Little Miss Sunshine (2006)

Director: Jonathan Dayton, Valerie Faris
Story: Michael Arndt
Cast: Greg Kinnear, Steve Carell, Toni Collette, Paul Dano, Abigail Breslin, Alan Arkin
Music: Mychael Danna
Time: 101 minutes
Bottom-line: Not as great as expected, but a charming film

Little Miss Sunshine is the debut film of the husband-wife pair – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris. The film features a relatively new cast: Greg Kinnear, Steve Carell, Toni Collette, Paul Dano, Abigail Breslin and Alan Arkin, and this was also the debut of the scriptwriter, Michael Arndt. Although the film didn’t meet my expectations, there is some charm in the film that made me like it.

Kinnear as Richard

An overworked mother of two children, Sheryl Hoover (Collette) lives in Albuquerque. Her husband, Richard Hoover (Kinnear) is trying to build a career as a motivational speaker, but that isn’t working out so well. Sheryl’s unhappy teenage son, Dwayne (Dano) has taken a vow of silence till he can join the US Air Force Academy. Sheryl’s gay brother, Frank (Carell) has just moved in to live with them after a suicide attempt. Richard’s father, Edwin (Arkin) is a retired WWII veteran, who is now on drugs. He is close to Sheryl’s seven-year-old daughter, Olive (Breslin) who has just qualified for the ‘Little Miss Sunshine’ beauty pageant in California. But due to various reasons, the family realises that they can only go to California only if all of them go, in their Volkswagen T2 Microbus. But en route the 800 mile road trip, various incidents take place, and each member of the family becomes a different person.

Collette as Sheryl

This is one of the weirdest family films I have seen. The reason may be the unorthodox characters, the strange storyline, and the cast. The characters are from all sorts of backgrounds, each with their own problems. In fact, I can say that all the characters are a little crazy. But when they come together, they help to produce a really funny story. The story is not as simple as it seems; though it is categorised as a comedy, I didn’t find it funny at all, except for a few scenes – and sometimes the humour is so subtle that you don’t realise it! The road trip can be taken as a metaphor for life. Life will always have problems; it will be a mix of different emotions, different incidents etc. and not all will be in your favour. Along with this theme, Richard’s message of ‘never give up’ is also highlighted many a time.

Arkin as Grandpa

The acting is, overall, quite good. For a fresh cast – with no real stars – the crew has done an excellent job. Arkin received the Oscar for his role, but I didn’t think it was so great. Steve Carell – whose appearance in a non-comedy film seemed odd at first – has done a superb job too. And Abigail Breslin, the child actress, was top notch... the character of Olive suits perfectly for her. Paul Dano plays Dwayne, who has taken a vow of silence, so he has no dialogues to speak. But his body language is excellent, especially in the scene where he realises his sad fate. In fact, albeit the characters themselves are – as I said – weird, the actors chosen to play them fit perfectly into their roles. Mychael Danna’s score was also impressive.

Carell as Frank (left) and Dano as Dwayne

So, although I feel that Little Miss Sunshine is a bit overrated, it is a terrific achievement for a new crew. The acting is splendid, and the story has few high points, but there are many needless scenes. The film is boring at times, and also predictable, but there are a few twists too. In the end, I guess what you should take from the film is the message of never giving up, and the message of how members of a family support each other, no matter how humiliating or crazy the scenarios may be.

Breslin as Olive

My Rating: 3.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 91%

Barfi! (2012)

Director: Anurag Basu
Story: Anurag Basu
Cast: Ranbir Kapoor, Priyanka Chopra, Ileana D'Cruz
Music: Pritam
Time: 150 minutes
Bottom-line: Demands patience, but the end result is worth it

Barfi! was India’s submission to the Academy Award for Best Foreign Film of 2012. The film stars Ranbir Kapoor, Priyanka Chopra and Ileana D'Cruz in the lead roles. Although there was controversy about this film, as many scenes were copied from other Hollywood films, Barfi! has a charm of its own, and fairly enough ‘original’ material to give a nice family drama.

