“Arrival” Movie Review

I have been eagerly awaiting the release of “Arrival” for a while now, and the reason for that is Denis Villeneuve. Though I have only seen “Prisoners” and “Sicario” (which features one of the most suspenseful scenes I have seen in recent cinema), both movies are ample proof of Villeneuve’s mastery over his craft. And he does not disappoint with “Arrival”, which is arguably his most accomplished work yet. He manages to deliver a brilliant sci-fi movie experience, which doesn’t need mind numbing CGI and explosions to work – the movie challenges the audience’s intelligence rather than insulting it.

When alien spaceships arrive in twelve different locations around the world, one among them being Montana, the military commissions a team led by theoretical physicist Dr Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner) and expert linguist Dr Louise Banks to establish communication with the aliens and find out why they are here. The movie focuses on the efforts of Dr Louise and the team to find a way to communicate with the aliens and understand if they are peaceful or dangerous, even as the world looks at the situation with suspicion and hostility and tensions are high leading to civil unrest.

Despite its unhurried pace, “Arrival” never feels boring – I was completely engrossed in the proceedings from the get go. This is primarily because Villeneuve is so good with atmospherics, something he demonstrated in both “Prisoners” and “Sicario”. He creates a moody yet tense atmosphere, which complements the script and screenplay. In fact, I was so caught up in the movie that I was on the edge of the seat for pretty much the entire duration; despite the treatment being deliberate and detailed (I wouldn’t say slow). Special mention to the background score by Johann Johannsson, which plays a large part in asserting the tense mood (I was reminded of Sicario’s background score “The Beast”, which was also composed by him). I was also particularly impressed by the details in even some of the dialogues in the movie, which make so much sense once the story reaches its conclusion. I was not fully convinced with the editing, but it makes sense by the time the credits roll.

Like “Sicario”, the movie has a female protagonist whose character is very well fleshed out and has the viewer invested in her story. And like Emily Blunt, Amy Adams does full justice to the part. She delivers a deeply affecting performance, and really brings out the emotional aspect of this movie. She pretty much carries the movie, but is ably supported by the remaining cast.

After watching the movie, I found that it shared a lot of positives with Christopher Nolan’s “Interstellar”. Though hardly similar, both movies are sci-fi at its best, where the focus is not on dazzling effects but in the story and the heady themes and concepts it covers – but the visuals are also done well to give the viewer a sense of awe. Both movies also get the viewers talking and discussing the movie after watching it. But, more importantly; at the core, both are deeply emotional movies. And this works to the advantage of both movies.

For fans of intelligent cinema and/or sci-fi fans, “Arrival” is a must watch – this one may even end up becoming a sci-fi classic. Don’t miss it.

P.S. I’d love to discuss the movie and its themes (and especially the ending) with those who have seen it, so hit me up once you catch the movie. 

“Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them” Movie Review

Potheads of the world, rejoice (that is what Harry Potter fans are called, isn’t it? J). With Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them, the rich mythology of the series is tapped into to deliver a movie that lets the viewers relive the magic of the Harry Potter series, yet still manages to feel original and not a lazy exercise to print money.

The plot of the movie is quite complex – Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) is a wizard from London who arrives to New York City with a suitcase full of magical creatures, at a time when the wizard world is facing the threat of exposure and facing a lot of negative propaganda. Trouble ensues when the suitcase opens and the creatures are let loose into the city. Newt has to rescue these creatures with the help of a hapless No-Maj (muggle) Jacob Kowalski (a brilliant Dan Fogler), a witch FBI-ish agent Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterson) and her sister Queenie (Alison Sudol). In the middle of all of this is the mysterious Percival Graves (Colin Farrell), who seems to have a hidden agenda.

The movie touches upon themes that feel especially relevant to today’s day and age; but still manages to keep a tone that is light and breezy. It moves at breakneck speed, and there’s hardly a dull moment in its runtime. J.K. Rowling’s writing is jam packed with content, and there is honestly a lot to process here. 

This, funnily enough, is also the problem with the movie. There is so much happening with the characters in the movie that there is hardly any screen time for the titular fantastic beasts. This feeling is accentuated because the scenes with the creatures are beautifully executed – the scene where Newt and Kowalski visit the creatures for the first time in particular gives the viewer a feeling of childlike wonder and awe – it helps that it is visually stunning and the 3D is amazing. It actually made me wish there was a little less plot and more time spent on such scenes.  

