Chak De! India (2007)

English translation: Go India!
Director: Shimit Amin
Story: Jaideep Sahni
Cast: Shah Rukh Khan, Vidya Malvade, Shilpa Shukla, Sagarika Ghatge
Music: Salim-Sulaiman
Time: 153 minutes
Bottom-line: In most aspects, as good as Lagaan

Perhaps Shah Rukh Khan’s finest film till date, and one of the most patriotic films after Lagaan (2001), Shimit Amin’s Chak De! India proves to be a compelling family entertainer, and a superbly made sports film. First, a special word of praise for the crew responsible for the script and direction, for making a film about hockey, a sport that is only remotely familiar among the people when compared to cricket. The film talks about how a man coaches the Indian Women’s Hockey Team and attempts to take them to the World Cup.

World Cup Final, India versus Pakistan; Pakistan lead 1:0. One minute from the close of the match, India gets a penalty shoot. Captain Kabir Khan (SRK) takes it, misses, India lose. Seeing Khan shake hands with the Pakistani captain after the match, reporters immediately spread a rumour that Khan is a traitor, and following this, he is forced to leave his home. Seven years later, Khan is appointed as the coach of the Indian Women’s Hockey Team. He drills the team rigorously, and his strict attitude is not welcomed by the team, and soon they rebel against him. The rest of the film is about whether the team get on with Khan’s training methods, and whether or not he is able to make them win the World Cup.

Shah Rukh Khan as the coach, Kabir Khan

The main theme is India’s national game, hockey (which is what makes the film “patriotic” in the first place), but many other issues are also dealt with along with the main storyline. From the first scene where Kabir Khan coaches the team, making them acknowledge that they play for India and not for their respective states, till the last scene, we see how he induces the team spirit in all the players, and unites them despite their own regional prejudices. In the beginning, the theme of India-Pakistan rivalry is also portrayed: reporters frame Khan as a national traitor, and the fact that he supposedly helped Pakistan induces more anger among the people. Few scenes also deal with the gender discrimination that prevails in India, where men are considered superior and women are considered inferior. When the girls play against the men’s team, Khan advises them, saying, “Don’t think you are playing against men; think as though you are playing against all the idiots in the country who think women cannot do anything”.

The "Chak De!" team

I feel that this is Shah Rukh’s magnum opus in terms of acting – he really put all his effort to make his performance flawless. During the film you don’t see him as the actor, but as though he is a real coach; he displays all emotions and speaks all his dialogues in such a way. If you look at his role from the girls’ point of view you sort of hate him for being a martinet. But of course, in the end you (and the team members) realise that his “tyranny” (as they thought so initially) actually helped them to unite. This is also one of the rare films (if not only one) where SRK is comparatively passive but the other lead actors do most of the stuff. SRK later won the Filmfare Award for Best Actor for the film, though the other favourite was Darsheel Safary, for his role in Tare Zameen Par. All the members of the hockey team have given good performances as well, especially Shilpa Shukla (who plays Bindia Naik, the senior-most player), Chitrashi Rawat (who plays Komal) and Sagarika Ghatge (who plays Preeti). Before shooting, all the newly chosen actors had to go through a strict diet and proper hockey coaching so that the way they played hockey looked authentic. On the other hand, those who were already players had to learn to act well!!

The photography was amazing. The way the hockey matches were shot, and the way the camera captured the emotions of the players was perfect. Be it the message of teamwork and unity, class acting, good music and some delightful display of hockey, Chak De! India provides everything within 153 minutes. The story is taut (with no unnecessary melodrama), and SRK is at his very best in acting. A first-rate family movie... don’t miss it!

My Rating: 5/5

Sherlock (TV Series) - Season 3

Creators: Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss
Written by: Steven Moffat, Mark Gatiss, Stephen Thompson (based on the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) 
Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman, Amanda Abbington
Music: David Arnold, Michael Price
Time: 88 minutes (per episode)
Bottom-line: The thrills have reduced, but towards the end everything is back on track

After the twist ending of Season 2, all Sherlock fans would have screaming to watch the latest season to see how Sherlock Holmes miraculously escaped from “whatever he did in the last episode of the previous season”. All the actors reprise their roles: Benedict as Sherlock, Freeman as Watson, and the new character is Mary Morstan (Abbington), Watson’s fiancé. Compared to the first two seasons, I felt that the thrills have reduced considerably, and the overall quality has dropped by a wee amount as well. However, even if not through thrills, this season promises entertainment in other forms!

Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock

The first episode, The Empty Hearse is sort of a continuation from the Christmas mini-episode. Philip Anderson, a man working for Inspector Lestrade, puts forth a theory that several mysterious incidents happening around the world seem to be getting closer and closer to London. He believes that these are Holmes’ works, and that he will return soon. Meanwhile, Holmes actually does return, to help his brother Mycroft (Gatiss) uncover a terrorist attack in London. This episode mainly deals with how Watson and Holmes reunite, Watson’s love life with Mary, and what Holmes to stop the apparent terrorist attack on London.

The second episode, The Sign of Three, is perhaps the least thrilling Sherlock episode made so far. The episode tells how Sherlock prepares to give the best man’s speech at Watson’s wedding, and in the process he also narrates two old, unsolved cases: The Bloody Guardsman and The Mayfly man. By the end of the episode, Sherlock realises that both the incidents are connected, and that someone else at the wedding is going to be murdered as well.

Martin Freeman as Watson, with Sherlock

The final episode, His Last Vow, brings back all the thrills that the earlier episodes failed to provide (in my view). Holmes faces a new nemesis, Charles Augustus Magnussen (Lars Mikkelsen), a newspaper owner who has information about practically everyone. All the information is stored in hard copies, and using them, he blackmails people. As the episode progresses, we see that he has information on Mary that can send her to prison for a long time. As Sherlock tries to resolve matters with Magnussen, he realises that the latter’s target is not Mary, but something much bigger...

While all the six episodes of the previous two seasons had some mystery or the other, here, the first two episodes focussed more on other things. The Empty Hearse initially is only about how Sherlock returns, and what he actually did two years ago. The Sign of Three was boring, though the humour was effective, and Sherlock’s best man speech, I admit, was the highlight – that is perhaps the only thing I found enjoyable. The final episode is a roller-coaster ride – for the second time (after The Reichenbach Fall) we see that Sherlock is not on the winning side. There are many unexpected twists, and the events happening in the last few minutes will make you desperate for the release of Season 4 (and that's something the creators have done right every time - provide a huge twist at the end of the final episode of  every season, and make the viewers wait two years to know what happens!).

The wedding: Watson (left), with Mary (Abbington)
and Sherlock

For once, I found the acting of Martin Freeman better than that of Benedict, in the first episode. But both of them maintain their acting quality throughout the season. The main highlight, however, is Lars Mikkelsen – who plays Mugnussen. Just when you thought Moriarty was the only nemesis Holmes had, there comes this guy with such a convincing performance that his character was, in a way, terrifying (as described by Moffat as well). In Sherlock, as far as the nine episodes are concerned, acting plays a big role in the effective portrayal of a good villain, and both Andrew Scott and Mikkelsen have not disappointed.

The photography, score and other special effects were perfect, like always. So while the third season of Sherlock didn’t quite match my expectations, it is still a joy ride for those die-hard fans of Sherlock. Only the second episode is a bit boring, but nevertheless, there are many more things to praise about. Watch for the splendid performances of Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman and Mikkelsen, and of course, do not miss the last few minutes of His Last Vow! Another good season with an electrifying finale... go for it!

My Rating: 4/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 97%

Drishyam (2013)

English translation: Visual
Director: Jeethu Joseph
Story: Jeethu Joseph
Cast: Mohanlal, Meena, Ansiba Hassan, Baby Esther
Music: Vinu Thomas, Anil Johnson
Time: 164 minutes
Bottom-line: Better than most modern thrillers 

My first review of a Malayalam film is that of Drishyam, which set a record of having crossed 10000 shows within 26 days of release. It is also the highest grossing Malayalam film of all time. Starring “The Complete Actor” Mohanlal and Meena in the lead roles, the film is perhaps the first one to be termed as a true “family thriller”, which is probably why it went on to become so popular among the locals and across the globe. Why was the film so well-received? Read on...

