This Means War

• Release Date: 02/17/2012 
• Rating: R  
• Runtime: 98 min
• Genre: Comedy, Action , Romance
• Director: McG
• Cast: Reese Witherspoon, Chris Pine, Tom Hardy, Chelsea Handler

Storyline

Two top CIA operatives wage an epic battle against one another after they discover they are dating the same woman. 



Review 

In This Means War – a stylish action/rom-com hybrid from director McG – Tom Hardy (The Dark Knight Rises) and Chris Pine (Star Trek) star as CIA operatives whose close friendship is strained by the fires of romantic rivalry. Best pals FDR (Pine) and Tuck (Hardy) are equally accomplished at the spy game, but their fortunes diverge dramatically in the dating realm: FDR (so nicknamed for his obvious resemblance to our 32nd president) is a smooth-talking player with an endless string of conquests, while Tuck is a straight-laced introvert whose love life has stalled since his divorce. Enter Lauren (Reese Witherspoon), a pretty, plucky consumer-products evaluator who piques both their interests in separate, unrelated encounters. Tuck meets her via an online-dating site, FDR at a video-rental store. (That Lauren is tech-savvy enough to date online but still rents movies in video stores is either a testament to her fascinating mix of contradictions, or more likely an example of lazy screenwriting.)

When Tuck and FDR realize they’re pursuing the same girl, it sparks their respective competitive natures, and they decide to make a friendly game of it. But what begins as a good-natured rivalry swiftly devolves into romantic bloodsport, with both men using the vast array of espionage tools at their disposal – from digital surveillance to poison darts – to gain an edge in the battle for Lauren’s affections. If her constitutional rights happen to be violated repeatedly in the process, then so be it.

Lauren, for her part, remains oblivious to the clandestine machinations of her dueling suitors, and happily basks in the sudden attention from two gorgeous men. Herein we find the Reese Witherspoon Dilemma: While certainly desirable, Lauren is far from the irresistible Helen of Troy type that would inspire the likes of Tuck and FDR to risk their friendship, their careers, and potential incarceration for. At several points in This Means War, I found myself wondering if there were no other peppy blondes in Los Angeles (where the film is primarily set) for these men to pursue. Then again, this is a film that wishes us to believe that Tom Hardy would have trouble finding a date, so perhaps plausibility is not its strong point.

When Lauren needs advice, she looks to her boozy, foul-mouthed best friend, Trish (Chelsea Handler). Essentially an extension of Handler’s talk-show persona – an acquired taste if there ever was one – Trish’s dialogue consists almost exclusively of filthy one-liners, delivered in rapid-fire succession. Handler does have some choice lines – indeed, they’re practically the centerpiece of This Means War’s ad campaign – but the film derives the bulk of its humor from the outrageous lengths Tuck and FDR go to sabotage each others’ efforts, a raucous game of spy-versus-spy that carries the film long after Handler’s shtick has grown stale.

Business occasionally intrudes upon matters in the guise of Heinrich (Til Schweiger), a Teutonic arms dealer bent on revenge for the death of his brother. The subplot is largely an afterthought, existing primarily as a means to provide third-act fireworks – and to allow McGenius an outlet for his ADD-inspired aesthetic proclivities. The film’s action scenes are edited in such a manic, quick-cut fashion that they become almost laughably incoherent. In fairness to McG, he does stage a rather marvelous sequence in the middle of the film, in which Tuck and FDR surreptitiously skulk about Lauren's apartment, unaware of each other's presence, carefully avoiding detection by Lauren, who grooves absentmindedly to Montel Jordan's "This Is How We Do It." The whole scene unfolds in one continuous take – or is at least craftily constructed to appear as such – captured by one very agile steadicam operator.

Whatever his flaws as a director, McG is at least smart enough to know how much a witty script and appealing leads can compensate for a film’s structural and logical deficiencies. He proved as much with Charlie’s Angels, a film that enjoys a permanent spot on many a critic’s Guilty Pleasures list, and does so again with This Means War. The film coasts on the chemistry of its three co-stars, and only runs into trouble when the time comes to resolve its romantic competition, which, by the end, has driven its male protagonists to engage in all manner of underhanded and duplicitous activities. This Means War being a commercial film – and likely an expensive one at that – Witherspoon's heroine is mandated to make a choice, and McG all but sidesteps the whole thorny matter of Tuck and FDR’s unwavering dishonesty, not to mention their craven disregard for her privacy. (They regularly eavesdrop on her activities.) For all their obvious charms, the truth is that neither deserves Lauren – or anything other than a lengthy jail sentence, for that matter.

Read More

The Vow (2012)

Release Date: 02/10/2012
Rating: PG13
Runtime: 1 hr 44 mins
Genre: Drama,Romance
Director: Michael Sucsy
Cast: Rachel McAdams, Channing Tatum, Sam Neill, Jessica Lange

Storyline
A car accident puts Paige (McAdams) in a coma, and when she wakes up with severe memory loss, her husband Leo (Tatum) works to win her heart again.


Review

The romantic drama The Vow is not adapted from a Nicholas Sparks novel, though I doubt its producers would be offended if you’d assumed otherwise. In fact, I suspect they’re banking on it. The film’s stars, Rachel McAdams and Channing Tatum, are both recognized veterans of the Sparks subgenre – she gave us the indelible (for better or worse) Notebook, while he starred in the somewhat less successful Dear John. Moreover, its premise, pitting love against the insidious after-effects of brain trauma, may be inspired by a true story, but its one-two punch of tragedy and sentiment is straight out of Sparks’ tear-jerking playbook.

It’s all there in The Vow’s opening montage, which first introduces Leo (Tatum) and Paige (McAdams), two desperately smitten bohemian-artist types (she’s a sculptor; he’s a musician/studio owner), and then rudely separates them, all in one slick, heartbreaking sequence. There’s the meet-cute at the DMV, the whirlwind courtship, the quirky marriage proposal, the kitschy guerrilla wedding (replete with vows scrawled on restaurant menus), and, finally, the brutal car accident, glimpsed in agonizing slow-motion, that leaves poor Paige in a coma.

When Paige awakens in the hospital, Leo is aghast to discover his wife doesn’t recognize him. While her girl-next-door beauty emerged from the crash remarkably intact, it seems her brain did not fare so well, suffering injuries that effectively wiped out her memory of the preceding five years – a span comprising the entirety of her relationship with Leo. Her mind’s clock rewound a half-decade, Paige assumes the identity of Paige from five years prior, like a rebooted computer whose owner neglected to backup the hard drive in a timely manner.

It soon becomes achingly apparent that the Paige from five years prior was markedly different from the Paige we met in the opening credits: a superficial sorority girl, on track for a law degree, averse to city-dwelling, partial to blueberry mojitos, cowed by her domineering father (Sam Neill), and engaged to a corporate douche (Scott Speedman). Upon emerging from her slumber, she finds the remnants from her old life all-too-eager to re-assimilate their lost lamb into the Bourgeois Borg, even if she does have one of those icky tattoos.

