The Station Agent (2003)

The Station Agent is about Fin (Peter Dinklage), a man with an unusually short name and an abnormally small body. He’s reminded of it at nearly every point of his life by almost everybody he meets. The little boys playing at a ground near his workplace enquire about the whereabouts of ‘Snow White’. The lady at the cash counter says something apologetic for not having seen him. A cheeky old woman grins with victory after taking a picture of him. The librarian freaks out on almost walking into him and explains that she thought the place was empty. Even the good news of inheriting a piece rural property left by a friend comes along with distasteful dessert, “You’re one of those memorable people.” And you will laugh as expected. But director Thomas Mccarthy doesn’t let the film capitalize on Fin’s short stature for laughs. He directs his actors with precision and lets them sink into the skins of the characters. You see their sadness. You see something exceptional in it and you hop on the train.

Margin Call (2011)

Margin Call is set at a large investment bank. It begins with a firing squad walking down a long corridor, sending chills up the spines of nearby employees. Yes, people are going to get fired. Head of sales, Sam Rogers (Kevin Spacey) explains “It’s going to get worse before it gets better.” Among the many terminated is Eric Dale (Stanley Tucci), a high ranking employee in risk management. He insists on finishing up with his final report but his boss reminds him that it doesn’t concern him anymore. His protégé, Peter Sullivan (Zachary Quinto) escorts him to the lift where he hands over the responsibility of completing the final report and says “Be careful.” Before Sullivan can react the elevator closes. Later that night, on finishing the report, Peter Sullivan predicts an economic meltdown. Everyone’s going down. “Look at all these people; they don’t have the slightest idea about what’s about to happen,” he remarks.

Six Feet Under (2001-2005)

When I told people to check out the series, ‘Six Feet Under’, they all asked the same question- “What is it about?” I had no answer, so I said “Just watch it.” A number of possible answers came to mind but none of them could accurately represent what the series was really about. When I finished it, I found the correct answer to the question- Life and Death. That is what Six Feet under is about. It’s funny I didn’t get the answer before. The celestial opening theme suggests just that. It seemed apt for the series but I never asked what about it made it apt.

Six Feet Under revolves around a funeral home, Fisher & Sons. Every episode begins with introducing new characters, one of which contributes to the family business by, well, dying. The deaths fade to white, instead of black, because it is these deaths that fuel the fisher family, and the series. Ironically, the pilot episode begins with the death of Nathaniel Fisher, the patriarch of the family and the owner of the business. His younger son, David, plays by the book and makes funeral arrangements for his father while battling with his own sense of shock. His elder brother, Nate, is an extreme libertarian. He continuously grunts at the subdued way with which people choose to grieve. The youngest, Claire, complies with indifference. Their mother, Ruth, drowned by ambivalent feelings confesses that she’s been having an affair with her hair dresser. This episode establishes clearly the personalities of the Fisher family. How they progress or regress, you will see for yourself.

Drive (2011) - Review/ Analysis/ Interpretation/ Spoilers

After the pulsating ten minute heist (ending with Ryan Gosling almost going face to face with a cop to ooze ‘cool’) comes the title sequence in pink font with electro house music playing in the background. I don’t know why but something about it told me the film was set in the late eighties. Now, I’m expecting Drive to plunge into the darkness of neo-noir with Driver being the hero, as opposed to, a character. But then, the stoic Driver flashes an effeminate smile and descends into a montage that is, set near a pond and guided by a pop track with lyrics like “A real hero, a real human being”. Now, I’m embarrassed. I’m skeptical about how this is going to turn out. Seriously, what the heck is this kind of music doing in a neo-noir? This is just what I’d expect to see in a chick flick or a daytime TV movie. It only gets worse when you have to play spectator to the awkward stares shared between Driver and Irene (Carey Mulligan). Watch the film a second time and you’ll see these scenes exist for characterization purposes.

When I first saw the trailer for Drive, I was expecting an action film and a charismatic Ryan Gosling. That’s how the movie presented itself to be. If you’ve seen the trailer, you know the film’s plot. However, the film isn’t plot centric. It has action, crime and it is fairly dark but I’d categorize it as a character study. With very little dialogue, Nicolas Winding Refn has managed to vividly characterize his players.