Mohanlal as Georgekutty

Georgekutty (Mohanlal) is an ordinary family man living with his wife, Rani (Meena), and two daughters: Anju and Anu. He runs a cable TV service in a rural part of Kerala. Being very helpful and friendly in nature, almost all the villagers are ready to help him anytime. Only one constable in the village, Sahadevan (Kalabhavan Shajon), has a grudge against Georgekutty. The actual story begins about 50 minutes into the film – Anju gets photographed in the bathroom by Varun, the son of inspector general Geeta (Asha Sarath). He blackmails her one night, and he is accidentally murdered by Anju and Rani. They hurriedly bury him in their land, and this is seen by Anu as well. When Georgekutty comes to know about this, he takes responsibility to protect his family against all odds. Meanwhile, Geeta starts an investigation, and Sahadevan immediately suspects Georgekutty. What the latter does, and how he protects his family is what the film is about.

First up, to enjoy the film, you need to patient for the first hour or so. The build-up for the main plot is too lengthy in the film, but according to Jeethu Joseph, that is how it was supposed to be. He said that in a family film, there needs to be some elements about family as well, and hence, that’s what the first 50 minutes are about. So hopefully, if you are still interested in watching the rest of the film, you will be entertained thoroughly. What makes it all the more enjoyable is that it is about an ordinary family – so you empathise with them in their troubles.

Meena as Rani

The twists and turns are quite good, and there is a fair amount of suspense as well. Like I said before, the main idea of the movie is to show how an ordinary family – including two girls of ages seventeen and six – survives police assaults and inquiries, and what an uneducated man is able to do to protect his family, based on general knowledge and smart thinking. Credit for making the story really effective goes to Mohanlal, who has given a splendid performance. At times funny, at times cunning and at other times smart, he lifts the film to a high level. Along with him, the co stars, Meena, Ansiba Hassan, Baby Esther, Kalabhavan Shajon and (especially) Asha Sarath have given superb performances as well.

Ansiba Hassan as Anju

The score and cinematography are also good. Overall, Drishyam is an excellent film, the second half of which as perhaps better than most modern “thriller” films. The first half is too elaborate in my view, but the end result is more than satisfactory. All the actors have given good performances, and the overall story is superb. A family thriller that provides a truck-load of thrills more than expected, Jeethu Joseph’s Drishyam could well be the beginning of a new “sub-genre” of thriller films.

My Rating: 4/5

Se7en (1995)

Director: David Fincher
Story: Andrew Kevin Walker
Cast: Brad Pitt, Morgan Freeman, Gwyneth Paltrow
Music: Howard Shore
Time: 127 minutes
Bottom-line: A thrilling, gut-wrenching murder mystery, with an unexpected climax

David Fincher makes his entry into Hollywood with this murder-mystery film, Se7en. Starring Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt in the lead roles, the film is about a serial killer. What make it unique are the superb performances, chilling atmosphere and score, and of course, some brilliant directing and story-writing by Fincher and Walker. Se7en is not for the faint-hearted – there is no “horror” content, but watch out for some gruesome images of some ghastly murders.

Monday – In a city of constant rain, Detective William Somerset (Freeman), who is about to retire, is partnered with a young, short-tempered detective, David Mills (Pitt), for a murder case. They discover an obese man who has been forced to feed himself till his stomach bursts, causing him to die. Tuesday – a wealthy attorney has been murdered by cutting a pound of flesh from his body, with the word GREED written in his blood. Somerset puts forth a theory that the killer is choosing his victims according to the seven deadly sins – gluttony, greed, pride, envy, wrath, lust and sloth. He says that five more murders will follow. Sure enough, the next victim, representing sloth, is found in his apartment the next day. Seven sins, seven murders, seven ways to die, seven days in a week... what happens next?

Brad Pitt as David Mills

I have read many reviews about the film saying that it has a “haunting climax”, and some have categorised it as a horror film. There is a lot of blood, yes, there are some gruesome images and all, but no real “horror”, in my view. I am guessing that the concept of a killer committing a series of murders based on some pattern is not new, but Se7en proves to be a success because Fincher gives the right amount of time for every part of the story: thrills, violence, character development – and even the seemingly unnecessary scenes have some significance (known in the climax) – instead of just focussing on one thing in particular.

