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%

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%