Ranbir Kapoor as Barfi

The story is told in three timelines – 1972, 1978 and the present day. The film begins in the present, where an old Barfi (Ranbir Kapoor) is seriously ill, and is close to death. Shruti (Ileana) comes to meet him, and so does Jhilmil (Priyanka Chopra), an autistic girl. Shruti begins narrating the story of Barfi. 1972, Darjeeling – Barfi meets Shruti, and falls in love immediately. She reciprocates, but her mother forbids her to pursue him. Soon, Shruti moves away to Kolkata. At the same time, Barfi’s tries to kidnap his childhood friend, Jhilmil, hoping to get some money. As the film progresses, we see how the lives of the three characters turn out, until the present day scenario.

Priyanka Chopra as Jhilmil

The story is told in a non-linear narrative, and this is the first Indian film I have seen to make use of this technique in a fairly proper manner. And by that, I mean that the non-linear narrative helps to provide some twists, but it doesn’t really enhance the story. And in many places, due to this, just when you think the film is about to get over, a new sequence begins (which at times, is really irritating!). The story starts out in a simple way, but then gets way too complicated at times. But in the end, there don’t seem to be any loopholes, and it was a clean (albeit long) film.

Ranbir Kapoor has done a superb job; and I consider this his best role so far, perhaps second to his role as Harpreet Singh in Rocket Singh. Priyanka Chopra is almost unrecognisable (in terms of appearance) in the film, but she too, has given a remarkable performance. Ileana D’Cruz has a comparatively smaller role, but she has done well. Ranbir Kapoor, in many scenes, has copied the ‘classic’ moves of Charlie Chaplin. The director said that this was a ‘tribute’ to the legend, but I didn’t think so; seemed to me like a clear case of copying than paying a tribute.

Ileana D'Cruz as Shruti

Pritam’s score was excellent, as were the songs. I particularly liked the ones ‘Aashiyan’ and ‘Phir le Aaya Dil’. So, while Barfi! excels in acting, screenplay and music, the story occasionally drags. But still, the film is well worth a watch if you haven’t seen any of Chaplin’s films, for if you have, you might feel that Ranbir shouldn’t have copied Chaplin. But, with all its positives, Barfi! is a fun ride!

My Rating: 3.5/5

Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

Director: Kathryn Bigelow
Story: Mark Boal
Cast: Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Joel Edgerton
Music: Alexandre Desplat
Time: 157 minutes
Bottom-line: Not as suspenseful as expected, but authentic and original

Making war films has never been easy, but Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal have pulled off remarkable successes in 3 years, with two excellent war thrillers: The Hurt Locker (for which Bigelow won the Oscars for Best Director and Best Picture) and in 2012, Zero Dark Thirty. The film stars Jessica Chastain and Jason Clarke in the lead roles. The tagline of the film says “The true story of the greatest manhunt in history” i.e. this film tells the events that led to the capture and execution of Osama Bin Laden.

The film starts just after the 9/11 terrorist attack. The timeline shifts to 2003, where Maya (Chastain), a CIA officer who has been gathering information since high school about Osama Bin Laden, has just been reassigned to the US Embassy in Pakistan. She works with Dan (Clarke), often accompanying him to black sites to interrogate prisoners under torture. Bit by bit, Maya is able to fit pieces of the puzzle together, and though she does not have strong support from others, she is finally able to locate Osama Bin Laden’s compound. The film tells how the CIA was able to trace his house, and how the raid on May 2nd 2011 was executed.

Among the people in front of the camera, it was
entirely a Jessica Chastain show

In technical aspects, the film excels. Usually the cinematography in Bigelow’s films is top notch, and in Zero Dark Thirty too, the camerawork is superb. The last thirty minutes are brilliantly shot (albeit mostly in the dark), and the editing work is also good. Jessica Chastain was pretty much the only person to feature in most of the scenes, and she carries the huge responsibility easily. She gives a powerful performance, and this will certainly be a huge boost to her career. In fact, until the final raid, the film also portrays the conflicts between the male folk, who believe that torture and punishment will give results, and Maya, who uses her intelligence and wit not just to convince the others, but also to actually track Bin Laden down.

