skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Film: Trainwreck
Cast Amy Schumer, Bill Hader, Brie Larson, LeBron James
Director: Judd Apatow
What’s a fine line? How do you tread it? The fine line between satire and insult? Between black and disgusting humour? Between incredible improvisation and incredibly boring? Between girl power and girls doing the boy thing? The more you think about it the more realise that this line, like everything else, is different for different people. Judd Apatow made a career – and careers of a few of his friends – by treading the fine line between treading many a fine line and pretending to do so. And he is back with Trainwreck, the first feature he is directing that he has not scripted.
Amy (Schumer) has casual one-night-stands, probably more than once a night. She hates commitment, even though she is kind of with a guy. She drinks incessantly, even though she hates the hangovers. She talks crass, even though she is supposed to work on an upper-class lifestyle magazine. On other words, she does everything the Seth Rogen prototype does, except, of course, she is a ‘she’.
Amy is like this because, you guessed it, she has Daddy issues. A hilarious flashback right at the start establishes that. She is going steady with Steven (John Cena), but still hooks up with others whenever she has a chance. A chance decision by her editor Dianna (Tilda Swinton) leads Amy to Dr Aaron Connors (Hader), a sports-injury physician. One thing leads to another. Thing is, can Amy hold it together?
Judd Apatow was apparently so taken up with Amy Schumer’s script that he agreed to direct another person’s screenplay for the first time in his directing career. It would have been nice to see that script though, because Trainwreck feels nothing other than a typical Judd Apatow movie. And I don’t mean it in a bad way.
Apatow is famous for plonking his camera in the middle and letting his actors take the show forward. It works at times, with some great jokes, a sense of naturalism comes through, you see characters as people, with seemingly real emotions, awkward silences, unintentional stammering and the like. On the flip side, the movie tends to drag. When the joke is long drawn out, the time taken is also the same. And not all jokes are funny. Trainwreck is the same. It has its moments and it has its shouldn’t-have-been moments.
A big plus for the movie is its performances. Bill Hader is sweet as the good guy, but with insecurities. Tilda Swinton disappears into another role and look that I had to find out from the credits. Basketball great LeBron James has a very meaty role. And, here’s the surprise, he doesn’t screw it up. There are big name cameos aplenty, some of which work while some fall flat. Even John Cena plays the male version of the dumb blonde – the stupid sports jock – with a lot of enthusiasm.
Amy Schumer, however, does not come across as perfect. Which shouldn’t have been the case because this is her vehicle. But then again a lot of it may be because of how unlikeable her character is. Unlikeable, not annoying. But then one realises how much of our perception of a performance is rooted in how we relate with the character. Amy does herself no credit and it is a warts-and-all depiction.
Trainwreck is chock-a-block with clichés but also has a lot of heart. Amy Schumer tells an everyday rom com story, but tries to infuse it with a dose of realism that is more than what you expect. She tries to walk the thin line. But then in a Judd Apatow movie, the line is never stationary. Maybe, just maybe, despite all its crassness and overgrown-girl-in-a-women’s-body vibe, Trainwreck might have benefitted from a more traditional direction than Apatow’s. But, then again, that’s me walking the thin line.
Film: Bangalore Days
Cast: Dulquer Salman, Nivin Pauly, Nazriya Nazim, Fahadh Fazil, Parvati Menon, Isha Talwar.
Director: Anjali Menon
Imagine a parched land bereft of rain for months. A brief drizzle, however small, would thrill everyone in the land. What if it was a torrential downpour? It had been a while since I saw a film in my mother tongue. Months, maybe even more than a year. Then I sat down to watch Bangalore Days.
Bangalore Days is the story of three cousins – Kuttan (Nivin), Arjun (Dulquer) and Divya (Nazriya). It is not a growing up story, it is the story of what happens after they are grown up. Kuttan is a brand new software engineer, while Divya is a sprightly young thing dreaming of an MBA from IIM. Arjun is an adventurous nomad or shameless wastrel, depending on who you ask. The story kicks into gear with Divya’s hastily arranged wedding to Das (Fahadh), a quiet, unsmiling corporate guy. She moves to Bangalore with him, as does Kuttan. Soon Arjun joins them, taking a job as a racing bike mechanic.