Morgan Freeman as William Somerset 

The suspense is always taut; there is no compromise on twists or thrills. The climax of the film is in some ways the best part, and in some ways, is sort of a let-down. The actual “climax” according to me is the last 15 minutes if the film. The suspense is held in a such a way that  you expect all sorts of things to happen in those 15 minutes, but what actually happens is comparatively “simple” (if I can call it that), but perhaps the most logical as well. This sort of abrupt ending may or may not please you. But I felt satisfied by it.

Freeman’s performance is also a highlight in the film. Alongside him, Brad Pitt has given an impressive performance, considering that this film was one of the first films where he played the lead role. Gwyneth Paltrow also has a small role – that of Mills’ wife, Tracy. The importance of her character is known in the climax. The cinematography, special effects and score are perfect. So, Fincher’s debut film Se7en is superb in all aspects, but to some, it may be too violent – but that’s what makes it effective. Don’t miss the film because of the violence– cover your eyes or do something, but do not miss the film!

My Rating: 4/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 79%

Catch me if You Can (2002)

Director: Steven Spielberg
Screenplay: Jeff Nathanson (based on the book by Frank William Abagnale Jr.)
Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hanks, Christopher Walken, Amy Adams 
Music: John Williams
Time: 141 minutes
Bottom-line: A breezy entertainer

Two of my favourite actors, and one of my favourite directors came together to make this film, Catch me If you Can, and I finally had the chance to watch the film. Based on the life of Frank William Abagnale Jr, a man who performed cons worth millions of dollars. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Frank, with Tom Hanks, Christopher Walken, Amy Adams, Nathalie Baye and many others playing the supporting roles. This may not be Spielberg’s work, but is as entertaining as any other classic, like Raiders of the Lost Ark and Jaws.

DiCaprio as Frank Abagnale Jr. 

1963 – Frank Abagnale Jr., a teenager, lives in New York with his father, Frank Abagnale Sr. (Walken) and mother Paula (Baye). The family faces financial problems because of difficulties with the IRS, and the family is forced to move into a smaller apartment. As the situation becomes worse, Frank’s parents opt for a divorce, and at the same time, Frank runs away from home. Unable to earn money in simple ways, Frank relies on his confidence and boldness to successfully perform large scale scams, and he stashes up to 2.8 million dollars. Meanwhile, Carl Hanratty (Hanks), an FBI agent, is given the job of tracking down Frank. By the time he tracks Frank down, the latter has already impersonated an Airline Pilot, a Doctor, and a prosecutor. What else does Frank do, and that too before his 19th birthday? Watch the film to find out!

Hanks as Carl Hanratty

The first thing that caught my eye was the tagline of the film – The true story of a real fake. Now there are many films about heists, like the Ocean’s trilogy, Inception (in a way) etc, but why Catch me If You Can is different is because there is equal importance to everything – character development, humour, suspense, emotion and thrill. So this is a thriller that can be watched with family – a film that entertains everyone. The pace rarely slackens, and even if it does, don’t get bored – there is always a surprise around the corner.

Amy Adams as Brenda - a hospital
nurse and Frank's fiance 

There are many who say that Martin Scorsese is the one who moulded Leonardo DiCaprio into a good actor, and it is evident in the film. This was his next film after Gangs of New York, and one can see that his acting has greatly improved when compared to that film or even Titanic. He shows versatility in playing numerous roles – a pilot, a doctor, a lover (I guess that real Frank Abagnale Jr. was also impressed by Leo’s performance) and also in displaying the emotions and feelings of a teenager! On the other hand, the veteran actor, Tom Hanks has done an excellent job of playing Carl Hanratty. The encounters between these two characters are quite interesting to watch. Amy Adams is almost unrecognisable in her first major film, and she has done well too. Walken was nominated for the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, but I still don’t see why – his acting seemed ordinary to me.

Walken as Frank Abagnale Sr. 