Dogtooth (2010)

“Mama, can you pass me the phone?” asks the girl. Her mom quietly passes the salt shaker and they continue with their dinner as if this was routine procedure. You're the odd one out. This is when you start wondering if there is something wrong with the family sitting at the table. Delve deeper and you’ll realize that everything’s wrong with it.

This is a family whose functioning is determined by the twisted minds of the heads of the household. The oligarchs have reared their children in this house since birth. Their three subjects (now in their late teens) haven’t dared to step beyond the compound gate. The outside world (so they’ve been told) is populated with carnivorous cats (which they are trained to bark at) and its ground intends to consume anyone who sets foot on it. Their father drives out to work. They watch the gate slowly closing itself behind him. They will have their day, they believe. But they must wait until their dogtooth falls off. While they wait for that day to come, they let time pass by watching home-recorded movies, consuming anesthetics and positioning themselves correctly to catch overhead airplanes.

Delhi Belly (2011)

Watching Delhi Belly is like smelling aftershave lotion. The first time you do, you like it but then it evaporates. That’s how volatile Delhi Belly is; its effect wears off in no time. Every joke works because of its inherently unpredictable nature and that is precisely why the film doesn't warrant a second viewing. You remember scenes from the film much more than the film itself. It has all the ingredients of a no-brainer - bare characterization, average acting and silly gags. Serving no purpose other than popcorn escapism, Delhi Belly is entertainment served on a silver platter. Just be sure to leave your brains behind.

Rating - 6/10

Antichrist (2009)

He (Williem Defoe) and She (Charlotte Gainsbourg) are having wild sex. They’re doing it against the bathroom wall, against the washing machine, on the floor, on the bed sincerely letting delicate objects in the proximity, topple over and break. Meanwhile, their little son is just getting out of his cradle with his eyes on the falling snow outside and climbs onto the table beside the window. Her eyes are on the boy but having been penetrated with full force for the last few minutes, she’s on the verge of climax. To the orgasm she succumbs, letting her beloved infant roll over and fall head first onto the curb. Here, ends the prologue.

The event described above doesn’t end there. The aftermath is one with complex ramifications. He expresses grief over the loss of his child and chooses to move on. She feels grief accompanied by guilt. She saw it happen and believes that she could’ve chosen other than her own sexual gratification. A month’s stay at the hospital hasn’t improved her condition. The doctor calls She’s grief atypical. She’s husband, He, a psychologist believes he has the ability to treat her without medication. In principle, He agrees with the doctor that a psychologist shouldn’t treat his own family but in this case, He doesn’t think another psychologist could know her better than he does. Thus embarks their psychotherapeutic journey. He keeps his relationship with She on a professional level letting her deal with her grief alone. When she needs a husband to grieve with over the death of their child, He chooses to escape from his own grief by diverting his attention to his work, with She being the object of dissection, irregardless of her own skepticism toward psychotherapy. What happened to helping you help yourself?

Source Code (2011)

Source code is a tightrope walked by Jake Gylenhaal and held on either ends by screenwriter, Ben Ripley and director, Duncan Jones. Jake Gylenhaal walks it with utmost sincerity yet he wobbles because Ripley and Duncan Jones are pushing him and our patience too hard. He never falls and you sit there hoping he makes it but you come to realize that it was all staged. A gimmick like this doesn't warrant a second viewing.

Colter Stevens (Jake Gylenhaal) wakes up to find himself on a train talking to Christina (Michelle Monaghan), a woman he’s never met. As flustered as he is, he goes in to the toilet to figure things out only to find a face he doesn’t recognize in the mirror. Eight minutes later, the train is blown to smithereens and he’s transported to a secret laboratory. Apparently, he’s been employed by Goodwin (Vera Farmiga), the commanding officer of an army of scientists who repeatedly transport him back (only virtually) for the last eight minutes of the explosion with the hope that he’d help in tracking down, the terrorist involved, and prevent another scheduled explosion. Every time he’s transported back he becomes increasingly callous and desperate, using violence to find what he needs. I loved this part. It’s nice to hurt someone and not have to live through the consequences because after all, it’s an alternate reality. Unfortunately, he seems more interested in finding out about his employers and trying to prevent the explosion even when he’s aware that he isn’t really changing the past. This is where the film begins to falter.

