TheMovieCritique Reviews

Avatar (2009)

500 million bucks, now only if they could've squeezed in a scriptwriter into that budget

[6/10 · 29 December 2009]

Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss, T2. The man named James Francis Cameron has etched his name into sci-fi genre (and as a film-maker par excellence) with almost as much intensity as Hitchcock did in the suspense/ thriller genre. We know that he makes technically brilliant and supremely entertaining movies.

I wonder why he blanked out on the most important aspect of movie making on this one - and no, I'm not talking about life-like CGI or agile animatronics or even 'human-emotion capture' computerized actors.

It's a simple story: it's 1500s in 2100s. It's the oft-told tale of Europeans coming to the new world and taking away the pristine goodness of it all. I won't fault the story, simple stories are good. We connect to those. Now, narrative - I'd have liked to think that Mr. Cameron thought that all of us weren't 8 year olds (no offense meant to the 8 year olds!).

We are required to suspend belief not just on the fact that a completely alien ecosystem evolved sentient beings who are strikingly similar in all aspects (physical, cultural, psychological) to humans, but also on human race's own progressive cultural evolution as well. The marines are caricatures from a bad Vietnam-Era movie, the corporate boss is from an equally bad 80s investment bank ('screw the science, I gotta make me some money baby') and we are still letting vets ride around in wheelchairs that are driven using the manual power of their hands.

The psyche of avatar-wielding protagonist is never explored fully. What makes him 'switch-over' to the other side (some emotional complexity please, it needn't be a Christopher Nolan a la 'The Dark Knight' but just a little more internal confusion might be more, well, human?). And Pandora is many things, it's beautiful, scary and enthralling - but there's one thing it's not: it's not alien. It's just an idealized recreation of how 'jungle people' would live dreamt up by a bunch of people who live in high-rise condos or sprawling houses.

At the end of it all, I'm left asking - why aliens? Why did this movie have to take place on the moon of a giant planet many light years away? This story could have been more than adequately told in umpteen number of 'conventional' settings: Incan Americas, India of early 16th century,West Africa of late 17th century. I have too much respect for the director to think that the answer is - because we could put a CGI super-tiger that looks like it could have a T-Rex for breakfast fighting an animatoric robot on a giant 3-D screen.

But from the looks of it, the answer is probably very close to that.

Battle for Terra (I) (2007)

Remember the time when animation used to be for kids?

[8/10 · 28 June 2009]

Remember the time when animation used to be for kids? The good ol' days, eh? This animated movie makes pretty good use of the medium to tell a rather complex story. The movie has most qualities of good storytelling - ethical dilemmas, unique settings and gray areas aplenty. The premise of the movie is simple: Threatened with extinction, the human race needs to make one last desperate attempt at survival by the conquest of a seemingly peaceful alien world teeming with sentient life.

The movie explores possibilities that are the antithesis of staple sci-fi genre. For instance, What if the (typical) victim is the aggressor? (Humans attack a seemingly peaceful alien planet). Is peaceful bliss really a practical possibility? (without advanced weaponry, the alien world is threatened with extinction). Another highlight of the movie was that the aliens were, you know, just alien. They weren't cute and cuddly (a la E.T.) or menacing hordes (a la every-sci-fi war movie you've seen). The aliens are just rational beings who will fight, feel and cry when the need arises.

Now, the movie isn't without its flaws. It's not completely balanced (aggressors - no matter what the reason for aggression - are still painted in a slightly negative tone), characterization, even the quality of animation (in this post-Pixar universe) might be called into question - but I'm willing to overlook all of that for one simple reason: the director has a clear vision and explores it vividly on screen. That's worth a couple of hours of your life. Definitely is.

Iron Man (2008)

What a great start summer 2008!

[8/10 · 3 May 2008]

Great guns of Zeus! This is exactly how a summer blockbuster should be made. I wouldn't change one thing about it. Kudos, Marvel. Kudos, Jon Favreau. Kudos, Robert Downey Jr.

Jon's recipe for the summer blockbuster:

Start with: 1. A believable incredible plot. And no - that's not an oxymoron.

Mix in a little: 2. Classically rendered, yet not over the top, CGI.

