It's Monsters vs Robots, Get the Popcorn!

Film: Pacific Rim
Cast: Idris Elba, Charlie Hunnam, Rinko Kikuchi, Ron Perlman
Director: Guillermo del Toro

If you didn't know what you were in for, the initial narration makes it amply clear. At the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, a vortex opened that let in gigantic monsters, aka Kaiju, from another dimension. We have been beating them quite regularly because we found a nice way to do it: build equally gigantic robots, aka Jaegers, and get them to have a punch-up with the Kaiju for a little while and then blast the latter with missiles. Of course a few cities go extinct, but it was a good brawl. Still with me or have you gone to see Chennai Express?

Good, you are still here. Now we enter really silly territory. So strap up. As bad guys are apt to do, the Kaiju get smarter. As humans always tend to, we get really stupid. Our governments decide that the best way to keep Kaiju out is to build walls. I repeat, walls. Made with material available on Planet Earth. Against Kaiju who can flatten a skyscraper by farting on it. 

The only guy who thinks this is a bad idea is the wondrously-named Marshal Stacker Pentecost (Elba), the guy in charge of the Jaeger programme, and the first one who would be queuing for unemployment benefits once the walls come up. The good Marshal gets a few good men and the few remaining Jaegers and gets ready for Battle Royale. It’s monsters versus robots. How can it not be awesome? Or stupid? Depending on your point of view.

Guillermo del Toro is a fanboy first, fantastic filmmaker second. With Ron Perlman he made what I believe to be the best transformation of a comic character to screen with the two Hellboy movies perfectly marrying his two personas and spawning enjoyable, yet acclaimed movies. Pacific Rim doesn’t quite reach those heights. Maybe the problem is the expectation one has of the man who brought us the magical Pan’s Labyrinth. Pacific Rim is supposed to be popcorn fun. Not a frame more, not a frame less. That way it is miles ahead of its compatriots. But when the del Toro name comes into the picture, you find it sadly lacking.

Revisiting the Godzilla movies is great for genre fans. For the others you need a bit more. There is not much with regards to story. When the characters are this big, the plot holes also tend to be likewise. The effects are quite good. But with the surfeit of effect-laden pictures, you need to have something extra-ordinary to stand out. 

When you are spending millions to show believable monsters and robots, you tend to scrooge on acting names. Charlie Who-nnam unfortunately shows neither the acting chops nor the charisma to carry off the leading man role of Raleigh Beckett. Rinko Kikuchi was heart-breaking in Babel, but has to deal with the terribly written part of Mako Mori and she can’t salvage it. Director del Toro’s lucky charm Ron Perlman rings in the laughs in an entertaining cameo, but by then it is too little too late. It is left to the scenery-chewing Idris Elba to carry the movie on his own. He does that admirably, with a lot of shouting and screaming and also the best inspirational battle speech this side of the mild Bill Pullman in Independence Day. He keeps his word and cancels the apocalypse many predicted Pacific Rim would be. But the lack of support shows.

The question on everyone’s lips will be if it is better than Transformers. I would definitely say so, but it doesn't seem to echo around the world that much. Pacific Rim may actually be less original than Transformers. (Admit it, how many movies had you seen before that were based on a toy line?) It pays homage to the Japanese monster epics, but it still remains a film that resonates with fans of the genre and does not break out. Still it reiterates one fact. We could all do with a little more Idris Elba in our lives.

Man of Steel, Retold by Men of Mediocrity

Film: Man of Steel
Cast: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Russell Crowe
Director: Zack Snyder

I cannot come to a satisfying conclusion to an argument I am having with myself. The Nicholas Cage-starrer Ghost Rider or Man of Steel. Which is worse? It really shouldn't be so tough. But…

You know the story. If not, let me just shamelessly rip off from the best first page in a comic book – All Star Superman by Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely. 

Doomed planet. Desperate scientists. Last hope. Kindly couple.

Scientists Jor-El (Crowe) and his wife Lara (Ayelet Zurer) send their newborn son Kal El in a spaceship to Earth while their home planet Krypton faces destruction. A rogue general Zod (Shannon) tries to stop them, but fails and is sentenced to the Phantom Zone. Krypton is destroyed, while Kal lands in Kansas, where he is brought up as Clark by a kindly farmer Jonathan Kent (Costner) and his wife Martha (Lane).