In terms of background music, the film is no different – I have loved the score in every film where John Williams has composed it. In this film, I especially liked the opening sequence – an animated sequence showing the various disguises and roles Frank plays. This sequence is in fact, a summary of the film itself! The music is hypnotic, suspenseful, mysterious...everything out together – as good as what Williams has ever composed before. The real Frank Abagnale Jr. though did not personally involve in script-writing, believed that Spielberg was the only one who could bring justice to the film. He hoped that the film would be “entertaining, exciting, funny and bring home an important message about family, childhood and divorce", and that’s exactly what it does! In fact, a lesser known fact is that Spielberg’s parents also divorced when he was a teenager, similar to the situation experienced by Frank.

The real Frank Abagnale Jr. -
a much older one too!

While Catch me If You Can can’t exactly be categorised as a drama or a heist or a thriller, Spielberg makes sure we get a dose of everything. Whether or not the dose of each is sufficient depends on the viewer. I for one felt it to be nearly perfect. The acting, story, score and the dialogues all fit in perfectly. This is a film where you actually sympathise with the crook himself; in the words of Spielberg – “Frank was a 21st century genius working within the innocence of the mid '60s, when people were more trusting than they are now. I don't think this is the kind of movie where somebody could say, 'I have a career plan.’”



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

Sherlock (TV Series) - Season 2

Creators: Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss
Written by: Steven Moffat, Mark Gatiss, Stephen Thompson (based on the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) 
Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman
Music: David Arnold, Michael Price
Time: 88 minutes (per episode)
Bottom-line: Unpredictable, stylish, thrilling... crime-solving at its best

Just when you thought Sherlock couldn’t get any better, it does! After a two-year gap, Mark Gatiss, Steven Moffat and crew return in the second series of Sherlock, the TV series about the legendary detective created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman reprise their roles as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John Watson respectively. Two characters who are also a major part of the series are Mycroft Holmes (played by Gatiss), and Holmes’ arch-nemesis, Jim Moriarty (Andrew Scott).

Cumberbatch as Sherlock

The first episode, A Scandal in Belgravia, begins from where the last episode of Season 1 ended – the showdown between Holmes and Moriarty. Few weeks later, Holmes receives a case through his brother Mycroft, about Irene Adler (Lara Pulver), a dominatrix who has valuable information in her mobile phone. How Holmes and Watson manage to retrace the secrets in Adler’s phone, and the other encounters they face on the way form the story. The second episode, The Hounds of Baskerville tells about Henry Knight (Russell Tovey), a young man who witnessed his father’s death twenty years ago. He comes to Holmes, saying that he again saw the hound that killed his father. Holmes becomes interested because of the word “hound”. As Holmes visits Baskerville, he realises that though the hound is just a local legend, something else is seriously wrong... in fact, Holmes has to face the fact that he himself is starting to believe in the local legend. In the last episode, The Reichenbach Fall, Holmes comes face to face with Jim Moriarty. The latter simultaneously breaks into the case where the Crown Jewels are kept, opens the cells of Pentonville Prison and also opens the vaults of the Bank of England. As the story goes, Holmes finds out that Moriarty has destroyed Holmes image, to the extent of getting him arrested. How Holmes solves the final problem with Moriarty is what this episode is about.

Andrew Scott as Jim Moriarty

Once again, it is Benedict Cumberbatch who gives a powerhouse performance in the lead role. Smart dialogues, stylish acting... an excellent portrayal of the brilliant detective – this is sure to be the best portrayal of Holmes for a long time to come! Martin Freeman has done an excellent job in playing John Watson, especially in the third episode. But the star of the series (after Benedict of course), is Andrew Scott, who plays Jim Moriarty. How villainous should a proper villain be? This man shows how! In the first scenes of A Scandal in Belgravia, and throughout the final episode, I was amazed by how powerful a villain Scott portrayed.

In terms of the story, the first one starts off slowly, but gets really exciting towards the end. Watch out for the twist in the last minute, just before the closing credits! The Hounds of Baskerville was entertaining all the way. I liked the way the spooky atmosphere was created (and for the first time in the series too). The third episode is, again, the best. For the first time we see Sherlock actually “losing” to someone. There are so many twists in this episode that one just has to applaud the writers of the script. Here too, there is a twist just before the closing credits. By the time you are done watching the second series, you might even be willing to do anything to get the third series, for such is the twist.