Das goes for a foreign trip and the three musketeers have shiploads of fun in a landlocked city. It was like a second childhood until Das caught Divya trying to ride a bike with Arjun. Slowly cracks start appearing in a marriage that had not set well enough, to borrow a construction metaphor. Das, too, has a skeleton in his closet, which is a locked room to which Divya doesn’t have access. Meanwhile, Kuttan falls for a half-Mallu air hostess, Meenakshi (Isha), and Arjun makes an on-air connection with an RJ Sarah (Parvati).
In small, at times predictable and, at others, unexpected spurts, life unravels itself for the three cousins and they realise nothing remains constant. Bangalore Days takes relationships and situations familiar to us and gives them a twist. Instead of telling a hometown story it takes the ‘akkara’ route. Here the akkara (the other shore) is just an overnight bus journey away, but then Bangalore is both near enough to be accessible to everyone, but the idea of Bangalore is always just out of reach.
The most memorable of Bangalore Days are its characters. They are all very accessible. Every one of them has endearing qualities, while being irritatingly flawed. In short, they could be you or me. They were developed by a writer-director who cared, but who also frustratingly left a few ellipses to these characters.
The characters are also helped by some damn fine performances. Even minor roles were taken up by veterans and they ensured that there were no weak sports. Considering it was the first I was seeing of Dulquer, Nivin and Nazriya, I must say I was very impressed. Nazriya was the most spontaneous, while Nivin gamely made himself the butt of many jokes. Dulquer spoke with his silences and Fahad was able to give weight to what initially seemed to be a thankless role.
The stand-out, for me, was Kalpana. As Kuttan’s mother it seemed like she was just making up the scenery. Until something major happened and she was suddenly thrust into the limelight. Then you see why there are very few in Malayalam cinema as talented as her. But here there was a tinge of frustration for me. What should have been a landmark examination of the life of a long-married housewife in today’s fast-changing world suddenly acquired more stereotypical hues. Maybe Anjali Menon felt too much attention was being taken away from her leads.
But then, Anjali’s intention was always to entertain. So we can forgive a fresh software engineer having an apartment in Indira Nagar, no less, that would definitely be out of even his manager’s salary bracket. We can also forgive a ridiculously hot air hostess falling for the same engineer.
In the couple of days since I saw Bangalore Days I had more questions than I wanted. There were predictable elements (like the story behind Das’ locked room), there were story decisions that seemed contrived (like why Arjun had to be with motor bikes). But these were glossed over by the so many factors that worked, like how the parents viewed the cousins’ relationship, how Bangalore, instead of being a childhood dream was actually a reassuring arm that the cousins leaned against, how an earworm of a song with simple lyrics became an anthem of sort.
But I never had the questions or complaints when I was watching the movie. It is like a road trip. Like all good trips, the journey is more important than the destination. And Bangalore Days is an exhilarating journey. Go on, climb aboard. This is a ride you should take at least once.
Film: Transformers: Age of Extinction
Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Stanley Tucci, Kelsey Grammer, Peter Cullen
Director: Michael Bay
Half an hour into the new Transformers movie, I started to feel a bit uneasy. This is not what I expected. It was more like a Disney sports movie than a lifeless metal flick. There is a familiar story of heroes falling out of favour, a clichéd-but-sweet father-daughter relationship, a reluctant friendship between an inventor and a ‘machine with a soul’, a misguided Government official on a mission and a megalomaniac who wants to rule the world. Nothing that has not been seen before, but definitely not in a Transformers movie.