In danger of losing the love of his life to her former one, a heartbroken Leo resolves to win back Paige, even if it means starting from scratch and wooing her all over again. Aligned against him are the grim realities of brain damage as well as Paige’s family and former fiancé, whose cult-like efforts at re-education seem ever-creepier the more I contemplate them. (There are unintentional echoes of Total Recall in Paige’s arc, which I suppose would make Leo her Kuato.)

Cultishness and Total Recall allusions notwithstanding, The Vow flirts with a more unsettling notion, one seemingly at odds with the romantic drama mission, implying that what we know as love is simply the product of our memories, tenuous and transient, and not the profound, transcendent bond that Hallmark promised.

Fear not: The Vow is by no means a dense metaphysical treatise. Director Michael Sucsy (Grey Gardens) and is far more concerned with heart-tugging than thought-provoking. To that end, he steers admirably clear of grand epiphanies and other moments of high melodrama, preferring instead to apportion the sap relatively evenly throughout the story. The strategy is less manipulative but also less impactful. The script, from Abby Kohn, Marc Silverstein, and Jason Katims, can’t maintain the energy of its opening act, and apart from its brain damage twist, is a tediously familiar romantic-drama slog. I found myself secretly rooting for some old-fashioned emotional overkill, if only to alleviate the boredom.

The two leads, for their part, form a charming pair. McAdams is as endearing as ever, working well within her comfort zone, and equally likable Tatum bears his character’s anguish ably, even if he’ll never be credible as a bohemian-artist type. Their easy, appealing chemistry might be enough to satisfy the Sparks-philes, but it’s not enough to sustain the film.

Read More

Gali Gali Chor Hai movie review

Gali Gali Chor Hai February 3, 2012 11:48:02 AM IST
updated February 4, 2012 01:52:30 PM IST
By Martin D'Souza, Glamsham Editorial
For a movie that slots itself as comedy/drama, GALI GALI CHOR HAI leaves a sobering impact. In fact, it has you tottering out of the auditorium after having driven home its point with such finesse that it makes you wonder how Rumi Jaffery managed this Houdini act!
'Houdini act' because it's a subject so real and so close to home that it has never been addressed with such intelligence. True, there have been movies on politics and politicians and the corrupt system; but the way the 'system' is looked into in a holistic way, through the life of just one common man, is indeed an eye-opener. I'm sure, R K Laxman would be proud of this achievement. After decades, some other artist has managed to portray the 'Common Man' that really excites, incites and has you thinking.

CHECK OUT: Mugdha- No bikini show in GALI GALI CHOR HAI
The story is simple. It could happen to you. Bharat (Akshaye Khanna) is a quintessential character, you would find in your neighbourhood. It could be you. He is married; works in a bank as a cashier and his only crime is that he refuses a room in his large house for a local politician to set up his temporary office during election time. The setting is in Madhya Pradesh. Bharat is part of a play where he longs to play Ram, but portrays Hanuman. The local politician's brother enacts Ram, thanks to his lineage, even though he is a bad actor. The genesis of Bharat's problem can be traced from here.
Before you know it, in front of your eyes, Bharat is implicated in a problem so trivial that it actually shocks you as to how he could be sucked into the vortex of the corrupt system so incredulously convincingly by a cop (Anu Kapoor, brilliant) who obviously has been let loose on the unsuspecting man.

It appears that the cops have caught a robber who has robbed a table fan from Bharat's home. Bharat is not aware of any such fan. But after a veiled threat from the cop he is convinced to go to the local police station where the game begins to retrieve his fan. How Rumi exploits the plot, weaving in the accompaniment that goes along with any case that lands in the small court is what frustrates you as a viewer. You feel for Bharat as he helplessly moves around not knowing what has hit him as he starts bribing his way through the system.
Then begins the quest to get rid of the 'unlucky' fan.
Akshaye is first rate in portraying the angst of someone who is perplexed as to the way the system functions. He transfers his anxiety to the viewer who is as helpless. That is the mark of a genius. Shriya Saran as his wife has a small but meaningful role. Murli Sharma who plays local MLA Manku Tripathi and the guy who plays his brother don't have much of a role. But just the minimum time they have on screen is enough to have a maximum impact. Who says you need several scenes and a meaty role to leave your mark as an actor?
CHECK OUT: Can GALI GALI CHOR HAI spring a surprise?
The final scene and the dialogue by Bharat, 'Yeh system ke gaal pe tamacha hai' is what really has you reeling. He does get to play Ram after all, using all the strength of a Hanuman!
The Bomb Blast angle notwithstanding (not convincing, it could have been interwoven more smartly or could have been done away with), GALLI GALLI CHOR HAIN is indeed an eye-opener. Positioned cleverly around election time, it should encourage those who never leave their homes to exercise their franchise.
Don't mistake the name Bharat for the main protagonist. India can have many more Anna Hazares who can stand up against the system.
The five star rating is for the concept and the intelligent way it has been executed, without going over-the-top. It is also for the director's chutzpah. Methinks it should be made tax free.
This movie is Timely, Topical and Terrific!
Rating - 5/5

View the original article here

Read More

Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu

Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu  February 10, 2012 12:30:48 PM IST
updated February 10, 2012 03:11:11 PM IST
By Martin D'Souza, Glamsham Editorial
This clearly is an Imran Khan show. Sedate and subdued, he goes about bringing Rahul (his character) to life. Overburdened by the expectations from his parents (Boman Irani and Ratna Pathak-Shah) to excel in what they decide is best for him, Rahul loses his identity and lives to please them. He opens his mouth, but is never able to voice his opinion. He is an architect in a big firm in Las Vegas. Sin city obviously is going to lure you to do things you would never have imagined. So what if you never rebel. There is always that side wanting to explode at the slightest provocation.
That provocation comes in the form of Kareena Kapoor (Riana Braganza) a hair-stylist who is nursing another broken relationship. Their chance meeting at a Mall, followed by a visit to the shrink in the same vicinity puts them in an odd spot. Before you know it, both are 'punch drunk' and wake up as a married couple the next morning. Neither has any clue of what happened. Britney Spears did that too, a few years ago and got the marriage annulled.
CHECK OUT: Imran's wife Avantika does cameo in EK MAIN AUR EKK TU
Rahul and Riana too want this mistake annulled. How this 'drunken error' weaves into a larger plot is what EK MAIN AUR EKK TU is all about. Shakun Batra does not give one the impression that this is his maiden venture as a director. The editing is sharp, the plot pushy enough to drive the movie the full length and the screenplay appropriate. For most part, the movie gives one a Hollywood feel, since Las Vegas is the action spot. The smart narration before, between and at the end, enhances the entire movie. Actually, it's another character of the movie.
Of late, Imran has been typecast with roles he has been associated with. Take the case of MERE BROTHER KI DULHAN and his debut film JAANE TU... YA JAANE NA... The characters, body language, dialogue delivery are almost similar. In EMAET, he goes three steps further. He sheds his image and clothes himself in the character. As for me, I got a Hugh Grant feel from his performance.

