Ugly (2014)

Director: Anurag Kashyap

Story: Anurag Kashyap

Cast: Rahul Bhat, Ronit Roy, Tejaswini Kolhapure

Music: G. V. Prakash Kumar

Time: 126 minutes

Bottom-line: Dark and depressing; Kashyap fans will like it

When the film came out, a bunch of critics rightly said that the film would cater only to a niche audience. With a relatively new cast, including Rahul Bhat, Ronit Roy, Tejaswini Kolhapure, Vineet Kumar Singh, Girish Kulkarni and Surveen Chawla, Ugly is the feel-bad film of 2014.

 

Bhat as Rahul (left) and Singh as Chaitanya  

Shalini (Kolhapure) is a depressed housewife, whose second husband is Police Chief Shoumik Bose (Roy). The relationship is strained, as he hardly cares for her. She has a ten-year-old daughter – Kali (Anshika Shrivastava) – with her first husband, Rahul Kapoor (Bhat), who is a struggling actor, and also Bose’s rival in college. When Rahul goes to meet a casting director and friend, Chaitanya (Singh), he leaves Kali in the car. He later finds her missing, and the potential suspect gets killed in a chase. The local police inspector, Jadhav (Kulkarni) investigates the case. Chaitanya makes a ransom call to Rahul, even though he knows that the latter is broke. Later, Shalini’s friend, a B-grade actress, Rakhee (Chawla) also asks for money pretending to be the kidnapper. With everyone heartlessly using this chance to collect their own share of money, who has actually kidnapped Kali? And where is she now?

 

Roy as Bose

Kashyap made the actors undergo rigorous practice to prepare them for the roles and scenes. Shot extensively on real locations, and allowing the actors to improvise in several scenes, Kashyap calls Ugly his most “brutally honest” film. Both Rahul and Tejaswini consumed alcohol regularly to prepare for their roles, and the former even deliberately avoided sleep to get dark circles under his eyes. Singh was actually slapped nearly 50 times throughout the shooting, and he was handcuffed to the ceiling because Kashyap wanted to realistically show the police torture techniques. The result? Many scenes of intense violence and anti-social content, but also, some of the best performances you will ever see. The three actors, as well as Roy and Kulkarni, have done an outstanding job. Anshika has hardly 10 minutes of screen time, but thanks to the visual imagery, you won’t forget her character for a while. The actress herself did not see the film until much later because of the strong content.

 

Kolhapure as Shalini

Kali is the only “clean” character in an otherwise ugly world filled with people who cheat, betray and who are overwhelmed by greed and lust. That is the main focus of the film – how, in a time of crisis, everyone brings out their ugly side by going for the money. It makes you wonder who actually cares about the girl, and who knows the number of such kidnappings and rapes taking place across the country! The “victory dance” that Shalini’s brother does is the best portrayal of greed you can see. The violence and dark characters are typical of Kashyap’s films, but Ugly takes it to a whole new level. Call it a wake-up siren to the issues of domestic violence and child-abduction in India, or “just another Hindi film”, this is far from a comfortable watch.

With brilliant, “real” performances, a tight plot, and typical Kashyap direction, Ugly may not be your type of film, but if you are a fan of Kashyap, you will like it, and if not, this is probably the best film to get acquainted with his style.

My Rating: 3.5/5

Andhadhun (2018)

English translation: Blind Tune

Director: Sriram Raghavan

Story: Sriram Raghavan, Arijit Biswas, Pooja Ladha Surti, Yogesh Chandekar and Hemanth Rao

Cast: Ayushmann Khurrana, Tabu, Radhika Apte

Music: Amit Trivedi, Raftaar, Girish Nakod

Time: 138 minutes

Bottom-line: Unfurls at a breakneck pace; one of the best films of 2018

Ayushmann Khurrana has become one of the most sought-after actors in Bollywood after a series of successful films in 2018, as has Radhika Apte with her Netflix hits. Both of them star together along with veteran actress Tabu in this crime drama, Andhadhun. Co-written and directed by Sriram Raghavan, this is the tale of an innocent man caught in a murder case.

