based on the book by Yann Martel)
Cast: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Rafe Spall
Music: Mychael Danna
Time: 127 minutes
Bottom-line: A much longer, spiritual and earthly version of Gravity 

People don’t usually compare a film with a later film, but because I saw Gravity first, I found numerous similarities between Ang Lee’s Life of Pi and Alfonso Cuaron’s Gravity. Both the directors won the Academy Award for Best Director in 2013 and 2014 respectively, and both the films were equally good. The film stars Irrfan Khan and Tabu alongside Suraj Sharma, in his impressive debut performance. Many critics have said that the book was un-filmable, but Ang Lee shows his directorial skills in creating this masterpiece.

Suraj Sharma as the young Pi

Piscine Molitor “Pi” Patel (Khan) narrates his story to a Canadian named Yann Martel (Spall), who wants to write a book. The story shifts to Pondicherry, India, where an adolescent Pi (Sharma) lives with his parents  - who own a zoo - and his brother. He starts following all religions, much to the displeasure of his father. Soon, a time comes when they are forced to close the zoo and sell the animals. They decide to go to Canada. En route, a storm strikes their ship, and Pi loses his family. He escapes on a lifeboat, but discovers that a tiger (named Richard Parker) is also hiding in the boat. How Pi survives in the vast ocean, and his other unique experiences are told in the reminder of the film.

Irrfan Khan as the adult Pi

The story drags till the part where the storm strikes, where Pi loses his family; until then, there is nothing to see. Even after that, there is no real story. It is just a quest for survival in the vast ocean. But what make it interesting are the visuals, acting and the cinematography. This is similar to Gravity because in both films, one person survives in an unknown environment (of course, the stories have many differences as well). Few dialogues are excellent. The acting by Irrfan Khan is good, even though he comes for a short time. The film is a one-man show in terms of acting, as it is Suraj Sharma who carries the weight of the film on his young shoulders. In this debut performance, his acting is superb during most of the film (with few scenes of over-acting), displaying a lot of maturity and good acting talent. But seeing Indian actors speak English almost throughout the film is something I didn’t like, even in Danny Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire. Subtitles could have been used, and Suraj Sharma could have been asked tospeak in Tamil.

A famous still from the film. Pi in the back,
with Richard Parker, the tiger, in the front

The score is superb, and the song ‘Pi’s lullaby’ sung by Bombay Jayashree is really mesmerising. But what really make the film stunning are the skilled camera work and the dazzling visual effects. Ang Lee does well do capture nature’s breathtaking beauty in the camera, and (as a critic said) sometimes, the visuals make you wonder, “Is this what heaven looks like?” The images of the silent, calm sea, the images of the animals, fishes and the islands and the effects used to show the tiger are awesome. This is one of the films that make the best use of CGI, in my view.

One scene with breathtaking visuals - the scene
where the whale knocks over Pi's boat

Now, the spiritual part of the film is another thing that makes Life of Pi unique. Yann is told that by the time he had finishes listening to Pi’s story, he would ‘believe in God’. Towards the end, there is a small twist, and Pi says, “It is so with God.” I interpreted this in my own way: when we try to preach about God, people won’t believe fantasy scenarios (even if they are true), and hence, won’t believe in God either. But when we preach the same thing with credible stories, people believe in God. Most of us believe in God, but there are many who don’t, mainly because there is no evidence of His existence. We need some story, like Pi’s altered version, to stimulate faith in God. But the people in the film believe Pi's real story, but not many of us in the real world believe such stories.

Ang Lee’s Life of Pi is not a fun movie, but rather, it is a spiritual ride, accompanied with stunning visual effects and brilliant cinematography. Suraj Sharma has given an excellent performance, and he has a good start to his career. Sure, the story is very long and boring, but the other positives make up for it. Hats off to Ang Lee, for not only making a film out of a so-called ‘un-filmable’ book, but also for making it a successful one.