The acting is really good, but none of the characters are really endearing and leave an impression – with the exception of Jacob Kowalski. You’re invested in the character from the first scene he is introduced, thanks in no small part to the portrayal by Dan Fogler. The major disappointment was the woefully underwritten character of Percival Graves.

On the whole, of course, the movie has a lot going for it – the box office numbers speak for itself. There’s lots on offer here, thanks to the strong script and excellent execution helmed by David Yates, no stranger to the Potter franchise. But, all things aside, the movie definitely entertains, and is a good movie experience for Potheads and non-fans alike. The commendable thing here is that the movie is able to stand on its own two feet and the promise of a successful new franchise is there. This is a great example of a spinoff done right. 

"Doctor Strange" Movie Review

Even the most ardent fan of DC Comics will have to admit that Marvel is doing a great job with the movie adaptation of its comics. They are able to translate their comics to the big screen in a seamless fashion, satisfying both regular movie goers and comic book enthusiasts. And their perfect casting is almost uncanny. What is even more interesting now is that they have started breaking (or atleast bending) the unwritten rules by bringing in game changers like the R-rated Deadpool and now Doctor Strange. By bringing in the occult aspect to what has essentially been a ‘grounded in reality’ world of superheroes, Marvel has opened up a world of possibilities and delivered a truly fresh (and trippy) cinematic experience. Watch out DC – I don’t think your current by-the-book approach is going to cut it.

Like every other superhero, Doctor Strange’s first movie deals with his origin story. Brilliant but arrogant neurosurgeon Dr. Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) loses the use of his hands after a car accident (never use the phone while driving – worth appreciating that Marvel even puts it in their end credits). Unable to find a cure in Western medicine, he travels to Nepal on hearing about Kamar-Taj – a mysterious enclave where he meets a group of sorcerers led by the enigmatic ‘Ancient One’ (Tilda Swinton, another perfect casting). What follows is Strange’s education of the mystic arts, and his reluctant journey to become a protector of the world.

Marvel does a by-the-numbers origin story for Doctor Strange as well, but what is exciting and refreshing is that the studio has embraced the mumbo-jumbo aspects of the source material rather than shying away from it – this results in some very ambitious and visually stunning scenes, which felt like Inception on LSD. The sheer spectacle of it makes for a truly special cinematic experience, something that has been lacking in other movies in the MCU.

The movie also benefits from Marvel’s irreverent attitude and tongue-in-cheek humour, and the movie is peppered with witty one-liners and even some laugh out loud moments. The movie continues the tradition of not taking itself too seriously, and really benefits from it. Add to that the cast who fit their roles perfectly, and you have another winner.

But the movie isn’t without its flaws – most of the characters aren’t well fleshed out, and this is most evident in the main antagonist. Barring Loki, Marvel has not been able to produce a villain who can leave an impact. Also, a lot of the movie’s highlights come from the fact that it is different in its source material, opening up new opportunities – we will have to see how they can keep it going for the sequel once the novelty is gone. In fact, given that he will be in Avengers – Infinity War, it’ll be interesting to see the character dynamics in play.

That being said, this is a definite winner for Marvel – I would go so far as to say that it is probably another defining moment in superhero movies. Definitely watch this one in the theatre (something I wouldn’t have said for any other Marvel movie). In fact, I’m waiting for the movie to come back in I‑Max to experience the brilliant action scenes. 

“Don’t Breathe” movie review

It’s very exciting to see a movie with a simple plot that works amazingly well because it executes its premise so well, extracting every bit of possibility from the story. “Don’t Breathe” is a great example of such a movie. Everything works here to ensure that you’re literally holding your breath for the most part of the movie.

Three thieves decide to rob an old, blind war veteran living alone in a remote part of town. But it doesn’t turn out to be the walk in the park they expected, as the old man is dangerous and quickly turns the tables on the intruders. What follows is a tense cat and mouse game which refuses to let up. Nothing is what it seems, and there are enough twists and turns here to keep you at the edge of your seat. To give away anything more would be a crime.

The movie gets into the thick of things from the get-go, and doesn’t let up for the entire duration. The screenplay does a good job of building up tension and giving enough shocks and twists to keep the viewers engaged. Despite not spending much time on character development, each character’s personalities and motivations come through as the events unfold.