The story is something unique. Making a biopic almost always creates controversy, and when you make a film about one of someone like Osama Bin Laden, it is a huge task and there are loads of conflicts that can arise. But Bigelow does so well to make not only an authentic and gripping film, but to do it with panache. You have to patient when watching this; the first half an hour (and almost throughout the film) it is like reading a book. There is no real ‘edge-of-the-seat’ thrill, but there is credibility. There are no superhuman stunts, but just routine ‘detective work’ (if I can call it that). I expected the last 30 minutes to be electrifying, and found it suspenseful, but not so thrilling. I feel that suspense and credibility have an equal part to play in the film; so their maximum effect is when their ‘amounts’ are equal to each other. And in case you are wondering about the weird title, 'Zero Dark Thirty' basically refers to 30 minutes after midnight - the time when Bin Laden was shot dead.

So, though Zero Dark Thirty is not really classified as a ‘suspense thriller’, the film is possibly the best one anyone can make about the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. Jessica Chastain’s performance is superb, and in technical aspects, the film is nearly flawless. On the whole, Zero Dark Thirty is not the most thrilling film you may come across, but when it comes to movies of this genre, it is one of the best.

My Rating: 3.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 92%

Hugo (2011)

Director: Martin Scorsese
Screenplay: John Logan (based on the book by Brian Selznick)
Cast: Asa Butterfield, Chloë Grace Moretz, Ben Kingsley, Sacha Baron Cohen
Music: Howard Shore
Time: 127 minutes
Bottom-line: Perhaps Scorsese’s best work since 2000

No gangsters, no violence, no profanity... but yes, it is a Martin Scorsese picture! In fact, Hugo is Scorsese’s first ‘non R-rated’ film. Although he has many high points in his career, to me, this is his best film of this century (out of a total of six since Gangs of New York). Each director may have a personal favourite among his own films, but I feel that even if Hugo is not Scorsese’s favourite, it is the one that is closest to his heart.

1931- Hugo Cabret (Butterfield) is a 12-year-old orphan living in the walls of the Paris railway station, who mends the station clocks. He makes a living by stealing food and other stuff from the station. His father was close to him – taking him to the movies, teaching him to repair things. His father was trying to fix an automaton, when he was killed by a museum fire. Hugo continues fixing it, often stealing parts from a bitter toy maker, Papa Georges (Kingsley). Eventually he gets caught, and Georges takes Hugo’s notebook (which has instructions to fix the automaton) from him. While hoping to get it back, Hugo meets Georges’ goddaughter, Isabelle (Moretz), who promises to help. As the two grow closer, Hugo realises that Papa Georges is more than just a toy maker. The message left behind by his father also slowly begins to dawn on him...

Asa Butterfield as Hugo

This is one of the few films to make the best use of 3D. Scorsese said that he made the film in 3D so that ‘the actors’ slightest move and their slightest intention are picked up much more precisely’. But many other critics and I feel that 3D technology helps to bring the emotions of the characters out of the screen, and into the audience’s hearts. But, the characters are so well developed that even if the film is not seen in 3D, the love, emotions, sadness and joy seem so real that we also empathise with them. The film mainly deals with the themes of friendship, the spirit of adventure and it tells us what happiness means.

Grace Moretz as Isabelle 

The story is slow to start, with lots of time given for plot and character development. But it is towards the end of the second half that the various tracks start to merge. As Hugo says in a dialogue, “The world is like one big machine; it does not come with extra parts.” Similarly, the film is a big machine, and all the parts click at the right time to produce a heart-warming story. And by ‘parts’, I mean everything – score, visuals, acting, story... Hugo is indeed a masterpiece. I haven’t seen many Scorsese films, but I can tell you that if you want a Scorsese film with a happy ending, watch Hugo.

Ben Kingsley as Papa Georges 

Asa Butterfield showed me one of the best performances by a child actor I have ever seen. He has a terrific career ahead of him, and his superb performance in this film is only the beginning of a successful run. Supporting him is Chloë Grace Moretz, who also has given a splendid performance. These two actors show extraordinary maturity in their performances. Then there is Ben Kingsley who has also given a great performance. (Spoiler alert) Kingsley plays Papa Georges, who is later found to be George Méliès, the legendary filmmaker, who used his own imagination and interest to make vivid films with lots of special effects in the early days of cinema. There are some scenes which show how special effects were used in the early days, and so, the inception of movie-making is also another theme that is portrayed in Hugo.