Stevens is constantly told by Goodwin to focus on his mission. I wish the filmmakers did the same. The film ends up fluctuating between finding the terrorist and flirtatious conversations between Stevens and Goodwin (who conveniently turns from a hard ass to a humane do-gooder); and once in a while, his eight-minute built love for Christina. They could've stuck to just finding the terrorist by replaying the events, focused on the characters and kept us guessing. That’s precisely why Groundhog Day worked, with the laughs. But no, they’re clear with their intentions. They want to make money, a lot of it and they won’t compromise on that. Source code was hinged on structure at first, and then it shifted to the relationships of poorly written characters. I understand that there isn't enough room for characterization, but why take on more than you can handle?

The first half was constantly energetic while the second half steadily lost tempo. Another problem with source code is giving us its source code. It’s a science fiction; no one’s going to question it. We just suck it up. I don’t remember anyone asking about the how’s of Inception. They just asked where? Where does it end? That of course, was a word-of-mouth marketing trick. Source Code thinks it has ended on an intelligent note but it isn't smart enough to know that it doesn't.

Rating – 6/10

The Hangover Part II (2011)

Shallow. Dark. Unrealistic. Ribald. Hilarious. These five words encapsulate The Hangover Part two. The words shallow and unrealistic stand out to me. So the film didn’t really work for me. To those of you whom the words ribald and hilarious stand out, I recommend the film.

I find it hard to turn off my brain before watching a no-brainer. I am bombarded with questions regarding the plausibility of the film’s events. With The Hangover Part Two, each time I threw a question, it softly bounced off the screen; but I didn’t care. I was too engrossed in what was happening to even remember what it was that I wanted an answer to. The film switched off my brain. Starting from the same point as the prequel and ending at pretty much the same point, the film takes a similar journey, different in the number of bumps it encounters and the catastrophic nature of each. The screenplay is packed with dull dialogue but it tries mighty hard to torture its characters and awakens the sadist within us. Whether it is a moron getting sodomized by a tranny, a fingerless teenager being stuffed into a refrigerator or the ebbing pulse of a crack addict, we grin with pleasure. There’re extremely horrible parts but they’re so uncompromisingly horrible that you’re left in stitches. Well, that’s that. Now, I’ll tell you why it didn’t work for me. I expect a film to have decent characterization, developed relationships and fairly good acting. The Hangover Part Two doesn’t have any of these. Ed Helms is effective at displaying high-strung emotions but that’s about it. Zach Galifianakis, who delivered his best performance with a cameo appearance in Up in the Air, is more of an unnecessary appendage than those of the transexuals in the film. The Hangover Part two’s saving grace is Mike Tyson. It isn’t a feat to be proud of, though. Even as the credits roll, you’re sitting there watching a montage of still photos; not because you care about the characters but because you can’t get enough of seeing them suffer.

Rating- 5/10

Dead Loops (2011)

I don’t consider myself to be a music critic. A film critic, yes very much but not a music critic. I choose to review Dead Loops because it has had a profound effect on me. The pent up energy instilled in me has to be let out and I will channelize it with this review.

I thoroughly enjoyed listening to Snakeism. I couldn’t care enough to pay attention to it and that was because listening to it without the lyrics was already very satisfying. When Dead Loops came out, I just had to check it out and I did, again without the lyrics. It wasn’t satisfying. Why? It never attempts to catch your attention; it believes it deserves your attention. I couldn’t form my verdict without giving it a fair shot and eventually I did listen to it with the lyrics. It was a depressing experience. With every song, I felt like I was being slowly lowered into a deep dark empty well. As soon as I hit the bottom, I was told to take the risk and ‘Rise Above’ by myself. Adam and the fish eyed poets kept raising similar questions that some part deep down inside me wanted to ask but didn’t seek the answers out of fear of having to deal with them. And then, it answered them too short and too quick. It was an unsatisfying answer. I was angry. I was unprepared. I felt let down. I was pushed out of my comfort zone. And those were just the artist’s intentions. I eventually got to it again with the hope that I will get the answers. The answer was to seek an answer by MYSELF, not wait for circumstances to give me one.