My Rating: 4.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 87%

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)

Director: Guy Ritchie
Story: Michele Mulroney, Kieran Mulroney
Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Jared Harris, Noomi Rapace
Music: Hans Zimmer
Time: 129 minutes
Bottom-line: Almost as good as the prequel

Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law reprise their roles as detective Sherlock Holmes and his assistant Dr. John Watson, in the sequel to Guy Ritchie’s 2009 film Sherlock Holmes. Since people have an idea of how Holmes is portrayed, those who hate the first film will certainly hate this one too. I liked the first part, and this film is in some aspects better, and in some aspects worse, than the 2009 film. The story is loosely based on Conan Doyle’s short story The Final Problem.

Downey Jr. as Holmes

Sherlock Holmes (Downey Jr.) just prevents a bomb explosion, set by Professor Moriarty (Harris), and thereby also saves the life of Dr. Hoffmanstahl (for whom it was intended). Later, Dr. Watson (Law) arrives at Holmes’ house, where Holmes is investigating a series of murders, all connected to Moriarty. At Watson’s bachelor party, Holmes meets a gypsy woman, Simza (Rapace), whose brother, Rene, has been missing. Soon, Holmes meets Moriarty, who says that he killed Irene Adler, Holmes’ lover. He also threatens to kill Watson and his future wife. Holmes vows to bring down Moriarty. The remainder of the film covers a battle of wits between Holmes and his arch nemesis, Moriarty.

Robert Downey Jr. is irresistible again. He does so well that I am starting to like this new, stylish version of Holmes, more than the one Conan Doyle created. At times he makes Holmes look like a comedian, at times like an awesome detective, and at times like a skilled martial artist. The scene where Holmes saves Watson in the train, and the scene where he plays chess with Moriarty are some of the best scenes, in terms of acting. Jude Law’s acting is as good as the first part. Jared Harris plays a convincing villain, though his acting is not that great. Noomi Rapace, who comes for a comparatively shorter time, has done a poor job.

Law as Dr. Watson, with his wife Mary (Kelly Reilly)

The story is of comparatively lesser quality than the prequel. In Sherlock Holmes, there was a proper story (even if absurd at times), with proper detective work, and a fitting climax, with few scenes of comedy and action. Here, more importance seems to be given to the clashes between Holmes and Moriarty, but the actual story becomes haywire. There are many deviating scenes of humour – which is effective at times and irritating at other times – and action. Holmes deductive powers were credible in the first part, but here, his powers are being overused (like the scene where he finds the secret entrance). So, while few scenes are excellent, the overall story was not that impressive.

Harris as Professor Moriarty

Hans Zimmer’s score is thrilling, and as always, superb. The cinematography and the use of special effects are dazzling, but I felt that the effects were used in excess. The scene where Holmes and company are being chased through the forest, and Moriarty’s men try to shoot them seems thrilling to watch, but I think this scene was copied from the famous ‘lobby scene’ in the film The Matrix (1999). The photography during the train sequence was pretty good too.

But yet, with Downey Jr.’s scintillating performance, sublime music and a visual treat of the battle of wits between Holmes and Moriarty, Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows  makes the most of its plus points, but has few drawbacks as well. The story is of lower quality, but certain scenes are really brilliant. Overall, it is fitting as a sequel, even if not up to the mark as a film by itself.

My Rating: 3.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 60%

Dallas Buyers Club (2013)

Director: Jean-Marc Vallée
Story: Craig Borten, Melisa Wallack
Cast: Matthew McConaughey, Jennifer Garner, Jared Leto
Time: 116 minutes
Bottom-line: Gets almost everything right

Out of the six Oscar nominations it received, Dallas Buyers Club won three. The film is not that great, but what make it great are the conditions under which the film was made. Jean-Marc Vallée took several unusual decisions, like choosing a relatively unknown cast, and more importantly, choosing a theme that is difficult to portray. The film is largely driven by the performances of McConaughey and Leto.