The same cannot be said of Kareena Kapoor. She is a fine actor but somewhere she has failed to shake off the image of Geet from JAB WE MET. You encounter Geet even here. For an actor to excel, he or she has to start afresh with every role. Having said that, it can be argued in her favour, that Riana is indeed a happy-go-lucky character who only sees the brighter side of life. Her family too, embodies the spirit she exudes. But then, you expect more from a Kareena, na?!.
For all the talk of their age difference, Imran and Kareena do make a good couple. The script helps too with her being shown two years older. However, the film does tend to get monotonous with the focus being on just the two. Batra tries to rope in a few more characters as the plot moves to India with Riana's parents and her extended family. Here, Batra falters as he portrays her family more like Parsis than Catholics. The scene at St Xavier's School where Riana takes Rahul on a tour too is a mistake because we all know that only boys study here. Talking about her best friend Amu, too, trivializes the scene a bit. We all know who she is referring to.
CHECK OUT: Kareena is unaffected by her stardom
The Auntyji track is peppy and ups the tempo and the end is actually the beginning. Full marks to Batra for being different.
At least you go back thinking about what could have been.
EMAET had the potential of being an even better film. The three stars are for the excellent treatment and Imran's performance.
Rating : 3/5

Read More

Ghost

Kumaar, A.M. Turaz and Sandeep Nath Shiney Ahuja, Sayali Bhagat, Tej Sapru, Deepraj Rana, Julia Bliss and Gulshan Rana January 13, 2012 03:37:37 PM IST
By Martin D'Souza, Glamsham Editorial
Do not mistake this for the remake of the Patick Swayze-Demi Moore starrer with the same name. This one is far removed from the brilliance of that 1990 flick.
This GHOST is a nuisance. The directors needs to learn the ABC of scripting before venturing into a horror story. What he does know is to keep the lighting low and make scary background sounds. Apart from that he just scratches the surface. Whoever coined the saying, 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing', must surely have had this director in mind.
Picture this: There's a lady who is rushed to the hospital with third degree burns. Her saree is intact! Get a load of this too: Just when the investigation into the killings in the City Hospital is reaching its peak with the investigating officer (Shiney) stumbling on some important facts, he answers a call from Dr Suhani (Sayali) to dance in a night club. There are many such flaws in this film that leaves the viewer enough time to catch a quick nap and wake up at the opportune time to hear another background score that tries hard to scare.

For the record, a few killings at the City Hospital is baffling the authorities. All the victims have their heart pulled out and face disfigured. In walks Shiney, the investigating officer. Sayali is a doctor who has just joined this hospital and in her second meeting is singing songs with the investigating officer. It also appears that Shiney is suffering from retrograde amnesia, meaning he has forgotten a certain phase of his life. No prizes for guessing that it has some link to the happenings.
At least, the Ramsay brothers, whose name is synonymous with horror films, had a set formula which made sense. This one is comical in its approach.
Rating - 1/5






View the original article here

Read More

Valentines Night

Valentine's Night Movie Review February 10, 2012 12:40:33 PM IST
updated February 10, 2012 03:22:08 PM IST
By Martin D'Souza, Glamsham Editorial
VALENTINE'S NIGHT is a story about three girls and two boys who have just broken up on Valentine's Day and meet up on the 'Lonely Hearts' page on Facebook. One of the girls plans a night out together. They call it Valentine's Night! As the night progresses, three more join the trip. These three (two girls and a boy) and partners of three from the five. Confusing? Not really. The idea was novel, but executing it into-a full-fledged movie is another story altogether.
Hence, I guess, there are two directors-Krishan and Badal. Both show promise in patches and that's about as far you can go with this plot, which is convoluted. After about 20 minutes of trying to keep pace with the action, you give up. The actors make a fine mess of whatever is given to them further complicating the goings-on.
The film is flawed right from the planning stage. There are plots within a plot and the directors do not know how to handle the back stories. Everything is just thrown in, like an inexperienced cook would do to a dish hoping it would taste good.

Payal Rohatgi is the only known name that drives this film, unfortunately she too is not convinced about what she is doing on screen. Apart from shedding copious tears and displaying legs (shoddy dress designing), she has nothing left to do.
I must say that this is a brave attempt but the makers could have done well to rope in a few experts to whet the script before taking the final plunge. After all, you are taking the product to the masses and a little sensibility is what is required.
The one star is for the belief the directors had in themselves. After all it is better to have tried and failed than not to have tried at all!
Mark Zuckerberg will certainly not be flattered with the reference to Facebook that this film constantly makes! 'Facebook ne humko bacha liya,' say the protagonists at the end.
But who will save this movie?
Ratings : 1/5

Read More

Agneepath

January 26, 2012 01:08:11 PM IST
updated January 30, 2012 05:28:27 PM IST
By Martin D'Souza, Glamsham Editorial
Before the onset, I would like to make it known that AGNEEPATH, the original, remains one of my best Bollywood films to date. I have seen it umpteen times and every time I see it a new, I enjoy it even more. To me, that was Amitabh Bachchan's finest performance; he dared to experiment and set a benchmark with his dialogue style that ended with an eeh! Vijay Dinanath Chauhan was a complete character coming from Mandwa, a small town on the outskirts of Mumbai. He had 'Maut ke saath apintment.' Vijay Dinanath Chauhan (Hrithik Roshan) in the re-make too, has 'Maut ke saath apintment'. But this will not be known to the first-time viewers of AGNEEPATH.
Karan Johar in a note before the re-make rolls applauds the genius of Amit uncle (Amitabh Bachchan) and the vision of Mukul Anand, the director. Produced by his father, late Yash Johar, this is Karan's tribute to the vision of the three that produced one of the finest films to come out of Bollywood, which unfortunately failed to be coined as a commercial success.
CHECK OUT: AGNEEPATH finally gets its due!
Any comparison to the original now, is inevitable.
Assistant to Karan Johar, Karan Malhotra gets to hold the reins for the first time. He knocks off a few elements from the original, and adds new layers to the new. For instance, Mithun Chakraborty's character, which was central to the plot, has been done away with, while Vijay's mother's role has been cut down, only to be exploited towards the end. Even Vijay's sister's role has been modified while a layer in the form of the character of Rauf Lala (Rishi Kapoor) who trades in the flesh market and drugs has been added. Kanhcha Cheena (Sanjay Dutt) has a father who is the village headman, while Danny Denzongpa in the original was a one-man-show. No song stands out in the AGNEEPATH of old; it's just the brilliance of one man. Chikni Chameli (Katrina Kaif) leaves an indelible mark on this one. The track is not only catchy and peppy, but also sees the Kaif girl dancing like a 'Kat on a hot tin roof!' She sheds all inhibitions jumping into the song with gay abandon. A paisa vasool moment in the film.
The story: Master Dinanath Chauhan is a respected teacher in Mandwa. His popularity threatens the village headman who uses his son, Kancha Cheena to frame him in a crime and then eliminate him in a most brutal fashion. Vijay is just 10-years-old when he sees havoc wreaked in his life. He leaves Mandwa with his pregnant mother for Mumbai and begins his journey of hate, to one day reclaim Mandwa and eliminate Kancha. He uses the power of Rauf Lala, who is the Badshaah of Mumbai, to gain in strength to get closer to his target.

