"The Post" (English)

In the twilight years of his career, director Steven Spielberg has been trying to tell different stories in different genres. The latest film "The Post" is quite an exciting story - the story of how rival newspapers tried to pip each other to the post (pun unintended) in publishing "The Pentagon Papers" (the papers which reveal damning confessions about how the American public in particular and the world at large was led to believe that the Vietnam war holocaust was fought without a cause. Playing the key roles in this episode is Meryl Streep as the legendary Katherine Graham, publisher and owner, The Washington Post and Ben Bradlee, the famous editor, The Washington Post. In approximately 115 minutes, Spielberg gives a riveting account of those episodic moments in his typical fluent but linear style of story-telling, though following the same drumbeat routine - a prologue of a war where an element of reporting takes out a chunky box of classified information by subterfuge and the narrative afterwards as to how two of America's most vibrant newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post trying to assert each other's snoopy adventures get to the finishing tape by reaching the source. And finally, the brilliant climax where a celebration of the Freedom of the Press ushers in with a dramatic Supreme Court verdict and a lot of maudlin moments for Kat Graham and Ben Bradlee.

On the whole, the movie is absorbing with all the details that Spielberg narratives reconstruct - the excitement of how newspapers worked in the times when nobody else , not even the Television was breaking news by the minute and mobiles and internet were unthinkable and the humongous pressures that newspaper editors and publishers went through during the worst Presidency years that American media has ever seen. The good part is the vividness and the emotionalities retained without too much fussing, aided by persuasive and nuanced performances by Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks. Music by Speilberg's favorite composer John Williams is piercing yet non-invasive - the director and the music composer have shared so many lifetime's work between each other that they don't need to make an effort to fall in sync with each other - once again proved by the output of BGM in the film. The ending is a bit dramatic and formulaic with self-congratulatory glances exchanged by the two protagonists- Streep and Hanks as if they have done iconic expose. All they did was to publish papers and re-interpret history of several presidencies before and during Nixon's tenure  as to the true motives of the Vietnam's war. Spielberg's strengths have been in story-telling but his weaknesses are in ignoring the larger pictures that emerged later on giving some post-script insights.

For instance, more than 3.5 million people were killed in the Vietnam war and over 58,000 American soldiers died during the war leading to devastating economic consequences. No cursory mention of the same is made except just dramatizing the efforts to reach custody of the secret papers. Do those who followed the  war know that those war years are what changed the economic landscape of the world forever- Nixon was forced to abandon the Gold Standard as the dollar took a beating and hyperinflation rose? There were two books written by the protagonists - "Katherine Graham: A Personal History" and "Yours in Truth: A personal portrait of Ben Bradlee" which give exquisite insights into the effects of the War and the fallout on the American economy as well as on the Foreign policy (of which nothing has changed). This being a limited excursion into the adventurist spirit of a noted American publisher, Spielberg can be excused lapses of interpreting the larger unintended consequences of historical blunders but in my view, it is a golden opportunity missed by the director in enhancing the reportage value of the narrative. Was "Platoon" a better film than this on the Vietnam War? Unfair because the anecdotes depicted are totally different but just a food for thought whether Spielberg has the objectivity of an Oliver Sone in re-imagining political potboilers. What we can take home from the film is the general depreciation in values of Press Freedom and an unhealthy uptrend in generating "fake news" and whataboutery. Two golden lines from the film will resonate with everybody who values press as the fourth estate to keep an eternal vigil on democracy: "The principal duty of the press is to safeguard the interests of the governed, not the governors". And "The only way to assert the right to publish is to publish it." A good film to watch if you care about   some of these lofty ideals which are becoming rarer than rare-earth metals. Spielberg could have also used a narrative to mention the episodes which later led Warren Buffett to bite into the shareholding of The Post and later, much later, how Jeff Bezos took hold of the venerable newspaper just as it was about to fold up.

My rating: 3/5

#ThePost #StevenSpielberg #JohnWilliams #TomHanks #MerylStreep #TheWashingtonPost #Amazon #WarrenBuffett #VietnamWar #PentagonPapers

Batman Vs Superman

My review:

https://www.telugu360.com/batman-vs-superman-much-ado-nothing/

"Focus" (English) Movie Review

The plot starts with the beautiful Margot Robbie getting trained by ace conman Wil Smith as a hooker who can pick pockets. Margot soon realises Wil Smith is not just the best conman or pick-up artiste in town but also the smoothest operator whose game sucks the wildest wits out of anybody. From running an empire of slick and artful pick-pockets who take the most prized possessions however skin-tightly worn, Margot Robbie is ensnared into the world of Wil Smith and his proteges all of whom interned in the art of subtle influence and subterfuge. The apprentice that Margot is, she falls into the honey trap laid out by Wil Smith as she falls in love with him. The feelings get mutual before Wil dumps her at New Orleans. Wil Smith's masterly art of deception plays out in the second half with a man who bets big on race cars but his self-forsaken love returns as an important lady in the overall scheme of things. Will will become Old Wily? Can he prime the pump yet again? Can he win it bigger than the last time he separated a Chinese millionaire off his millions  when betting changed from a superbowl game to predicting a section of the audience watching the game? 

As an action genre film enmeshed with a wacky plot of second-guessing and some maudlin Bollywood-style romance, "Focus" packs a punch in most of the 116 minutes with some good thrills of watching a trained persuader who makes gainful usage of everything that evolved influence into a science. Wil Smith is the self-trained Pro who uses subliminal subconscious programming, NLP, emotional "Atyachar" and ancient techniques of deception, auto-suggestions and reframing. The film seems predictable at times but surprises you on more than a couple of occasions in creating engima about what the schemer is out to achieve - you sometimes get tricked into believing that the memes are muted but the director gets you now, and lets you have your guess another time. The plot is a simple three-act story - romance, two episodes that get the hero's focus on parting fools of their monies, one of them at interval block and the other in the climax - and narrates itself easy. Though a notch below the stuff Wil Smith brings to the table, "Focus" brings old-fashioned tell-tale kind of screenplays back into focus. To appeal better with a story that can't be dumbed down for the discerning audience who love intelligent cinema, the film gives spectacular footage to Margot Robbie as the muse who moves the cheese for Wil Smith - they got some of the hottest scenes together on the same lines as "The Wolff of Wall Street" stuff that gets it an A-rating but the fun is not vulgar as in the former. While Margot looks stunning and adds much spice and substance to her role, Wil Smith takes backstage with a sloppy makeup and a terrible look - he seems to have pumped too much iron in the last few movies so looks tired. Hasn't lost his sense of humor and winky looks though. 

The film is shot in India, Russia, Japan, Argentina and of course parts of America and Europe. Watching the film however gets you a quaint feeling that directors in Bollywood, Tollywood or Kollywood are going to remake this interesting film into more dumbed-down version with massive doses of Masala. It has all the ingredients to make enough song and dance about it in Indian films. Though not compulsively engrossing, the opening sequence, interval block and the climax make it all worth it. 