Two days later, I was awakened at five in the morning by ‘suicide girl’ playing in my head. It wasn’t just the song that lingered but the feeling it evoked. I could feel the character’s sense of loss. I listened to Snakeism again and this time with the lyrics. Snakeism is deep but you’re given the liberty to glide through the surface. Dead loops refuses to be taken for granted. You’ve got to work your way through it. Characters with contradictory thoughts and conflicting ideas fascinate Kishore Krishna. If the song isn’t his rant against a society that kills the individual spirit, it’s mostly the experiences of these characters silently at war with themselves. These characters, I believe, if connected the right way are part of a common world. Dead Loops’ intensity and Kishore’s self-expressive honesty are what make it a poignant work of art.

You can listen to it here- http://adamandthefisheyedpoets.bandcamp.com/album/dead-loops

Belle De Jour (1967)

23 year-old Severine (Catherine Deneuve) has been married to her soft, sensitive husband Pierre for a year but their sex-life is in limbo. Pierre is a doctor with compassionate looks while Severine, on the other hand has repressed her sexuality because she’s afraid of sex. Being a woman of self-defeating behaviour, she’s drowned by masochistic fantasies. Her own physical pain is mental pleasure. All her fantasies end up with her being abused and feeling worthless. The more she wants her husband to demand sex as if it were his right, the more he requests her for it, followed by an apology when declined.

When she learns that a friend of hers is a sex-worker (a profession she didn’t think still existed), she fails to understand why or how anyone would be able to have sex with a stranger (“You don’t get to pick”) and asks around but they all explain the business like it didn’t need an explanation, in brief. She still doesn’t understand it. It isn't long before these unanswered thoughts translate to action. Inquisitiveness builds and eventually overpowers her making her enroll at a whorehouse as a sex worker.

The sound design is the viewer’s map. If you want to understand the film, looking carefully isn't enough; you must listen carefully. Every sound in every scene has significance. If you perceive the film in a “what you see is what you get” way, the film will make no sense. You have to make sense out of it. In spite of that, the film has no background score. That’s because the film doesn't intend to stimulate the heart. It’s your mind that will be stimulated.

Nor does it intend to stimulate the prostate gland. Severine is elegant and attractive in an aristocratic way. You’re tempted all along to see her nude but this is no porno; the film’s focus is on the self-destructive thoughts swimming inside her head. That explains the absence of frontal nudity. The director, Luis Bunuel knows her beautiful body would serve no other purpose than being a distraction.

Catherine Deneuve delivers a perversely innate performance. Her act doesn’t communicate as much through her face muscles as it does through her eyes. It’s a subtle performance of restrained power.

Belle De Jour is art at its purest form. The biggest risk it takes is in not providing explanations. Doing that would just take away subjectivity from the film and art is subjective. The first watch raises the questions and it’s up to you to look for the answers with multiple viewings. This is precisely why it isn’t a film for everyone. You won’t be satisfied after the first watch but with repeated watches, you’ll be glad that the film raises more questions than it answers. With Belle De Jour, Luis Bunuel has taken surrealism to its pinnacle. This is no erotic thriller and I don’t recommend it to anyone who doesn’t enjoy intellectually stimulating films; because, Belle De Jour is a cerebral work out.

I’ve watched it thrice and all three interpretations of mine are considerably different. It isn’t one of those films with simply ambiguous binary endings- answer A or answer B? It’s not just open-ended, it’s open all the way. It’s a maze; you start somewhere and you always think you’ve made your way out but its path is one that you choose.

After you watch the film, you’re going to ask two questions-

1) What is real?

2) What is fantasy?

It’s whatever you want it to be.

Rating – 10/10, added to Great Movies.