The major strength of the movie is how it shocks the viewer into paying attention, and quickly gets them invested in the movie’s proceedings. The fact that it doesn’t let up and continues to build tension for pretty much the entire movie (maybe just a little bit towards the end, but I’m nitpicking here) is another key USP. It’s refreshing to see a good suspenseful movie that doesn’t have to rely to gimmicks to make things work, but instead makes simplicity its most potent weapon.

Fede Alvarez is definitely announcing himself as a very capable horror/thriller writer and director. Backed by some able performances and a good crew, he delivers a winner here. Definitely one of the picks for this year – don’t miss it.

“Pete’s Dragon” movie review

Disney’s recent wave of making live action versions of many of its animated classics seems to be working well for them – the brilliant “The Jungle Book” was a highlight of this year. And now they seem to have another success with “Pete’s Dragon” which, though not as dazzling as “The Jungle Book”, hits the right note.

A young Pete is traveling with his parents when they have an accident – his parents die as the vehicle they’re in crashes in the jungle and Pete is protected by a dragon who is hiding there. Six years later, Pete (Oakes Fegley) and the dragon (whom he has named Elliott) are inseparable. When a lumberjack crew start cutting down their forest, Pete befriends Natalie (Oona Laurence), who is the foreman’s daughter; and is taken to the city by a kind ranger Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard). Trouble ensues when Gavin (Karl Urban), a member of the crew, spots Elliott. As Pete connects with the family that has taken him, Gavin and his crew are trying to capture Elliott.

The main positive of Pete’s Dragon is the simplicity of its story telling. At a time when CGI is overused and movies are filled with excessive visuals and action sequences that assault and overload our senses, it’s a refreshing change of pace for a movie to focus on the story and relationships and let the showy CGI take a backseat. The movie is almost serene in its pacing. The relationship between Pete and Elliott, and the subsequent relationships between the human characters, is developed nicely. It also helps that there are some very capable actors who deliver solid, understated performances.

That isn’t to say that the CGI and special effects are unimpressive. The choice to have the dragon more like a puppy than as the vicious looking creatures we have come to expect after being exposed to Smaug and the dragons from “Game of Thrones” is actually a very bold one, and it works well. The action scenes towards the end of the movie are also done well.

The movie touches upon themes like friendship, family, the importance of believing, and even topics like deforestation, animal endangerment and how our prejudices make us do the wrong things. But ultimately, it’s about the warm fuzzy feeling you get when you watch a movie that just makes you smile. The movie may not be for everyone – though the kids will love it, many adults are sure to get impatient watching it. For me though, the movie works. After a long day, this is just the kind of movie to soothe your nerves – and that is a win for me.

Why “Kabali” didn’t work for me – A Movie Analysis

Two disclaimers before I begin – one, spoilers ahead. So if you haven’t watched the movie, come back once you do. Two, I am not one of those Rajini haters, who try to poke holes at anything he does. On the contrary, I enjoy his core movies like ‘Padayappa’ and ‘Sivaji the Boss’. That being said, I am not in the league of his super fans who feel everything he touches is sacred. Which probably puts me in a place where I can objectively look at his movies.

I went to watch Kabali on the first day with high expectations – the promos of the movie were fantastic (in fact, the entire marketing campaign was worthy of a Rajini movie), ‘Neruppu da’ was all the rage (still is, actually) and the general vibe was very positive after the past few disappointing outings. And, to put it bluntly, the movie disappointed. It isn’t only that the movie didn’t meet lofty expectations; it was not a good movie. Sure, there are some elements that worked. But on the whole, the movie didn’t.

So let’s do a deep dive. For starters, this movie should prove beyond a shadow of doubt to all the haters that Rajini has still got it. His charisma and screen presence are unparalleled, and the first ten minutes of the movie do a great job in showcasing it. However, after that, the movie steadily goes downhill. The movie tries to juggle multiple plot points –how Kabali must ward off threads from the rival gangs, how the charity set up by his associates helps Tamil youths, and the mystery of who killed his wife. The last plot point felt the weakest, and unfortunately here that the screenplay focuses on the most. Honestly, if the film was made as a murder mystery which our hero was working to solve, it may have turned out ok. But in the lottery of the multiple threads, it looks like the weakest one was picked. Had they focused on the gang war (which was what the trailer seemed to promise) or even on his efforts to rehabilitate the young ‘uns, we could have been looking at a real winner.