1985, Texas – Ron Woodroof (McConaughey) is an electrician cum rodeo cowboy, who is diagnosed with AIDS. The doctors say he has 30 days to live. He soon is fired from work and evicted. At the hospital, Dr. Eve Saks (Garner) tells him that they are testing a drug called AZT. Ron starts taking the drug, only to discover that his health gets worse. He starts buying drugs that are not approved in the US, and finds that his health improves. He meets a HIV-positive transgender woman, Rayon (Leto), who helps him in selling the drugs to other patients infected with AIDS. The two of them start the ‘Dallas Buyers Club’. How long does Ron survive? Does he get caught by the FDA and other organisations for illegal use of drugs? Watch the film to find out!

McConaughey as Ron Woodroof

With just two films (Mud and this one), McConaughey has captured the attention of people all over the world, who had known him for only playing lead roles in below-average movies. His commitment to the role and transformation are incredible. He lost 21 kilograms, put on a Texas accent and he carried a huge responsibility in the film, for the film is (as I said) largely performance-driven, and the film did not have any veteran actors either. So, as a breakthrough performance, this is one of the best ones I have seen. Admittedly, he has few moments of brilliance, but among the other nominees for the Best Actor Oscar, I felt DiCaprio and Ejiofor had done better. But I guess critics picked him for a couple of reasons - one, most of the other films were not entirely dependent on acting; two, other actors were already famous and had won many accolades. Leto’s role is the most challenging one – that of a trans-woman. He lost 14 kilograms, waxed his body and refused to break character during filming. Though he has the smallest amount of screen time among all the other Supporting Actor Oscar nominees, I think he deserved it. Both of them won the respective Oscars, making this the first film since Mystic River (2003) to win both. Jennifer Garner’s performance may be overshadowed by that of the lead actors, but I felt she did a good job too.

Garner as Dr. Eve Saks

The story is not that great; it is not slow or boring, but has many needless scenes, and the language is vulgar throughout. But first, I appreciate the director for accepting the script (which at one stage was one of the longest stalled scripts), for it is not easy filming a sensitive issue like AIDS. This is based on the life of Ron Woodroof, who is a real person, but the character of Rayon is fictional. There is some humour in the beginning, but after that, the film becomes serious, often dealing in several issues related to gender. So, it is not a comfortable watch, but that does not mean it is a bad film.

Leto as Rayon (Leto is almost unrecognisable, in my view)

The film also won the Academy Award for Best Make-up, which it deserved too. But the entire budget for make-up was just $250, and the budget for the film was only $5 million (which is relatively low-budget). The filming took only 25 days. So, though Dallas Buyers Club was made on a low budget, though it does not have any big star, and though it does not portray an audience-friendly topic, the film is superb. Watch for the stellar performances of McConaughey and Leto.

My Rating: 4/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 94%

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

Director: Jonathan Mostow
Story: John Brancato, Michael Ferris, Tedi Sarafian
Cast: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Nick Stahl, Claire Danes, Kristanna Loken
Music: Marco Beltrami
Time: 105 minutes
Bottom-line: T3 ruins the series (though not as much as Terminator Salvation)

I should have seen this film along with the other two Terminator films (but for some reason, didn’t), and now that I finally did see the third installment, I felt that I had wasted 105 minutes of time. Released twelve years after James Cameron’s Terminator 2, this film tells the story of the last attempt of the machines to kill John Connor. Arnold Schwarzenegger reprises his role as the T-850, while Nick Stahl, Claire Danes and Kristanna Loken star for the first time in the series.