Drawbacks:
- While the late Mukul Anand took pains to etch out Master's character, here Karan Malhotra quickly runs through the process without dwelling into how important Master's existence is to the whole plot. He expects his newer audience to have seen the old film.
- As someone who is into the 'flesh trade' and drug mafia, Rishi Kapoor is a poor choice. Simply because he fails to characterize evil in a way it was meant to be. Pawan Malhotra could have been a good choice.
- The film is 20 minutes too long. A couple of songs could have been done away with. The birthday song for Vijay's sister and the wedding song for Rauf's son.
- Madhavi's role (that of a nurse) though small, left a lasting impression. Priyanka Chopra's role has been very poorly defined leaving no room for the actress to improvise or act.
- Finally, even 15 years later, Kancha is still the same fit old villain. Nothing changes for him, not even his style of dressing. Danny has aged considerably in the original. Dutt's make-over has not been looked into properly. His style of dialogue delivery and his bald pate gives one a 'comical feel'. For a character that is supposed to have you shuddering, it's very weakly scripted. However, he makes up towards the end.
CHECK OUT: AGNEEPATH - A new phase of acting begins for Rishi Kapoor
Highpoints:
- The dinner table scene this time is powerful where Vijay is shown grabbing his thali and devouring his mother's food after 15 years. Touching.
- The entire sequence where Vijay rescues his sister from being sold by Rauf Lala is gripping till the time Shiksha learns who Vijay really is. For 15 years, she never knew she had a brother. And, it is only here, that Rishi manages to go top gear in the evil department.
- The climax more than makes up for the weak beginning. Even though there are a few cinematic liberties that the director takes, you as a viewer want to root out the evil.
- The Chikni Chameli item song which I have already mentioned.
- Hrithik double crossing Rauf Lala is smartly executed. He moves in for his own selfish motives, but is smart enough not to leave a trail. Malhotra handles these moments with the ease of a seasoned pro.
Hrithik conforms himself to the mould set by Amitabh. He sticks to the plot working with vengeance as his crutch. If you blank out Amitabh's performance in the original, Hrithik stands out. He is cool, calculative and not afraid of death. Remember he has Maut ke saath apintment!
Kanika Tiwari who plays Hrithik's sister towers in her brief role. A youngster pitied against seasoned stars like Priyanka and Hrithik, she holds her own in pivot scenes to steal the show.
The entire production is first rate. The songs, especially the Ganapati immersion and the wedding of Rauf Lala's son, are picturised beautifully with well-choreographed dances.
Although it will not have a recall value like the old AGNEEPATH, this surely is a 'must one-time-watch'.
Rating : 4/5

Read More

Sadda Adda

Shamir Tandon, Band of Boys, Ramji Gulati Prashant Pandey, Sandeep Nath, Ramji Gulati, Shamir Tandon, Karan Oberio Karanvir Sharma, Bhaumik Sampat, Rohin Robert, Rohit Arora, Kunal Pant, Parimal Aloke, Shaurya Chauhan and Kahkkashan Aryan January 13, 2012 11:16:52 AM IST
updated January 14, 2012 08:26:57 PM IST
By Martin D'Souza, Glamsham Editorial
SADDA ADDA is a movie with the right intention. You could call it a poor cousin of 3 IDIOTS. That itself should be a big boost to the makers for working on a theme which is positive in its approach to send out an optimistic message of hope. It also has shades of similarity with the 2007 film directed by Manoj Tyagi, MUMBAI SALSA.
The movie is urban in its approach, with roots going back to small towns from where the central characters come from.
It's a story about six bachelors coming together to live in a rented 2BHK apartment. They call their home 'Sadda Adda'. All come from diverse backgrounds with dreams to make it big. While one wants to make it in acting, the others in engineering, and sales and design. There's another who is struggling to find a suitable job.
Their home, as expected, is in a mess, with a detailed daily chart of who will do what during the day. However, there's just one guy, Jogi, who ends up doing most of the work as the others bully him around.

From here, the story takes a predictable turn as to how one of the boys loses his focus, despite being talented. He finally realizes his act of arrogance and corrects it with all humility to regain lost ground.
Another, unable to cope with failure, decides that suicide is the best option.
First time director Muazzam Beg has a completely raw cast at hand and does a decent job extracting some good performances, especially from Karanvir Sharma and the boy who plays Safal, a Bihari. Both these actors should be able to make a mark like Omi Vaidya did in 3 IDIOTS.

CHECK OUT: Shaurya Chauhan- SADDA ADDA is a youngster's film!
The movie should strike the right chord with audience from within the college community and those who have just begun their professional career.
Like I said, it does end with a message of hope. In these stressful, competitive times, it is indeed heartening to be rejuvenated with a message to live your dreams, and not give up. It also subtly tells us that picking yourself up and fighting on is a better bet than suicide.
Rating : 2/5

Read More

Staying Alive movie review

February 1, 2012 01:14:39 PM IST
updated February 2, 2012 06:28:23 PM IST
By Martin D'Souza, Glamsham Editorial

This film may not have many takers (read audience) but whoever watches it will come out enlightened. It falls in the off-beat cinema mold, an area which many producers and directors do not venture into because of the economic factor. However, deep within, most passionate about cinema do want to dabble with topics that will not make the box-office 'jingle all the way', but will certainly satisfy their creative urge. This has been openly voiced by Subhash Ghai when he launched the music album of JOGGER'S PARK in 2003. He said then that he always wanted to do something like this but was afraid of the economics. And now that he had managed the economics, he was game for exploring. Not verbatim, but something to this effect.

STAYING ALIVE is one such film that brings you to the reality of what life really is. Director Anant Mahadevan does not hammer home his point, but very subtly, using mild humour as a backdrop, manages to impress with what he wants to express. You don't always have to shout to make your point; the same impact can be had by speaking out calmly, what you would have otherwise said harshly and rashly. Mahadevan manages exactly that.

This film is based on a true story, that of celebrated Bollywood writer Sujit Sen's experience in a hospital. Sen had suffered a third heart attack and was admitted to a hospital. Next to him was a gangster who had suffered his first. The movie is about how both look at life, from next to death; the bonding of both the wives in the hospital corridor, and the sacrifices they make to keep their marriage alive.

Anant Mahadevan is a journalist who has suffered his third heart attack. As he is being rushed to the hospital in an ambulance, he explains to his wife (Ranjana Sasa) where he has kept all the important financial documents. In the corridor, she meets with another distraught lady (Navni Parihar) whose gangster husband (Saurabh Shukla) has been wheeled into the ICU after his first major heart attack.

From here, the movie moves from the corridor to the ICU to important flashbacks to round off a complete soul-searching journey. While the corridor scenes portray the anxiety the two women go through and their gradual bonding, the scenes in the ICU oscillate from serious to subtle fun, to bonding of another kind.

What works for the movie, considering its theme, is the lighting and the low camera angles that capture the mood of the patients. This I feel is what aids the total product for its absolute appeal. Both Mahadevan and Shukla are first rate in their performances, ably supported by both the ladies, Ranjana and Navni.

Anant Mahadevan has gone slow on histrionics. He just unravels the mystery of a criminal's mind and how it undergoes a sea change wanting to turn a new leaf in his life. But then being a gangster is a 'one way street', the famous dialogue mouthed by Paresh Rawal to Sanjay Dutt in Naam.