Freeman as John Watson

If anyone tells you that the first part of some series is always better than its sequel, this series provides the counter-example. Better than the first series in story, humour, suspense and overall presentation, Sherlock proves to be perhaps the best TV show of today. This is also the best example of why quality prevails over quantity – just three episodes per season, but what pristine quality!

My Rating: 5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 100%

The King's Speech (2010)

Director: Tom Hooper
Story: David Seidler
Cast: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter
Music: Alexandre Desplat
Time: 118 minutes
Bottom-line: Stunning performances from Rush and Firth

2010 happens to be a year in which many of my favourite films were released: Inception, The Social Network, Shutter Island etc. While my pick for the Oscars was The Social Network (and it remains one of my all time favourites), I was surprised when this film popped out of nowhere to win the Best Picture and Director award. So I sat down to watch Tom Hooper’s historical drama, The King’s Speech, which seemed to impress the critics so much. The film is, in many ways, similar to the 1964 classic, My Fair Lady, and both films are equally enjoyable.

Firth as Prince Albert

Prince Albert (Firth), the second son of King George V, stammers during his speech at the closing of the British Empire Exhibition. This is broadcasted world-wide. Albert gives up on a cure, but his wife, Elizabeth (Carter) persuades him to see an Australian speech therapist, Lionel Logue (Rush). He agrees to take on Albert as a patient. From their first session, Logue keeps occasionally pressing into Albert’s family matters, hoping to get to the psychological cause of his stammer. Though Albert does not like this, he realises that Logue’s methods seem to be working – he is slowly losing his stammer. Whether or not Logue is successful in helping Albert deliver a perfect speech, and how the friendship between the two characters develops forms the rest of the film.

Rush as Lionel Logue 

The first aspect of the film that makes it a success is the cast – Firth, Rush and Carter in the lead, with Guy Pearce and many others in smaller supporting roles. Firth has done an outstanding job – his facial expressions, the way he portrays his struggle to speak are very authentic. It is no surprise that he won the Oscar and BAFTA award for Best Actor for his performance. Then comes Geoffrey Rush, whose character more or less resembles that of Professor Henry Higgins. Though I feel that Rex Harrison did a better job there, I think that Rush gave an almost equally exceptional performance in the film.

Bonham Carter as Elizabeth

The story is slow to begin with, and there is no particular sequence that is interesting. As I said so before, the film resembles the storyline of My Fair Lady, and if you have watched that film, you know what to expect. But there are surprises, and Hooper and Seidler have also merged some history into the main theme as well, to make it more authentic. There are few instances of subtle humour, and few of the dialogues are also memorable. The settings, costumes and Desplat’s score (which I particularly liked) are also top-notch.

The King’s Speech is a film that succeeds because of its powerful, ensemble cast, powered by Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush. I think critics liked this film because it had a perfect mix of history, drama, class acting etc. But I felt the story to be a bit slow, and it didn’t meet my expectations (which were high, considering the fact that the film won 4 Oscars). Nevertheless: a good film, but not the best of 2010.

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

Erin Brockovich (2000)

Director: Steven Soderbergh
Story: Susannah Grant
Cast: Julia Roberts, Albert Finney, Aaron Eckhart 
Music: Thomas Newman
Time: 130 minutes
Bottom-line: A bravura performance by Julia Roberts

I wanted to see this film, mainly to get a taste of Steven Soderbergh, as many consider this to be one of his best films. But after seeing, the only thing that remains in my mind is the outstanding performance by Julia Roberts, who won the Academy Award for Best Actress for her performance in the film. The film is a biopic on the legal clerk, Erin Brockovich, who fought against the energy corporation PG&E. Albert Finney and Aaron Eckhart co-star.

1993 – Erin Brockovich (Roberts) is a single mother of three, whose explosive behaviour in a courtroom loses her a case. Feeling bad for Erin, her lawyer, Ed Masry (Finney) decides to give her employment in his office. She is given files regarding a real-estate case, where the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) has offered to buy a house in Hinkley, California. The owner’s family has suffered from a series of various diseases, and for some reason, PG&E has always paid for the medical expenses. When asked why, the own replies “because of the chromium”. As Erin researches further, she finds out that the waters of Hinkley are severely contaminated with hexavalent chromium, and none of the residents seems to be aware of it. How Erin manages to fight against the multi-billion dollar corporate to win the case forms the reminder of the film.