All Good Things (2010)

All Good Things is based on the true story of a real estate mogul accused of three murders but let off the hook. David Marks (Ryan Gosling) watched his mother jump off the roof and “crack her skull like a walnut.” He hid under a table for a week. When he came out, it was as if it never happened. In spite of therapy, the feeling associated with the memory doesn’t change and the issue remains unresolved. Adding fuel to the fire is his overbearing father (Frank Langella) who needles at his conscience for not being as involved as he’s expected to be in the family affairs and often reminds him of his scrounger status. Ultimately, David falls prey to the manipulation and joins his father’s real estate firm. I can’t go on in this direction because this is where the mystery starts.

What I will tell you is that this is a first-rate murder mystery. I understand why most critics panned the film though. They wanted a satisfactory explanation. But there isn’t one. The film’s director Andrew Jarecki has simply taken all the facts from the case and presented them in just that manner. The film is based on facts, facts that are inconclusive. No one really knows what happened which is why David wasn’t convicted. Based on what Jarecki’s heard on the characters involved, he tells the story and lets you decide whether David is guilty or innocent.

The obvious characterization is excusable because this isn’t a character drama it’s a thriller. Kirsten Dunst excels as Katie Marks, David’s love interest. Nevertheless, the film stays on David and his struggle with the voices screaming in his head. You don’t hear them but you see the conflict on the actor’s face in every frame. Gosling is ticking dynamite. It’s a performance of repressed intensity. Each and every time he makes an appearance, you hold your breath expecting him to explode. You never know when, but you know it will happen. However, it isn’t just the actor who brings forth the character. The cinematography and the score have nakedly exposed the character’s mind- his fears, his urges, his angst. Its synergy is what makes All Good Things a triumph of ambience.

Rating – 8/10

The Notebook (2005)

Ryan Gosling is probably the best actor of his generation- The Believer, Half Nelson, Lars and the real girl, Stay and Blue Valentine. Seriously, what a brilliant character actor! There was no way I wasn’t going to check out The Notebook.

The Notebook opens with a senile woman looking out of a window with a dazed expression in her eyes. The window of a nursing home that keeps the place alive by allowing old men to read out to old women. One old man reads out to an old woman a love story between a Noah and an Allie. If you want to know anything about the story, you’ll have to watch the film. Wait a minute. Did I just say that? No, don’t watch the film. It’s a dreamy, sugary chick flick that is so down and out that even the luminous performances of Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams don’t elevate it. Despite the characters being shallow caricatures, the actors manage to breathe life into them. I don’t know you and I don’t know what you do but whatever it is, Nick Cassavetes’ The Notebook is a big waste of your time.

Rating – 4/10

Madrasapattinam (2010)

A.L. Vijay has no imagination of his own. He’s taken ideas from Lagaan, Titanic, Apocalypto and Shanghai Knights. In trying to infuse cinematic realism, he’s spent a lot of money on the production design. Madrasapattinam looks like a world of its own; I’ll give it that. Art direction, cinematography, costume design, make up and editing have provided it that. It looks real, but it doesn’t feel real. The film lacks substance. The characters do little that you can possibly believe. You’re not rooting for Arya’s character because he’s a character you feel for. You root for him because every other character is a moron. His screen presence being felt is attributed to comic foils. The film tries to have everything in it- comedy, realism, heroism, patriotism, romance and irony. It takes on more than it can handle and every saccharine cliché is soporific. Madrasapattinam is nice to look at; that’s just about it.

Rating – 5/10

Angadi Theru (2010)

Until I saw it, Angadi Theru was simply the name of a film that got critical acclaim. It was almost sent out as India’s official entry to the Oscars this year. But now that I’ve seen it, it’s a lot more than that. Just recalling the film puts in me enough positive energy to go on for hours about it. Let me first tell you what the film is about. It’s not an assumption, it’s not a possibility and it definitely isn’t reading more than there is. Anyone who’s seen it knows that the film brings to light, how employees of Saravana Stores are ill-treated.