Add: 3. Controlled sustained performances.

Cook for 120 minutes with: 4. A tight, never-a-dull-moment script (so no weepy, teary eyed drama jerkers coming out of nowhere)

Finally garnish with: 5. Humor and potentially some of the best cheesy one liners to be used in a superhero movie.

And serve! We, the audience, will lap it up like the Apple pie mommy made!

Puh-leese Marvel studios - can you make your other superhero movies as much fun to watch as this one? Pretty please. I know you didn't oversee that monstrous awfulness that was Spidey 3. But there's still some bad taste left from that experience. And you've made me like one of the superheros from your roster that I never really cared about that much in the past.

Oh boy, oh boy! What a start summer 2008. I'm hoping you'll hold up.

Across the Universe (2007)

Reminded me that Cinema is indeed an art form

[7/10 · 4 February 2008]

Remember? Cinema is an art form. Somewhere between the hollywoodish sky high explosions and walking talking 3D animals it seems we forgot about this. Movie-magic was somehow just limited to entertainment, rarely transcending into art. "Across the universe" makes this journey. And completes it in style.

The movie is beautiful. The lives and times of a bunch of young new yorkers living in a troubled era in American history is beautifully captured on canvas and then pulled on the movie screen. The colors liven up the psychedelic images that so truly defines an era that I've only read about. The music makes the time period come alive in a way that - well only Beatles could.

A young lad named Jude from across the Atlantic searching for his dad. A beautiful teenager named Lucy who loses her first love to a war that few understood (Bonus points if you made the connections on the names with the lyrics of those boys from Liverpool). A Princeton dropout. An up and coming singer. A troubled guitarist whose music is fueled by angst. The characters are rich and deep. The interconnections that happen between these individuals seems magical and real at the same time. Music is mastered and voiced adding a layer of beauty of the Beatles' tunes that defined a generation. In many ways the movie is reflective of current reality of war and violence, and in some ways vastly different than the world we live in today - somehow the energy of the grassroots power that existed back then (both in good and bad elements of society) seems to be lacking today.

Epochal events like Vietnam, Dr. King's death, Hippie movement are all so beautifully presented, that sometimes I felt it is almost a shame that those kids didn't change the world. Or maybe they did.

The only wiggling question I had at the end of the movie: was it a tad too long? At times, imagery became too abstract and livid to effectively contribute to the narrative. But it's just a brushing thought that in no way dilutes the beauty of the final product.

The movie was a delightful treat. It's a perfect movie for one of those lukewarm afternoons when it's raining outside and normally you'd grab a CD to listen to some good ol' rock n' roll. Pop this DVD in. You just might be pleasantly surprised.

Sex and Death 101 (2007)

Dark RomCom 101. Nailed it!

[6/10 · 14 January 2008]

In a world where good ol' fantasy movie making has just three letters attached to it (you guessed it: "SFX" - a la everything from majestic Lord of the Rings to cheesy Godzilla - jeez, even the romantic ventures like City of Angels couldn't do away with the bag of tricks), comes a different kind of fantasy-based movie. It's different - I'll tell ya that.

So what does this movie bring to us? The (blatantly visible) low budget. A cast almost riddled with relatively unknown (but promising) actors. A suite of devilishly hot women in stand-in (well, mostly "lie-down") roles. And, needless to say, a premise that is the part of every hot blooded human male's wet dreams. Are you with me yet? I promise, I'm not talking about the the 70s campy soft porn movie that you saw recently.

What would happen if a strapping young man (Simon Baker) got a magical e-mail one fine day listing all the women he had slept with and was going to ever sleep with in future? And, what if that lucky SOB actually had 101 names listed on that list? "Sex & Death 101" tries to answer. And, for most part, gets it right.

Someone once said: "Control your fate or somebody else will". And so goes the story of the young man who allows the piece of printed email to take control over his actions - which in this case means... well, he notches another one over his already very full belt. Somewhere between the disbelief over the email (despite the reassurances of the geek squad who manage the wondrous machine that sent out the hoopla causing email) and disbelief over his good fortune, our hero undergoes those human emotions that we all know very well: Guilt, Angst, Desperation. The intermix of his friends' advice and bickering adds an element of realism even in an escapist fantasy like this.

