Zombieland (Ruben Fleischer, 2009)

Movie Review

Seriously, what is it with the Zombie Movie? Right from the thirties, this genre of film has continually enthralled as well as disgusted cinephiles with its penchant for outrageously mindless scenarios and sadistic violence/gore. Zombies have presented amateur filmmakers with seemingly justifiable excuses for failing to come up with interesting characters and a plausible storyline. 

Today, zombie moviemakers are running out of gas. After all, there's got to be a limit to the number of films you can make about a bunch of sick, undead jerks with a fetish for human flesh. For a zombie flick to stand out from amidst this unrecognizable mess, it ought to be truly different. 

Ruben Fleischer's "Zombieland" doesn't actually have much of a plot to boast of. Basically, it tells the same old story of a world infected by Zombies,a world no longer inhabitable, blah blah blah...No, the true ingenuity comes from other factors. For one, the casting choices are pitch-perfect. From Jesse Eisenberg as the paranoid college nerd "Columbus" to Woody Harrelson's cynical, twinkie-hunting psychopath, each actor seems to be firmly rooted in his or her role. And with only five major characters to speak of (not to mention one of the funniest and most effective cameos of all time), all of them are well written and have completely plausible arcs. The screenplay is tight, and so is the editing . Indeed, the crisp and quirky writing, coupled with a consistently funny dialogue and an innovative first-person narrative, is what keeps the film racing in the fifth gear. 

Zombieland isn't your average Zombie fare. It's brilliant, smart, laugh-out-loud funny, and above all it's a surprisingly palpable tale about hope, courage, love and the importance of a family to share these with. I Am Legend came close to realizing this, but it couldn't quite drive the point home. 

A thoroughly enjoyable ride . Watch it.


Oh, and yes, wear sunscreen.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox (Wes Anderson, 2009)

Movie Review

There's nothing much left to be said about this fine little film, but what the cuss, here goes: 

Wes Anderson's "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is a cussing great movie. It's one of those movies which doesn't have a cuss of hype surrounding its release, but just then, it cussing crawls up behind you and delights the cuss out of you. There's incredible random, dry humor in there, which cussing reminds you of other cussing funny cartoons like "The Simpsons" and the likes. There's also this strange, nostalgic air all around the movie on which I can't put my cussing finger right now, along with the cussing stop-motion and an all-cussing-star-cast, which easily makes this film one of the cussing best to come out this year. 

Angels and Demons (Ron Howard, 2009)

Movie Review

3 years back, director Ron Howard disappointed Dan Brown fans worldwide with his poorly made and somewhat botched-up adaptation of Brown's highly controversial but best-selling novel, The Da Vinci Code. 

Now, Howard returns with Angels and Demons, the follow-up to the fast-paced thriller. Originally written before The Da Vinci Code, the story starts out with the brutal murder of a senior physicist at CERN, Geneva, and the theft of the first-ever macroscopic sample of antimatter produced. 
Violence and mayhem ensue, as the cannister containing the antimatter is planted inside the walls of the Vatican, threatening to blow up the City of God. 

The film starts out fairly well, with Zimmer's mesmerizing track "Sangreal de Chevaliers" seuging through the opening credits. About 25 minutes in, however, the movie descends into an extremely fast-paced but shabbily put-together thriller to the end. The very break-neck speed and thrill-inducing adrenaline that made the book a bestseller translate poorly on screen. The movie soon becomes a shallow , superficial adaptation of Brown's work, by almost ignoring its main theme : the everlasting war between science and religion. A fair part of the book has been hacked off, and avid fans of the novel will find that the characters in the film have either been made to look like drastic modifications of the original ones, or have been erased entirely. Sadly, Tom Hanks too, fails to deliver this time, except for a few scenes. 

The film's only strength lies in its riveting music , composed by Hans Zimmer (which has again been blatantly overused), Ewan McGregor's subtle performance, and the colourful and fluid photography. These factors make the film mildly rewarding despite its incessant flaws. 

Although readers of the book will be disappointed, others may find Angels and Demons a slightly-above-average and occasionally entertaining popcorn thriller.

Tron: Legacy (Joseph Kosinsky, 2010)

Movie Review

Animation giant Disney has always had its fair share of peaks and troughs. Of late, however, there has been little reason to applaud the famous studios. Apart from the ridiculous amount of unabashed merchandising and the launch of cringe-worthy TV-channels, Disney has been producing some mediocre live-action family dramas/children's films throughout the past decade. 