Julia Roberts as Erin

The story isn't the best aspect about the film... the pace is all right, but I felt it could have been told in a better manner. Soderbergh tries to focus equally on both the legal case and Erin’s personal problems, and at times, the track dealing with the latter aspect drags. I can’t comment on authenticity i.e. how accurately the film portrays the life of the real Erin Brockovich, as I had no idea of who she was until I saw the film. But the film gets really interesting only in the second half, when Erin puts in all her effort to somehow win the case.

Albert Finney as Ed Masry

The film would have almost been a useless one had anyone else other than Julia Roberts played the role of Erin. No one can beautifully portray so many emotions – the struggle of a single mother, the hard-work of a lawyer, the determination to win a case, and the hope and faith that she can defeat anyone, even a multi-billion dollar company. The scene where Erin recites all the details of one of the plaintiffs (indicating that she remembers all the details of all the plaintiffs by-heart!) is one of the best scenes in the film, for it shows how much of work Erin has done to win the case. This is truly one of the most powerful performances I have even seen, by an actress. Julia Roberts later won the Oscar, BAFTA and became the first actress to win the five major acting awards for a single performance. Albert Finney has also given a strong performance, and Aaron Eckhart does well.

Aaron Eckhart as George - Erin's boyfriend 

Steven Soderbergh’s Erin Brockovich is pretty much a one-woman show, but the director has done well to make the most of good acting and an okay-ish story into a good film. The acting is pretty much the only standout, but there’s nothing really bad about the film – a biopic about a person like Erin Brockovich can only be made this way. The film provides decent entertainment, but don’t expect too much.

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

Unforgiven (1992)

Director: Clint Eastwood
Story: David Webb Peoples
Cast: Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman
Music: Lennie Niehaus
Time: 136 minutes
Bottom-line: Superb work by Eastwood – in acting and direction

Clint Eastwood is arguably one of the most influential people in Hollywood history – in both acting and direction. This 1992 Western directed by him won him the Academy Award for Best Director and also Best Picture. Starring Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman in the lead roles, the film was an attempt by Eastwood to revive the Western genre. He dedicated the film to directors Sergio Leone and Don Seigel. Unforgiven could well be Eastwood’s best directorial work so far.

Big Whiskey, Wyoming – two cowboys cut up and disfigure a girl, and a reward of $1000 is offered to whoever can kill them. The sheriff, Little Bill Daggett (Hackman) lets go of the two cowboys without any punishment. Meanwhile, a young man, the Schofield Kid (Jaimz Woolvett) goes to the pig farm of William Munny (Eastwood), a repentant old man with two children, who used to be a notorious bandit and murderer years ago. The Kid asks Munny to help him in the mission of killing the two cowboys, telling him that the $500 reward can help him give a better life for his children. Munny reluctantly agrees, and also recruits his old friend, Ned Logan (Freeman) to assist him. Once they enter Big Whiskey, the trio get split up, and soon, each member undergoes life-changing experiences...

Eastwood as William Munny

The main reason Unforgiven succeeds as a Western is simply because, it is made like how a Western should be. Eastwood stuck to the traditional ideas of a Western, instead of modernising the genre. And though I generally like films which try to completely re-innovate a particular genre (which is what made me a fan of Christopher Nolan), I think that Unforgiven is most effective when filmed in this form. There is the wicked, cold-blooded villain, an old hero who used to be a skilled killer, and his friend, also extremely skilled when it comes to shooting. Of course, there is no surprise with the ending (like I said – no twists and turns, but a straightforward story...), but there are few scenes that caught my eye.

Hackman as Little Bill

The scene where Munny tries to revive his shooting skills by shooting a barrel, the scene where Daggett talks with his biographer, and the final clash between Munny and Daggett are few of the best scenes. Unlike what Tarantino did in Django Unchained (where the gunfight erupts from nowhere), Eastwood first builds the suspense, before the big gunfight. The fault with the storyline, I felt, was that there were unnecessary characters – the one of English Bob was useless (except for that one scene where Bill Daggett challenges him) and that of the biographer as well.

