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%

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%

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