The automoton

With a total of eleven Oscar nominations, Hugo won five. The film excels in direction, acting, score and of course, visual effects. This is a completely new type of film from Scorsese, but it is as good as any other of his classics. If you feel you need an adventure, if you feel you need hope, or if you just want to watch a great film of recent times, Scorsese’s Hugo would be one of my top recommendations for family films.

For my final verdict, I quote Peter Debruge, a critic, who said, “In attempting to make his first film for all ages, Martin Scorsese has fashioned one for the ages.”

My Rating: 4.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 94%

V for Vendetta (2005)

Director: James McTeigue
Screenplay: Larry Wachowski, Andy Wachowski (based on the book by David Lloyd and Alan Moore)
Cast: Hugo Weaving, Natalie Portman
Music: Dario Marianelli
Time: 132 minutes
Bottom-line: A Weaving-Portman show

From the creators of The Matrix trilogy comes this political thriller, V for Vendetta, which I believe is one of the most underrated films of the past decade. Starring Hugo Weaving (in a very unique role) and Natalie Portman, this is the story of how one man stands against the government of a futuristic England. I find various similarities between this film, Shankar’s Anniyan and Nishikanth’s Evano Oruvan.

Weaving as V. His face is never revealed 

2020s – A deadly virus has wiped out thousands of people; England is under the rule of a fascist government, and the world is in turmoil. On the 5th of November, a young woman, Evey Hammond (Portman) is wandering in the streets after curfew, and just as she is about to attacked by some men, a vigilante (Weaving), wearing a Guy Fawkes mask, saves her. He calls himself V. He bombs and destroys the Old Bailey that night. Soon, V appears on TV, and tells the people that if they are also against the government, they should assemble in front of the Houses of Parliament –which he promises to destroy – on the 5th of November next year. Soon, Evey learns that V goes on killing government ministers, and she escapes from his home. Why does V go about killing people? Is it for a good reason or a bad one? What does he do till and on the 5th of November? Watch V for Vendetta to know the answers...

Portman as Evey

Hugo Weaving teamed up with the Wachowskis after The Matrix trilogy, and I think his performance as V is one of the finest of his career. His face is obscured or covered throughout the film, but Like Scarlett Johansson in Her, Weaving also gives an impressive performance, with his voice modulation and body language alone. Natalie Portman is also brilliant. Her acting during the scenes where she is tortured (she also had to shave her head for that part) is really awesome. But none of the supporting actors have done well; as far as acting goes, it is only Portman and Weaving who shine. The film’s script is packed with memorable dialogues, right from V’s introduction (where he uses heaps of words all beginning with ‘V’) to the final line by Evey. Many dialogues have also been taken from classics of Shakespeare and other sources.

'Remember remember the fifth of November...' -
the first lines of the film; a traditional
verse recited on Guy Fawkes night

The story is a combination of many genres – political thriller, vigilante, revenge and so on. It is mainly about what all V does to oppose the government. He wants to be a symbol for the people, and the source of an idea, that cannot be destroyed. As V says, in one of his lines, “Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, and ideas are bullet-proof.” This is similar to Evano Oruvan, where the identity of the person does not matter, but the idea and the purpose alone matter. Many of us may be like Evey, who oppose such violence, and many of us think that no matter what we do, the government will still be useless (in many countries). Another line by V goes, “People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.” The story is set in the 2020s, but the film was made in 2005. For the viewers, the time when the world will fall apart can be in the next year, or even in the next few months. Other than a few off-beat scenes, the story is clean.

The dialogue that is perhaps the basis for the film

Few scenes are interesting – V’s knife fight with the officials; the scene where he introduces himself to Evey; the scene where arranges the blocks and creates a domino effect to form a V, and of course, the climax. Watch the film for the spectacular performances by Weaving and Portman, powerful dialogues, the sets and the overall story (despite few unnecessary scenes). V for Vendetta is as good as any political thriller that you may come across.