As the film commences, we follow the progress of Kevin Flynn (an expertly digitized Jeff Bridges) as he plans to bring about a scientific revolution with his brainchild "the grid", a new milestone in free information technology. Alas, on the very eve of his discovery, he disappears. Twenty years later, his son Sam finds himself pulled into a virtual world of fierce programs and gladiatorial games, only to find that his father's been trapped there the whole time. Thus begins Sam's struggle to liberate himself and his father from what is obviously a digitized reimagination of an ancient Sparta/Rome. 

Following last year's Special-effects extravaganza Avatar, this happens to be one of the first live-action films to have 
implemented the 3-D technology during production. The result is quite apparent : the production design and visual effects are top-notch, and the 3-D, though sporadically used throughout the film, is way better than any of this year's kitschy visual gimmicks. Jeff Bridges's retro-look is expertly and deceivingly constructed. The only downside is that all of the technology is focused on creating a world overflowing with neon lights and grid lines and, no matter how hard the makers try to impress us with the film's faux technology, it simply can't match the thrill experienced from, say, an environmental utopia (Avatar/King Kong). Still, there are shots from action sequences that will leave you in awe of the film's aesthetics. 

Which is where the positive facets of the film end. Tron starts and picks up swiftly, only to later suffer from an absolute lack of a good enough screenplay. The writing is so inadequate in fact, that at times, you'll find yourself about to doze off, despite the ground-breaking action. Almost each character is provided with a back-story, each of them being equally dull and emotionless. The acting is nothing special - Jeff Bridges unsuccessfully tries to fit into the "wise old man" archetype; Garrett Hedlund is hardly noticable, Olivia Wilde looks bored, and what in God's name is Michael Sheen doing in this dump of a movie?. 

Tron:Legacy boasts of some great eye-candy, and even a momentary spark of a theme involving the limitations of a perfect world; the screenplay and dialogue, however, along with an overkill of Neon, bring the house down on this one. Don't bother. 

Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)

Movie Review

Movies that are known more for the technique implemented in making them, rather than the actual content that is supposed to drive them, are relatively hard to come by.

James Cameron's Avatar is one such film. You can either bash it because of its total disregard for anything resembling sincere emotion and dramatic originality (Indeed, this may be a very accurate description of the film)
or you can forget the "definition" of film and let technologically rendered visuals do the talking.

To me, Avatar, however nonsensical, was still an engaging piece of art, a thrilling experience that has to be 'lived through' in order to understand the beauty that it boasts of. The 146-minute saga is the ostensibly most visually astounding film ever produced in the history of cinema, featuring colours, shapes and forms in an entirely imaginary world, that boggle the mind. Through the entire runtime of the film, you are forced to leave your own world and roam on the lush lands of Pandora. All this provided you see the film in an IMAX 3D theatre. The visuals are so-so in ordinary theatres.

In short, a visual extravaganza that loses its meaning when projected on anything smaller than a ten-foot screen.

 Again, the dialogue and characters are lame and weak,and the story is far from original, not to mention the n number of cliches that plague the film. Is that a forgivable blunder in an otherwise mesmerizing experience? You decide.

The Prestige (Christopher Nolan, 2006)

Movie Review

Only a year after surprising audiences with his critically and popularly acclaimed reboot of the once-doomed Batman franchise, director Christopher Nolan returns with a gritty, fast-paced and twist-laden sci-fi mystery-drama starring Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman. 

The plot revolves around two magicians in turn-of-the-century London, Robert Angier(Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden(Christian Bale) who become rivals after an irreplacable loss befalls one of them.Their rivalry makes them enemies for life, leading to tragic consequences and jeopardizing the lives of everyone around them. 

The story appears to be an interesting study of the great extent to which an individual can get affected by the loss,guilt and travesty that life offers him.Nolan delivers this message by setting as the central characters of his story, two individuals who have always lived among lies, tricks and cut-throat competition, and whose professions are shrouded in mystery.Hence it seems ironical that the same individuals who once dreamed of mastering the tricks of their trade ,should become slaves of themselves, deceived by the very lies and tricks that they once thrived on.The movie then focuses on the brutal measures that the rivals resort to, successfully confusing the audience morally.The film too,like the characters and their various relationships, is dynamic:it moves, smoothly and effortlessly, from drama to mystery to raw sci-fi. 

Bale and Jackman are terrific as the two protagonists(or antagonists, if you may).Each manages to get into his character with ease.Michael Caine is perfect as the very loyal, but morally and ethically sensitive backstage engineer. 

Nolan's trademark and Not-so-unfamiliar filming techniques succeed in making their presence felt:the non-linear and complicated yet, expertly constructed timeline, the frequent use of the telephoto lens that makes his characters and their dynamic relationships stand out, and, most importantly, the ingenious and metaphoric foreshadowing that preceeds many of the tragic incidents in the movie. The Low-key Lighting adds a melancholic feel to the movie. 