Schwarzenegger as T-850

Sarah Connor is dead due to leukaemia, and John Connor (Stahl) has been living off the grid in LA for nine years. He does not believe that the humans have successfully prevented Judgment Day (the day where machines take over the Earth). Skynet sends T-X (Loken), a robot in the form of a female, back in time, to locate and wipe-out John, his future wife Kate Brewster (Danes), and all his future lieutenants. T-X can also change form, and is made of liquid metal. Like before, the Resistance also sends back a machine, T-850 (Schwarzenegger) to protect John and Kate. What follows is obvious...

Stahl as John Connor

The first film brought forth a new concept, and hence I liked the film. The second film had pretty much the same story and same elements as the first, but the spectacular special effects made up for the lack of a new story. Now this film has the same story (which, by this time, is really boring), poorer acting, and the special effects are never as good as those used in T2. In short, had this film come earlier, or had it been made a separate film (i.e. not part of the series), I would have liked it a little better; but since neither of those happened, the film is one big bore.

Danes as Kate Brewster

The story, as I said, includes a small introduction to the characters, and then nothing else but one chase after another. I felt that T2 had a ‘believable’ amount of disaster and action, but in this film, it went over the limit. The visual effects are good, but are not used properly. The camera work was good, and the score was fairly decent. But I felt that the story lacked innovation. The entry of the Terminators was the same, the action scenes were not very different either, the dialogues were poor... and by the end of the film, I was happy that Cameron and Linda Hamilton made the right decision to not be part of the third installment (though Wikipedia says that Cameron himself enjoyed the film).

Loken as T-X

In the previous Terminator films, Schwarzenegger gave the worst acting performance (and this is not surprising). However, in T3, his acting was the best! I guess that is enough to tell you how badly the others have acted. Stahl had a few bright moments here and there, but overall, his acting was poor. Claire Danes could have done much better; and Loken... well, her character needed no acting at all, and she didn’t do any acting either! I guess the cast (and most of the crew) realised - after this film – that the series was ruined, and hence none of them acted in the next installment: Terminator Salvation.

To sum up, Jonathan Mostow’s Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines does one thing superbly – it wastes your time. So, just skip this film, unless you are dying to just complete the series (like me). The special effects are okay, the acting is poor, and the cinematography may be the only good thing. Yet, I feel that had this film come as T2, I would have liked it better. But since it came after two Terminator films, the idea became old and boring. But one another thing that the film does well, is that it ties up the series in a neat manner. The ending seemed believable enough, and at least that is one good job done.

My Rating: 1.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 70%

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

Director: Guy Ritchie
Story: Lionel Wigram, Michael Robert Johnson
Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Mark Strong
Music: Hans Zimmer
Time: 129 minutes
Bottom-line: May not appeal to purists, but this modern version of Holmes is quite stylish

One of the world’s greatest detectives, Sherlock Holmes, comes to the big screen in this Guy Ritchie film, and fair warning - the film is not meant for purists. Robert Downey Jr. plays Holmes, with Jude Law playing Dr. John Watson. While the timeline is the same as that in the Conan Doyle books, the characters and story-telling style take a modern turn.

Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes (Downey Jr.) and his flat-mate Dr. Watson (Law) prevent a ritualistic murder, conducted by Lord Blackwood (Strong) just in time. Blackwood is sentenced to death, before which he requests to see Holmes one last time. He warns Holmes that three more deaths will take place, and nothing can be done to stop them. Blackwood is pronounced dead by Watson, but soon after, the tomb of Blackwood is destroyed, and rumour spreads that he has come back to life. The three predicted murders take place, in seemingly supernatural fashion. So, Holmes is back on the case, and he starts investigating Blackwood’s methods and whereabouts. Whether or not the detective can capture the villain forms the rest of the film.

The story is both good and bad. On comparing the characters, the Sherlock Holmes created by Conan Doyle wasn’t so violent, and was more studious. The Holmes shown here is a man of action, and is also stylish and cool. While the books dealt with fairly simple stories, I felt that the writers tried to complicate the story too much in the film. To me, till the ending, most of the film seemed absurd, but Holmes’ explanation in the climax was satisfactory. There are few scenes that add little bits of humour, and some scenes that are violent, which don’t really contribute to the main plot. But overall, I was impressed with the portrayal of Holmes; I also liked the way many clues were shown throughout the film, but the fact that they are clues is known only at the end.