Another memorable quote

My Rating: 4/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 73%

Casino Royale (2006)

Director: Martin Campbell
Screenplay: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Paul Haggis (based on the book by Ian Fleming)
Cast: Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen, Judi Dench 
Music: David Arnold
Time: 140 minutes
Bottom-line: Craig and Campbell revitalise the Bond series in grand fashion

Daniel Craig became heir to the James Bond throne in 2006, succeeding Pierce Brosnan. The third adaptation of Ian Fleming’s first 007 novel, Casino Royale, revives the James Bond series – which was having a bad run – in a spectacular manner. The film stars Eva Green and Mads Mikkelsen in the supporting roles, with Judi Dench playing M.

Daniel Craig as 007

After killing a traitor within MI6, James Bond (Craig) gets his double-0 status, with his number as 007. He then goes to Miami, following a terrorist, who plans to destroy a prototype airliner. Bond successfully foils the plan of Le Chiffre (Mikkelsen), a brilliant mathematician who funds the world’s terrorists. Desperate to earn back his money, Le Chiffre sets up a high stakes poker game at Casino Royale in Montenegro. MI6 enters Bond into the tournament. En route, Bond meets Vesper Lynd (Green), a person from the treasury whose job is to protect the 10 million buy-in; a bond develops between them. But as the story goes on, Bond realises that he is up against much more, than just a game of poker.

Eva Green as Vesper

The story is set in the modern day timeline, so that the writers had an opportunity to create a new Bond. The film has no connection with any of the previous films. Though the book focuses more on the actual game, the film concentrates more on action and drama. During the game you have no idea what is going on... but anyway, the poker game forms only a small part of the film. The introduction sequence perfectly shows the character sketch of the new Bond. But of course, the action sequences in the beginning were way too super-heroic for me to believe. The romance between Bond and Vesper is at times irritating, but it is known that Bond films cannot run without romance.

Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre

Daniel Craig is how I have always imagined Bond – strong, stylish and at times brutally violent. I find Sean Connery to be a good match, but Roger Moore was a misfit for the character, and Pierce Brosnan wasn’t that good either. Craig has lots of catch phrases too. The scene where Bond is tortured by Le Chiffre brings out some great bits of acting from Craig. Mads Mikkelsen performance is also brilliant, especially in that torture scene. He plays a convincing villain, even if he has a short screen time. Eva Green takes on the role of the Bond girl, but I think her performance was overshadowed by both Craig and Mikkelsen. Judi Dench plays the first female M, and somehow this seemed like a mismatch to me. For the first time in the Bond series, the character of Miss Moneypenny is completely absent.

And Judi Dench as M

The camera work is good, especially during the stunts and the chase in Madagascar, and during the climax in the sinking house. The score was also good. The visuals during the opening credits were also impressive.

So, 46 years after the inception of the Bond franchise in 1962, Daniel Craig is the sixth actor to play 007. To me, he is the strongest, the coolest, the most violent and the most super-heroic Bond so far. But, is he the best? That is up to you to decide...

My Rating: 4/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 95%

Cinderella Man (2005)

Director: Ron Howard
Story: Cliff Hollingsworth, Akiva Goldsman
Cast: Russell Crowe, Renée Zellweger, Paul Giamatti
Music: Thomas Newman
Time: 145 minutes
Bottom-line: Another excellent sports drama

Ron Howard’s 2005 sports drama, Cinderella Man finds both the director and Russell Crowe in fine form. The film traces the life of boxer James J. Braddock during the 1930s. Renée Zellweger and Paul Giamatti star in the supporting roles. While Howard’s other sports film, Rush concentrated more on the sport, this film focuses more on the personal life of Braddock, and how he struggles against unemployment and family problems.