 

Khurrana as Akash and Apte as Sophie

Akash (Khurrana) is a skilled pianist who pretends to be blind during the day, his theory being that this “experiment” will help him improve his art. He later begins a romantic relationship with Sophie (Apte) - who believes that he is actually blind - when he starts playing at her father’s diner. Former actor Pramod Sinha (Anil Dhawan) requests him to render a private concert for him and his wife, Simi (Tabu) on their anniversary. When Akash does go there, Simi lets him in thinking he is blind, but Akash notices the dead body of Pramod in the house. Simi’s suspicious neighbour seems to cause problems for her, and Akash is forced to remain mum to preserve his identity. Does Simi suspect Akash? Does he find a way to testify against Simi?

 

Tabu as Simi

While the story of Andhadhun was inspired by L'Accordeur (The Piano Tuner), a 2010 French short film about a blind pianist, I was reminded of a 2000 Tamil film called Sabhash, also about a man pretending to be blind, involved in the murder/suicide case of his wife. At the crux of this film is Akash’s act of faking blindness, which lands him in all sorts of trouble, and that’s what makes the story what it is. The film moves at an exhilarating pace, with brilliantly crafted plot twists. The suspense, the dark humour, the mind games, and of course, the cliff-hanger climax make this thriller stand apart.

Khurrana may have become far more popular following this film’s success, but as far as Andhadhun goes, Tabu is the star. Portraying the devious Simi, who will stop at nothing – not even a second murder – to protect herself, this character is easily one of the most sadistic and manipulative villains portrayed in Indian cinema. Khurrana’s acting is superb too. From a man leading a fairly comfortable life, to a man who is pushed to his limits of endurance, Akash’s character starts out clean and touches a variety of grey shades throughout the film. Radhika Apte, surprisingly, has a small role to play in the film. Fate and karma influence the story to a considerable extent, which give rise to various other minor but significant characters in the film – an auto driver, a person selling lottery tickets, a doctor running an illicit organ donor service, and of course, Simi’s neighbour.

With catchy songs to lighten the mood to start with, and regular plot twists to shock you subsequently, Andhadhun brings together a skilled cast and crew who gives us a taut thriller, which is definitely worth watching. Of course, by the end of it, you will probably have a lot of unanswered questions, but that’s part of the fun.

My Rating: 4/5

House of Games (1987)

Director: David Mamet

Story: David Mamet

Cast: Joe Mantegna, Lindsay Crusoe, Ricky Jay

Music: Alaric Jans

Time: 102 minutes

Bottom-line: Keeps you guessing constantly, and still surprises you

Human nature is a sucker bet.

David Mamet’s directorial career would start with this 1987 heist film, and later he would be known as one of the best, albeit underrated, directors of the quiet, simple psychological thriller films. Earlier known for his plays and movie scripts, House of Games goes on to show how good a director he can be. The film stars Joe Mantegna and Lindsay Crusoe in the lead roles.

Everybody gets something out of every transaction.

Dr Margaret Ford (Crusoe) is a psychiatrist who has just published a book. Yet, she feels that something is missing in her life. When one of her patients threatens to take his own life because he owes a large debt to a “Mike”, Margaret decides to visit Mike (Mantegna) in his pool hall, named “Hall of Games”. Just before she is swindled of her money, she catches their bluff. Intrigued to know more about the art of conning, she goes back to Mike, hoping to write a book based on this. As Margaret gets further involved in Mike’s cons, she finds herself caught in a mess involving murder, theft and thousands of dollars.  

Mantegna as Mike

You can't bluff someone who's not paying attention.

Here is a general trend of Mamet’s directorial features, or at least, those involving con men - every single character appears grey, until the very end, when you know who is good and who isn’t. Till then you always keep guessing. One aspect I found admirable is how he weaves the tale in a way that it seems so predictable, and then he proves you wrong, pretty much every time. Mamet also keeps the story relatively clean in terms of content - every scene is relevant.

Crusoe as Margaret

Joe Mantegna’s character is that of a con man, who “acts atrociously for a living.” From the suave suited-up trickster to the seemingly sensitive gentleman, Mantegna always keeps you wondering whether he's showing his genuine feelings or if they are all part of a con. Lindsay Crusoe’s acting is superb, especially in her phase of panic when she struggles to “forgive herself”. Her transition from the naive and innocent woman to one seeking revenge is remarkable. The other mysterious aspect of Mamet films is the way he depicts the romance between the lead characters - you think it is going one way but it is actually going the other.