Rating: 3.25/5

#Focus #WilSmith #MargotRobbie #Hollywood #MovieReviews

"The Theory of Everything" (English) Movie Review

A biopic on the life and times of Stephen Hawking is a baffling attempt by any stretch. The man wearing an out-of-shape pair of spectacles with a withdrawn gaze dripping saliva even if in a state-of-the-art wheel chair and communicating something just by blinking his eyes is a familiar visual to people around the world. What can his life offer? How interesting has it been? What are the most thrilling moments, his saddest and happiest days and what were the high-points of his remarkable life? What made him pulsate to live life as if nothing changed after the doctors gave him just two years to live? What is egging him on for so many years that even at age 72, after presenting scientific papers and authoring a book that sold over a 10 million copies "A Brief History of Time", he still wants to push himself to write that one theory that strings everything together on how the universe came to being? Universal studios brings another authentic replay of a life that is still inspiring millions to throb to liveliness instead of resigning to fate and wimping out like a vegetable.

"The Theory of Everything" takes us through a recount of Stephen Hawking's life as written by his wife Jane Hawling in her autobiography of her ex-husband - now separated after three children. Directed by James Marsh with an exceptional screenplay that uses the narrative befitting a film with scientific theories and expositions, the leading pair is played with vividness and intensity that stuns you. Eddie Redmayne plays Stephen Hawking and Felicity Jones plays the first love and better half of Stephen. Unlike most films of this genre which bamboozle you with intellectual largesse and concepts that leave you dazed, the film sprinkles the essence of the science and cosmology that grew in Hawking's mind since he set foot in Cambridge with an arresting humility and then builds the romance between Stephen and Jane majestically - making it as evocative and beautiful as films like "A Beautiful Mind" or "Mr Holland's Opus". There are distractions, but by admission, honest admissions as the romance goes into unchartered territories for both the Hawkings towards the second half but the controls vest with the screenplay writer and the director throughout in the 123 minute visual. You don't get bored even once.

Irrespective of whether you regard Hawking as a scientist or not, his resilience and approach to cosmology have provoked people into investigating the unknowns of the universe, be it black holes, string theory or the debate between Quantum theory and the theory of Relativity and of course, space-time singularity. God has been extremely kind to this man who was given not more than two years to live when attacked by pneumonia - and his wife had two choices - either let Stephen lapse into coma forever or let the doctor drill a hole in the neck bypassing the throat that will silence him forever. She chose life over coma. From that point, Stephen experiences unsurpassed love and affection from his wife, his parents, his esteemed colleagues who enthused him to greatness. He coudn't utter a word but gives his denouements on the universe through a voice synthesizer specially designed for him. Eventually, his famous companion leaves him but he feels her around just as his theory on black holes. In 1974, a big blackhole called Sagittarius A-Star was discovered and the same year, Stephen combined everything we knew about black holes with what we knew about quantum theory - and proposed the surprising truth that black holes that suck light and energy have to evaporate away to nothing because they shrink and shrink. In a way, the film's climactic scene brilliantly captures the essence of quantum theory and the proposition made by Hawking. Someone asks if he believes in God. Hawking looks at the girl in the front row who drops her pen on the floor. You see the pen but what if the floor is not there any more - a plausible event in a quantum world - and the visuals cross his mind as if he walks out of his deathly chair to lift the pen from the floor. Actually, he does nothing of that sort,  he remains seated on the chair. And then he answers with effect of words that mean as if the universe is created without boundaries unlike what we knew before as bounded world - and this can only be the work of some creator we can't seem to know.

On the whole, "The Theory of Everything" leaves you with a trance-like experience and tickles your imagination with lines that ask the right questions in physics with relevance in space and time - the two dimensions where searchlights are still on and cosmologists like Stephen Hawking are grappling with linkages to the Big Bang theory. Despite such heavy content, the film's creatives ensured the simplest language and analogies like potato and peas to explain the divergence between Quantum theory and Relativity. The film's heart of the matter, however is the many-layered romance and the friendships that endured Hawking to live a meaningful life. According to a recent cover story in Outlook magazine, Hollywood has made outstanding films based on  93 out of the 100  best-selling books of all time. This film is another feather in that direction. What else can we do but applaud and salute a film that receives eight Oscar nominations. Watch out also for John Jahnson's music score - evokes emotions out of everywhere. Hawking would raise a toast to the director and Eddie Redmayne for playing it so truer with a boisterous blink of an eye.

The Best and Worst of My Film Reviews in 2014: A Report Card

Films Reviews rarely get rated. Even on million dollar websites and sensational TV Channels, you hardly find eggs and rotten tomatoes on a reviewer's record of the year. I have no such luxury. But I aspire in that direction. I take my reviewing seriously. When I watch a film, I look for entertainment not intelligence. I judge if the film is watchable or not. I decide if the film is a good example for family audiences. I rate it on aesthetics, refinedness, creativity, acceptability and above all, sustainability of run at the box office. And then I rate it  as honestly  and objectively as I can  - on calibrations of 0.25 on a scale of 1 to 5. If it is average, a rating has to cross 2.5. If it crosses the average rating, it has to be decently good film to touch 3 and beyond. It is really good film if it crosses 3.5; it means it is a paisa vasool. It has to be a crappy film if it doesn't even make it to 2. Then all my ratings are relatively ratable - means if you put two movies with 2.75 each, then the movie rated 3 has to be really better than 2.75 to get the rating it got. This rating business is not to my liking but it became a feature of my reviews on feedback from friends on social media who find it useful in navigating the labrynth of analysis I inflict on readers. So this year, I am giving all of you a report card of the movie reviews I have done for releases in 2014. Thirty two films have been reviewed this year as of 30th December and I have put all my ratings against them - usually reviewed within 48-72 hours of the film's release. As I see, there are some famous misses like "Race Gurram" which went on to collect over Rs.50 crs. But if there is one metric on which I like to be judged vis-a-vis others, it is consistency, dear reader. Most movies rated 3 and above have been top grossers. Movies like "BangBang", "Kick" and even "PK" have all crossed Rs.250 crores or beyond and they were rated 3.5 by me. If there are any misses, I own up to all of them. If there have been bang-on or consistent, it raises my enthusiasm to more responsible levels. As always, love your feedback and more essentially, the brickbats. Please remember, however, that films are quite personal in the way our minds process them. It is not necessary we need to agree. And there is never one way to view them or review them. Even if I take my films seriously, you needn't take the reviews, least of all mine, seriously. If the crowds vote on a film with their feet one way or the other, sometimes it is a good idea to junk all reviews and go for a film, or not, whichever applies. Happy Viewing and Happy Year ahead. Yours humbly.

Films Reviewed in 2014 and their respective ratings.