Winona Ryder plays the "death knell" sounding temptress who has been seducing perverted men to coma ridden sleep to, you know, get back at the evil men who have inflicted untold suffering on women. And you just know that Poison Ivy's parallel track story has to intersect with the story of our list-holding loverboy at some point. And it does. Therein is that taste of "stretching at the thread" that the viewer is left with. The setup seems a little bit forced. But hey, it's supposed to be escapist dark funny romcom - so what the hell, right?

The movie's premise ain't real, but the events and reactions are. Which is that unique mix of traits that makes this movie a little more than the regular spiel that Hollywood throws at us. It's definitely a good watch. And not to miss the allegoric play on the number in the title. It takes 101 women to teach the protagonist the basic meaning of sex - and death. Clever, no?

There Will Be Blood (2007)

Really? Did I watch the same "#44 best" movie that others did?

[1/10 · 12 January 2008]

For once I have to ask myself - did I watch the same movie as the others on this page did? With overblown reviews and 10-star ratings I walked into the theater expecting nothing short of a masterpiece. And what I got was a two hour long saga of nothingness on the screen which I got through with a valiant effort to keep my eyelids open.

The good aspects first: The turn of the century period has been captured in its authenticity and grit very well on the screen. And as we all know by now - Daniel Day-Lewis has given a masterful performance. He manages to come across as authentic, despicable and scary at the same time. Quite an achievement. But his performance is towards the flawed enterprise called this movie. Paul Thomas Anderson has come up with very clever movies in the past - in Boogie Nights and Magnolia. But the important difference between those relatively better products of cinema and this aberration is quite clear: Narrative.

Mr.Anderson, I know that you're supposed to be a genius and all, but at the risk of making a fool of myself I'm going to give you a quick "Narrative-101" lesson: The protagonist's character/sensibilities are established. And then life experiences throughout the story make him/her richer. There are changes - some good, some bad - which makes for an interesting (and possibly visually enthralling) story. "There will be blood" fails miserably in this aspect.

Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) is ruthless oilman back in the early days of the black gold business. From buying up land by tricking simple village folks to showing religious fervor to further his business ends - he does this and more. The value of human life is little in his quest for wealth. But therein lies the problem, this aspect of his character has been established in the scene two of the movie - there is NOTHING to add to character development in the two hours that follow. There are some interesting scenes juxtaposed with a plot of angst against the local priest-boy Eli Sunday (Paul Dano). The enmity is flawed in every way - it is a battle of unequals and the climactic sequence does not help change the inequality in their status one bit.

I walked out of the hall asking: "What the hell was all that about?" Maybe I don't have the evolved sensibility to appreciate the intricacies of the message that this movie wants to convey. But I'll tell ya this much: Movies are meant to entertain. Movies are meant to make us think. The best ones entertain while making us think. "There will be blood" neither entertains, nor made me think.

1 star out of 10.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Oh Spidey, what intricate webs you weave!

[3/10 · 5 May 2007]

It had to happen. A classic Spidey one, then came the even more enthralling sequel. A disaster just had to happen with the franchise. I mean if the 'Out of this planet' Superman and 'Dark and Sinister' Batman had to go through bad sequels, then Spidey is, after all, the friendly neighborhood kid - I guess he had to take one.

To all the fanboys out there - don't even bother! I'm one of you dudes! One of those who thinks that Spider-man is up there, with the best of the best, one of the best comic book characters ever created. So with Venom as a villain, one would've expected the whole 'taking the Peter Parker character to the next level of maturity' thing to happen. My oh my, for Pete's sake (pun intended) - Mr. Raimi, you made him a prancing egoistic sissy! He's crying, dancing and saying 'Yeah, babe' like the pothead who lives down the street. Really? This chap's the icon New York is worshiping? This movie managed to convince me that a cross dressing Rudy Giuliani is a far better mascot for New York than my favorite comic book hero!