With the regular plot twists - some which pop up after five minutes and some which pop up after an hour - supported by excellent acting by Mantegna and Crusoe, House of Games is effective because it is an intellectual thriller but maintains its simplicity.   

My Rating: 3.5/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 96%

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988)

Director: Frank Oz

Story: Stanley Shapiro, Paul Henning, Dale Launer

Cast: Michael Caine, Steve Martin, Glenne Headly

Music: Miles Goodman

Time: 110 minutes

Bottom-line: A whole new level of humour and conning

A poacher who shoots at rabbits may scare big game away.

The title of the movie itself has a nice ring to it, no?

Michael Caine and Steve Martin come together with a winning chemistry in Frank Oz’s comedy drama, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. The title refers to the characters played by Caine and Martin respectively: Lawrence Jamieson and Freddy Benson. The former is a wealthy elitist living in Beaumont-sur-Mer on the French Riviera; assisted by a corrupt policeman and manservant, he arranges elaborate schemes to con rich and corrupt women. He gets news that another con artist is in town, code-named the Jackal. Lawrence meets American small-time conman Freddy, who scams women for a few hundred dollars, often making up plans on the go. Knowing that the city cannot host two conmen, they have a bet: the first one to con $50000 from an American heiress, Janet Colgate (Headly), gets to stay, and the other has to leave town. What happens next?

 

Headly as Janet (left), Martin as Freddy and Caine as Lawrence

Nice guys finish last. Meet the winners.

The combination of Caine and Martin is the best possible choice for a film like this. The contrast in the nature of their skills shows exactly why the respective actors were chosen. Lawrence/Caine is suave, spending money on art and antiques (in other words, “wine you can’t drink and a garden that looks like a big mowing headache!”), and is a perfectionist even in conning (one who thoroughly screens his victims and took years to perfect his “scamming thing”). Freddy/Martin is not so sophisticated or cultured. Refinement and elitism are not for him. He is satisfied with his meagre achievements. Martin is more dynamic with his character – jumps around excitedly, shouts in anger and so on, while Caine holds a constant smile throughout the film, changing accents based on his scheme. Glenne Headly acts so well that you actually feel pity for her character, as each man tries to squeeze out $50000 from her.

The story combines the right amounts of slapstick humour and intelligent comedy, Martin contributing to the former and Caine to the latter. With their mind games and strategies to be ahead of the other, the viewers are entertained throughout. The film has two endings, in my view. (Spoiler alert) The first one leaves us gasping in shock (if you didn’t predict it) as Janet flies away, and the second one leaves us with the possibility of extending the story further after the end credits roll. In the first ending, you see another contrast in the traits of Lawrence and Freddy – one admires Janet’s acts while the other resents them.

With a racy script and brilliant acting by all three lead actors, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is a class apart in both con films and comedy films. Don’t miss it.

My Rating: 4/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 89%

No Country for Old Men (2007)

Minimalist poster, showing the
role of fate

Director: Joel and Ethan Coen 
Screenplay: Joel and Ethan Coen (based on the book by Cormac McCarthy)
Cast: Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin 
Music: Carter Burwell
Time: 122 minutes
Bottom-line: One of the best cat-and-mouse dramas ever!

This neo-noir Western thriller is one of the best works of the Coen brothers thus far, and proves to be very tough to beat! Starring Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin, along with Woody Harrelson, this film explores how fate treats three different men all involved in one plot.

Brolin as Moss

1980, Texas: After a monologue by the Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Jones), the story starts with Anton Chigurh (Bardem), a prisoner who escapes after strangling the cop who arrested him. His weapon is a captive bolt pistol. Meanwhile, welder and Vietnam veteran Llewelyn Moss (Brolin) comes across a failed drug deal in the desert; he finds several people murdered, and a suitcase containing two million dollars. With greed overcoming his conscience, Moss decides to take the case home, but soon he is pursued by two strangers. He sends his wife to safe custody and flees. We now understand that Chigurh is a hitman hired to retrieve the case. So as Chigurh starts hunting down Moss, his wife becomes concerned and asks Bell to protect her husband. As the three men interfere in each other’s lives, they realise one thing – there are no clean getaways... 