Young Clark grows up with a lot more baggage than other kids. As an adult, he starts roaming around the country using his strength, speed, hearing and heat vision to help people and to discover his real roots. He keeps a low profile for 33 years. (33, geddit?) Enter Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Lois Lane (Adams), who discovers there is more to this average Joe than meets the eye. By then, old General Zod and his despicable bunch have escaped from the Phantom Zone and are prepared to lay earth to waste.

Cue man of destiny embracing his destiny.

So, what ails Man of Steel? The script, to begin with. Under the guise of reinventing Superman, David S Gower takes a Kryptonite knife to the mythos. An imaginative re-telling is interesting even if one doesn't agree. But this is more of a Find-and-Replace job. Gower forgets his Batman trilogy contributions and goes back to his Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance days. 

Zack Snyder was always a bad choice. He has style, but is yet to prove he has substance. He brings his visual flair to the Krypton scenes and they are impressive. Then he goes all melodramatic with young Clark. Once the action starts he goes for the spectacle. One could be forgiven for thinking we were watching a Transformers movie. Note to Snyder: You cannot out-Bay Michael Bay. So don’t try it. The result: Man of Steel becomes Darshini sambhar – thin, expansive, with no distinctive flavour.

The actors try their best. Henry Cavill makes a very likeable Superman. He is ridiculously ripped, though lacking on charisma, but then who can stand up to Christopher Reeve? Amy Adams may be a 21st century reporter, but for all her earnestness, her character comes off as more of an ornament than Margot Kidder’s ‘70s Lois ever was.  Michael Shannon had a role that he could paint the town red with, but he opts for restraint. Russell Crowe takes his role way more seriously than Brando ever did. Kevin Costner invests a lot of emotion in Jonathan Kent. It may be his best acting turn in years. Diane Lane makes Martha Kent way more fun than we have known her to be. The two make a great couple. Why hasn't anyone paired them before this?

It may have been a combination of Reeve’s charisma, Mario Puzo’s story, John William’s music and Richard Donner’s assured direction. When you saw Superman, the tagline stopped being one. You believed a man could fly. Man of Steel does nothing of the sort. During the brief moments when you don’t bang your head over the inanity of it all, you are left wondering what could have been. There is one last twist, one that has polarized viewers and Superman fans. Despite being a masterstroke/blasphemy, by the time Man of Steel reaches that moment, you are so drained you couldn't care anymore.

I was exaggerating in the first paragraph. Man of Steel has a better star cast, better effects, and minute-to-minute better moments than Ghost Rider. But then why do I get the same disgusted feeling I felt after I saw the latter?

Giant who Walked Among the Cinema Pages

Many years ago I was asked to speak to budding journalists in a college about film reviewing. I have no idea what made them do that or what they thought about my session. Actually, I have a fairly good idea about the latter – they never asked me back! Two things I said then remained with me.  One was, of course, that reviewing was a very personal thing and very different from reporting.  Something I fervently endorse.

The other was that reviewers should first get rid of their envy before critiquing a movie. The way I looked at it, all reviewers had to love movies. Period. And all movie-lovers had to have a burning desire to make a movie or be a part of one in some way or other. But he has still not gotten down to doing it. The filmmaker, on the other hand, has already done it. He has crossed over. This meant the first feeling a reviewer may have towards a filmmaker is jealousy. Without overcoming this jealously, we can only find faults, not review or critique. This is a very personal way of looking at reviewing, but then you already read my first point.

When I hear that Roger Ebert has passed on, I think of him as someone who has already dabbled in filmmaking, but decided reviewing is far more fun. He had no jealousy to speak of. Just a passion for a medium that spoke to him. This passion, and the desire to spread that love, made him one of the critics I most admire.

One of the few things I am really thankful in life is I discovered Roger Ebert the film critic, far before I found out about Roger Ebert the Pulitzer Prize winner or Roger Ebert the co-host of the most famous television show about movies. I used to visit the site Metacritic.com and read reviews about movies I had watched. None of the reviewers were familiar names, but soon Roger Ebert and the Chicago Sun-Times got imprinted in my mind. Ebert’s was the review I would keep for the last because he was my favourite writer and it didn't matter if our views matched.  

In my earlier days of reviewing, I preferred to review bad movies as it gave me greater room for creativity. I could rubbish a movie in multiple ways, but singing praises was not so easy when I was not happy with my technical knowledge of films. Then I read Ebert’s reviews. What came through in every one of them was his humanity. He understood how hard it was to make a movie and would try to find something positive, in the middle of all the crap. For him, what was in the movie mattered.  But the movie mattered more.