You know a movie will go wrong when the production team loses sight of what the movie is. For the record - it's a super hero movie, aka Action/Adventure genre. Why the heck are they trying so hard to induce melodrama and comedy into this? Don't get me wrong, I know the whole Mary Jane love angle is intricate to the story. Spidey one starts by saying this story is about a girl. But, jeez! So much of it? Remembering Unc Ben, the ill conceived love triangle, Sandman's dying daughter, Dual versions of uncle Ben's shooting, marriage advice counseling, Forgiveness - stop that train to La-La land already!

I enjoy the odd comedic outlook of the Spider-man movies, the cheeky one liners or the wide eyed Parker look. But, this movie just has too many of them forced comedic moments for the taking. And the comedic elements actually add nothing to the narrative. The ill timed Jazz club dance by the Venom infected Peter Parker is probably the best joke of the movie - without intending to be one! Character development and humanizing the characters was the strength of this franchise. Poof! Gone into thin air this time round.

It's not a question of what's not there in the movie, but a problem of 'too many'. There are too many plot holes despite me suspending belief for the superhero movie. Too many gimmicks. Too many characters. And yeah, too much time! The runtime of the movie tops two hours and then some, but when you have so much to pack into the movie - it feels like they've rushed through the 300 million dollar extravaganza.

And for the last time, there's a reason why Spider-man puts on that mask. It's part of superhero folklore. When he let the mask down to save a train full of people in Spidey 2, that was one of the most real moments in the movie. Seems like now he's just fighting without the mask! No! Too much of anything good is bad. Very bad.

I could go on. But, I feel bad lashing out further against my Friendly neighborhood pal. So lemme put in a good word - the first ten minutes. That's it. There's a little bit of lovey-dovey stuff (again, I can take it. Just don't turn Spider-man into an episode of the OC!), but the first fight sequence with Goblin 2 and Peter Parker is sudden, unexpected and in short, kicks some serious ass! You know that Spidey won't lose, but you definitely don't know how it'll end. So I guess that got my hopes up, but what followed the next two hours was equivalent of taking a cold shower after lounging with models from Victoria's Secret.

Bad start, Summer of '07. And Spidey, puh-leese get someone like Christopher Nolan to direct your next outing. Realism - that's what you need right now.

Children of Men (2006)

Grit. Power. And human psyche. It's all there.

[8/10 · 7 January 2007]

This one was an truly a pleasant surprise I must admit.

I walked in to the hall vaguely knowing that this was supposed to be a futuristic thriller. I expected to see something on the lines of End-of-the-world-is-coming and there's an average man amongst us who incidentally turns into your run of the mill Rambo/G.I.Joe to, oh well you know, save the world.

I was wrong. By a long shot. This movie seems to be real in so many different ways.

First, the setting - a not so future world of 2027, devastated by nuclear war, where the most essential expression of human existence a.k.a "procreation" ceases to "create" any longer. An unexplained phenomenon of falling sperm count has rendered the human race unable to create any children. What might happen if something of this magnitude is thrust upon us? The movie tries to answer these questions in many dimensions - politics, religion and in all how society reacts to this calamity.

There are so many snippets in the movie that hit you hard about how humans might react. Like the religious zealots who have polarized a section of society to believe god will deliver the human race from this calamity. Like the regular violence by different terrorist groups, pushing their own agenda, that has been imbibed into human lives as an everyday affair. Like war savaged countries not being able to control their populace. How in a world where survival is a miracle, the few who have power live in opulence and the rest equate to less than animals. How democracy turns into a police state in the name of Homeland Security. How refugees are persecuted to keep the "nation" safe. In short, as the chief protagonist in the movie states - "The world went to sh*t".

Theo (Clive Owen in a befitting role) is government employee in the last seemingly functioning government on the planet - The British. A proposition with a rebel group to transport a girl across the border gets Theo involved with a girl who, after a gap of over 18 years in human world, is pregnant. This "miracle baby" is sought out by different groups pushing their own interests. The adventure tells the, very gritty squeamish and hard hitting, tale of their journey. And thankfully, without resorting to too many Hollywood antics.

Special mention must be made of Micheal Caine in the role of the hippie Jasper. He makes those future hippies look good already! The final action sequence is so real that for a minute I was confused if I was seeing real footage of the conflict in Serbia/Bosnia.