Bardem as Chigurh, with his weapon 

The storyline is simply brilliant. From the moment Moss picks up the case, you know the chase has started, and then it never stops. Every scene your heart beats loudly and your hands start trembling. The cinematography and editing are so perfectly done that each sequence has the right amount of screen time to give that suspenseful feeling. The film is kind of a case study of how fate can control your life, with just enough violence to make sure it has an impact – Moss decides to follow his greed, and his life has one story; Chigurh is the merciless killer who will go to any length to retrieve the money, and how his life turns out is also shown. The only clean character seems to be Sheriff Bell. With this theme, the story is built and is supported by the drama of the cat-and-mouse chase in the desert landscape of Texas.

TLJ as Sheriff Bell

The film has no grand climax, but it is those little incidents during the film that you should look out for, especially Chigurh’s encounter with the old man at the shop. The dialogues are exceptional, and they carry a nervous humour along with them; the way he taunts the man into deciding whether he should live or not, is chilling! If this guy isn't a terrifying villain, I don't know who is! Javier Bardem is the exact guy to portray this character, with his build, accent and just enough facial expressions; it was a well-deserved Oscar win. His hitman character, with his captive bolt pistol, is truly scary... particularly in that scene where he assaults the motel guests! I also liked Josh Brolin’s acting as Moss, and I think he did an excellent role of playing the “mouse” of the movie. If it wasn’t for the acting, the film would have never been as great as it is considered now.

The ending does not exactly tie up all loose ends, but it makes one thing clear – you can't stop what's coming. Everyone gets what they deserve, and it is entirely up to fate.

My Rating: 4/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 93%

Wall Street (1987)

Director: Oliver Stone

Story: Oliver Stone, Stanley Weiser

Cast: Michael Douglas, Charlie Sheen, Daryl Hannah

Music: Stewart Copeland

Time: 126 minutes

Bottom-line: An engaging drama powered by Michael Douglas

Every dream has a price.

Featuring one of the most iconic characters (and antagonists) of the 1980s, Oliver Stone’s Wall Street is a drama film about a young stockbroker and his relationship with a corporate raider. The film not only had a positive impact on critics but also on other Americans who have claimed to be inspired by the film to work on Wall Street. The film stars Michael Douglas and Charlie Sheen in the lead roles, with Martin Sheen, Daryl Hannah and Terence Stamp in the supporting roles.

Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.

1985, New York: Bud Fox (C. Sheen) is a junior stockbroker for Jackson Steinem & Co. Not entirely happy with his current job, he wants to work with legendary Wall Street player, Gordon Gekko (Douglas). After a long wait, Fox gets his chance for an interview with Gekko. Desperate to impress Gekko, Fox leaks out some inside information on Bluestar Airlines, which he heard from his father, Carl Fox (M. Sheen). Gekko becomes Fox’s client and asks him to spy on a British CEO (Stamp) as his next task. With time, Fox becomes rich, enjoying all the perks offered by Gekko, and even gets a girlfriend though him (Hannah). But when Fox has to choose between family and money, he finds himself in a shaky situation. Would he go against the immensely powerful Gekko? Or does he do what’s morally right?

 

Douglas as Gekko

While Charlie Sheen later became pretty much synonymous with Charlie Harper in Two and a Half Men, his role as Bud Fox is far better. Chosen for the role because of his “stiff acting”, I like the way he portrays the naïve stockbroker willing to go to any length to win the admiration of Gekko, the way he gains confidence and stands on his own two feet, and how he reacts when his world comes crashing down. Michael Douglas went on to win the Academy Award for Best Actor for his role – the powerful, cunning and unrelenting raider. His speech to the Teldar Paper panel is the highlight of the movie. While you’re admiring Gekko’s style and panache, you are also shocked by his ruthlessness (I wrecked the company because it was wreck-able, all right?).

Martin Sheen as Carl (left) and Charlie
Sheen as Bud Fox

Now whether you want to follow Gekko’s policy of “greed is good” (Greed, in all of its forms: greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, will save that malfunctioning corporation called the USA) or whether you want to wade through Wall Street as an honest man, the film will certainly pique your interest in this area. From one group of people yelling at the top of their voices to buy or sell stocks, to others in suede suits relaxing in their penthouses, the film gives a glimpse of all such characters. Although you may not understand the technicalities of everything that’s going on, the plot is still entertaining enough.