In the end, The Prestige is an excellent study of the characters it portrays, and the anguish , desperation and vengeance that drives them.To some, however,the complex narrative of the story might prove to be confusing and convoluted. 

X-Men: First Class (Matthew Vaughn, 2011)

Movie review

Almost all recent hollywood movie franchises appear to be following a common trajectory : The first movie of the franchise is usually a good show; then, however redundant a sequel to the first movie might seem, it is still made, and it proves to be more or less as good as the first one, if not better. Then, just as things are starting to look good, a third movie is released, and, more often than not, the final movie proves to be a fatal blow at the sturdy foundation that comprised the first two movies. At this stage, the franchise is considered to have been catapulted beyond the point of no return, and production houses start steering away from the prospect of yet another sequel, as it would only spell disaster. Finally, long after the last rays of hope have faded, the reboot is born. This reboot essentially represents a shift in pardigm from the rest of the franchise,and employs newer, more innovative methods of narration and film-making. This film is generally labelled as the saviour of the entire series, and interest in the franchise is freshly rekindled. 

After the horrendous abomination called X:men : The Last Stand and the at-most-mediocre X:men Origins : Wolverine, X:men First Class is now the official reboot to the X:men franchise. With Director Matthew Vaughn (Layer Cake, Kick-ass) leading the way, this is the most fast-paced, visceral, and stylishly filmed movie of the series. 

The film's events take place in the year 1962, just as Charles Xavier (James Mcavoy) and Erik Lensherr (Michael Fassbender) are discovering their strange and unexplained abilities for the first time. Charles is recruited by the CIA to track down Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon), a villanous mutant who hopes to bring about a third world war by secretly influencing the heads of governments of both superpowers to take an aggressive stance. Meanwhile, Erik plans to exact his own personal vendetta against Shaw. After their paths inevitably cross, Erik and Charles join hands to recruit fellow mutants and form a group of mercenaries allied against the growing malice of the scheming Sebestian Shaw. 

Unlike his last superhero venture kick-ass, where the only superheroes were either vengeful psychopaths or attention hungry teensagers, X:men:First Class boasts of much more complex characters .Vaughn tries to unravel the true psyche of the superhero as he presents us with young minds who are endowed with an abundance of power, and therefore, also burdened with a huge amount of responsibility. They are gullible, fragile beings with the fate of the world resting on their shoulders. They are inexperienced, are controlled by their own fickle emotions, and have yet to find themselves. This characterization of Vaughn's mutants contrasts heavily with that of almost every other superhero movie produced, and it makes for a nice change of scene. Another interesting element in the movie is the momentary and subtle, yet powerful juxtaposition between Charles and Erik's characters. In presenting Charles's as a prudent yet brash-minded and naive personality, and in combining Erik's vengeance-driven "Frankenstein's monster" with his calm and wise self, Vaughn breaks the age-old convention of individualising the "wise old man" and the "naive, arrogant youth" archetypes. Thus, while the well-intentioned Charles foolishly undermines Mystique's self-esteem by overlooking her "real" self, Erik quietly accepts her in her true form. As it is, almost every character in the film is dense, with precise motives and a clearly defined history. 

Director Mathew Vaughn, who also co-wrote the screenplay, excels at storytelling, which is a first for the franchise. Vaughn clearly seems to understand that the narrative is not merely an exhibit for a typical good v/s evil story; it is the parable of a poignant parting of ways, and , indeed, at its heart, it is a critical view of the extreme polarity of ideas that appears to dominate our world today. Enough care has been taken to edit out the superflous and baseless elements that brought down the earlier films of the franchise. Also, the makers do a fine job of fusing history and fiction; it is interesting to imagine a parallel universe where mutants and the Cuban Crisis go hand in hand. The acting, also one of the highlights of the movie, is probably the best to come out of a comic-book spin-off.(setting aside Ledger, obviously) James McAvoy and Jennifer Lawrence stand out as the young, dynamic Charles Xavier and the silent, self-loathing Mystique respectively, and Kevin Bacon looks menacing in every frame that he fills. But it is Michael Fassbender, with his steely, unnerving gaze, constant vigilance, and calm, restrained performance, who truly steals the show. 

Although X:men First Class is a quite a spectacle, it would be an overstatement to call the film flawless. For one, there are just too many characters that are dished out over the (rather short) running time; we end up caring for (and remembering) very few of them. One feels that the makers should have spent more time developing the principal characters and the relationships they share, rather than introducing new ones . Also, the visual effects, although quite scenic in sequences like the sub-lift, prove to be a slight disappointment for the rest of the film. Third : the soundtrack. while it goes with the film most of the time, there are scenes where it becomes too much of an intrusion. 


Overall, a very good film, an outstanding comic-book movie, and the very best of the X-Men series . Go for it.