It makes you wonder, if there are no more humans being born, wouldn't we work harder to preserve what's left of our species instead of killing each other more vehemently than ever? But then looking around the world, the reflection of reality is that "fear" and "violence" seem to the more powerful forms of human expression. As shown in the final sequence of the movie, even a "miracle" just stops this form of human expression for a little over thirty seconds.

And if a movie makes you wonder about stuff like that. Then, by Jove, it's a pretty darned good movie. It sure is.

The New World (2005)

A new different world....

[5/10 · 21 January 2006]

A consistent theme adopted by movie makers over decades has been showing the differences that exist amongst people, places, cultures, religions, or families and tug at the heart strings based on that emotion that all of us realize sadly exists, even in extreme forms, in the world we live in.

The New World takes this up a notch. The discovery of an entirely new world has been depicted both in the mildness and violence that humanity shows to itself.

John Smith (Farrel) is an English captain who arrives on the coast Virginia in 1607 to lay the frontier of the new world. The interaction with the 'Naturals' (or savages as they are sometimes referred to) and eventual fall of grace from their view has been well pictured. Smith falls in love with the daughter of the powerful local king - Pocahontas (Q'Orianka Kilcher in a breakthrough role) who risks her life to beg to save Smith's. But, the dream of love and the time spent in 'captivity' of the Naturals soon ends when Smith is returned to his post. His sense of duty and honor (which is all so subtly depicted - kudos to director Malick on that count!)calls over his understanding of Natives and his love for Pocahontas. Bloodshed follows.

The Conquest of America, as one may call it, had a very humble beginning. The following generation would ensure that greater tracts of land were conquered along with the near destruction of an astounding culture, who had learned to be one with the senses of nature, was complete.

Giving into the greater calling of duty Smith leaves Pocahontas and spurned by her people she is taken captive by the English. She rediscovers love, and eventually understands life seen through a different prism, with John Rolfe (Bale in a very sedated role).

The movie managed to achieve a rare mix of (the John Smith-Pocahontas) legend and reality. Amazing concept. Real performances. It must make it one of the best movies of the year, but sadly it just doesn't. Where it falters is where director Malick has been said to have taken the most time on - editing and continuity.

Most of the story and screenplay are thrown in as background (as in commentary or observations by the characters) while adopting the technique of actors show reality of the minute they are engaged in, rather than carry the story forward with their actions. While this is a very novel way of moving the story forward - one does not become attached to any of the characters because they have not 'done' anything on screen to contribute to the story. All their decisions, actions and thoughts leading to major points in the plot are kept out of the view. And this brings in a sense of slowness to the movie, despite the fact that there is a lot of story that has been told (and personally, I felt the length was right considering the volume of story told).

I am an adherent admirer of filmmakers trying different ways of telling stories to the audience, but as is the case with most things in life, some forms work better than the other. Christopher Nolan (Memento) achieved it in breathtaking style, but Spielberg (War of the Worlds)- not so much. While Malick's attempt is worth applauding, it quite simply didn't make the cut for this story.

6 stars/ 10.

The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005)

Comic-ly timed and so right!

[6/10 · 20 August 2005]

I admit it. I was laughing, along with the rest of the movie hall, till I was close to tears. All the raunchy and maybe politically incorrect jokes not withstanding - this is a FUNNY movie.

Andy (Steve Carell) is a man whose existence revolves around his collectible toys, video games and his trusty bike (as in bicycle - as he makes clear to a date!) - and oh yes, did I forget the morning erections? As the name of the movie suggests - 40 year old Andy has never "done the deed". So during a poker game, that any man would regret, his "virginity" comes to light. So from here the loyal friends of Andy aid him in finding a girl to do "it" with. Andy falls for a single mom (Catherine Keener) - and wants to get himself ready before he makes love to the woman he loves.

From well meant advice about drunk girls at bar (which ends in a 'shellfish flavored' throw up!) to date-twenty-people in a hour events (where Andy gets propositioned by a "reforming" lesbian!) this movie is filled with the misadventures of sex and all things associated with it. The waxing bit, which has been shown in the trailers, is sure to have you in splits.

