Apollo 13 (1995)

Director: Ron Howard
Screenplay: Al Reinert, William Broyles, Jr. (based on the book by Jim Lovell)
Cast: Tom Hanks, Kevin Bacon, Bill Paxton, Ed Harris
Music: James Horner
Time: 140 minutes
Bottom-line: Absolutely terrific; Ron Howard’s best work, and perhaps the best space film made thus far

It is pretty clear that Gravity won the hearts of critics and audience alike, but on IMDb, I happened to see many reviewers criticising the film, and advising viewers to watch Ron Howard’s Apollo 13. Having seen a few of Howard’s movies in the recent past, I knew there was nothing to lose if I saw the film, and now that I have, I feel that Alfonso Cuaron’s Gravity is almost ‘weightless’. Apollo 13 stars Tom Hanks, Ed Harris and Kevin Bacon in the lead roles. The film was nominated for 10 Oscars, and won two.

Tom Hanks as Jim Lovell

Veteran astronaut Jim Lovell (Hanks), who orbited the moon on Apollo 8, receives news that he will fly to the moon with his crew on Apollo 13 instead of Apollo 14. His crew consists of Jack Swigert (Bacon) and Fred Haise (Paxton), the former replacing Ken Mattingly, who is removed from the mission as he has measles. The mission doesn’t start very successfully, as one of the engines cuts off prematurely. Three days into the mission, an accident causes an oxygen tank to burst, and the other tank starts leaking. Soon it becomes clear that the crew will not be landing on the moon, and the main priority becomes bringing them safely back on Earth. Do the three members return to planet Earth? Watch the film to find out!

Bill Paxton as Fred Haise

While Gravity was a technical achievement, there wasn’t any real story or character development. Now here, there is a mix of everything – the story is excellent, fast-paced, and highly engaging, the characters are well developed, and of course, considering the technology available in 1995, the film excels in the technical aspects also. But one thing that may be a drawback is that though Ron Howard went to great lengths to make this film as authentic as possible (and he has done a fantastic job with that), he also made it too scientific. I mean, half the time you cannot understand what dialogues are being spoken (something about gimbals, service modules etc.), and hence you might lose interest. But Howard does very well to maintain the tension and suspense in all the scenes... it is almost impossible to not feel the thrill.

Kevin Bacon as Jack Swigert

The actors have done a superb job too. Tom Hanks – needless to say – has given a splendid performance as Jim Lovell, and the supporting actors, Ed Harris (who received an Oscar nomination), Bill Paxton and Kevin Bacon have done equally well. In fact, there are so many members who form the supporting cast, and each and every one of them is perfect in their roles. In terms of special effects, cinematography and score, the film falls short of Gravity but still, considering the timeline difference, Howard and crew have done a terrific job.

Ed Harris as Gene, the Flight Director 

So, if you want an authentic, scientific (but very much entertaining) film about space, watch Ron Howard’s Apollo 13 before any other film of the same genre. The film not only gives loads of thrills, but it also makes you realise how critical and dangerous accidents in space are. Flawless in almost every aspect, Apollo 13 is Ron Howard at his best... do not miss it! Since I have compared this film to Gravity on many aspects (because both the films are very similar), I end the review by say that Cuaron's film is a mind-blowing, dazzling entertainer, while Apollo 13 is simply the better film.

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

Un Samayal Arayil 2014)

English Translation: In your Kitchen
Director: Prakash Raj
Screenplay: Shyam Pushkaran, Dileesh Nair, Prakash Raj (based on Salt N’ Pepper by Aashiq Abu)
Cast: Prakash Raj, Sneha, Tejus
Music: Ilayaraja
Time: 130 minutes
Bottom-line: Compared to Prakash Raj’s other films, a disappointment 

My family wanted to watch Prakash Raj’s Un Samayil Arayil, for no special reason except for the fact that it was directed by him. Having seen his previous film, Dhoni, I expected a good film, but I ended up disappointed. The film is basically an adaptation of Salt N’ Pepper, and it also uses themes from other films like Kaadhal Kottai, Lost in Translation etc. Unless you are a fan of Prakash Raj, don’t watch the film.