I wish I had the courage to post some comment on his blog. Mention something that might have prompted a reply. He was known to be someone who wanted to be in touch with his readers. The opportunity will never come again. Maybe I will learn a lesson from that. But for now my personal connection with movies and my personal connection with Roger Ebert are intertwined. 

Thank you, sir. I hope to meet you at the movies some day.

Silver Lining in a Silver Cloud

Film: Silver Linings Playbook
Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper, Robert de Niro, Jacki Weaver, Anupam Kher, Chris Tucker
Director: David O Russell

Am I the only one who believes ‘the silver lining of every cloud’ to be one of the many fancy proverbs that do not happen to ordinary folks? The fun part is, this film actually turned out to be a silver lining when I expected a dark, gloomy cloud. Junior will probably get B minus or worse in her Hindi test because her tuition teacher was watching Silver Linings Playbook. So you can understand the irritation with which I sat down to watch it. Then I started to grin. Goofily. Throughout the movie.

Pat (Cooper) is just out of the loony bin. He had an incident with his loving wife and her equally loving paramour eight months before. Diagnosed of bipolar disorder, he was sent to a mental institution instead of a physical one. Now he is out and living with his folks (de Niro and Weaver), attending therapy sessions with the awesomely-named Dr Cliff Patel (Kher) and trying to get back with his wife. He meets Tiffany (Lawrence), a young widow with a promiscuity problem, who could help him reunite with his wife. She wants him to be her dancing partner in a competition in return.

Silver Linings Playbook straddles genres, in a good way. It has drama, romance, dance and sports, but it is best enjoyed as a comedy. Once you see it for its comic moments, the rest slowly envelop you. The third act may irritate you with its commonness, but the journey there is fresh and likable. 

Say what you may about his movies, but David O Russell is one director who coaxes great performances from his actors. Bradley Cooper comes out with a very surprising turn that shows that he is just not a looker. Robert de Niro is as restrained as he could be in a typical Robert de Niro role. Jacki Weaver and Julia Stiles are wasted in bit roles that never let them get into their groove, but Chris Tucker, in his first non-Rush Hour role since 1997’s Jackie Brown is actually quiet. Anupam Kher gets to shout out John McClane’s favourite word.

Jennifer Lawrence enters with a “How who died?” and walks away with the movie. She affects you as an expressive character without ever being overtly loud. You simple cannot take your eyes off her, or, for that matter, her eyes. You know what happens when Meryl Streep first appears in a Meryl Streep movie? This is just like that. I have not seen any of Jennifer’s other movies, but it is scary how good she is in this one.

You don’t look for subtlety, apart from the performances, in a David O Russell movie.  Silver Linings Playbook is no different. It does veer away to sentimentality and melodrama at times. But when it does not, the film treads the fine line expertly. It is not here to give insights about mental health or baseball or dancing. It is just here to tell a story. And it does that well.

Super Looper Ropes You In

Film: Looper
Cast: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt
Director: Rian Johnson

Fucking brilliant.

Pardon the language. But sometimes the best definition of the movie you saw would be the first words you have after seeing it. Mine was, “Fucking brilliant”. I may have seen more “brilliant” movies and, a few weeks and viewings later, might kick myself for thinking this movie brilliant. But those were my words. And I would any day be open to a movie that leaves me satisfied just after seeing it, come what may later.

Remember  Face Off, where you could count the similarities between Nicholas Cage and John Travolta on one finger – both are Species homo sapiens male? Well, try imagining JGL and Willis as the same person, one younger and the other older. Trust me, no amount of “subtle mannerisms” could make you believe it. So, let’s just accept the fact and move forward.

With arguably THE stand-out opening line I have heard in movies recently – “Time travel hasn’t been invented yet, but it will be in 30 years” – Looper grabs you by the throat and doesn't let go even when the credits roll. A looper is an assassin working in 2044 for the mob of 2074. Because of new technology, getting rid of a body in 2074 is next to impossible. So the mob guys transport their unwanted vermin back to 2044 where the looper waits.

The youngest, but most promising of the loopers is Joe (Gordon-Levitt), a smart cookie who saves up half the payment he receives so that he could one day go to France. One day things don’t go according to plan. The victim (Willis) arrives, but he is not tied up as was usually the case. He also escapes. And he is the future self of Joe. Young Joe has to catch and kill Old Joe before the mob gets them both. But Old Joe seems to be working on a different agenda altogether.