To those who are not big fans of this franchise (self included) I always point out that there are other toys that have been made into movies and yet none have experienced success remotely near this. There is something about this that clicks with a lot of people. Well, that something is basically the sight of wickedly good-looking automobiles transforming into giant robots, who then start smashing each other, causing immense damage to the scenery. And glass shattering. Lots of glass shattering. Age of Extinction seemed to be eschewing the formula altogether. Then, almost as if waking from a strange dream, with a boom here and a bang there, normal service is resumed. Director Michael Bay says ‘enough of the sap’ and the anger games begin. Cue ticket counters across the world ringing in millions of dollars.
One major upgrade in this episode is Mark Wahlberg. He excels in playing the everyman, but one that can kick some ass, as well. He brings sincerity into his role that the film does not deserve. Without too much histrionics, he makes you root for him. Shia, who? Nicola Peltz and Jack Reynor are there as the obligatory NG representatives. Kelsey Grammer is interesting as a villain. Guess someone was missing Boss. Stanley Tucci does what Stanley Tucci does. Have loads of fun and pass that on to you. New Transformers include John Goodman, voicing an Autobot with a paunch (!) and chewing a metallic cigar, and Ken Watanabi voicing one that looks like, you guessed it, a samurai!
As far as casting goes, Transformers will forever have credit for bringing to us Peter Cullen. (No, he is not related to Edward Cullen!) Peter Cullen will always be known as the voice of… No, Peter Cullen will always be known as Optimus Prime. Cullen’s voice brings so much pathos to a metallic object that we immerse ourselves in the smooth baritone. He is given the cheesiest of dialogues, but Optimus Prime never comes across as anything less than Superman. Come to think of it, the two do have a bit in common. And in this movie Optimus flies.
There is a storyline about the metal that the Transformers are made of, a seed, a galactical bounty hunter, a Transformer-hunting task force called Cemetery Wind and other stuff. But, seriously, if this is your kind of movie, then all you need to know is there are a lot of metallic clashes and glass shattering and it lasts for almost three hours. And, yes, there are even metallic dinosaurs. Enjoy.
The Sachin story. Everyone who knows cricket will have one. The first time they heard of him, the first time they saw him play, the first record they remember, the finest innings. My Sachin story comes from the inside pages of Sportstar. One day, sometime in 1987 or 1988, I saw a small write-up about a boy who was performing very well in local cricket. I don’t remember much about the article, just that it had a photo of a curly-haired boy posing with a bat. I am not sure, but I think the word “phenom” was also used. I remembered this article when he first played for India. I remember it still.
What does Sachin Tendulkar mean to Indians? To cricket fans? To journalists and reporters? You will find a lot of trees were felled to answer that. A lot of virtual space was used up. Written by people a lot knowledgeable than me. I am writing just about what he meant to me. I think I can safely say that is something that I am the most capable to write about.
Having spent the definitive part of my kidhood in the plains of Africa, I arrived into a strange new world. I heard people discussing about the 1983 World Cup win and I was proud as any Indian would be, without knowing anything about it. Compare it to the news that an Indian won the Olympic gold for synchronized swimming. We know nothing, but hey, it’s a countryman! I had seen neighbourhood boys playing and tried to learn about it. The first cricket term I learnt was “light run”. Much later I found that it was “late run” and used to prevent the batsmen from taking runs off misfields. Even later I found that it didn't exist in any other level of cricket.
I began following cricket when we started getting live feed on TV. Slowly the passion increased. Being a thorough non-sportsman, I was in awe of cricketers. A passionate patriot, I would take issue with anyone criticizing my team. I used to be a pretty well-mannered kid growing up, never ever recalling being spanked, but I do remember my mother telling me once that “you do not talk to your father like that.” He had this very dry way of looking at cricket. India was going to lose. Every time an Indian wicket fell or we conceded a boundary, it was the same. I would usually try to remain above the goading, but this time I couldn't.
Those times India lost a lot. Even to Pakistan. Hell, most of all to Pakistan. Then Tendulkar came. And we started winning more. The team was not that better than before. They were not playing that better than before. It was just that he was better than the other team. Oh, it is a team game, and all that jazz. But we believed that Sachin could defeat 11 other players. And he would. We still lost half the games.But that was, as we liked to say, because he was playing against 21 and not 11. Cricket became more about a one-man game than a team game. And I was not the only one thinking so.