Law as Dr. Watson

Robert Downey Jr. gives a scintillating performance as Sherlock Holmes. His acting was suave, and he had many catchy lines. Downey Jr. is known to give stylish performances, and though this is not what is expected when you think of the character of Holmes, he gives an excellent performance (and hence, hard core fans of the original Holmes will have mixed responses). Jude Law has acted superbly, as Dr. Watson. Both of the actors provide lots of subtle humour in many places –with their actions and fast, catchy dialogues – without too much of deviation from the main plot. Mark Strong and Rachel McAdams have not done that well, but they have very less screen time compared to Downey Jr. and Law.

Strong as Lord Blackwood

Hans Zimmer’s score is awesome. He was nominated for the Oscar, but lost to Up, but the scores of both films were equally good in my view. The cinematography was also good. The scene where the thug chases Holmes, and climax fight are shot brilliantly. The scenes where Holmes calculates the consequences of his martial arts tactics are shown in slow motion, and these gave an enhanced effect. But two drawbacks are that several scenes were shot in the dark, and during the first fight, the camera work could have been better. The period settings and the costumes are excellent too.

To conclude, Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes succeeds mainly due to the powerhouse performance by Downey Jr., Zimmer’s superb score, and some good bits of camera work. The plot may seem useless to many, but I found it fairly believable. The ‘modern’ portrayal of Holmes was quite good, thanks to the acting. So, to the fans of Conan Doyle, forget about the original Holmes for two hours, and enjoy the film!

My Rating: 4/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 70%

Life is Beautiful (La vita è bella) (1997)

Director: Roberto Benigni
Story: Vincenzo Cerami, Roberto Benigni
Cast: Roberto Benigni, Nicoletta Braschi, Giorgio Cantarini
Music: Nicola Piovani
Time: 116 minutes
Bottom-line: A beautiful film, with a lasting impact

So far I have written reviews for English, Hindi and Tamil films, and recently I decided to try something different. So (thanks to a friend who had the CD of the film) I thought I would watch an Italian film, and I believe Life is Beautiful is the perfect choice for a first film. Directed by - and starring - Roberto Benigni, the film is set during the Second World War, in a German concentration camp. The film won the Academy Award for the Best Foreign Film, and was also nominated for Best Picture.

1939, Italy: Guido Orefice (Benigni) is a smart, comical man who makes the most of all opportunities. When he travels to the city, he meets Dora (Braschi), and eventually they marry, and have a son called Joshua (Cantarini). On Joshua’s birthday, he is captured, along with Guido and his uncle, by the Germans. They are taken to a concentration camp, and Dora also willingly joins them. To hide the atrocities of the camp from his son, Guido does all sorts of things and creates an incredible story of how things actually work at the camp. What Guido does to save his son from the horrors is told in the second part of the film.

Benigni as Guido (right)

The first half of the story - i.e. until Guido and his son are captured by the Germans - is pure fun. It is all about how Guido tries to make Dora love him, and how he makes the most of opportunities all the time. The first half does not really contribute to the main story, but it helps to build the characters. But the real story begins after they are captured and taken to the camp. I like the approach Benigni takes, towards portrayal of concentration camps. It is both serious, and comical. He tells his son that all of them are playing a game, and that the first prize is a tank... during this time, you don’t know whether to smile or feel sad. While the humour makes you smile, the harsh reality makes you think again.  