It’s time travel and it will never make sense, regardless of what sci fi nuts say. If you could go back to a specific time and alter what happened, what would happen if you went five minutes before? Would you see you coming from the future the previous time? Anyways, chuck it all. Time travel is just a plot device. Director Johnson has bigger things up his sleeve. And among it is an existential question about upbringing, of all things. He unfolds the events at a furious pace, but never once does it appear rushed. Johnson has taken the sci fi genre to tell a totally human conflict. 

Joseph Gordon-Levitt continues his impressive run. Reuniting with Johnson after he headlined the latter’s debut feature Brick, JGL shows a grittier side, but still brings his vulnerability to the fore. Bruce Willis and Emily Blunt are solid in supporting roles. The most incredible piece of casting has to be Jeff Daniels. The baby-faced actor is chilling as an all-out villain.

Looper is an experience. It may blow your mind or leave you unsatisfied. But the chances of it leaving you unchanged are almost nil. 2012 may have been a pretty average year for sci fi, so being the best is no great shakes. 2013, however, is the most sought-after sci fi year for a long time. But can its movies come out of the long shadow cast by Looper?

Does the Sky Fall? Nothing so Drastic

Film: Skyfall

Cast: Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Judy Dench, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Ben Whishaw, Berenice Marlohe

Director: Sam Mendes

The French had one fear. Since 50 BC the indomitable Gauls were only afraid of the sky falling on their heads. Nothing else. And, whatever the French fear, the Brits must show they have no apprehensions about. Hence we have the British icon appearing in his newest adventure called Skyfall. When the final reveal of the title comes, you may stare incredulously, but the intent cannot be more obvious!

James Bond is back for his 23rd, or 24th or 25th mission (depending on whether you go by the official list; add Never Say Never Again; and also 1967’s Casino Royale). And, as you would expect in this ever-changing world, the stakes are changed. The surprise, is how personal it has become. Probably the most since On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

Beginning with a thrilling chase sequence in Turkey (which got the nod after the Indian Railways refused to play ball), Skyfall quickly moves to a more sober tone. The body count rises and this time the good guys are filling up coffins. A temporarily unreachable Bond (Craig) comes back to assist an embattled M (Dench) and MI6. Breathing down their necks is an unknown miscreant carrying a torch for M, and also the new head of the Foreign Intelligence Wing, Mallory (Fiennes).

Heading to Macau, after a meaningless assassination in Shanghai, Bond gets chummy with the beautiful Severine (Marlohe) and uncovers the mysterious baddie Silva (Bardem). The two gadgets given to Bond by the new, ridiculously young Q (Whishaw) show their worth and Silva is captured. End of movie? Not quite. You see, Silva wanted to be captured so that he could deal with his M issues. Bond takes M and the next car (and what a car!) out to Scotland and familiar territory to have his climax with Silva.

The action sequences are quite good. The aforementioned Turkey chase may be similar to the Moroccan chase in Tintin, but then you don’t steal from Spielberg, you 'pay homage'! The screenplay doesn’t make much common sense, but then this is Bond. The music alludes enough to the original theme for non-Beethovens like me. And I quite liked the Adele song. Strangely enough, Roger Deakins’ cinematography is not the most obvious thing you will remember from this movie.

That honour will have to go to the performances. Judi Dench is ruthlessly efficient in a much-extended role. The dignity she summons is a masterclass in emoting. The other veteran, Ralph Fiennes, is stuck with a thankless, clichéd role. But then chances are that we will see him in the future. The young guns Naomie Harris and Ben Whishaw actually bring a levity and spontaneity to the movie. Berenice Marlohe probably may be the Bond girl least relevant to her movie and her role is nothing more than a meaningless cameo. Daniel Craig has aged badly and while he passes muster in Skyfall, the future does not seem too bright, six-pack notwithstanding.

Then there is Javier Bardem. What an actor this guy is. Just when you think all the different shades for a villain have already been exhausted, Bardem comes up with a fascinating new interpretation. With a single-take entrance that will be talked about for months, he walks away with the movie. Bringing a subtle restraint to a showboating character, adding a dash of ambivalent sexuality, and that hair! You have a recipe for a disastrous villain. Unless your actor is as talented as Bardem.