Crowe as Braddock

James J. Braddock (Crowe) is a successful boxer from New Jersey, who is forced to give up boxing after breaking his hand in the ring. His license is revoked. His wife, Mae (Zellweger) is happy, for she cannot tolerate the violence, but at the same time, she knows there is no other source of income for their family of five. Braddock goes to work in the docks, but cannot find regular employment, as the Great Depression has set in. His long time friend and manager, Joe Gould (Giamatti) finds him a single fight, where Braddock surprisingly wins. Soon, Braddock returns to boxing, and he is named ‘Cinderella Man’, as he becomes famous for his rags-to-riches story. Does Braddock make a successful comeback? How do his wife and family react to his decision?

Zellweger as Mae 

Russell Crowe is superb as Braddock. He is not exactly a muscle man, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, nor does he resemble the actual Braddock, but in terms of acting, he is perfect. He deserved more praise and awards for his acting, in my view. Zellweger also performed very well, as Mae. Paul Giamatti was nominated for an Oscar for his performance, and he has done a good job. His character is also an important one, and he appears in most of the scenes in the film. The acting is so powerful that during Braddock’s fight with Max Baer (who has the reputation of having killed two people in the ring before), you will also be supporting and cheering (even if you are not a fan of boxing).

Giamatti as Gould

The boxing matches are well shot, and not much violence is shown on screen either. Like I said before, the film focuses on the personal life of Braddock, but I didn’t find any unwanted scenes. It’s a quite cleanly made film. Newman’s score is also good. The story can be taken as an inspiration, or you can take it just another sports film. But the way Crowe acts gives us hope when we feel that we are in a deep mess, and cannot get out. The scene where Braddock goes to beg money to pay for the heat might bring some feelings to your heart, and that is why you also support him (from the audience), in every fight. Look out for the scene where Braddock meets Baer in the restaurant, and of course, the fight between Braddock and Baer.

The real James J. Braddock 

So, Howard’s sensitive direction, and Crowe’s brilliant performance (with splendid support from Zellweger and Giamatti) take Cinderella Man past any normal sports film. It may not be as popular as Rocky, but this is a must watch, whether or not you like boxing.

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

Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

Director: David O. Russell
Screenplay: David O. Russell (based on the book by Matthew Quick)
Cast: Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert De Niro, Jacki Weaver 
Music: Danny Elfman
Time: 123 minutes
Bottom-line: Unorthodox, but realistic

David O. Russell puts together an ensemble cast featuring Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert De Niro and Jacki Weaver in the lead roles, with Chris Tucker and Anupam Kher in the supporting roles. Though slow-paced in the beginning, Russell does well to take on a rare topic, and convert it into a nice rom-com. This is the first film since 1981 to win Oscar nominations for all four acting categories, and it was nominated for Best Picture and Best Director as well.

Cooper as Pat Jr.

Pat Solatano, Jr. (Cooper) is suffering from bi-polar disorder, and has just been released from a mental health facility. He wants to get back together with his wife, Nikki, who is separated from him. His father, Pat Solatano, Sr. (De Niro) is a bookie, who is very superstitious. Pat Jr.’s mother, Dolores (Weaver) just wants to keep both father and son happy. Pat’s policy is called ‘excelsior’ – where he decides to find the silver lining in all his experiences. Pat is introduced to Tiffany Maxwell (Lawrence), a recent widow, who knows Nikki. Pat asks her to give his letter to Nikki, and Tiffany asks him to be her dance partner in a competition in return. As the story progresses, an unusual bond begins to form between Pat and Tiffany, and soon, the lives of all the characters being to change...

Lawrence as Tiffany

The first one hour is devoted entirely to building the characters and giving a strong foundation for the plot. The story does not progress at all, but just gets ‘denser’. It kicks on in the second half, with few twists here and there, and the ending is quite good. But what make Silver Linings Playbook different are the topics it deals with – bi-polar disorder, football fanaticism, dance etc, with bits of comedy in between as well. It may not be the usual love story, but it is an unorthodox love story made realistic. Considerable time is given to develop these themes, and hence, the story might seem slow. There are few memorable lines of dialogue in the film, including this by Pat: “You have to do everything you can, you have to work your hardest, and if you do, if you stay positive, you have a shot at a silver lining.”

De Niro as Pat Sr.