Braschi as Dora (looking out the window)

Benigni shines in acting. In the first half, he makes you laugh with his comic actions and dialogues. In the second part, he creates humour when he explains the things about the camp to his son, but at the same time, when you see how desperately he is trying to conceal the cruel happenings from Joshua, it also makes you sad. The scene where he supposedly translates the rules of the camp in Italian, the scene where Joshua tells ‘Thank you’ in Italian, by mistake, are few scenes where Benigni best displays his acting talent. He won the Academy Award for Best Actor for this film. Nicoletta Braschi, who plays Dora, and Giorgio Cantarini, who plays Joshua have also done well.

Cantarini as Joshua

The score is superb, as are the costumes and sets. The ending is also moving. When you see people struggle in all types of hardship and finally taste happiness, you also empathise with them. Few climaxes have had that effect on me, like City Lights, The Shawshank Redemption and It’s a Wonderful Life. This film also enters that list. (Spoiler alert) When Joshua sees the military tank, he feels so thrilled, that he has ‘won the game’. But only the audience know that his father is actually dead. You are sort of in a dilemma, whether to feel happy for Joshua, or feel sad for him, for he is oblivious to his father’s death.

Overall, Roberto Benigni’s Life is Beautiful is a masterful piece of work. The acting is splendid; the second half of the story is brilliant. Of course, whether or not such incidents will really be possible is a doubt, but such things should be ignored. It is not a film about a very realistic portrayal of concentration camps, but rather, it is about how human spirit survives in the face of horror. Other than the fact that the first half is perhaps too elaborate, the film is almost flawless.

My Rating: 4.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 80%

Gangs of New York (2002)

Director: Martin Scorsese
Screenplay: Jay Cocks, Steven Zaillian, Kenneth Lonergan (based on the book by Herbert Asbury)
Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Daniel Day-Lewis, Cameron Diaz
Music: Howard Shore
Time: 162 minutes
Bottom-line: Almost entirely a Daniel Day-Lewis show

Martin Scorsese’s first collaboration with Leonardo DiCaprio, and my least favourite, Gangs of New York is a historical drama set in the 19th century. Daniel Day-Lewis, Cameron Diaz, Jim Broadbent also play the lead roles. While the story is boring many a time, Scorsese’s direction and the electrifying performances provide lots of entertainment. The film was nominated for ten Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Director and Actor (Day-Lewis).

1843 - In a battle between the Native Americans, led by Bill “The Butcher” Cutting (Day-Lewis) and the Irish Catholics, led by Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson), Bill murders Vallon in front of Vallon’s son, Amsterdam. 16 years later, Amsterdam (DiCaprio) returns from Hellgate orphanage to take revenge on Bill. He is anonymously introduced to Bill, and he becomes part of Bill’s gang. Amsterdam plans to execute Bill in public. Meanwhile, Amsterdam also falls in love with Jenny (Diaz), a pickpocket. Does Amsterdam take revenge on Bill, even though the latter seems to know everything and everyone around him? Watch Gangs of New York to find out!

DiCaprio as Amsterdam 

This is perhaps the first film where DiCaprio has an ‘adult’ look. His performance was good, but not one of his best works. I didn’t like his hairstyle, and his accent didn’t work that well either. Cameron Diaz was pretty close to useless in this film... I didn’t like her acting at all, except in one or two scenes. But the star was Daniel Day-Lewis. He plays one of the most fearsome and violent villains I have seen, and with what style too! Day-Lewis puts on a New York accent, and in spite of suffering from pneumonia, he delivers a magnificent performance. The character of Bill is weird; while you loathe him for committing such cold-blooded murders, you admire him at the same time for his talent with knives; and Day-Lewis is the perfect fit for playing Bill.

Day-Lewis as Bill

The story is very violent; there is a lot of bloodshed, a lot of murder and lots of fighting. There are many unnecessary scenes throughout the film, and hence, the film is at times very slow. It is also a bit difficult to remember the names of all the characters. But few parts were interesting, and the knife-throwing scene was perhaps the best of the lot. In that one scene, you drop all your hatred towards Bill and just stare in amazement at his talent and style. Scorsese does well to portray almost the entire character sketch of Bill in just that 5 minute scene.