Freeman as Ned Logan

Clint Eastwood’s acting is excellent – I like the way he displays the transition of character: from an old man wanting to repent for his sins, to a man trying to regain his skills, and then back to the cold-blooded murderer he was. Just like how in almost every film, Rajinikanth tells some ‘punch dialogue’, here too, Eastwood has some catchy lines: when he faces Bill in the saloon, Munny says, “I've killed women and children. I've killed everything that walks or crawls at one time or another. And I'm here to kill you, Little Bill” (which pretty much summarises his character). And of course, Gene Hackman is outstanding as the villain, Little Bill Daggett. He portrays Daggett in the same way I imagined any classy villain in the Western genre. Morgan Freeman has only a small role, but he too delivers. The strong performances by the trio enhance the film to a great extent.

If you haven’t seen any film of this genre, Unforgiven is one of the best films to start with. Splendid acting, a good storyline (albeit it contained many extra characters), and importantly, sticking to the ‘traditional’ method of filming westerns rather than trying to modernise it are what make the film a success. The film could have been improved, by making it shorter and perhaps crisper, but the outcome is still stylish. Eastwood fan or not, watch the film if you are in the mood to try a different film, or rather, any good film for a change!

My Rating: 4/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 96%

Sherlock - TV Series (Season 1)

Creators: Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss
Written by: Steven Moffat, Mark Gatiss, Stephen Thompson (based on the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) 
Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman
Music: David Arnold, Michael Price
Time: 88 minutes (per episode)
Bottom-line: Spellbinding... as good as can get 

Though the title of my blog says ‘revisiting films’, I was so impressed by the TV Series Sherlock that I had to write my opinion about it. In fact, the main reason I am posting this review is because my blog turns 250 days old today. And the unexpected coincidence is that yesterday (July 7th) happened to be the birthday of the detective Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock is the contemporary adaptation of Sherlock Holmes, who is portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch. His friend Dr. John Watson is portrayed by Martin Freeman. Only eleven episodes, spanning three seasons, have come out so far, but the first season kicks off the series in sensational style!

The idea is the same: Sherlock Holmes is a ‘consulting detective’ (as he calls himself), who lives in 221B Baker Street. He is assisted in solving cases by his flatmate and friend, Dr. John Watson, who has returned home from Afghanistan. The cases use storylines of many of Conan Doyle’s short stories, and the episodes are also named accordingly. Holmes’ landlady, Mrs. Hudson, and brother, Mycroft Holmes (played by Mark Gatiss) are recurring characters. And of course, there is Holmes’ arch-nemesis, Jim Moriarty.

Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes

The first episode, A Study in Pink tells about how Watson and Holmes meet, and how Holmes solves a case regarding a serial killer. I liked this episode very much – especially the way Holmes and Watson were introduced. The story was solid, with many instances of comedy as well. The second episode, The Blind Banker is about Holmes solving a case related to serial killings, where each time, the killer leaves behind a cryptic message. This episode was a bit of a disappointment; the whole case seemed too complex, and somehow didn’t impress me as much as the other two episodes. The third and final episode of series one, The Great Game is the story in which Holmes is given a deadline for solving murder cases. The character of Jim Moriarty is revealed for the first time, and as the audience would expect, the series ends with a clash between arch rivals Holmes and Moriarty.

Martin Freeman as John Watson

Each episode has a high level of suspense, and the cases are well constructed. I really like the way the writers have brought the same atmosphere as the novels, even though the timelines are a century apart. Other things have also changed –Holmes now uses nicotine patches, and instead of telegrams, he sends text messages! But other than the writing, another person who has given a big boost to the series is Benedict Cumberbatch. His portrayal of Sherlock Holmes is absolutely amazing. And then there is Martin Freeman, who also has done really well as John Watson. This dynamic duo makes the series all the more entertaining.

So, though the series has only three episodes, each one comes with guaranteed quality in all aspects – story, acting and dialogues. The first episode was good, the third was superb (and the last ten minutes in it are electrifying), and the second episode was a slight disappointment. But overall, the series in an excellent achievement by the actors, writers, and the whole crew. Go for it, whether or not you know anything about Sherlock Holmes, and even if you are a purist... the result will be rewarding!

My Rating: 4.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 100%