 

Hannah as Darien, Bud's girlfriend

While finance is a murky area – and the film also shows just that – how much you want to be “inspired” by it is up to you. However, with Michael Douglas and Charlie Sheen taking centre-stage, Wall Street will definitely be worth watching for anyone who dreams of finding themselves in the titular location.

My Rating: 3.5/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 78%

Awakenings (1990)

Director: Penny Marshall

Screenplay: Steven Zaillian (based on the memoir by Oliver Sacks)

Cast: Robin Williams, Robert de Niro

Music: Randy Newman

Time: 121 minutes

Bottom-line: A bittersweet experience; one of the most beautiful films about the human spirit

Based on the memoir by the renowned neurologist, Oliver Sacks, Awakenings is a film that explores the bonding between a doctor and a post-encephalitic patient. Robin Williams and Robert de Niro star in the lead roles, with John Heard, Julie Kavner and Penelope Ann Miller in the supporting roles. The story is inspired by real-life incidents.

There’s no such thing as a simple miracle.

1969, The Bronx: Dr Malcolm Sayer (Williams) is a caring physician at a local hospital. Despite having no previous experience with humans (if only they were less unpredictable, he says) he is designated to work with patients who have survived the 1917-28 epidemic of encephalitis lethargica. Despite their catatonic states, Sayer finds that they are able to respond to familiar music, catch a ball reflexively etc. After attending a conference on the L-Dopa drug and its effects on people suffering from Parkinson’s, Sayer decides to test it out on one particular post-encephalitic patient, Leonard Lowe (de Niro). After several doses, Leonard miraculously “awakens” from his catatonic state. Following the success, other patients are also given the drug. As Leonard adjusts to the new world after 30 years, he falls in love with a patient’s daughter, Paula (Miller). However, the drug starts to have side effects, and all the patients realise that the miracle was too good to last. What happens to Leonard? What happens to his relationships with Dr Sayer and Paula?

There was a time when I was on a spree of Robin Williams films: Insomnia, Dead Poets’ Society, One Hour Photo… and this film made it into the list then, but I never got around to it. Nevertheless, when I decided to watch it, I was rewarded with a poignant, emotional film, with incredible performances by Williams and his co-star, Robert de Niro. In one of his most famous non-comic roles, Williams is wonderful with his sensitive portrayal of emotions: the way his character is influential and genuinely kind to win the admiration of the staff, the patients, and of course, the viewers. Robert de Niro spends the first fifty minutes of the film frozen in a single pose, but is downright amazing in the next half. From the man “waking up” to the new world, to the man making friends and falling in love, to the diseased “patient” suffering from tics and spasms, de Niro makes you smile in joy and almost weep over the course of the film.

 

Williams as Dr Sayer (left) and de Niro as Leonard

The story is beautifully written. In many ways, it was similar to One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, with regard to the whole atmosphere of an “institution”. The characters of Leonard’s mother, Paula and Eleanor (another nurse; portrayed by Kavner) support the main track – providing elements of motherly love and romantic love, which influence both Sayer and Leonard. The scene where Leonard’s mother pleads to Dr Sayer to save him, and the scene where Leonard unleashes his anger on Sayer are two of the most poignant moments of the film, while on the other hand, the scene where Paula dances with Leonard for one last time – and his spasms temporarily stop – is one of the uplifting moments.

Miller as Paula, dancing with de Niro

Despite being nominated for three Oscars (Picture, Actor – de Niro – and Screenplay), Awakenings seems to be one of the lesser known films of both de Niro and Williams. It deserves a lot more recognition, for being an astounding film on the power of the human spirit. I end the review with this quote by Dr Sayer, something that we should reflect on as well: The human spirit is more powerful than any drug and that is what needs to be nourished: with work, play, friendship, family. These are the things that matter. This is what we'd forgotten. The simplest things.

My Rating: 4.5/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 88%  

Minority Report (2002)

Director: Steven Spielberg

Screenplay: Scott Frank and John Cohen (based on the short story by Philip K. Dick)

Cast: Tom Cruise, Colin Farrell, Max von Sydow, Samantha Morton

Music: John Williams

Time: 145 minutes

Bottom-line: Interesting concept, and excellent script-writing

"We don't choose the things we believe in; they choose us."