Does Saurabh Shukla who plays Shaukat Ali really have a choice? Go watch it.

Rating - 4/5

View the original article here

Read More

Safe House (2012)

Release Date: 10 February 2012 (Pakistan)

Runtime: 115 min
Genres: Action | Crime | Mystery | Thriller

Director: Daniel Espinosa
Writer: David Guggenheim
Stars: Denzel Washington, Ryan Reynolds and Robert Patrick



Storyline

A young CIA agent is tasked with looking after a fugitive in a safe house. But when the safe house is attacked, he finds himself on the run with his charge.
Review

A flat thriller that could use a little danger.
In the last seven years, Denzel Washington has paired with director Tony Scott on four hyperkinetic, ultra-saturated feature films: Man on Fire, Deja Vu, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 and Unstoppable. When he strays from the time-honored action collaboration, you'd think the man would take a break from the format. Not so—as Washington's new film Safe House clearly demonstrates.
Daniel Espinosa, director of the acclaimed Swedish crime drama Snabba Cash, shoots his espionage thriller with Scott-ian flair, complete with rapid camera movement, a palette of eye-scorchingly bright colors and fragmented editing. If Safe House was emotionally compelling, the stylistic approach might make the narrative sizzle—but the script is as simple and familiar as they come: Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds) is a CIA agent with a monotonous gig. He's a safe housekeeper, tasked with maintaining a stronghold in South Africa in case the feds need to stop by for some…interrogating. After a year of begging for field work and keeping the joint tidy, Weston finds himself embroiled in the investigation of Tobin Bell (Denzel Washington), an ex-CIA notorious for selling information on the black market. A group of agents bring Bell in to Weston's safe house for a routine waterboarding, but everything is thrown into chaos when the lockdown is infiltrated by machine-wielding baddies looking to put a bullet in Bell's head. To keep the captor alive, Weston goes on the run with Bell in hand…never knowing exactly why everyone wants the guy dead.
The setup for Safe House provides Washington and Reynolds, two fully capable action stars, to do their thing and to do it well. The two characters have their own defining characteristics that each actor bites off with ferocity: Reynolds' Weston is a man drowning in circumstance, built to kick ass, but still out of his league and just hoping to get back to his gal in one piece. Bell has years of experience boring into the heads of his opponents, and Washington plays him with the necessary charisma and confidence that make even his most despicable characters a treat to watch.
But the duo fight a losing battle in Safe House, contending with the script's meandering action and ambiguous stakes that turn the Bourne-esque thriller into a grueling experience. Much of the movie is an extended chase scene where the object of the bad guys' desire is never identified. It's a mystery!—but the lack of info comes off as confusing. Safe House cuts back and forth between the compelling relationship between Weston and Bell and a war room full of exceptional actors (Vera Farmiga, Brendan Gleeson and Sam Shepherd) given nothing to do but spurt straightforward backstory and typical "there's no time, Mr. ______!" exclamatory statements. Caking it is Espinosa's direction, which lacks any sense of coherent geography. The action is never intense, because you have no idea who is going where and when and why.
Safe House is a competently made movie with enough talent to keep it afloat, but without any definable hook or dramatic emphasis, it plays out like an undercooked version of the Denzel Washington/Tony Scott formula. Which is unfortunate, as four solid ones already exist.

View the original article here
P

Read More

Underworld: Awakening

 


 
 Release Date: 01/20/2012
  Rating: R
  Runtime: 1 hr 28 mins
  Genre: Horror
  Director: Bjorn Stein
 Cast: Kate Beckinsale, Stephen Rea, Michael Ealy, Theo Jame

Review
After sitting out most of Underworld: Rise of the Lycans, the 2009 “prequel” to the Underworld saga, Kate Beckinsale returns to her trademark role as the face of the blockbuster action-horror franchise in Underworld: Awakening. The film finds Beckinsale’s vampire heroine, Selene, waking up in a research facility after a dozen years in hibernation, whereupon she discovers that both vampires and lycans, the traditional adversaries of the Underworld universe, are now nearly extinct – “cleansed,” as it were, by us good-old humans – and that her 12-year-old daughter, Eve (India Eisley), is imperiled. It seems that both the dreaded lycans and a mad scientist named Dr. Jacob Lane (poor Stephen Rea) are after the girl, on account of her special DNA.
All of which is meant to provide a serviceable backdrop for a good 85 minutes or so of relentless carnage, orchestrated with relish by the Swedish directing tandem of Mans Marlind and Bjorn Stein and meted out dutifully by Beckinsale. Nine years after she first portrayed Selene, the actress appears as comfortable as ever in her familiar black leather as she carves through waves of monstrous creatures and hapless henchmen, performing the odd acrobatic feat to better position herself for the killing blow. The bloodlust occasionally pauses to allow Beckinsale a moment to emote over lost love or seek a fleeting bond with her offspring, but soon more CGI beasts arrive on hand, and the soulless slaughter hastily recommences. Gorehounds hungry for splatter will delight at the myriad ways Underworld: Awakening finds to depict an exploding skull (in fabulous, brain-bursting IMAX 3D!), but in the end, they’re likely the only ones who’ll leave the theater sated.

View the original article here

Read More

Man on a Ledge

Release Date: 01/27/2012
Rating: PG13
Runtime: Not Yet Available
Genre: Drama, Thriller
Director: Asger Leth
Cast: Sam Worthington, Jamie Bell, Ed Harris, Edward Burns

Review
In the cinematic desert that is the January-February movie-release schedule, one gains a greater appreciation for mere competence. And that’s precisely what you’ll get with Man on a Ledge, a mid-budget thriller with modest aspirations and genuine popcorn appeal. Sam Worthington (Avatar, Clash of the Titans) stars as Nick Cassidy, a former New York City cop wrongly convicted for the theft of a prized diamond. After exhausting all judicial avenues for exoneration, he takes the unusual and seemingly desperate next step of planting himself on a ledge outside the penthouse of midtown’s Roosevelt Hotel and threatening to jump. An NYPD psychologist (Elizabeth Banks) is summoned to talk him down, unaware that Nick harbors an ulterior motive. From his perch above midtown, he is secretly orchestrating a scheme to take revenge against the corrupt corporate chieftain (Ed Harris) who engineered his demise and prove his innocence once and for all.
Director Asger Leth, making his U.S. feature-film debut with Man on a Ledge, keeps the pace brisk and never allows the tone to stray into self-seriousness, which is crucial for a movie whose premise is so devoutly ridiculous. The script, from Pablo F. Fenjves, provides enough feints and twists to keep us engaged. Jamie Bell and Genesis Rodriguez aren’t the most believable of couples, but there’s a screwball charm to their comic routine as amateur thieves charged with aiding Nick’s scheme. (Leth can’t resist inserting an entirely superfluous – but nonetheless greatly appreciated – scene of the criminally gorgeous Rodriguez stripping down to a thong in the middle of a heist.) Worthington makes for a likable populist protagonist, even if his Australian accent betrays him on copious occasions, and Harris’ disturbingly emaciated frame lends an added menace to his devious plutocrat villain.

View the original article here

Read More

Red Tails

A drawn out history lesson that nose-dives from beginning to end.

While Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan helped define the style of a modern day war film, it was his HBO mini-series Band of Brothers that truly captured the World War II experience. The multi-part saga dealt with every nook and cranny of the US military's involvement in the war, from large scale battles to intimate character details. The new movie Red Tails, developed and produced by Spielberg's Indiana Jones collaborator and Star Wars mastermind George Lucas, attempts to cover the same ground for the sprawling tale of the Tuskegee Airmen—albeit in a two hour, compressed form. The result is a messy handling of a powerful story of heroism. The good intentions make it on to the screen...but the drama never gets off the runway.

Red Tails assembles a talented cast of young actors to portray the brave men of the 332nd Fighter Group, a faction of the Tuskegee Airmen. The ensemble is reduced to a jumble of simplistic, one-note characterizations: Easy (Nate Parker), the do-gooder with a dark past; Lightning (David Oyelowo), the suave rebel who never listens to orders; Junior (Tristan Wilds), the fresh-faced newbie ready for a good fight; and the rest, a nameless group of underwritten yes men all with just enough backstory to make you interested, but never satisfied. Thankfully, with the little material they have to work with, the gentlemen excel. Rapper-turned-actor Ne-Yo is a standout as the quick-witted Smokey, overshadowing vets Terrence Howard and Cuba Gooding, Jr. (who spends most of the movie chomping on a corn cob pipe and grinning).

With the plethora of characters comes too many plot threads, and Red Tails stuffs its runtime with everything from epic flyboy dog fights, romantic interludes (Lightning finds himself infatuated with a local Italian woman), office politics, alcoholism and even a POW camp escape. If there was a true lead character, the movie may have succeeded in stringing the events together in a coherent narrative, but instead, Red Tails is choppy and uneven. The aerial battles, for all their CG special effects nastiness, are incredibly exhilarating, but when the movie's not tackling the intensity of a battle (which it does often), it comes to a near halt. That mostly comes down to history standing in the way—the crux of the story focuses on how segregation caused the military's higher ups to avoid utilizing the Red Tails in true battle. Meaning there's a lot of talk on how the team should be fighting, as opposed to actually doing it.

Director Anthony Hemingway tries to do this important historical milestone justice, but the execution flies too low, even under made-for-TV movie standards. Red Tails is a dull history lesson occasionally spruced up with Lucas' eye for action. The charisma of the the main set of actors goes a long way in keeping the film tolerable, but they can't fill the gaping hole where the emotional hook belongs. This is a movie about heroes, yet not once are the filmmakers able to pull off a moment that feels remotely brave. Which is unfortunate—as it's a story of the utmost importance.

View the original article here

Read More

Joyful Noise

Queen Latifah and Dolly Parton try their best to make this cinematic noise into something joyful.

A massive hit never ends at its own conclusion, for better or worse. Lost, Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, The Blair Witch Project and other pop culture milestones spawned plenty of imitators of wavering quality that trickled on to screens until the phenomena tapered off. Joyful Noise, the new film starring Queen Latifah and Dolly Parton, is one these auxiliary creative endeavors, a direct descendant of the cheeky drama/comedy/musical hybrid Glee. But instead of teenage issues and pop covers, Joyful Noise swaps in familial struggles, gospel tunes and a sizable serving of Christian faith. The combination results in a movie that lacks the jazz hand energy of Glee, but packs good-natured laughs to keep someone awake for its two hour duration. More "noise" than "joyful."

Mere minutes after the passing away of choir leader Bernie, Vi Rose (Latifah) inherits the position—along with a serving of negative vibes from Bernie's wife G.G. (Parton), who was hoping to take the job herself. The new responsibility is only the beginning of Vi Rose's troubles, as she attempts to balance her rebellious daughter Olivia's (Keke Palmer) raging hormones, her son Walter's (Dexter Darden) Asperger's syndrome, her husband's absence during a military stint and her own old school, God-faring ways. Hardships are whipped into further chaos upon the arrival of Randy, G.G.'s rambunctious, horny grandson, who shows up at rehearsal with an eye on Olivia and undeniable vocal skills. Randy's rock and roll edge is readily embraced by the group, but even with the national gospel championship on the line, Vi Rose isn't ready to toss tradition aside.

Joyful Noise is a mixed bag, sporadically entertaining when director Todd Graff (Camp, Bandslam) lets his two commanding stars flex their comedic muscles or belt soulful tunes. Latifah and Parton can do both with ease—Latifah has a natural charm, while Parton essentially fills the "kooky Betty White" here—but instead of letting the two fly, Graff breaks up the action with overwrought drama and bizarre side character stories. The script injects a lot of ideas into the picture—loss of faith, modernizing ideologies, coping with tragedy, sexuality under the eye of God—but every tender moment is fumbled. A gut-wrenching conversation between Vi Rose and her autistic son should have weight, and the actors do their best, but the material doesn't service the emotional complexity of the scenario. Instead, it opts to cut to a musical number. Another sequence involving the overnight demise of another character is even played for comedy, even when it causes one woman to question her beliefs.

Thank God for the musical numbers, which have enough energy to brush the flimsier moments under the rug. The Glee-inspired pop tune covers (Michael Jackson's "Man in the Mirror," Usher's "Yeah"—both tailored with religious modifications) aren't nearly as interesting or powerful as the straight-up gospel songs. But unlike the tunes, Joyful Noise doesn't have rhyme or reason. A mishmash of played out character stereotypes, narrative cliches and enjoyable, but erratic music, the movie feels more like a cash-in than it should. Latifah and Parton are a sizzling duo, but the vehicle built for them is a clunker. As Vi Rose might say, the only way to have a great time at Joyful Noise is to believe. Really, really hard.

View the original article here

Read More

'Haywire'

According to official Haywire lore, director Steven Soderbergh chanced upon the woman who would become the star of his breakneck action-thriller one night while watching television. Which isn’t entirely unusual, except that Soderbergh wasn’t watching some obscure indie film or BBC miniseries, but a bout of women’s mixed martial arts fighting. So impressed was he at the sight of Gina Carano, an American Gladiators alum turned cage fighter, that he had the Haywire script, from The Limey writer Lem Dobbs, reworked to accommodate her casting.

In the film, a conventional spy-gone-rogue tale made unconventional by its director and star, Carano plays Mallory Kane, a black-ops freelancer who seeks vengeance against her betrayers upon being double-crossed. Watching her in action, it’s easy to see why Soderbergh was so enamored. Carano is a physical marvel: strong and agile, a skilled fighter and grappler with the face of a model and the shoulders of a linebacker. Having grown accustomed to waif-like action heroines played unconvincingly by the likes of Beckinsale, Jovovich, and Jolie, it’s refreshing to witness an actress who can deliver a knockout blow – and take one – with some credulity.

And Carano kicks a staggering amount of ass in Haywire. In the film’s many fight scenes, Soderbergh prefers wide angles and long takes, the better to showcase his star’s talent for violence. There are no shaky-cam close-ups to cheat the action, and the sound is almost strictly diegetic, lending each of Carano’s brawls (and they are brawls, messy and destructive) a brutal verisimilitude.