Cooper and Lawrence were magnificent as Pat Jr. and Tiffany, respectively. This was Cooper’s chance to show the world that he was fit for more serious roles, unlike his character of Phil in The Hangover trilogy. His portrayal of his disorder is quite convincing. Jennifer Lawrence, at 21, is one of the best actresses among the others of that age. At one moment she is happy, then sad, then angry, then seductive... all these emotions appear and flow so smoothly that one just has to admire her. While Cooper and Lawrence deserved Oscar nominations (the latter won), De Niro and Weaver certainly didn’t. De Niro has done well, but his performance is not Oscar-worthy. Weaver’s acting was pretty ordinary – nothing great about it. Russell’s next film, American Hustle also received nominations in all the acting categories, but there I felt that all four actors deserved them.

Weaver as Dolores

But David O. Russell overcomes the film’s flaws with his superb direction, along with support from a strong ensemble cast. Cooper and Lawrence have given what may be their career-best performances, while De Niro has also done a fairly good job. The story may seem awkward, with its unusual themes like bi-polar disorder, superstition etc, but I like the fact that Russell chose to direct a different type of love story. It might seem slow, but in the end you have a clean romance film.

My Rating: 3.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 92%

Rush (2013)

Director: Ron Howard
Story: Peter Morgan
Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Daniel Brühl
Music: Hans Zimmer
Time: 123 minutes
Bottom-line: High octane thrills, from start to finish

One of the most un-recognised films of 2013, Ron Howard’s sports drama Rush is based on the true story of the rivalry between F1 drivers James Hunt and Niki Lauda. I couldn’t believe that the film wasn’t nominated for even one Oscar, as I found it better than many of the other nominees. Chris Hemsworth and German actor Daniel Brühl star in the lead roles. Rush is a 123 minute non-stop roller-coaster ride.

1970, Formula 3 – James Hunt (Hemsworth) is an arrogant, strong and sexy F1 driver from England. A new opponent from Austria, Niki Lauda (Brühl) collides with him on track. Lauda goes off the race, while Hunt manages to win. From there begins the rivalry among the two F1 drivers. Unlike Hunt, Lauda is a calm, methodical, calculating genius, who relies on precision. In the following years, both drivers win all the Championships among them, and as their rivalry goes to higher levels, their personal lives fall apart. The main focus of the story is the 1976 Formula One season, which proves to be life-changing for both the drivers.

Hemsworth as James Hunt

This is one of the best sports films I have seen, and one of the best ever made too. Peter Morgan and Howard have done superbly to capture all the race track tension, the raw emotions and the whole atmosphere of any F1 competition, and bring it to the big screen. Perhaps the only thing that acts as a speed-bump is the romance between Hunt and Suzy (Wilde) and between Lauda and Marlene (Lara), but keeping in mind the thrill the film provides, I guess a little time can be given for the romance (which also plays an important role in the lives of the racers).

Hemsworth and Brühl are simply brilliant as Hunt and Lauda. The former is perfect for the role, with a charming look and the muscular build required for a racer. Brühl is equally good, and this film might bring some much needed attention. I have seen him before in Inglorious Basterds, in which he has a small role, but his performance in this film was outstanding. He too, perfectly fits into the role, with his German accent and looks (towards the end you can see the resemblance between Hemsworth and Brühl and the actual racers Hunt and Lauda, who are shown on TV). Both the characters have lots of memorable lines of dialogue as well.

Bruhl as Niki Lauda

I was first introduced to Zimmer in Inception, and I have since seen 7-8 films in which he has composed the score; and my admiration for him increases with each film. The cinematography is perhaps the second best thing, after acting. The camera is placed in the right spot in all the scenes, and the photography is as good as any live coverage. All the races, the accidents, the thrilling finishes are all cleanly shot. In fact, I find Rush to be the second most thrilling film of 2013, after Gravity, and most of the credits goes to the cinematography.

Be it in story, acting, or technical aspects, Rush is a class apart. Non-stop thrills are provided, with all engines roaring. I place Rush third on my list of the best films of 2013, after 12 Years a Slave and Gravity. If you haven’t seen it yet, rush to do so!

My Rating: 5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 89%