Diaz as Jenny

But though the story was boring, I liked Scorsese’s direction. He gives importance to the different accents of the different ‘gangs’ of New York. The cinematography and production design were superb too. I liked the ending of the film, where the formation of modern-day New York is shown smoothly. The score was good at some places. During the closing credits, the band U2’s song ‘The Hands that Built America’ is played, and I liked the song too.

So, Scorsese’s Gangs of New York should be watched mainly for Scorsese’s direction, the settings and Day-Lewis’ classy performance. The story is very boring; DiCaprio’s acting is fairly good, but Diaz’s acting could have been much better. But out of all the Oscars the film was nominated for, it deserved only Best Actor and Best Art Direction. Now that I have seen all five Scorsese-DiCaprio films, I feel that The Aviator is their best work together, followed by The Departed, and then Shutter Island. The Wolf of Wall Street comes next, and lastly, Gangs of New York.

My Rating: 3/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 75% 

Kai Po Che! (2013)

English translation: “I have cut his kite!” (In Gujarati) 
Director: Abhishek Kapoor
Story: Pubali Chaudhari, Supratik Sen, Abhishek Kapoor, Chetan Bhagat (based on the book by Chetan Bhagat)
Cast: Sushant Singh Rajput, Amit Sadh, Raj Kumar Rao, Amrita Puri
Music: Amit Trivedi, Hitesh Sonik
Time: 125 minutes
Bottom-line: Loved the book, hence liked the film

When I read Chetan Bhagat’s book, 3 Mistakes of my Life, I was stunned; it was an enthralling read. And the film does justice to the book. Sushant Singh Rajput, Amit Sadh, Raj Kumar Rao and Amrita Puri star in the lead roles. Like Bhagat’s earlier book: Five Point Someone, this story also deals with friendship, (and, as the tagline says) cricket, business and religion. If you liked the book, you will like the film as well, and vice-versa.

Sushant Singh as Ishaan (left); Sadh as Omi (centre)
and Rao as Govind

The manager of Sabarmati Cricket Club, Govind (Rao) announces that for the first time, a member of their club, Ali Hashmi (Digvijay Deshmukh), has entered the Indian Cricket Team. Govind then goes to prison to pick up his friend, Omi (Sadh), and as they drive away, the timeline goes back to 2001, Gujarat. Govind’s and Omi’s friend, Ishaan (Rajput) is a talented ex-cricketer. He sees an exceptional cricketing talent in a small boy, Ali, and is determined to make him a star. Govind wants to open a sports shop of his own, and does so successfully. Omi’s uncle is a political leader, and he asks Omi to help him in campaigning. Meanwhile, Ishaan’s sister, Vidya (Puri), falls in love with Govind. The remaining part of the film tells the story of their friendship, and how it is affected by cricket, religion, and other actual incidents of 2001.

Amrita Puri as Vidya

Now, while the crux of Bhagat’s book really impressed me, I felt it was blurred by other ‘masala’ elements, and the not-so-good language. But I was amazed how he cleverly blended various themes: sport, religion, politics, friendship and actual incidents, into a very believable, fast-paced drama. The film is a faithful copy of the book, with a few changes. The characters don’t go to Australia, and the ending is different in the film (personally I prefer the book’s ending). The songs are not really needed, but the song played in the background (after India wins the test match) is quite good. The score was also good.

Sushant Singh, with Digvijay Deshmukh, who
plays Ali Hashmi

Sushant Singh Rajput is the star, as far as acting is concerned. His display of happiness, anger, sadness is brilliant. Amit Sadh, who plays Omi, has done well in most of the places. I didn’t really like Rao’s acting, nor did I like Amrita Puri’s acting. But I liked the way Bhagat described the characters in the book – Govind, a pure businessman, always meticulous and miserly; Ishaan, a person who is entirely devoted to his friends and Ali, determined to make the latter a champion; Omi, a good friend who is deeply affected by religion towards the later part of the book. The story is quite small, but the characters are well developed.