=======================================

Yevadu (Telugu) - 3.25/5

The Wolf of Wall Street (English) - 2/5

1-Nenokkadine (Telugu) - 2/5

Highway (Hindi) - 3.75/5

Aaha Kalyanam (Telugu) - 2.5/5

Legend (Telugu) - 3/5

Pratinidhi (Telugu)- 3/5

Paisaa (Telugu) - 2/5

2 States (Hindi)- 3.75/5

Race Gurram (Telugu)- 2/5

Rowdy (Telugu) - 3/5

Kochadiyaan (Tamil)/Vikramasimha (Telugu) - 2/5

Anamika (Telugu/Tamil)- 3.5/5

Manam (Telugu)- 3.5/5

Ulavacharu Biryani (Telugu) - 3.25/5

Kick (Hindi) - 3.5/5

Drushyam (Telugu)- 3/5

Bobby Jasoos (Hindi) - 3.25/5

Anjaan/Sikindar (Tamil/Telugu)- 2.25/5

Run Raja Run (Telugu)- 4/5

Aagadu (Telugu) - 2.75/5

Anna Belle - 2.7

Karthikeya - 2.5/5

Loukyam (Telugu) - 3/5

BangBang - 3.5/5

Govindudu Andarivaadele - 2.5/5

Brother of Bommali - 2.75/5

Linga (Tamil/Telugu) - 1.5/5

PK (Hindi) - 3.5/5

Mukunda (Telugu) - 3.5/5

Ugly (Hindi) - 3/5

Night At The Museum part three - 4/5

#MovieReviews #FilmReviews #MovieRatings #Ratings #Hollywood #Bollywood #Tollywood #Kollywood #IndianFilms 

"Night At The Museum 3: The Secret of the Tomb" (English Movie Review)

A good franchise is never unwelcome in any Hollywood Studio because it can give huge present value as well as potential for undiscounted cash flows. 20th Century Fox films found yet another franchise which came out of the most innocuous ideas - what happens when the museum exhibits, all historical figures, come to life when the door is bolted? The prospects of seeing a gamut of characters from history dance to life is not only preposturous but also adventurous. The first part of "Night At The Museum" established just that - Attila the Hun, Theodore Roosevelt, Jedediah, Ivan the Terrible, Genghis Khan, Stalin etc under the nightly supervision of Hollywood's most reputed poker-faced comedian Ben Stiller playing Larry Daley, the night watchman. The second part married yet another museum of Natural History in the US and brought back some plot of Egyptian history wedded to the legacy of Abraham Lincoln playing savior to many historical figures held hostage. The third part now takes the franchise to the other side of the Atlantic - the British Museum. 

The story exactly begins where the second part left off - the tourists are being treated to a sumptuous feast of nightly coming-to-life of all the museum replicas under the orchestration of Ben Stiller. But oops, the jaws drop as the characters suddenly wobble in their rhythms and dance to life. Even as pandemonium breaks with the museum figures running pell-mell, a little investigation reveals the tablet of Ahkmenrah brought from the expedition of 1938 is losing it's magical powers that keep the exhibits lively at night. Ben Stiller is sent to the British Museum on the personal liability of the outgoing director of the Museum at New York. His brief: to seek help from the parents of Ahkmenrah how the tablet can regain its powers. This is because the statues of the Pharoah and his queen were shipped to the British Museum by mistake. This brings a new series of adventures  - the volcanic eruptions of Pompeii, the legend of Sir Lancelot and the consequences are entirely unintended as it happened in all the Night series. It's a fitting romp through the legend of the King Arthur and many other gems from British history. In 99 minutes, you couldn't have asked for more fare from history even if there are blemishes galore that will send more headaches up the British Museum in terms of enquiries of why some items are missing. Or things like the Pompeii were misrepresented in the film. All in all, a hilarious film with Ben Stiller's sharp comedy back in action and one hell of a swan song for the legendary Robin Williams. Kids will love this anyways but the way history dances to life in the Night of the Museum series is always a good way to learn it even for adults.

My Rating: 4/5

And the Oscar doesn't go to...

And the Oscar doesn't go to...

So even the Oscars couldn't defy "Gravity" its anti-gravity moment. The mexican director would have lived out his space in  trance as his film bagged seven oscars out of ten. Predictable? Not so much. Or maybe. Because over the years, the awards have a degree of giving out max to those films which generate the maximum adulation from the global audience. This could be because the Hollywood Studios and their gargantuan think-tanks are hitting  a dry run when it comes to big markets like China, HongKong, India, and the MiddleEast where cultural dissimilarities are making their films come a cropper. "Gravity" collected Rs.62 crores in Indian theatres despite the hoopla. "Dookudu" and "Gabbar Singh" generated a higher RoI than that film.

On that count, you can see why films like "Slumdog Millionaire" and "Gravity" sweep the awards even if with  diluted standards and dumbing down of English for the global audience. It is like a Miss World contest or Miss Universe contest - Hollywood which represents the apogee of American Culture wants  and crowns film-makers who strike gold with more eyeballs rather than film-makers who are altruistic (Oliver Stone), brazenly American (Martin Sorcerese), uncompromising (Steven Spielberg) or self-obsessed and controversial (Woody Allen).

 If the trend continues, 20 years down the lane, I think there will be more foreign language films competing for the Oscars or film-makers with the American sensibilities but a global pulse like Eduardo. That leaves the Indians with a terrific opportunity - don't make films for the Oscars, try to beat them in sensibilities and cultural opulence and larger-than-life sliceness. One day, with SFX a "Bahubali" or a "Hanuman" or a "Mahabharat" will gross as much as a Spidey or a Batman. Americans have killed more film industries since the 1920s by their clinical imperialism of the culture of Americana which has a distinct closeness with most Western cultures except the Koreans, the Chinese and the Indians. Watching the Oscars this time became more boring than a Pogo channel where the anchor hustles with a masked face. No wonder, the Oscars are now looked down by those who covet the BAFTAs, the Golden Globes, the Cannes or now the Sundance where unconventional yardsticks of measuring success are bringing out such exciting films like "Boyhood" and "Wajdah" (2012). 

On the contrary, Oscars are still stuck on  criteria that the critics and the audiences don't seem to agree often but are determined by quixotic whims and messages from the masters who call the shots at the industry. Any idea why Sandra Bullock didn't get the best actress award? Any thoughts why Leonardo Dicaprio continues to be at the non-receiving end of the awards? Despite a uni-dimensional way of judging the films, the Oscars get the maximum mileage but still lesser than what the Superbowl or FIFA World Cup command. 

Today, close to seven billion people are watching films and a fraction of them are wanting to make films in as many unique way as their sensibilities and paradigms motivate them to. The Oscars can go to anybody who is trained to give a well-rehearsed elevator speech. But lets not think that their success is a benchmark - don't be misled by the UNESCO heritage-type statements going out when the Oscar goes to a film that talks about slavery in Africa, a war waged in Afghanistan or Iraq or a legend in South Africa. There are more ways to watch a film, make a film and even review a film. Remember tonite that Oscars may be more anti-diluvian in ways you haven't  yet realised.

"The Wolf of Wall Street" (English)

Martin Scorcese has been making films since 1964 and is regarded as a Hollywood legend who makes hard-hitting films with lot of visual effects and verbiage. He forged bonds of creative trust with actors like Robert de Neiro and now Leonardo DiCaprio. "The Wolf of Wall Street" is Martin's latest film with Dicaprio starring the latter as Jordan Belfort, the broker who made a killing in penny stocks and created a business empire that lured hundreds of aspirants from all walks of life - bakers, mechanics and retirees. Martin Scorcese's last film "Hugo" carried his stamp but the present film based on the same book written by Belfort is a throwback to the anarchist days of the 80s where the market cap to GDP ratio was below 1 and Reagan's years made it a national rage to own common stocks and brokers were divinely bestowed with tips.

Martin shows the Wall Street culture that is still the meanest in the world - with characters who sizzle in sex, lies, drugs and greed. Here is Belford who is indoctrinated into a dizzy culture of dope and sex while ripping off clients on over-churned stock portfolios. Belford tastes blood early and becomes the pet broker in his office. He figures out a new way to put hands in the wallets of customers: recommend penny stocks which are not traded regularly on the bourses which pays 50 per cent commissions - something similar to our trading in illiquid physical shares or micro cap stocks in low-trading category. Belfort fires up the opportunity and creates his own firm in due course which attract hordes of brokers in Wall Street firms. But Belford understands the selling cycle from telecalling to pitch to close. That makes him take on folks from unconventional backgrounds and mould them to deliver, this includes guys like Jonah Hill who crack the code of fast-pitching and over-trading in dud stocks.