Prakash Raj as Kalidasan

Kalidasan (Raj) is an archaeologist, who is unmarried for a long time. He goes to pick up his relative, a young college graduate, Navin (Tejus). On a parallel track, dubbing artist Gowri (Sneha) is also unmarried, despite the compulsion from her marry to marry someone soon. Gowri calls Kalidasan one day, mistaking his number for that of a restaurant. Soon they start conversing in a friendly manner, and one day they decide to actually meet face to face. However, both of them are afraid that they are too old for the other, and so Kalidasan sends Navin to take his place, and Gowri sends her cousin Meghna. But Navin and Meghna fall in love with each other, and both Kalidasan and Gowri get the wrong idea of each other.

Sneha as Gowri

The first half of the story does one thing very well – it makes your mouth water... and as theatres don’t allow one to take eatables inside, the effect is even more! But otherwise, the first half is an utter bore. Yes, there are a few jokes, a few good dialogues, but overall, the story hardly progresses. It is only by the end of the first half that Navin and Meghna meet, and that’s when the actual story begins. But to me, the romance between Navin and Meghna never felt real, and was actually boring. And of course, the whole track involving the tribal Jakkiah made no sense, and no contribution to the main theme... why even include it?! I for one, could not empathise with the lead characters, for the concept of ‘not marrying’ doesn’t seem strange to me... not yet at least! So I felt some part of the story and dialogue were dumb, but others may feel differently. And if you are wondering about the title, it says In your kitchen because in the first half, most of the conversations between Kalidasan and Gowri involve cooking and food, especially a long sequence where he teaches her how to make a cake.

Tejus as Navin and Samyuktha Honrad as
Navin and Meghna

Prakash Raj’s acting, as always, was sublime... and that is one of the few things that made me like the film to some extent. I am not sure which was Sneha’s previous film, but I guess it has been a long time since she has starred in any film, and in that case, this is an excellent comeback. On the other hand, the new actors, Tejus and Samyuktha Hornad (who plays Meghna) have given poor performances. But I guess for a first film, these are average performances. Thambi Ramaiah and Elango Kumaravel, though they come only for a brief period, make their mark.

And another thing that you may be looking forward to is Ilayaraja’s music – no disappointment there! There are few memorable dialogues in the film, and also lots of humour (provided you are used to the humour in Prakash Raj films). But in terms of the actual story, the film falls short of expectations... but it is good family film.

My Rating: 3/5

Lost in Translation (2003)

Director: Sofia Coppola
Story: Sofia Coppola
Cast: Bill Murray, Scarlett Johansson 
Music: Brian Reitzell, Kevin Shields, Roger Joseph Manning Jr., Air
Time: 102 minutes
Bottom-line: So subtle in so many aspects that you, as a normal viewer, hardly feel anything

There are two reasons as to why I wanted to watch Lost in Translation: one, because Bill Murray stars in it; and two, because many critics had put this film on the ‘best of the year’ lists. Now that I finally watched it, I have to say that it fell short of my expectations. But I guess that’s because I watched the film as a ‘normal viewer’. So what does that mean? Read on...

Bob Harris (Murray) is an aging actor, who is in Japan to film an advertisement. His 25-year-old marriage is lacking in romance, and he is experiencing a midlife crisis. In the same hotel he stays in, there is a young college graduate, Charlotte (Johansson), who thinks that her husband is more interested in a model-actress than he is in her. One night, after a photo shoot, Bob retreats to the hotel bar, where he meets Charlotte. The two start sharing brief encounters in the bar, and soon they get closer to each other. How this unusual bond between the two people – in the backdrop of a foreign country – turns out, forms the rest of the film.  

Bill Murray as Bob Harris

The story portrays a fleeting romance – one that is so subtle that it doesn’t look or feel like one. Now that is what is supposed to make the film a good one – the portrayal of the bond between an actor in his fifties, and a girl in her twenties. The film also explores other themes like loneliness and insomnia, but I didn’t find any so-called ‘exploration’. The ‘adventures’ the two of them have in Japan don’t seem like adventures at all... and though this is supposed to be comic, I perhaps felt it too faint to notice.

But this is one film where not much in shown on screen, but many interpretations can be made. According to other critics, the title comes because of two things – one, because of the fact that when the director of the advertisement instructs Bob in Japanese, the translator gives a very short interpretation i.e. the meaning is lost in translation. The second reason, is because both the characters, Bob and Charlotte, are lost, not only in the foreign city, but are also lost in their lives, because of various matters related to marriage. That is the basic ‘off-screen’ interpretation of the film.