The amazing thing that the director throws in lot of small funny bits about Andy's friends, co-workers and just about anyone around Andy. So you can see one joke coming from Andy's misadventure, but you're not braced for that unexpected action of his trusted friend. The loser clinging to his broken relationship, the "dude" who always the right thing to say, the confident but insecure party animal, the girl with the wild side - all make their appearances! Director Judd Apatow packs in a lot into the movie.

But as with the other raunchy funnie of summer - Wedding Crashers (I know this comparison is so bound to happen!) - the movie falters in the bit when it takes itself a wee bit too serious for its own good. Also pruning twenty minutes of the movie might be a pretty good idea.

The ending is funny too - remember to sit while the credits roll in! Thank god they ended the movie on a light fluffy note! In three words - Go see it! It's fun! It sure is!

War of the Worlds (2005)

It's not a war, it's an extermination - of talent on screen!

[6/10 · 4 July 2005]

Before I even start on the review - I believe that the man named Spielberg has brought more path breaking movies to mainstream cinema than any director anywhere on the planet. Movies that make us smile, cry and gape in wondrous entertainment. And more importantly - movies that sometimes make us think.

War of the Worlds is definitely not the latter.

The premise of the movie is razor thin simple. Aliens who've planning extermination of the Human race for more than a million years finally decide to move into the implementation stage of their mega-project (Maybe the funding for the war was tough to come by on their home planet. Alien government procedures, if anything, would be presumably more complex!). Logically their observation and study of humans would not make so much sense. As a man named Darwin put it (in slightly different words) - a path in natural history could have ensured Aliens would have had to fight T-Rexes instead of soft puny humans. But, I guess the tripods would have blasted the T-Rexes out of oblivion too.

The-most-saleable-face-in-Hollywood-cinema is a blue collared worker (despite the character being obnoxious and harsh on his kids, the girl sitting with me ended up saying - so cute! I guess Mr. Cruise does have his advantage right there). Now, saving his kids, saving his life and fleeing the Tripods that burst out of the ground are top on Tom's list of To-Dos. In typical Hollywood panache (which hasn't changed much for the 100 years when we puny humans started making movies) he does all three! He gives a controlled performance - Thank you for that Tom. Dakota Fanning does a good job too. All critics I've read are raving about her performance - but honestly, am I the only one who found her continual shrieking annoying? Then again I've never met a 10 year old kid fleeing alien tripods with an estranged dad - so maybe that's what they do.

The best-director-in-the-world does get one thing bang on target - the human drama. The interaction between the estranged father, the newly pregnant with someone else's child mom, the kids who do not have any regard for their biological dad are real. It's nice to see real. Even if it is in the background of the human race trying to flee from blood sucking tripods.

There are some gaping gaps in the story line. For instance, the aliens who're technologically advanced enough to build force fields, undetectable anti-rust tripods deep within Earth's surface and invisible mother ships forgot to invent one thing - Gas Masks! Jeez - tough luck that they plan their invasion on a planet which has more microbes than humans. Another one - they're drawing human blood for some reason - food, drink or maybe even radiator coolant for their Tripods. Wouldn't you expect alien guys (who, BTW as we are often reminded, have been planning this for a million years) to have subsidiary material for all this during an invasion? And if they somehow where biologically stupid enough to do this (I told you - I love that Spielberg guy! I'll give him the benefit of doubt any day) wouldn't a sensible military tactic be to send a first wave of soldiers to an unknown terrain - and then depending on the success of the initial wave bring in the full force to wipe puny humans clean? Ask any soldier anywhere on the planet.

But, at the end of the day - its a movie. We're not supposed to ask too many questions like that. Some say it's great that the book is "true" to the book. The very term - "remake" or even "based upon" mean that it has to improvise on the original. If you would like to be so true to the book then set it in 1890s when the book was written. Mr. Wells would've radically changed a "re-write" of his book had he lived today.

War of the worlds is entertaining. That's what counts. But, a request tough - do not package and market movies as something they are not. When I went to see Independence Day a decade ago, I knew exactly what to expect (and I enjoyed it!). That did not happen with WOTW. For all you critics who have panned ID4 with the cheesy Feel-good-American ending - girls running towards victorious guys and hugs/kisses follow. Please revisit your reviews after seeing the ending here.

See the movie. It's a summer time blockbuster. And that's all it is.