It’s when the action stops in Haywire that Carano’s deficiencies as an actress become apparent – she’s wooden and flat, well beyond the requirements of her coldly efficient character – and so Soderbergh labors conspicuously to ensure it hardly ever does. When Mallory Kane isn’t fighting, she’s running, a fugitive agent scrambling to find out who engineered her downfall even as threats amass against her. Each lengthy pursuit is stylishly photographed from a variety of exotic angles (my

View the original article here

Read More

'Big Miracle'

. Perhaps that’s the “miracle” of which the title speaks.

John Krasinski, taking care not to stray too far from his Office persona, stars as Adam Carlson, a Barrow, Alaska, TV newsman dreaming of the big time when a local boy (Ahmaogak Sweeney) arrives with a story that just might get him there: On the eve of their annual migration, a trio of grey whales have become marooned under the Arctic Circle’s fast-forming ice sheet. Incapable of making the four-mile trek to open seas without running out of air, they cling to a shrinking hole in the ice, their only source of oxygen, as time slowly runs out.

No sooner has Adam filed his first report than Barrow is inundated with reporters, turning the plight of the whales into a media cause célèbre. A broad-based coalition is formed to free Fred, Wilma, and Bamm-Bamm, as they come to be nicknamed, bringing together such strange bedfellows as a headstrong environmental activist (Drew Barrymore), a scheming oil magnate (Ted Danson), a White House political operative (Vinessa Shaw), a native Alaskan tribe, and the Soviet navy.

Big Miracle is conceived an inspirational family film, and as such there are the usual array of heart-tugging scenes, but there’s also an odd strain of cynicism that permeates it. Hardly a soul in the film, save perhaps for Barrymore’s character, embraces the whales’ cause with what might be deemed altruistic intentions. Krasinski’s anchor eyes the crisis as an opportunity to advance his career, as does a rival reporter, played by Kristen Bell, who arrives on the scene shortly thereafter. Danson’s oilman is seeking a public-relations boost, while Shaw’s politico hopes to burnish the eco-friendly credentials of George H.W. Bush in advance of his presidential run. Even Krasinski’s Eskimo sidekick makes a killing hawking souvenirs and accessories to visiting rubes. The whole thing ends up feeling like some kind of saccharine paean to the virtues of self-interest, a Hallmark special scripted by Ayn Rand.

Big Miracle never quite rises to the level of tear-jerker, despite the best efforts of Barrymore, who all but channels the whales’ suffering with her histrionics. Part of the problem, frankly, is that grey whales aren’t the most photogenic of species. (There’s a reason why their oceanic rivals, the dolphins, get the bulk of the plum movie jobs.) At any rate, their majesty is scarcely apparent when confined to a hole in the ice, depriving Big Miracle of those endearing “Awwwww…” moments so crucial to the success of animals-in-peril films.

Still, it’s hard not to feel bad for the poor creatures, unsightly as they may be, as their plight is gradually overshadowed in Big Miracle by the contrived human drama that ensues on their periphery. (They are, in many ways, surrogates for the audience.) In the end, when the whales finally escape their icy prison and take leave of their human “helpers,” one longs to escape with them.

View the original article here

Read More

The Woman in Black

Release Date: 3 February 2012 (USA)
Runtime: 95 min
Director: James Watkins
Writers: Susan Hill (novel), Jane Goldman (screenplay)
Stars: Daniel Radcliffe, Janet McTeer and Ciarán Hinds


Review

A horror flick stuck in the limbo between cinematic life and death by boredom.
There isn't much of a twist to The Woman in Black's haunted house tale: man goes to a creepy, old house, runs into an angry ghost, and mayhem ensues. That standard horror plot would be fine if the execution were thrilling, every scare sending a chill down the spine. But star Daniel Radcliffe's first post-Potter outing has less life than its spectral inhabitants, with impressive early 20th century production design, sharp cinematography and solid performances barely keeping it breathing. Much like the film's titular spirit, The Woman in Black hangs in limbo, haunting the quality divide.
Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) is barely holding on in life, having lost his wife during the birth of their child and struggling to stay employed as a lawyer. To stay afloat, Kipps reluctantly takes on the job of settling the legal affairs of a recently deceased widow. Living in her home, the you-should-have-known-this-house-was-haunted-by-the-name Eel Marsh House, Kipps quickly realizes there's more to the woman's life than he realized, unraveling her mysterious connections to a string of child deaths and a ghostly presence in the home. Even with pressure from the townspeople, Kipps continues his investigation, hoping to right any wrongs he's accidentally caused by putting the violent Woman in Black to rest.
Radcliffe bounces back and forth between the dusty mansion, made even more forbidding by the high tides that routinely cut it off from civilization, and a town full of wide-eyed psychos who live in fear of the kid-killing Woman in Black. Even after losing his own son, Kipps' neighbor Daily (Ciarán Hinds) is convinced the "ghost" is a fairy tales, while Daily's wife (Oscar nominee Janet McTeer) finds herself occasionally possessed by her dead son, scribbling forbidding message to Arthur about future murders. Arthur wrestles with the two extreme points of view, but Woman in Black doesn't spend much time exploring the hardships of a skeptic, quickly slipping back into standard horror mode at every opportunity. When they have time to play around with the twisted scenario, all three actors are top-notch, but rarely are they asked to do anything but gasp and react in a terrified manner.
Director James Watkins (Eden Lake) conjures up some legitimately spooky imagery, leaving the space behind Arthur empty or cutting to an object in the room that could potentially come back to haunt our befuddled hero, all in an effort to tickle our imaginations. But like so many "jump scare" horror flicks, Woman in Black relies heavily on the "Bah-BAAAAAAH" music cues, obtrusively orchestrated by composer Marco Beltrami. A rocking chair, a swinging door and the reveal of a decomposing zombie ghost lady could work on their own, especially in such a well-designed environment as Eel Marsh House, but Woman in Black insists on zapping a charge of musical electricity straight into our brain, forcing us to shiver in the least graceful way possible.
The script by Jane Goldman (Kick-Ass, X-Men: First Class) tries to throw back to the slow burn, character-first horror films of classic cinema, while injecting the sensibilities modern filmmaking. The combination turns Woman in Black into visually appealing, dramatically bland ghost story. Radcliffe still has a long career ahead of him, as Woman in Black does suggest, but this isn't the movie that get people thinking there's life after Potter.

View the original article here

Read More

'Journey 2: The Mysterious Island'

"[the film] runs its course quickly without ever leaving a moment to reflect on how ridiculous it is."


It’s hard for me to judge a movie like Journey 2: The Mysterious Island too harshly because I am not representative of its intended audience. A pre-teen or fifth-grader may not be dissuaded as I was by the blindingly hurried pace, plot discrepancies or absence of any character development while watching Brad Peyton’s (Cats and Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore) attempt at reliving the success of Eric Brevig’s original Journey. And you know what? That’s okay, because as a family film it adheres to a formula laid out by far superior fantasy adventures and runs its course quickly without ever leaving a moment to reflect on how ridiculous it is.