I want to look a little closely at each of the plot points. Let’s start with the most important one – the one with Kabali’s wife. There have been many movies which have taken this same premise and done amazing things with it (it isn’t fair to bring it up, but remember ‘Memento’?). So what goes wrong here? Well, for one, it doesn’t do anything new with this idea. Kabali meets a gangster, who after some “convincing”, points him to another gangster. The other guy points to a third guy. And so on and so forth. There is no real value add in these scenes, and it really doesn’t advance the plot. Once he meets the guy who reveals the key twist, and Kabali’s daughter is introduced, they could have dropped this one. But no. Post interval, the daughter reveals that Kabali’s wife is alive – and this sequence again has an information grapevine that runs through four or five people (which again is completely unnecessary). So do we get our family reunion in the next scene or two, giving sufficient time for the other plot threads to pick up? Of course not. In what seems to be done purely for product placement reasons, we have a wild goose chase that takes us to Chennai (we only get to see the inside of Le Meridien Hotel and some old guy’s mansion) and then Pondicherry where again after some ten minutes of screentime being wasted, we get to see the reunion between Kabali and his wife. This scene is specifically done to show the acting chops of Radhika Apte and Rajini – and it succeeds. But if this had been done without the whole in-between stuff of getting from Malaysia to Pondicherry, wouldn’t it have had the same impact? If the film makers felt that this would build up some emotional gravitas or suspense or whatever, it didn’t. It felt like a Super Mario video game where at each level some you get the irritating message “The princess is in another castle” – without any of the exhilaration when you eventually succeed. Even the action scene at Auroville after all this feels forced – much like the handshake between Kabali’s daughter and the helpful sidey character. I mean seriously, who shakes hands in the middle of an escape from a gun battle??

There are some positives here too. I felt the scenes where he remembers his wife were done very cleverly (she remains young while he is old), which is promising as it feels indicative of a transition phase for Rajini – the director boldly avoids a duet or a dance number with the heroine, which keeps the maturity of our hero’s character intact. Even the flashback scenes are handled well, and the interactions between hero and heroine are minimal and dignified – which actually adds more to the chemistry. But, even though I’m a fan of Radhika Apte, in all honesty, wouldn’t it have just been better to have her die and give Rajini an emotional scene mourning his wife’s death? And for Radhika Apte, give a few powerful flashback scenes and a good death scene? Or atleast get to the point sooner? It’s not like she’s even present for most of the time. At the end of it all, did this even serve a purpose?

Now let’s look at Kabali’s foundation for endangered youth. Of course, as with every other Rajini movie, Kabali is a do-gooder and contributes to society. His foundation is meant to protect Tamil youth from the ills of drug addiction and gang violence. The drug addict girl is just used to force the point of the impact of drugs, but I found it too much with the hammy acting and the very excessive effort to tug at the viewers’ heartstrings. The main reasons for having this charity were to show his heart of gold, to give a circumstance to narrate the flashback and to get the bad guys to trash the place to instigate him. And the use of the guy who plays with his cap to add a ‘cliffhanger’ ending is so weak and rushed, it’s laughable. And of course, this entire thread is not really justified by the screenplay.

The gang war thread had the most promise; and some real talented actors as well. Winston Chao is charismatic and is really a worthy antagonist. There are also good performances from Kishore and John Vijay. I was kinda put off by Dinesh’s performance – I think they tried to add a humour element which didn’t really work. Neither was I impressed by Kalaiyarasan, who has a meaty role. But the problems don’t end there. For one thing, there’s way too less time spent on this sub-plot – so none of the characters are developed. It’s a crime that Winston Chao gets so less screen time. Moving on, the plot seems a bit Godfather-esque. Kabali doesn’t want drugs sold and other immoral activities done, and this causes other gangs to fight back as it is eating into their revenues. Not to mention they sent Kabali to prison and killed his wife. The gang war thread hurriedly picks up post the family reunion to form the climax where Kabali eliminates all his enemies.

One of the major problems was the lack of character development. A really good death scene felt wasted on Dinesh’s character, because there was no sense of dread that a major character who the audience feels for is in mortal danger and is about to die a gruesome death. Even Tony Lee and Veera, who are the primary antagonists, are hardly fleshed out. It’s more the talent of the actors that gives us compelling villains. I’m not even going near the plot holes because that’s expected (but seriously, even a local nightclub restricts entry better than their gangster convention/birthday celebration).