The Success trap shows some sick humor with explicit sex scenes, substance abuse and scant regard to the person who pays all of the broker's bills - the poor customer. Belfort breaks up with his wife, seduces another man's wife who attends his lavish party, continues his tireless induction of hundreds of colleagues to plunder stocks, rip off clients, and that is when the chickens come home to roost - when FBI is tipped off in a trading scandal about a stock they made a killing. Belfort becomes a wreck because of this sex-and-drug addiction; he gets into deeper mess of money-laundering, offer of bribe to a FBI officer and stuff like that which pulls him down. Yet, he walks scot-free in the end and becomes a sales trainer.

 That makes "The Wolf of Wall Street" one of Martin's most irresponsible films that neither reflects the changing times nor give a new message to Wall Street admirers: Make merry at work, milk your customers, make love and get high on drugs. It is unlikely that the film despite an awe-inspiring performance by Dicaprio will every be counted as a classic in the elite company of films like "Wall Street", "Wall Street  Returns", "Boiler Room" or "In Pursuit of Happyness'. It is just shown as a law of the jungle without a message of uprighteousness or taking a high moral ground. It shows Martin's lack of familiarity or research on a topic well brought in the book. Martin presented the story but could have given the class of Oliver Stone to deliver a better script with loose ends upended. Regulators in US are no longer pro-cyclical and have moved on - you can't trade without compliance watching you as big brother, you cannot talk about your customer disparagingly because the "Access to Review" rule works against you - if you refer to a customer as an idiot or a dodo in your peer convesations, it can be a recordable fact of evidence used against you. Most of the dialogues are those spoken in the inner recesses of day-traders' minds and contain the word "fuck" too many times in each sentence. The slang is atrocious and contain fond unmentionables. It looks as if Martin wanted the audience to take a call on all those who thrive on the culture of preying on other people's money . Martin also dwelt too much on the same routine of pepping up colleagues to pitch products resulting in a film that close to 3 hours. Had he not chosen the film to the novel, Martin would have scored new highs with an in-your-face  narration on the different dimensions of the brokers and advisors. It does glamorise the profession but leaves wrong messages for everybody who watches the film, strictly for adults. Despite Dicaprio's exuberance and portrayal and Martin's pacy narration, the film will be disowned by the brokers and Wall Street representatives because it is unreal today and the industry shown in the film has changed . Families should avoid it because what is shown is as good as "porn scum", one of the pet expressions used by the hero. 

My rating: 2 out of 5

"Gravity"-3D (English) Movie Review

You cannot make a bad film with a good script. "Gravity" is the film of the year so far that celebrates the spirit of American Cinema where script is the most sacred thing and everybody plays second fiddle to it, including a studio like Warner Bros. "Gravity" is all about living in outer space, up above the world so high, as the rhyme says. It's about two people Mathew Kawalsky (George Clooney) and Dr.Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) who are out on a mission to outer space called SKS-157 alongwith an Indian scientist. Their mission gets hit by debris from space from other Satellites exploding and soon the Indian engineer is gone. It's now down to two survivors but more disaster strikes the two Astronauts as they are routinely space-walking.  Matter of time before George Clooney lets himself untethered out of Sandra's rope to become a speck in space. 

It's now upto Sandra playing the role of Dr.Ryan Stone to come to terms with finding the remnants of the mission SKS and also  to tell the one helluva story that Mathew egged her on to tell even after he's gone, sitting on the edge of space. There's a second coming of George Clooney for fans who are disappointed to see him vanish within forty minutes of this out-of-this-world adventure. Thats the only cinematic flash by director Alfonso Cauron to bring back Clooney to his cooing fans. Be that as it may, "Gravity" is a visual extravaganza that captivates you till the sole survivor Sandra makes it back to Earth. With nothing but deafening silence and your own thoughts and your own voice with space-suits silhouetting your body weight maybe three or four times and yet floating uneasily like a feather in a no-gravity zone, Sandra Bullock packs a punch. George Clooney sharing screen with Sandra less than half the time than her space-suit once again shows why he gets the top bucks at Hollywood. Alfonso Cauron and his son who co-wrote the story give us a new high in cinematic experience that will stay with you for the rest of your life.  Music by Edward Rice takes the experience to ecstatic levels mixing a combination of philharmonic orchestra music with gentle bass and church-bell chords. 

Once calamity hits the lead pair and survival seems remote, you wonder whether this space odyessey has any twist or any elements that sustain your interest. But voila! thats where the screen-writing sizzles. Dialogues between Sandra and George pile up and a story for each character emerges. Sandra is a doctor who needs to be nudged and George is a retiree Mission specialist who inspires her to survive even as he is ready to blaze out of O2 supply and perish. Some visuals and dialogues here will make you freaked out on the experience and empathise with those mortals who leave our planet for extra-terrestrial explorations. How does the Sun Rise look from the above? How beautiful Earth looks from above while we have nothing exciting eking out our daily living? George Clooney gets the best lines even as he fades out faster from the screen: "There's nobody up here to hurt you", "One of us will have to survive to tell the story thats one helluva story", "How beautiful the Sun Rise is on the Ganges" and so on. 

Sandra's second innings is also worthy of note. She had to be in cruise-control for the entire film as per the plot but she pulls it off with depth and glory. Her monologues after it becomes clear she is the only one to report back are well-handled. There's one beautiful scene where she tunes into radio waves and hears a Chinese spy satellite guy. She yearns to decipher the other guy but couldn't make out Mandarin from Mandrake, she gives up and soon hears a dog howling mildly and she howls back matching the dog in tone, reconciling to the fact that when you are alone in space, any "other" voice is good enough. Experiences like these run their course in a short movie of less than 100 minutes but they remind you of the insignificance of life's petty issues when you are on the planet's surface and the significance of survival itself when you are a loner in a space thousands of miles above the Earth's atmosphere. 

Whatever be the intention of making this film, director Alfonso Cauron and his cinematographer have achieved a rare feat in Hollywood's history to create a blissful experience of a lifetime. It is like buying tickets for a space odyessey that orbits our own planet at comfortable speeds. Credit must go to the entire team of Warner Bros. for selecting a theme that will resonate with all Earthlings. Everytime you use your mobile phone or tune in to FM Radio or send an email or watch the Television, remember there's somebody up there who has gone forward in space but gone backwards in time so that we have our frills. Don't miss this film for the world! The 3-D effects are okay but not purposive.But if a rating be pinned, I am not going to be accountable for overlooking the few lapses that may be visible only on a second viewing. It deserves 4.75 out of 5.

"The Great Gatsby" Film Review (English)

Finally, one of America's greatest works of fiction finds an incarnation in the big screen. This is Hollywood's sixth attempt to capture the surrealistic  almost evanscent classic by one of the most conceptual novelists  - Francis Scott Fitzgerald. I must say, it is one of the most beautiful films I have seen in a long time, probably not since "Avatar" and at the end of the 146 minutes of a magical story with a trepid ending and a tragic twist in the tail, I get a feeling that Fitzgerald's efforts have not gone in vain. He was perceived as one of the improbable screenwriters who never quite made it to Hollywood despite gallant attempts to make a film on his novels. While  Fitzgerald's other stories have been made into films  - "The Last Tycoon", "The curious case of Benjamin Button" etc., "The Great Gatsby" made many false starts and failed attempts starring many ruling stars, including Robert Redford who looks like a million-dollar baby even in night dress.