Director Vasanthabalan has a lot he wants to tell the people. He believes that happiness and sadness are just phases in life. With that treatment, the film achieves the realism it deserves. He’s read about the events and mishaps at Saravana stores and his heart is aching for the employees. Each time there’s a signboard bearing “Saravana Stores” on the screen you know that burn is all that there is to it. He’s got great communication skill as a director. The cinematography is sly. It isn’t used for you to go “Wow, beautiful shot.” There isn't anything beautiful about the film's content. The shots shock, provoke and make you see eye to eye with the characters- just how you would’ve perceived it had you been in the characters’ shoes. The montages provide essence to the film and the acting is uniformly great. The store manager is played by A.Venkatesh with enough villainy to make you grit your teeth and feel pleasure even when the slightest hitch befalls him. It’s an award-worthy performance. The characters are well developed and the screenplay tells a lot within a small time frame. Not only is Vasanthabalan a brilliant director, he’s a raconteur. He makes it an exclusive experience for the viewer. You don’t feel like this is a film made for everyone to see, you believe it’s a story that Vasanthabalan is narrating directly to you. Even the characters that aren’t relevant to the story of the film have been given identities.

Angadi Theru is a message against capitalism. Those of you sitting in front of the computer screen and reading this are beneficiaries of capitalism. Angadi Theru says nothing for or against capitalism; it merely shows the plight of the people who’re at the suffering end of capitalism. There’s no way you won’t ache for them. Their plight is shown with so much power and realism. Just that is enough to convince you. You’re a rightist? So am I. But it did make me sway, as long as the film stuck to me. It’s definitely one of the years best and the most compelling film of 2010.

Rating – 10/10

Mynaa (2010)

Prabhu Solomon’s Mynaa is a film that’s well written, well shot, well directed, well scored and well acted. It succeeds in all the major categories. However, it does come up short in its pacing and in staying modest. It starts modestly albeit its ideas are fresh and refreshing but ends up overdoing the comedic aspect. I don’t think it sold out, I think Solomon got carried away. All the excitement from directing a near perfect first half shows in the early parts of the second half. It appears to preach that loving people would guarantee a happy life but that’s not quite what I took from it. I contend it says that many minor injustices sum up to become a major injustice ending up in chaos. Characterization and character development couldn’t have been better in a film stuffed with eventful happenings. Its characters change according to circumstances without going out of character; that’s what makes them more earthly. There’re no good or bad people here. Solomon doesn’t take a side with the film’s characters giving you the freedom to perceive them the way you see them. Nevertheless, what becomes of them does affect you.

Rating – 6/10

Due Date (2010)

Contrasting personalities, Peter Highman(Robert Downey, Jr.) and Ethan Chase (Zach Galifianikis) are heading from Atlanta to Los Angeles. En route, plain and simply put, shit happens. Every Hiccup in their journey is a hiccup for you, because you want Due Date to cut to the chase.

Peter Highman says to Ethan Chase "Now hear this, beware, I'm warning you, don't go to Hollywood. The streets are not paved with gold, they're paved with the carcasses of fucking imbeciles like you who think they're gonna go there and make it. Pray you avoid it. Did you get that?"
This dialogue is pitched perfectly. You know why? Because Robert Downey Jr. wasn't aware that he was being filmed. The person he was talking to was director Todd Philips.

Downey Jr. stands apart from the crew like a butterfly among roaches. His performance is effortless and genuine because just like his character, he feels trapped in the situation. Peter Highman finds Ethan Chase a pain in the ass. You empathize because you feel the same way about the film.

Rating - 3/10

The King's Speech (2010)

King George VI waged war with Germany. But before that, he was an inveterate stammerer. How he overcomes that is what the film is about. Hence, “The King’s Speech.” The King’s a fragile person who shies away from people. There’s a connection between that and his stammering. He doesn’t stammer when he talks to himself or his family but when he’s out there in front of people, he’s conscious of what he says. As far as he can remember, he’s been stammering.