Steven Spielberg’s futuristic sci-fi thriller brings together several themes and ideas, combining neo-noir, crime, drama and of course, science - in fact, it is a standard example of a film belonging to the "tech-noir" genre. Tom Cruise plays the lead role, supported by Colin Farrell, Max von Sydow, Samantha Morton and Kathryn Morris.

The flaw is human.

If the future is set in advance, does free will exist? This dilemma is one of the fundamental themes of Minority Report. The year is 2054, and in Washington DC, there is an organisation called Precrime. Their speciality: three “Precogs”: psychics who can predict the future. Their use: to inform the department about murders that occur in the future, so that Precrime can send in forces to prevent them from even happening. Seems neat, right? The Precrime captain is John Anderton (Cruise), who has separated from his wife after the disappearance of his son. When a United States Justice Department agent Danny Witwer (Farrell) comes to audit the program, the Precogs predict that John would murder a man in 36 hours. Determined to prove his innocence, John takes off. As he starts his investigation, he realises that the system is flawed… and as always, the flaw is human.

 

Cruise as Anderton

The fact that you prevented it from happening doesn’t change the fact that it was going to happen.

I like the way the scenario is introduced to the viewers. The futuristic setup, the Precrime organisation, the concept of the Precogs and what they do, and later, the glitches in the system, are explained in a lucid manner. Spielberg combines the standard wrong-man genre with an extensive science-fiction backdrop that makes the film stand apart. The pace of the story is perfect, with the clues leading to the right answer revealed at the right moments. Then there is the action and suspense, of course – the scene where the “spiders” search for Anderton is sure to give you goosebumps and make you sweat, and the one where Anderton tries to escape from the shopping mall is ingenious.

 

Farrell as Witwer

The science part of the film is the debate between free will and determinism. Precrime works based on the fact that the murders will occur, but have not yet done so. The question is, what is the guarantee that the events to follow will create a different future than the ones predicted by the Precogs? The “future” killer has a choice or free will to shy away from committing the murder, but then determinism says that all the future events are set. Minority Report illustrates this in one of the best ways possible.

The filming style is the highlight when it comes to the technical aspects. A technique known as bleach bypassing is used, such that the film has a high level of contrast, and in several scenes, it looks like a black-and-white picture; the scenes have a “washed-out” appearance. The first few minutes themselves are indicative of the distinctive narrative style, as compared to any other Spielberg film. Tom Cruise’s and Samantha Morton’s (who plays the female Precog, Agatha) acting are excellent.

 

Morton as Agatha

Minority Report may be a movie about flaws, but the film is quite clean. It’s a bit over-dramatic at times, but other than that, the science, the action, the story and the visuals are superb. A sci-fi movie that actually talks a bit about science, it’s worth watching!

My Rating: 4.5/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 90%

Side Effects (2013)

Director: Steven Soderbergh

Story: Scott J. Burns

Cast: Jude Law, Rooney Mara, Channing Tatum, Catherine Zeta-Jones

Music: Thomas Newman

Time: 106 minutes

Bottom-line: Smartly written, and superbly acted

Steven Soderbergh’s psychological thriller film is, sadly, one of his most underrated and unrecognised films. While it may not have big stars or an action-packed script, Side Effects is a quiet, smart thriller with enough twists to keep your pulse racing at all times.

 

Law as Dr. Banks

Martin Taylor (Tatum) has just completed a four-year prison sentence for insider trading. His wife is Emily (Mara), who has been severely depressed in his absence, and is under medication for the same. Despite her attempts to bring back the romance in the relationship, she doesn’t get any better. When she drives her car into a wall in a suicide attempt, she is assigned a psychiatrist: Dr. Jonathan Banks (Law), who prescribes her a set of antidepressants but none of them seem to work. Banks visits Emily’s previous psychiatrist, Dr. Victoria Siebert (Zeta-Jones), who suggests a new experimental drug. This works, but Emily has sleepwalking as a side effect. When Emily stabs Martin to death in one of her sleepwalking episodes, who is to blame? Is she insane? Is it the new drug? Is it negligence from Dr. Banks? Or is it all a conspiracy?