To sum up, Abhishek Kapoor’s Kai Po Che! is an excellent film, and almost the entire credits goes to Chetan Bhagat, who wrote such a superb tale. The acting is good, as is the music. The film has few important changes from the book, but the basic story is the same. Watch for the acting, the storyline and the realistic portrayal of religion and the society.

My Rating: 4/5 

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)

Director: Miloš Forman
Screenplay: Lawrence Hauben, Bo Goldman (based on the novel by Ken Kesey)
Cast: Jack Nicholson, Louise Fletcher
Music: Jack Nitzsche
Time: 127 minutes
Bottom-line: A splendid drama, packed with stellar performances 

The second film to win the five top Oscars: Best Picture, Director, Actor and Actress in the leading roles, and (Adapted) Screenplay, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is a film that brings out the best of Jack Nicholson, and also draws great performances from several others. Louise Fletcher plays the female lead, while the supporting cast includes Danny DeVito, Brad Dourif, Christopher Lloyd and many others. The AFI placed the film 20th in the list of the best hundred films of the past century.

Nicholson as Mac

Randle “Mac” McMurphy (Nicholson) is a convict who has been transferred to a mental institution. He doesn’t seem to show any signs of mental illness, but is actually serving a short sentence for committing rape. The institution is run by Nurse Ratched (Fletcher), who is unyielding to the patients’ requests, applies harsh treatments and has a strict time schedule for them. Mac realises that the patients are very much afraid of her. So, he becomes their leader, and decides to win over Ratched with his wits. What he does to make the patients feel happy, and how Ratched tries to suppress them is shown in the remaining part of the film.

Fletcher as Nurse Ratched

The story is basically a set of incidents – the various things that Mac does to make the others happy. So, at times you may feel bored, but one thing that the film does very well is to portray the situations in a realistic manner. The scene where Mac steals a bus is somewhat overboard, but otherwise, I really appreciate Forman, for he made me also empathise for the patients at times, and this is one of the best aspects of the film. The ending is a bit unexpected and a bit emotional too. Whether or not it is justified is up to the viewers to decide. (Spoiler alert) I, for one, felt that the mercy killing was justified, but Chief’s escape didn’t seem right.

Nicholson is second from left. Next to him is DeVito as
Martini, behind him is Dourif as Billy. Second from right
is William Redfield as Dale

The acting is the best part. Nicholson gives a terrific performance as McMurphy – inspiring, funny and naughty at the same time. The scene where he asks the others to vote for watching the World Series, the part where he tries to teach basketball to the Chief, the scene where he comes back after being given a shock treatment bring out some classy acting from him. Louise Fletcher plays Nurse Ratched, and this character was voted the fifth greatest villain of all time by the AFI. She doesn’t give the patients freedom, and she gives them harsh punishments, she shows no sympathy nor does she show any mercy. Her acting was superb too; at times you really loathe her character, and credit goes to the acting for making it so. The supporting actors have all done well. Dourif, who plays a stuttering patient Billy, is perhaps the best. His acting really makes one feel sorry for him, especially in the scene where he is dragged away to the Doctor’s room. Others like DeVito, Lloyd, William Redfield and Sydney Lassick have given splendid performances too. And, as I said, the film portrays credible situations, and the acting has a huge part to play in that.

Will Sampson as 'Chief', a mysterious character,
with Nicholson

To conclude, Miloš Forman’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is one of the best dramas I have seen. A scintillating performance from Jack Nicholson and an equally good performance from Louise Fletcher drive the film, and they rightly earned their Oscars. The acting from the supporting cast is also superb, particularly Dourif and Lassick. The story is funny at times, and also emotional, especially during the ending. Watch for the acting, and the realism shown.

My Rating: 4.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 96%