Warner Brothers has left nothing to chance this time around - the sixth time around. They roped in a starcast of the decade - Leonardo Dicaprio as Jay"Great" Gatsby, Toby Maguire as Nick Carraway, Carey Mulligan as Daisy Buchannan,  Joel Edgerton as Daisy's husband and our own Amitabh Bachchan as the jewish businessman in a cameo that marks the Superstar's official entry into Hollywood. Who can direct such a starcast and take the magical, make-believe, hard-to-project vigorous words of Fitzgerald? Baz Luhrrmann  - who has a mind of his own and a unique gift of collapsing song, ballads and drama into celluloid opus. His earlier films - "Moulin Rage", "Australia", "Romeo and Juliet" have marked him out for the potential in TGG in 3-D. Luhrrmann creates an extravagant biopic that sizzles and rarely fizzles out. 

Nick Carraway (Toby Maguire) as in the book is the main narrator of the film who observes that his great fortune in life was in meeting the "great" Gatsby. He is a struggling writer who lives next door to the regal mansion of Jay Gatsby, a self-made, self-obsessed billionaire who throws the biggest and the loudest parties - inviting anybody who cares for drowning in food and wine and dance on the house - more inclusive than our own IPL post-match parties. Nobody knows what he does, how he earned such obscene wealth and what his background is. One day, he gets a hand-written invite from Gatsby to attend one of his parties and Nick is thrilled and paints the whole party that he is the only "chosen" one. Indeed he is for reasons learnt later; Nick's cousin Daisy Buchannan lives on the other side of West Egg, across a Bay married to her husband, her many-affaired husband. Gatsby and Daisy have been in love since he was 17 but filmy fate gave Daisy away in arranged marriage to  Buchannans. Nick soon finds that his new friend Gatsby wants him to re-arrange love with his old flame. Sparks fly, naturally, when Daisy makes it to the party but her husband, like all husbands gets wind of the secret liaisions of his wife. Many wranglings later, there is a twist in the tail as Buchannan speeds away in a fit of rage in the sporty car of Gatsby only to dash into one of Buchannan's lady-loves and kills her. But the husband, a gasoline-filler, is fed with the notion that it is Gatsby who drove his car that killed his wife and not the real paramour. Daisy is indifferent to Gatsby because she is confused between the moral limits of marriage and the catnip pull of Gatsby. But Gatsby remains composed and intriguing till the end, Nick playing the last man standing for him, even at the funeral which is the most poignant shot in the film - none who made it to his lavish parties except Nick turn up at the grave. That's the long story that cannot be made shorter but what makes the film a visual feast is the images, the songs, the contextual and the subtext messages coming through the times and the characters set in 1920s - when American stock markets were at life-time highs, economy was over the hill and society was both loud, hedonistic and vainglorious. 

What endears the film is its many messages because Fitzgerald's novel is itself so timeless because of its metaphors and its malleability to interpretations. The West Egg can be today's Bay Area, the new-age Silicon Valley, the East Egg can be the old money, and the characters can all be so spine-chillingly true - a  billionaire who refuses to give up the ghosts of the past, his friend who refuses to talk turkey for fears of antagonising both the parties, a woman who cannot reign in her wayward husband and cannot hide her feelings and vacillates till the end, an old-world husband who goes after Munnis and Sheelas but doesn't want to dock his wife and what more, expect loyalty. It is these images that make the story burnt into relevance forever ninety years after Fitzgerald wrote in 1925. Baz Luhhrmann makes a winner with minimal distractions of 3-D technology and memorable motifs of Fitzgerald's prose. Leonardo Dicaprio stands out with a quirkacious range of expressions, he gets the best introduction and also makes the exit in a watery grave in the end - exactly like in "Titanic". Can't believe his looks kill even today since his debut in 1997. Toby Maguire has a veneer and a role that will get him many new fans than just kissing boring girl-friend and climbing walls as Spiderman. Joel Edgerton as Daisy's husband has the best presence after the two. Music and SFX also stand out - heard that most of the SFX are created in the Reliance studios of Hyderabad and Mumbai. Its a great flick and must watch for a great synthesis of an American legend of literature with an Australian legend in directing. 4.5 out of 5.

"The Reluctant Fundamentalist" Film Review (English)

Mira Nair is a gift from South Asia to Hollywood for blending the silky emotions of the East with the verve and rich production values of the West. "The Reluctant Fundamentalist" is one more proud addition to the magic of Mira Nair's films. Based on Mohsin Hamid's novel, Mira Nair has attempted a bold film that captures the essence of Mohsin's tale of a young man Chengez Khan who sets foot in the US, makes it big as a financial analyst in a Wall Street firm but soon finds devastating incursions into his privacy and belief systems after a xenophobic America beefs up its tirade against terrorism. Chengez Khan finds his innate world of private beliefs of faith and religion and nationhood of Pakistan awakened and harnessed in the avalanche of incidents that follow the 9/11 attacks - someone at work asks him to shave off his beard, a cop at the Subway books him under Homeland Security Act and strips him to the organ, his girl friend, a photo artiste throws open an exhibition making a gawdy collage of the symbols of religion and culture of Pakistan and finally, someone at the parking lot deflates his car tyres and spooks his dirty finger to stop fucking around in America. Until then, Chengez Khan, a composed and introverted star financial analyst who is creating ripples with his deep-dive business acumen and impeccable Americana becomes  a late believer in the causes that fire up Madarassas and Mujahiddins. His final breaking point comes in Instanbul, Turkey when Chengez Khan and his boss go to evaluate a legacy-rich Publishing company that has the most impressive imprint of middle-eastern writers. Chengez Khan gets a lecture here from the owner that going by the yardsticks of DCF Analysis and discount factors, his books maybe worth nothing in the eyes of the financial analyst, but that has spawned the most towering intellectual writers of the region which has been making waves and winning plaudits. Chengez Khan finds that the works of his own father, a Pakistani poet, are translated into Turkish by the gentlemen whom he is about to advise on business restructuring matters.  Thats the point Chengez kicks his corner office job and returns to Pakistan as a reluctant fundamentalist. The story moves, as in the book, like a narrative by the protagonist to an American journalist, who is himself a mole by an army of seals to help relieve an American researcher kidnapped by Chengez's men. 

Quite a fascinating buildup to the complex characterisation of a fundamentalist who could be one amongst us. Mira Nair uses her craft of delicate story-telling with her inimitable cinematic sensibilities. What helps the film despite its cliches on the terrorism theme are a great adapted screenplay, a terrific starcast led by Riz Ahmed (Chengez Khan), Bobby (Liev Schreiber), father (Om Puri) and lover artist (Kate Hudson). Having re-read the book since watching the film, I must say Mira Nair has outshined her films and in the process given a stratospheric lift to South Asia's hottest writer today ("How to Get Filthy Rich in Rising Asia"). She has given a bold treatment to the issue of metrosexual men in Atlantic countries rising up in arms against the most powerful nation on earth. Not since the films of Merchant - Ivory productions have we seen a director of the calibre as much as Mira Nair who dedicates the film to Altaf Nawaz Nair, her late father. While Ismail Merchant chose films of an era of the Raj mostly writers like Ruth Jhabbervala and E.M.Forster and rarely assumed an audacity to stir the joneses, Mira Nair gives a warm and passing commentary on the travails and the colorful tapestry of the lives of South Asians. She has an eye for detail, gets under the skin of the writer, knows how to graft the writer's eye onto an effervescent screenplay and weave a story that in the end carries her distinct signature style. 