 

Mara as Emily

The first thing I liked about the film is how clean the story is. In a plot involving a lot of characters, a lot of complicated incidents, the sequence of events is neat. It unfurls like a proper mystery thriller, with the build-up, the high point, the investigation and the climax. From the time of the murder to the last scene, there are startling twists around every corner. In a tale full of manipulative schemes, I like the way the film focuses only on the battle of wits without bringing in any needless violence or stunts.

 

Zeta-Jones as Dr. Siebert 

Rooney Mara’s performance as the disturbed and depressed patient is the best of the lot. As we learn more about the true nature of her character, the more we appreciate the way she portrays all the different emotions and disguised traits. Jude Law’s determined and intelligent character brings a lot of energy to the screen. Zeta-Jones, with her diabolical behaviour and equivocal statements, is by far the shadiest character in the film. The acting, overall, is so good that you will never find out who is the “white” character and who the “grey” one is.

 

Tatum as Martin

There is not a single dull moment in the film. Few scenes give the viewers hints to guess what’s happening, as we uncover the mystery along with Dr. Banks. The script is so crisp and the way the psychological games are played is brilliant. Just when you think Siebert has the upper hand, Banks pulls something unexpected to get even with her. The acting is top notch, the cinematography and score are effective, and I fail to see why this film isn’t given the praise it deserves. One of the best thrillers in recent times, I strongly recommend this film.

My Rating: 4/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 83%

Ex-Machina (2015)

Director: Alex Garland

Story: Alex Garland

Cast: Domhnall Gleeson, Alicia Vikander, Oscar Isaac

Music: Ben Salisbury, Geoff Barrow

Time: 108 minutes

Bottom-line: A deeply intriguing sci-fi thriller

To erase the line between man and machine is to obscure the line between men and gods.

This directional debut of Alex Garland gives him a firm footing in the film industry. Starring Domhnall Gleeson, Alicia Vikander and Oscar Isaac in the lead roles, Ex-Machina is a futuristic sci-fi thriller about a humanoid robot.

Isn't it strange, to create something that hates you?

Caleb Smith (Gleeson) is a programmer for the search engine company, Blue Book. He wins a competition which gives him a chance to visit the isolated house/research facility of the CEO, Nathan Bateman (Isaac). Nathan lives alone apart from a servant, Kyoko (Sonoya Mizuno) – who neither understands nor speaks English – and a humanoid robot with AI, Ava (Vikander). Caleb’s job is to test whether Ava has a “consciousness”, despite knowing the fact that she is a robot. As the sessions go by, Ava and Caleb become attracted to each other. Ava is able to trigger temporary power shortages that allow them to speak without Nathan watching them. During one such power outrage, Ava tells Caleb that Nathan is a liar and cannot be trusted. When Nathan passes out drunk one night, Caleb decides to explore the house. What he finds makes him question everything around him: why was he chosen? What’s the real job Nathan wants him to do? 

 

Gleeson as Caleb (left) and Isaac as Nathan

Given that this is Garland’s debut film, the major highlight is the simplicity. While the visual effects are outstanding (James Cameron would be proud), the story otherwise is simple, clean and crisp, with minimalistic dialogue and characters. Once the story starts, the dialogues between Caleb and Nathan give us sufficient character intros, and we know that Caleb’s job is to perform a Turing test on Ava, but the plot twists keep coming one after the other. By the end, you realise that you, as a viewer, have been manipulated as well. Irrespective of whether the ending is justified or not, it is most certainly unexpected. Being able to fit in so many credible twists in a tale with minimal settings is indeed a skill.

 

Vikander as Ava

Whether or not AI will be able to do whatever Ava does is debatable, but while AI and robots in movies are becoming more common, Ex-Machina stands apart. The acting is another big boost to the film. Oscar Isaac’s narcissism and crooked personality are in stark contrast to Gleeson’s innocence and honesty. The mind games they play with each other – as well as the other thought experiments they discuss – make you wonder who really is ahead of the game. Alicia Vikander’s performance earned her a BAFTA nomination. The way she portrays the characteristics of a robot and a human at the same time is admirable.

With an absorbing storyline, and a chilling climax, Ex-Machina is a brilliant film by Alex Garland. It relies more on science than the action, which is what makes it different. Watch it for the visuals, as well as for Isaac’s and Vikander’s performances.

My rating: 4/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 92%