Another thing I have to mention is the whole punch dialogue about Kabali fighting Tony Lee to show that Tamilians are also equal or even superior to anyone, though amazing and cheer inducing, feels like an after-thought and doesn’t ring true. Probably because Tony Lee’s actions don’t justify this criticism. He has a Tamilian as his right-hand man and confidante, he killed Nassar’s character purely for business reasons; he even pays his respects to his dead Tamil henchman by gracefully merging both Tamil traditions and his own showing his respect for both cultures (how many mob bosses pay their respects to a two bit henchman, really??). One may argue that he destroys Tamil youth by selling them drugs, but I don’t think he makes a conscious business decision to sell drugs only to Tamil youth – everyone is affected. He just makes a small mention in a dialogue – that’s it. We all talk all kinds of shit in a tense situation.

But jokes aside, the entire climax seems to come in a hurry and didn’t make audiences feel invested. I think many people were just asking to get on with it and finish already. What should have been the crux of the movie seems like it was just tacked on as an accessory.

It would be remiss of me not to mention some of the things that impressed me about the movie. Like many Rajinikanth movies, Kabali has strong female characters. Dhansika’s character would have traditionally been a man’s, but it’s a great sign that a female actress is given an action heavy role. Kabali’s wife is also shown as a strong woman who gives sound advice and makes him the man he is. A lot of the supporting cast shines – of course it’s hard to give a lot of screen time to others in a Rajini movie. Most importantly, I think this could be a turning point for Rajini where roles will be tailor made to suit an ageing look and showcase acting chops, something like what happened with Amitabh Bachchan. This movie proves he can pull it off, and is in fact even better this way.

At the end of the day, Rajini managed to pull the movie like only he can. But Kabali was a let-down. You know it’s a problem when the whistles and shouts during a Rajini movie die down ten minutes in. And it’s bad for any movie when people start shuffling impatiently and looking at their watches when the end is some time away. Like the movie’s poster, it felt like Rajini was being dragged down by the snail-paced screenplay and lazy script. Which is a shame, as this was a product full of potential. But eventually, the movie was not worthy of the actor. 

"Jason Bourne" movie review

The feeling that stuck with me throughout “Jason Bourne” was one of déjà vu. Sure, the film has the return of Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon to the series, after the disappointing run of “The Bourne Legacy”. And that’s great. But it all seems too familiar and formulaic, and that removes all the tension in what should have been a tense spy thriller.

All the usual tropes are there –a reluctant Jason Bourne, who is living in hiding trying to lead something of a regular life, is pulled into the world of espionage. So now Bourne has to follow clues and go around the world trying to fill in the blanks. A sincere CIA operative is leading the operation to capture Bourne, while her superior, who has some shady background stuff going on, is trying to get rid of him. The superior has his own ‘asset’ whom he is using to get rid of Bourne, who uses every dirty trick in the book to get him. Throw in a lot of chases and a mind blowing car chase for the climax which ends up devastating the traffic scene. And of course, Bourne exposes the CIA honcho and his operation. Sound familiar? Yep, any other Bourne movie (maybe not the first one).

Taken on its own, the movie isn’t all bad. Matt Damon reprises the role that he can probably play in his sleep now, and does a great job. The shaky cam is back, which may not be good news for everyone. The movie continues in the tradition of great action, though I think “The Bourne Ultimatum” was where the franchise hit its high. The final car chase in Las Vegas deserves a special mention – they definitely raised the stakes on this one.

There are a few flaws here. The plot is quite thin and seems overly simplistic at times. The inclusion of Tommy Lee Jones and Alicia Vikander doesn’t add to the movie – they are stuck with roles which seem to be a rehash of earlier characters. The biggest problem though is that the movie doesn’t have anything new to offer. It seems to be faithfully replicating what has been a successful recipe and hence doesn’t deliver any thrills or twists, which is a problem since that is exactly what the movie needs.

Don’t fix something that isn’t broken seems to be the mantra that they have followed on this movie. And though that may work in some cases, that isn’t the case here. Despite quite a few positives, the predictability is enough to make this a slog. It felt like a scene by scene recreation of any of its predecessors, and doesn’t add anything to the franchise. And that’s a shame.