Things changed towards the end of the millennium. India became an economic power, the Indian cricket fan was discovered, and the BCCI started to cash in on that. Slowly with better cricketers and foreign coaches we discovered winning as a team. That is one view. I prefer to think of it as the time when all those cricketers who were inspired by Tendulkar finally became old enough and good enough to play for the country. Find me one of the new generation of cricketers who came to play international cricket because of a reason other than Sachin Tendulkar. Virat Kohli, who is famously supposed to have a vocabulary of only four-letter words, said after the 2011 triumph, “He has carried the burden of the nation for 21 years. Now it is time for us to carry him.” It may become the most quotable sentence in cricket, but you needed to have lived in this age to know that those two simple sentences were also the truest.
It was a burden. Not because we wanted him to do well, but because the expectations we had of him were unfairly flexible. He kept meeting them, and we kept raising the bar.Until it reached a level where no one could meet it. And then we were ready to find fault with him for it. One of his club captains once said, “From the first day, it was very clear that this guy was destined for greatness. Unless he messed it up himself." He didn't. He continued to play cricket.
For millions like me, Sachin means something. Something they would not be able to eloquently describe in the pages of a magazine or on a cricket website. Something that is just our own. That is why every time he goes out to bat, noise pollution is at the highest. Every time he gets out, people walk out or switch off their TVs. Every time a nonsensical record is dreamt up, people wait for it. And every time someone criticizes him, someone else criticizes back.
Sachin Tendulkar did not get us our freedom from oppression. By existing in this Information Age, his achievements on the field are recorded for posterity. Generations to come will scarce disbelieve that one such as this in flesh and blood played cricket. But what they will find hard to believe is what he meant to others, his compatriots and opponents, his followers and detractors, to those who cared and those who didn't.
Film: Thor: The Dark World
Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Christopher Eccleston,
Director: Alan Taylor
Thor is the odd man out in the superhero team-up known as the Avengers. While the others are all humans who were subjected to accidental or intentional exposure to serums, blasts and radiations or possessing a specific set of skills, Thor is a being from another realm. Since the common reader does not have the imagination of the comic writers or artists, he comes from a realm where the inhabitants are just like us! As such getting him on to the silver screen was always going to be the biggest of Marvel Studios’ challenges. Treating Thor’s story as Shakespearean soap opera and getting the foremost Shakespearean – Kenneth Branagh – to direct was a good move. Now comes the followup. Where do you go?
Director Alan Taylor decided that that extra-terrestrial was the way to go and he sticks to it for most part. Thor’s (Hemsworth) homeland of Asgard has a large role to play. Courtesy of a childish narration sequence we get to know that during the age of Thor’s grandfather, the Asgardians went to war against Dark Elf Malekith (Eccleston), the bad dude, who had at his disposal some pretty bad mojo called Aether. Malekith lost and fled and the Aether was confiscated and buried deep in a stone column.
But not deep enough, as it turns out. In present-day Earth a portal opens. The petite Dr Jane Foster (Portman) gets drawn into another dimension where she is infected/empowered by the Aether. During this time the all-seeing Asgardian gatekeeper Heimdall (Elba) could not see her and alerts Thor, who immediately arrives on Earth. He takes Jane to Asgard to find a cure. Malekith awakens from a state of stupor and lays waste to Asgard looking for the Aether. Thor chases him away, but knows that he needs to get Jane away, or else Malekith’s next offensive would destroy Asgard. An obstinate Odin (Anthony Hopkins), Thor’s old man, refuses permission. So Thor has to get the services of his imprisoned brother Loki (Hiddleston) in order to save Jane from Malekith.
The performances are efficient for most part. Chris Hemsworth continues to be engaging. His pairing with the one feet shorter Nathalie Portman was amusing in the first installment. Here, even though she has a more pivotal role, it doesn’t stand out. Christopher Eccleston grunts his way through, but the makeup and the dialogue in an alien language suffocates his patented histrionics and dialogue delivery. Why couldn’t they let him speak in his own accent and in English? Surely the Brits massacred more people during their empire-building than the Dark Elves?