Music by William Andrews deserves immodest mention. Besides lending his own voice in some songs, Andrews gave a distinct touch to the euphonies scored in the film  - inter-mixing Sufi music, Lahore beats and haunting melodies. The output certainly heightens the film's punctuated moods to desired effect. Cinematography is another clear winner - and that seems to do so well in Mira's films. Her eye for detail and that of Declan Quinn, the cinematographer matches so well whether it is Istanbul, Manila, Lahore or New York. A lot of viewers generally get confused between Mira Nair and Deepa Mehta. IMHO, Mira Nair is a master, not an apprentice like Deepa Mehta. Give a good story to Mira Nair, she will ace it up. Give a dazzling writer's work to Deepa Mehta, she will fake it down. If you have had enough of films with Navy Seal operations and jingoistic Americana, "The Reluctant Fundamentalist" is a good watch despite its length of 131 minutes, which includes atleast four minutes of tobacco warnings and seven minutes of false starts to a not-so-erotic love-making scene between Kate Hudson and the Wall Street Analyst. Notwithtstanding that, it is still 4 star film.

BAFTA Awards - What a fine show!

• Bafta Awards was short, stylish and elegant - done with in two hours. No frills, no elaborate song-and-dance ballads, no dreary drags on stage - just an unbridled celebration of the best talent in Cinema with under-statedness. Stephen Fry was sheer class, sophisticated, positive without being too pointy and dignified. He made jokes on all the five films but the best was a mathematical one - sequel to "life of pi" is "life of pi.r^2". Good to see the right awards go to "Argo" (best film and best director)' "Lincoln" (best actor). Worth getting up in wee hours on Monday to watch jokes and puns by Stephen Cry ("I want to see "Lincoln" but I got spammed by invitations for "linked-in"!). Now, over to Oscars.

"Lincoln" Film Review (English)

"Lincoln" is a moving film about one of the noblest American Presidents in history. Its a film strictly based on the life of Abraham Lincoln but director Steven Spielberg has based it on a riveting book called "The Team of Rivals" which talks about those crucial second-term Presidency years of Lincoln where he had to garner the support of 22-odd Senators to get the crucial "Bill of Emancipation" passed in the Congress. The entire film focuses on this play where the Republicans egged on by President Lincoln use all the tricks of trade to persuade, incentivise, mollycoddle and even coerce some of the rival Senators to accede to the Bill which seeks to abolish slavery.



Daniel Day-Lewis has played the title role of Lincoln remarkably well. He looks the part exceptionally good - his gait, unique beard, unkempt hair, nonchalant looks, brooding shoulders, unsmiling yet sincere facial expressions and disarmingly slow but assertive Chicago accent (which today's President cheaply imitates). Spielberg has got limited screenplay opportunities to telescope the many-faceted personality of Lincoln, so he uses few frames to highlight them and these are inter-mixed with the story from the book above. And so you see some brief but poignant picture frames of Lincoln as a good husband (with a wife who "drove" him till the end), Lincoln as a born-story-teller (he never tries to win an argument with logic; he brings a story with an embedded message that does the trick), Lincoln welcomed his son's distractions at office and doted on them, Lincoln felt for the poor, kept his promises and never lost an opportunity to bring humor. Spielberg shows all these glimpses within the tight script of the story - and those images haunt you even if you haven't read a word about this man. Music by John Williams is apt and under-stated. Steven Spielberg's films have become so inseparable from John Williams' music that you see the duo's output as one unit. Credit must go to John Williams - after Walt Disney, he has got the maximum Oscar nominations - 46 times! (Disney got 52).



The greatness of Spielberg continues in the way the film starts off with Lincoln in the silhouette facing the troops in a Civil War station and the way it finishes with news of his assassination. No flashbacks, no room for over-dramatisation, no bawdy display of Americana just a mesmerising straight narrative with an elegant under-statedness. Starcast has some American greats as rival senators who stood out on screen. Set Design and Costume Design must deserve an award; re-creating a period setting like that before motors and moving images came is tough. What made such a fine film which got 12 Oscar nominations fare poorly at the BO is understandable. It got timed with the US elections, and then there was a more imaginative "Vampire Hunter" movie on Abe which got the wind out of Spielberg's film. A few more shots of the gory Civil War and a few more popular anecodotes about Lincoln might have made the film more dramatic to watch. But Spielberg being Spielberg, he wouldn't compromise on his adherence to an authentic story within a taut script. Hurrah! Anil Ambani's company is the co-producer of this proud film. It deserves 4.5 out of 5 and should be a universal audience film.

"Mugamoodi" (Tamil) "Mask" (Telugu) Movie Review

"Mugamoodi" (Tamil) is dubbed as "Mask" (Telugu) released today amidst unprecedented expectations from one of the slickest directors of Kollywood - Mysskin. I watched a few Tamil movies in original in my life but I have largely followed the work of some great film-makers of the last decade like Bala, Menon, Murugadoss, KV Anand and now Mysskin. Mysskin is bibliophile, a director who infuses fire and imagination into his direction and galvanises all the 24 crafts to give an exciting cinematic output. He has made some acclaimed films like "Anjathe", "Chithiram Pesudadi". He has made a film called "Nandalala" where he brought back the orchestral beauty and composer's breath of maestro Ilayaraja. In "Mask", he prefaces with a dedication to the master Bruce Lee who's life story is somewhat revisited in the storyline.

This movie "Mask" is something that held me excited for weeks. It is worth the wait. Its the story of a normal boy Jiiva who is the best pupil in martial arts in a non-descript school run by his Master who follows Bruce Lee. Like Bruce Lee who learns Karate but later invents his own stunts by "knowing self", his master encourages Jiiva to be an original hero instead of trying to become somebody. In his journey towards discovering himself, he falls in love with Pooja Hegde (debutante) who is the daughter of a Commissioner of Police (Nasser) who is on a mission to nab a gang of masked men who kill old couples at nights and rob them of gold. In a freak incident, Jiiva wears a "mask" to woo the girl and succeeds in the capture of the some of the mysterious gangsters one night. That "mask" eventually becomes his "identity" as a superhero as he becomes the most endowed person to catch the culprits. He gets some scientific help from his grandfather played well by veteran Girish Karnad.He gets the bad guy (Narain) who turns out to be an ace adversary of his Master and eventually wins the hearts of Pooja and all. But only after knowing one last trick from his master. Quite a simple but many-layered story that has a well-conceived starcast, and a classic three-act. A dashing introduction, an interval with a big-bang and an elaborate, spectacular climax.