Essentially a series of set pieces tied together by a thinly drawn father-son story, Journey 2 picks up a few years after the first film and finds Sean Anderson (Josh Hutcherson) searching for the titular location, where he believes his long-absent grandfather has been stranded. Upon retrieving a coded message from a satellite tower just outside of town, he enlists the help of his new ex-Navy stepfather Hank (Dwayne Johnson) to get to the bottom of the mystery. Together, they travel to a tropical paradise and hitch a helicopter ride with Gabato (Luis Guzman) and Kailani (Vanessa Hudgens) before crash landing on the Mysterious Island, where an action-packed escapade awaits them.

The above description reads like a standard adventure template, and that’s exactly what Journey 2 is. With a bare bones script from the writers of Bring it On Again, neither director nor actors had significant material to work with, but they run, jump, duck and dive through sets that resemble the jungle-gym from Legends of the Hidden Temple and various theme-park attractions as if they were cast in Peter Jackson’s King Kong, giving every scene everything they’ve got. It’s a good thing that the ensemble was so enthusiastic about the picture; though there isn’t much chemistry between them, they collectively draw your attention from the gratuitous, gimmicky 3D, videogame-inspired digital environments and outdated creature design.

Every role has a designated responsibility in this by-the-numbers production: Hutcherson is the brains, spitting out expository literary facts to keep the story going throughout, while Johnson is clearly the brawn. Guzman, with his incessant infantile comedy, is the mouth, while Hudgens – quite frankly – is the eye candy. Only as unit can they come close to making Journey 2 entertaining, but even when working in relative harmony it’s hard to find much qualitative value in the film. As previously stated, Journey 2: The Mysterious Island wasn’t made for all audiences. It will provide a few moments of underage humor and three-dimensional thrills for the kids, but everyone else will be wondering why they had to watch The Rock sing “What a Wonderful World” in an adaptation of a Jules Verne novel.

View the original article here

Read More

'Chronicle'

Chronicle, a dark sci-fi thriller about teenage superheroes, is a “found-footage” film, and it counts as one of the rare instances in which in which the increasingly prevalent – and increasingly maligned – technique is appropriately deployed, and not merely a cheap gimmick for manufacturing tension.

The story begins with Andrew (Dane DeHaan), a pale, saturnine lad, switching on a camera and declaring to his drunken father, who fumes outside his bedroom door, that he intends to “film everything.” And so he does. Narrating in a gloomy, nasal drone, he documents the daily indignities of high school – being accosted by bullies, eating lunch alone on the bleachers – and crafts what by all appearances promises to be a smashing audition video for the Trenchoat Mafia.

Andrew’s circumstances change considerably when he, his cousin Matt (Alex Russell, miscast as a cerebral egotist), and Steve (Michael B. Jordan), the school’s reigning alpha male, chance upon a hole in a forest clearing that leads them deep underground, where they encounter something strange and otherworldly. Soon thereafter, the boys begin to manifest powers of telekinesis that would make a Jedi envious.

Rather than don spandex suits and hunt criminals, the boys do, well, what you would expect impulsive, judgment-impaired teenage boys to do: They play pranks on unsuspecting department-store shoppers, try to one-up each other with increasingly hazardous stunts, absolutely dominate beer pong competitions, and otherwise prove the perils of mating great power with great irresponsibility. (Their more prurient impulses, it should be noted, are kept safely within PG-13 limits.) This is when Chronicle is at its freshest and most compelling, enacting the mischievous daydreams of sci-fi-steeped youths.

Of the three, Andrew emerges as the most gifted in the use of his powers, and he clearly relishes the newfound confidence they bring. But his less admirable qualities – emotional instability, hypersensitivity, and a troubling amorality – stubbornly remain, and when events turn against him, they lead him down the dark path all-too-conspicuously foreshadowed from the film's outset.

Chronicle’s director, Josh Trank, making his feature-film debut, demonstrates a keen grasp of sci-fi theatrics as well as a gift for spectacle. He adheres strictly to found-footage parameters, refusing to cheat matters even during the film’s blistering climax, which cobbles together security-camera footage, cell-phone recordings, television news broadcasts, and other video sources without losing coherence. It's a thrilling sequence, unlike any the genre's seen before, and a testament to Trank's technical flair.

It’s when the action slows that Trank’s hand grows exceedingly heavy, pummeling us with scenes of ham-fisted histrionics that undermine the sense of verisimilitude the found-footage format is designed to foster. The milestones along Andrew's path to supervillainy are culled directly from the Handbook of Psychological Distress, from the taunts of his cartoonishly abusive father to the incessant hacking of his terminally ill mother to the varied humiliations inflicted by insensitive peers.

View the original article here

Read More

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)

Release Date: 12/16/2011                                                            
Genre: Action, Mystery
Director: Guy Ritchie
Cast: Robert Downey, Jr., Jude Law, Noomi Rapace, Jared Harris

REVIEW
2009’s Sherlock Holmes found unexpected synergy in the pairing of Robert Downey Jr.’s impish charm and Guy Ritchie’s macho, kinetic visual style, reinventing Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s master detective for a modern blockbuster audience. The follow-up, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, employs the same winning formula while adhering judiciously to the Law of Sequels and its more-more-more dictates: more action, bigger set pieces, higher stakes, and a darker, more convoluted plot. But more, as so many past sequels have taught us, is rarely better. Game of Shadows marks the emergence of Doyle’s most famous villain, James Moriarty (Jared Harris). Glimpsed only in darkness in the first film, Moriarty takes center stage in the sequel as Holmes’s foremost criminal foil, a genius-level university professor whose extracurricular interests range from horticulture to homicide. Holmes has deduced him to be at the center of a wave of terrorist bombings as well as the seemingly unrelated deaths of various titans of industry, but can’t quite discern just what the professor’s endgame might be. Composed and calculating to a menacing degree, Harris makes for a promising counterweight to Downey’s manic verbosity. But, as in the first film, Game of Shadows’ best moments are found in the comic interplay between Holmes and his reluctant sidekick, Dr. Watson (Jude Law), who is plucked from his honeymoon to accompany the detective on a trans-continental trip in search of clues to Moriarty’s machinations. And it’s very much a boys-only trip. The female leads from the first film, Rachel McAdams and Kelly Reilly, are tossed aside – literally, in the case of the latter – in Game of Shadows, while the cast’s highest-profile new addition, Swedish star Noomi Rapace (best known as the original, non-emaciated Lisbeth Salander) is a curious non-factor in the role of a Gypsy (or Roma, if you prefer) fortune-teller. The film maintains only the slimmest pretense of a romantic subplot between her and Downey. Rapace, looking perhaps a bit lost in her first English-speaking role, can’t hope to eclipse the Holmes-Watson traveling road show. Ritchie’s technique, with its signature blend of rapid cutting and slow-mo and super-high frame-rates – perfect for admiring the odd apple tossed in the air, or a piece of bark shot off a tree – is once again evident in the film’s awe-inspiring (and occasionally coherence-defying) set pieces, the most memorable of which is set in a munitions factory, with Watson wielding a gatling gun like an early T-600 prototype. But some of the novelty of the stylistic juxtaposition has faded since the first film. Ritchie tries to compensate by ramping up the firepower, to limited effect. Absent amid the hail of mortar blasts and automatic weapons fire is any real sense of intrigue or suspense, which proves to be Game of Shadows’ most vexing mystery.

Read More