Tom Hiddleston runs away with all the best bits in the movie. I was, and still am, critical of him being the main villain of Avengers. He is simply not that convincing as the grand evil villain who prompts all the superheroes to come together. But here, he is back to being Loki, the God of Lies and Mischief, and you see what a fabulous piece of casting it is.
The production design in The Dark World is really eye-catching, especially the Asgardian parts. The photography is also spectacular during the battle scenes on Earth when the green screens are minimal. The post-production 3D is useless, as expected. The visual effects do not disappoint and big money scenes are suitably big.
What exactly is wrong with Thor: The Dark World? Well, in the words of today’s generation, it is pretty blah. It is consistent in its tone and treatment. It is also consistently underwhelming. The screenplay credited to three writers never throws up any curveballs. It ticks all the requisite boxes and that is it. The direction by TV director Taylor also doesn’t stand out.
Iron Man 3 aspired to be a lot, and eventually sucked. The Dark World, despite its budget and scale seems to be lacking in ambition. Or that is what comes through. When all you can think of in a movie is the two cameos it has, you know something is not right.
Film: Now You See Me
Cast: Jesse Eisenberg, Mark Ruffalo, Isla Fisher, Woody Harrelson, Dave Franco, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman
Director: Louis Letterier
Anyone can get ideas. Anyone. But it is the execution that defines the idea. Thomas Edison doesn’t have a gazillion patents because he thought up those ideas. It is because he made the ideas work. (And Nicola Tesla will say at least half of those were his ideas!) Anyone get a great idea for a movie, but very few can make it a great movie. Now You See Me has a great (and extremely visual) premise. It just needed better writers and director.
Four magicians (technically three and one mentalist), all solo acts, get a mysterious invitation. They become a huge act called The Four Horsemen. In their opening night in Las Vegas, they invite the audience to rob a bank with them. Guess what, they actually do, and, that too, a bank in Paris. The FBI and an Interpol agent are on their heels, as is a magician-turned-magic-revealer. Without proof, the suddenly famous Four Horsemen are free to work on their next show in New Orleans. This time, things do not go according to plan. Or do they?
The initial trick or illusion is a grand set-piece. We watch as wondrously as the audience watching the magic. The clueless FBI goes in search of Thaddeus Bradley (Freeman), an ex-magician. Bradley spends a long time explaining how the heist/trick was done. That is when you look at the watch and realize that almost an hour has gone by and we have no idea where the movie is going. It’s all downhill from there.
We all want to be entertained. And a bunch of magicians pulling off heists, well, that entertains us because we do not have that much money and no one will go to such lengths to rob us! Even if the only intention of the movie was to show us five set pieces, we wouldn’t have minded so much. Instead, the movie tries to pretend it is so much and ends us being nothing concrete. From a magician’s tale to a heist film, to a cops and robbers flick to a revenge drama, with a little bit of almost supernatural thrown in, Now You See Me flounders and ends up as one big mess.
The actors are more than good. With so many big names almost sleepwalking through the movie it is an embarrassment of riches and also an embarrassment to the riches. Jesse Eisenberg, unfortunately, continues with his Woody Allenesque performance again. The other Woody, Harrelson, hams it up delightfully. Mark Ruffalo plays the nice clueless guy. Dave Franco seems a bit lost amongst the heavyweights while the girls, Isla Fisher and Melanie Laurent, are little more than decorative pieces. I swear Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine came for the ride just to catch up on Batman gossip!
The visual effects are good, and it is aided by the impressive photography and slightly frenetic editing. But nothing can offset the holes the screenplay plays around with. The direction is also concentrating on the visuals and the story is allowed to fall into a pit of its own making. Now You See Me falls into the category of Films That Could Have Been. It could have been any one of a bunch of different things, but sadly it ends up being short in every one.
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.