Mysskin is surely the master of the movie as he reveals his gripping form in all departments. He ropes in exceptional foreign talent in editing, stunts, cinematography whose work shines brightly on screen. Dialogues are crisp but not dramatic and hardly humorous. Thats the intent of the film as the director deliberately builds tension from first frame till last giving a free hand to music director "K" to experiment with a range of electrifying compositions in the moods of the film. But "K" uses both symphonies and silences to punctuate the film in all its intended nuances by the director. Already "K"'s music is a hit in Tamil with three of its main songs making it to the top while the music CD itself has all the key orchestral themes as numbers on the track. I liked the two songs that give the best relief in the film - one of them squeezes in the very first jingle Ilayaraja composed in his career. Vintage Ilayaraja continues to inspire generations of music composers. "K" is another reason to watch "Mask".

Mysskin has got most parts of the film right making it quite watchable in spite of the length of 160 minutes. It could have been shorter. He has given an intelligent film with good starcast and narrative depth that will see his fan club grow in Tollywood. He blends the best of world cinema with a Hollywood touch - but he may have done better if had dumbed some scenes and narration for lay audience. Humor and mass entertainment (on the lines of Shankar) is missing in the film. Jiiva looks good and raring to go places with this film after "Rangam". Pooja Hegde is the most covered face in Kollywood before this film but I wonder whether such adulation is deserving for her after seeing the footage. The best part of the film is that Mysskin did not show one special effect in spite of being a "superhero" film. Thats because, he wants to show that it's all in the mind - you don't have to be a Superman, Batman, I-Man or Spiderman to become a superhero in life. Know thyself and project the superhero within- is the subtle message. I will give 3.5/5.00 for "Mask" because intelligent film-making must survive.

"The Intouchables" (English) Movie Dubbed from French

"The Intouchables" is a remarkable French film that swept the top honors last year at all film awards. The standi outside the screen reminds viewers that this film has collected Rs.2000 crores from 40 million viewers world wide - that means more people than what the entire India pay to watch any movie made in India paying per ticket Rs.18 to Rs.500 on any given day. I went without any idea what it was about except that it is a dubbed film from France. No known actors or crew to kill for. The result was hugely satisfying and worth watching. Its a tale of a bond developing between an aristocratic Parisian Phillipe who is quadraplegic (meaning unable to move hands or legs) and his assistant Driss, an African-origin janitor who is reluctantly pulled into the job.

After the movie rolls on, with English subtitles (whose tenses and verbs sometimes do not tally with the audio version of language), the story-telling is vivacious and infectious - the first joke comes within two minutes, then another and another and before you realise that sparks are flying between the two men, the laughter gets uproarious and roof-top-blowing kind. Don't get me wrong, the sense of friendship between the two men is pretty straightforward - they connect to each other's world and discuss everything under the sun - including women, sex, paraglidiing, modern art, parenting, spending habits, theatre and music. They bat for each other despite huge class, wealth and race inequalities.

Its quite incredulous that this movie should have been made in one of the most racist countries in the world. The hilarity of the film can't be emphasised in few sequences - it hits with a frequency that surprises you. There is a shot in which Driss accompanies Phillipe to an Art Exhibition - and Philippe stares at an artwork that has a splash of red in white background and agrees to buy it for 30,000 Euros (not that the French regard Euros as worthwhile currency). Driss says, as if to make a statement on how arbitrary art valuations abound these days, he could paint the same painting for same amount or more, and give blue additionally. In a twist of poetic justice, Driss indeed works on an abstract painting that Philippe pushes in the art mart for 11000 Euros, more out of affection to cheer up Driss.

Scenes like this make the film a charm. What endears the film to the audience, evidenced by the huge audience count so far worldwide, is the universality of the emotions - fear, tears, laughter, sense of achievement, sacrifice, learning from mistakes, serendipidity, fear of trying something for the first time.

The two lead characters are played dexterously well by Francois Cluzet and Omar Sy. Francois Cluzet is the diffident, depressant patient whose limbs are lifeless, so he can only speak and animate his face - he does it masterfully. Omar Sy as Driss, becomes the arms and legs for Philippe - he steals the thunder often, lights up the screen with occasional wisecracks, experiments with boredom and breaks out of the shackles of the mind more than Philippe. His acting resonates as well as the screen presence of guys like Eddie Murphy, Will Smith.

Music  by Ludovico Einaudi is another asset to the film - you get to hear almost all the classical masterpieces from Vivaldi to Beethoven. In between chatting up at the chateaus, lovely piano music is at play most times when the scenes shift to the picturesque French countryside. On the whole, the movie is fun and inspiring - if you have elders who are of restrictive movements because of whatever reasons and can't do without a daily dose of Prozac and Restil, take them to this movie - it will cheer them as an Indian Masala film. I am told that in 1914, ninety percent of all films distributed worldwide were French Films. By 1928, eight five percent of all films distributed were American films. Thats how Americans killed the heart of Euro cinema. Movies like this will help buck the trend.

"The Amazing Spiderman" Movie Review (138 Minutes)

“The Amazing Spiderman” comes back with an unfamiliar bang and unhurried charm. Andrew Garfield (remember the skinny guy who played the CFO in Facebook “The Social Network”?) replaces the effable Tobey Maguire, and Emmy Stone replaces Kirsten Dunst. Director Mark Webb seems to love his surname so much that he ought to make a webby film out of it. He has done a pretty decent job of building a credible first take on the Spiderman. It delves on the improbable origins of Peter Parker in the annals of cross-genetics and how Peter’s father helps Dr. Curtis Connors in his research using complicated calculus formulae that go into making alogirithms that alter biologically.

A good deal of time gets spent in establishing how Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) goes on to investigate his roots from adopted father Martin Sheen (always good to see him back in any cameo), meets Dr Curtis Connors, gets bitten by a genetically altered spider and shoots webs at will and walks on walls and jumps from one skyscraper to another in union-jack-red-and-black attire that still looks like an urbane swimming trunk. What can get a spider? A Lizard. And so, the villain Dr.Connors becomes a giant mutant lizard that stomps the streets of New York and pulverizes people and caravans of cars like a Godzilla – most of the stunts between the Spiderman and the giant lizard are nightly in nature. I wonder if this is deliberately done to counter the ensuing next big release of the Summer is Batman’s “The Dark Knight rises”. Nevertheless, the plot moves on to more complex matters – the lizard-man becomes more menacing and engulfing for mankind and our friendly Spiderman gets help from New York Police just in time to thwart Dr.Connor’s dangerous tricks. In between, a decent romance between Andrew Garfield and Emmy Stone that is more prolonged than seen in Spidey movies (without a love triangle).

How Good is the characterization and the performances? To be fair, Andrew Garfield gives a towering performance that will appeal well to the fans of the Marvel Comic character. Early versions of Spiderman starring Tobey Maguire had a genuine likeability about him so it kind of grew on you with an earthy and credulous touch. Present version takes off on the same path of first part of Spiderman released in 2002, takes a long time to establish the family background, the upbringing, and then the accidental transformation of a boy-next-door into discovering the webby instincts. The scenes showing the adhesive nature of the superhero’s hands and feet, and the commanding horsepower of his routine actions resulting in weird consequences like glass-shattering, basket-ball goal-post smashing are eye-popping and well-picturised. Even a simple act of googling his own spidey behavior results in the unraveling of the keyboard letters which is intense and believable. The origins of a superhero and the coming of his age were never shown so fluently in any movie before. Those sequences bind you more the friendliness and acuteness of this character. Most humor is embedded in these initial sequences, afterwards the plot gets thicker and serious with the unbearable tightness of being Spiderman getting to Peter Parker’s head. Character-wise, Martin Sheen, Sally Field and Rhys Ifans (who plays Dr.Connors) play their parts flawlessly. Dr.Connors character lacks texture and depth and definitely comes nowhere close to the swagger of the villain seen in first three Spidey movies. That is the major flaw in this movie – the villain’s characterization lacks substance and enough justification and as if there’s a late realization of this, Director Mark Webb shows him just after the movie’s primary title credits in conversation with another invincible power as to how to betray Spiderman yet again.