Scarlett Johansson as Charlotte

Bill Murray, as I said, was one of the reasons I watched the film in the first place, and he doesn’t disappoint. This was a tough role to play, for the character is an unusual one. Bob experiences loneliness, and wants a companion, but when it is in the form of a twenty-something girl, he knows that starting a relationship isn’t the right thing. But at the same time, his loneliness causes insomnia and other problems. And seeing Bill Murray in a non-comedy role may seem new, but his performance is nevertheless, brilliant. Scarlett Johansson has also given a splendid performance, and this might be her magnum opus, perhaps second only to her performance in Her. Both Murray and Johansson won the BAFTA awards for Best Actor and Actress respectively, for this film. The one scene which is the highlight of the film is towards the ending, when Bob hugs Charlotte, and whispers something in her ear, which is deliberately inaudible to the audience. What makes it special is that we can interpret what he said, in any way we want. After a brief romance, does Bob say that they will meet again? Does he confess his love for her? We don’t know...

So, Sofia Coppola’s Lost in Translation is a film which requires a lot of patience to watch, and this film is mainly made for people who have problems with marriage or related stuff. For others, the film may not make much sense (it didn’t to me) but at least you can watch for the acting. In terms of the story, the film is more or less stupid, but the interpretations made by the other critics help to make some sense of the storyline. A bit overrated, but a nice film nevertheless.

My Rating: 3/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 95%

The Fighter (2010)

Director: David O. Russell
Story: Keith Dorrington, Paul Tamasy, Eric Johnson
Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Melissa Leo
Music: Michael Brook
Time: 115 minutes
Bottom-line: Not as good as Cinderella Man, but watch for the terrific performances by the leads

David O. Russell’s 2010 sports drama, The Fighter stars Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale and Amy Adams in the lead roles. Based on a true story, the film follows boxer Micky Ward, and how he makes a comeback. Though I liked the film, it fell short of another boxing film I had recently seen – Ron Howard’s Cinderella Man, and also short of the two other O. Russell films I have seen before. But well, if you are a fan of Bale (like me) or Wahlberg, then you will get a grand show of some class acting by both of them.

Micky Ward (Wahlberg) is a boxer from Massachusetts, who is trained by his elder half-brother Dicky (Bale). They live with their mother, Alice (Leo), and seven sisters. Micky’s career is not successful – he is more of a ‘stepping stone’, whom other boxers can defeat. Dicky’s career was once successful, but he is now addicted to cocaine. After Micky’s original opponent is substituted by a much heavier one, Micky loses the fight badly, and, feeling embarrassed, tries to form a relationship with a bartender, Charlene (Adams), whom his family hates. Meanwhile, Dicky is arrested for trying to make illegal money, and while trying to save him, Micky gets his hand broken. How the two brothers make a comeback – Micky, in boxing, and Dicky, in life, forms the rest of the film.

Wahlberg as Micky

This is one of those films where Christian Bale does an amazing ‘transformation’, in both appearance and in weight. At first sight, he hardly looks like the Bale you see in the Batman trilogy. And his performance as Dicky Ward is perhaps the best of his career. While in Cinderella Man, the acting, direction and story were all so powerful that I felt like cheering Russell Crowe in his final fight, here, there was no such feeling – the only thing that made the fight interesting was Bale’s and Wahlberg’s acting. The latter has also done extremely well, and deserved an Oscar nomination. Amy Adams’s acting seemed average, and I couldn’t see anything in it that deserved an Oscar nomination. Bale and Melissa Leo later won the Oscars for Best Supporting Actor and Actress respectively.

Bale as Dicky

The story, like the other two David O. Russell films, generously donates time for building characters and the plot. It is mostly a sports film, which gives more importance to the personal life of the boxer. But to me, the story seemed to move very slowly, and not so smoothly either. As I said before, there is nothing in it that made me also empathise with Wahlberg’s or Bale’s characters. Also, the story is predictable in most of the places, and there are hardly any twists, unlike other O. Russell films.

Adams as Charlene

So while The Fighter works well in terms of acting, I feel that this film is below expectations in most of the other aspects. The story is good, but could have been improved, perhaps with few more twists, although this is based on a real person. But in the end, I was satisfied personally, because I mainly wanted to see why Christian Bale won the Oscar, and I can truly say that he deserved it. Not one of Russell’s best films, but certainly one of the best films of Bale and Wahlberg.

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