Skyfall pays homage to many of the golden Bond traditions, while trying to break new ground. It entertains despite its length. A lot of the decisions, including the new Q and the closeted climax, are all admirable. Sam Mendes has crafted a decent movie, but he has left us wishing for more. Much more. An inexplicable feeling of incompleteness envelopes most frames of this movie. A case in which the sum of the parts is much more than the whole. Skyfall doesn’t complete Bond. It just shows how many more miles there are to go.

PS: In an ideal world when the climactic action of a Bond film shifts to Scotland and there is a role for an elderly father figure who will kick ass, you know who the perfect candidate for that role is. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world.

Incomparable Sridevi, Intimate Movie

Film: English Vinglish
Cast: Sridevi, Adil Hussain, Mehdi Nebbou
Director: Gauri Shinde

They say you have to listen to your wife as she is mostly right. We say that is not true and don’t follow it. But once in a while, we listen to our wives. The results may be disastrous on a mother-in-lawesque level. Or it may give more credibility to the initial statement.

My wife wanted me to go on a family trip to see English Vinglish (EV). I didn’t. But you loved Sridevi, she said. Of course, I did; and I still do. But I never said that about Sridevi’s movies. All my friends who saw the movie said she acted very well. Honey, I could have told that to your friends, without even seeing the movie. However, a bunch of veiled threats, not-so-veiled promises, a sense of thorough boredom and a desire to put in place an offspring who rudely dished my quite-decent apparel made me take that trip. And yes, I was glad I did.

A title like English Vinglish gives away the plot like nobody’s business. Someone who doesn’t know the Queen’s tongue, trying to learn it. Cue jokes over grammar, pronunciations, adjectives, etc. Yet, EV succeeds not with what it dishes out, but where it holds back. And that restraint comes as a great breath of fresh air.

Shashi (Sridevi) is a normal housewife and mother. Her life revolves around her husband Satish (Hussain), her young daughter and son and her mother in law. Once her family chores are done she makes laddos and other sweets (“snacks” as she calls them) and sells them to neighbourhood customers. A perfectly happy life, you could say, but for the small matter that Shashi can barely string together an entire sentence in English. A source of embarrassment to her daughter, patronization for her husband and regret for Shashi herself.

Then comes a phone call that changes everything. Shashi’s elder sister Manu (Sujata Kumar), settled in the US, wants Shashi to go there to help with her daughter’s wedding. A very nervous Shashi boards the plane to Manhattan, a few weeks before the wedding, with her family expected to join her later. There, a run in with those rude Americanos, convinces Shashi she has to join up for a learn-to-Speak-English-in-Four-Weeks course.

Here is where the movie could have become another Mind Your Language clone. It doesn’t. Oh, the stereotypes are there all right. But they don’t feel so. Writer-director Gauri Shinde may have taken them straight off the Handbook of Clichéd Characters, but she invests so much pathos and humanity in them that we empathise with them. We have the Pakistani taxi driver, the Tamilian software engineer, the Mexican maid, the cute Oriental, the silent African and the good-looking Frenchman. Their language woes are many, but you do not want to laugh at them, even if they laugh at themselves. In the company of these slightly troubled souls, especially the poor besotted Frenchman Laurent (Nebbou) Shashi learns a little bit about life and a lot about herself.

This is a filmmaker’s movie all the way. Gauri Shinde has crafted a simple movie that touches the right tone pretty much most of the time. She made a light, accessible film. It is brings forth knowing smiles, rather than full-throated laughs. It points out faults, but is never mean. It tackles a few tricky topics but not at the risk of alienating viewers. It has a message and delivers it without being preachy. At no point does this appear to be a debut film.

The advantage of a largely unknown cast is the chances are they will all be good actors. And they are. Right down to the young child actors. Then there is the incomparable Sridevi. She was the reigning queen of Indian popular cinema until she chose to walk away. Amidst the dancing skills and sex appeal was usually forgotten an extremely gifted artiste, one of the best comediennes this country has seen. Most of her films needed histrionics and flamboyance. Here she shows that she is extremely capable of restraint and years away from the marquee lights have not dimmed that a bit. And for someone at the cusp of 50, she looks fabulous.

EV may have three songs too many, but that shouldn’t detract it from its achievements. After all it does have the best cameo in a Hindi film in ages! It maybe early days yet, by Gauri Shinde’s debut, with its simplicity and sincerity, its search for a little more goodness among essentially decent people harks back to a world created by the incomparable Hrishikesh Mukherjee. For that alone, she deserves all the bouquets she will get. And, of course, she made us fall for Sridevi yet again.