How Good is the 3-D Effect? Not that good. Except in one of the final stunts where the giant lizard leaps out of nowhere to browbeat the Spiderman, I could not perceive the third dimension with any telling effect. These days, the camera work in 2-D is so exceptional that one need not wear 3-D glasses to feel you are walking in the air with Spiderman over the nightly skyscrapers of the Manhattan, or “touch” that totempole of an Empire State Building or puke a web on the villain’s face. That’s a bit disappointing. Andrew Garfield, as I said before, has worked his lanky frame to give a unique tilt to the character, almost as incredibly as Tobey Maguire does. I am sure the shutterbags will soon report how Andrew has also done gymnastics, martial arts, weights and high-end cardio to stand out as an agile Spiderman – who needs to move at top velocity, in non-linear fashion, at tangent to gravity, within vertical limits. The effort shows - like one pose where he literally does a Shirshasana.

Is there anything else to rave about? Yes, there is. James Horner- that majestic Music composer – the only stalwart who scored award-winning music on a par with John Williams – has scored memorable BGM. Its on Sony Classical and I am going to own one.

I went with low expectations, having watched all of the three Spidey films. This one was quite watchable with few guffaws and one or two Indian tricks. One is Irrfan Khan – it is quite a forgettable role, I wonder if it can be even called a cameo as memorable as what he did in “Slumdog Millionaire”.

Of course, we Indians cannot match Hollywood in SFX or scripting or storyboarding or marketing of a franchise. The spiderman and other comic heroes will continue to make money. The First Spiderman walked away with $400 million at the Box-Office. In India, it collected Rs.26.2 crs. The second, Rs.33.4 crs and the third, Rs.68 crs. All this, when the Income Tax Officers didn’t adjust the Cost Inflation Index for the four years very high between 2002-2007. And we Indians, we will continue to make films that please us not what the world watches. If they make about Spiders, we will make about houseflies. So be it. As far as “The Amazing Spiderman” goes, the Rupee depreciation is going to assure that with 1000 screens hit with the movie (762 screens for “Avatar”), Hollywood is going to rake it even more. Well done, Mark Webb.

And the Oscar goes to...

3.5 inches high, 6.75 pounds, tin and copper, with gold plating. A rough sketch of  a figure holding a sword hanging on the reel of a film. Not the best of designs but since 1927, its the hallmark of recognition and respect. It is probably the best-known statue in the world, known as the Oscar, because Margaret Herrick, the Motion Picture Academy of Arts (MPAA)'s first Librarian, named it as Oscar because it resembled a lot like her uncle Oscar. Monday mornings in India on 27th Feb-1st March are something to look forward to  - Its the night of Oscars telecast live in this part of the world, thanks to Star Movies. An awards ceremony that celebrates the achievements of cinema the Hollywood way, the night of limited dance and song, of solemn remembrances, of a brief snapshot of the non-Hollywood cinema seen through the prisms of "Foreign Language" category. The night of all-colour men and women dressed in Black and White and Red array of shining, coal-black, shining costumes. The night which has epic commentary on how Hollywood breathes life into the annals of society through its movies of the year.
I always admired the preciseness, grand scale of executions, class and charishma that underlines the Oscar awards. Only the best talent who usually vie with one another - screenwriters, costume designers, animators, editors, sound recordists, stage and setting designers, actors and actresses, playwrights and lyricists, writers and comedians - all of them get together, give their best flat foot forward, lend their voice, pen, nerve and sinew to make it the spectacle that counts. Somehow, the humor that comes out of this one night, according to me, is enough to drive you to raptures of laughter. Its like the night when the wit and received wisdom of PG.Wodehouse, Groucho Marx,  Erma Bombeck and  Woody Allen pillorie the pale lines off your face.
Talk about the comperes, I grew up catching up of the best comedians and standup-champions chaperone the Awards nights - from Bob Hope to Woody Allen, Billy Crystal to Eddie Murphy to Robert Downey Jr. Over the years, the Awards represent an assemblage of talents coming together to give the best glimpse of the Industry' united strength - although it is never the case because all folks can't be satisfied. I remember Bob Hope the great humorian who lived till the age of 100 - he started the whole tradition of hosting the funny side up. He never won an Oscar and rubbed it in at one of the Awards Ceremonies: "Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the Academy Awards, or as it's known in our house, Passover."
Tonight (or tomorrow morning for us in India), you have some of the best contemporary actors competing for the top honours - the likes of Brad Pitt ("Moneyball") and George Clooney ("The Descendants") and the classic legends like Merryll Streep. Sophistication and class, subtety and style  - you can expect to see a harvest of all of these in the Awards ceremony especially with Billy Crystal - Oscar Awards Host for the ninth time - replacing Eddie Murphy. Contrast this with the crassness of the Filmfare Awards - OMG! Come on, Oscars, lights on!

"Sherlock Holmes: The Game of Shadows" Movie Review

"Sherlock Holmes: The Game of Shadows". Rarely do you find an English film running in metros in 3rd or 4th week. Mind-blowing film about the ace detective and his famed Dr Watson by Guy Ritchie. Director must be someone who has soaked up on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's works and he shows his knack and craft in bringing the story set in 1891 when France and Germany go to Wa...r and one of the fiercest adversaries of Sherlock Holmes - Professor Moriarty - is nailed and polished off. The film has got impeccable performances by the Robert Downey Jr. (Sherlock Holmes), Jude Law (Dr Watson), Jared Harris (Prof.Moriarty) and others and probably the best mind-blowing action sequences with a new edge. I am sure these will be the new norm to copy by Indian film-makers. There must be about six or seven of them - and those sequences will make movies like "Matrix" look amateurish. 129 minutes of high-octane action adventures and mind-blowing mind antics by Holmes and his Doctor. Excellent BGM and period costumes and some of othe best one-liners written in proper old-world British style. You get the laughs heartily. Even if you are not a detective film buff, one or two viewings of this film will take you closer to Mensa IQ Club memberships. How I wonder these Warner Brothers continue to get scripts out of the closet into pulsating movies!

"The Karate Kid" Movie Review

"The Karate Kid" is a charmingly good movie which shows China in a sweet spot as they are in - set in Beijing  with Kungfu and rich culture as backdrop, not GDP-hungry Shanghai. Jackie Chan returns in the remake of the movie with the same title made in 1984. He excels as the Kungfu Master and shows his subtle side with impeccable grace, while child superstar Jaden Smith proves his mettle again and takes his acting talent to new highs with range of emotions. Its an evergreen inspiring plot of growing up years and will be the perfect film to kickstart the academic year for kids. The movie has some breathtaking imagery from China's picturesque locations including The Wall and Wu Dong province. The movie has universal appeal and has the right mix of humor, entertainment, emotions and action sequences with clean narration by Director Harald Zwart. Sure to be a blockbuster. Music is another high for "Titanic" music director James Horner.