At the age of four, some incident sparked his stammering. That incident is mentioned in passing and so is the world war. The film keeps these issues at arm’s length and refuses to stray away from The King’s Speech. His haranguing father is on his death bed and someone has to succeed him. His inability to live up to his father’s expectations has made him want to be left alone. However, when his elder brother intends to marry a divorcee, (who acquired certain skills at an establishment in Shanghai), the throne becomes his to lose. Even his father had remarked, “When I’m dead, your brother will ruin himself, this family and this nation, within twelve months. Who’s going to pick up the pieces?” The expectations pile on and he cries, “I’m not a King.” Destiny however places the crown on his head and with it comes the royal responsibility of addressing the nation.

Colin Firth is both subtle and over-the-top in playing King George VI. The character is real but it is just one dimension of him that we’re shown. Who would’ve expected to see the freak in Fight Club and Sweeney Todd, portray British highness with grace? Here, Helena Bonham Carter breaks stereotype. Just as her character, Queen Elizabeth stands by the King, Carter supports the film. Not entirely of course. There’s Geoffrey Rush playing Lionel Logue, the unorthodox and controversial speech therapist. Logue has no diploma, no qualifications, and no credentials; yet he’s a man with his head on his shoulders. Haven given people faith in their voices, he’s mighty sure of his work and himself. Rush shines in the role and the scenes where he and Firth indulge in verbal sparring are a pleasure to watch.

David Seidler, (who probably used a lot of his own diary entries for research) a cured stutterer himself, gives heart to the film by laying the foundations with his slick screenplay, one filled with British banter.

The cinematography is beyond functional. It isn’t just beautifully shot; it is effective enough to make the microphone look vicious and overbearing. There’re wide angle and low angle shots capturing the audience who’re actually at a lower plane but appear to be towering the King. As the last few long shots are shown minutes before The King’s Speech, it is you who’s going to feel the tension mounting with every “Good luck, your Majesty.”

Every scene resonates with royalty thanks to the sublime direction of Tom Hooper, a master of his craft. Unlike its Oscar rival ‘The Social Network’, it may not stand the test of time; but for what the film is, it’s flawless. The King’s Speech is a powerfully inspiring film that is relatable to anybody wanting to be a somebody.

Rating – 10/10

Singam Puli (2011)

‘Singam Puli’ as the title suggests pits twins against each other; there’s Shiva, an honest, crass fisherman and the other, Ashok, a lawyer who gets a high on deceiving people. Kollywood, once again exploits the dual role trick.

Full review -http://nowrunning.com/movie/6716/tamil/singam-puli/2991/review.htm

Seedan (2011)

Let me start by telling you that Seedan is unbearable. It does nothing to stand on its own feet. Absent of ideas, the film is so formulaic in its plotting and clichéd in its dialogue that within the first fifteen minutes you know exactly where the film’s heading. Even if I wanted to, I wouldn’t be able to spoil the film for you. Here, predictability is at its most abysmal. I can give you a number of reasons for you to avoid Seedan but I can’t think of a reason for you to watch Seedan.

Full review- http://nowrunning.com/movie/7331/tamil/seedan/2989/review.htm

Nadunisi Naaygal (2011)

Similarities between Yudham Sei and Nadunisi Naaygal-
1.Psychopathic murderers.
2.Women get abused.
3.There’s a message.
4.At least a part of the story is narrated by a character in the film.

Differences between Yudham Sei and Nadunisi Naaygal-
1.Yudham Sei plays with your emotions; Nadunisi Naaygal doesn’t.
2.Yudham Sei is completely music driven; Nadunisi Naaygal is visceral and has no background score.
3.Yudham Sei starts preaching right from the very beginning; Nadunisi Naaygal tells you what the point of the film really was after the film is over.
4.Yudham Sei has characters that are either “good” or “bad”; Nadunisi Naaygal doesn’t judge its characters and treats them as individuals.
5.Yudham Sei is laden with a horribly contrived plot while Nadunisi Naaygal has no plot.
6.Yudham Sei has sociopaths working together (Mysskin, please do your research the next time) who react the same way to the same situation; Nadunisi Naaygal does a character study of a psychopath.
7.Yudham Sei has choreographed fight sequences; Nadunisi Naaygal keeps it real.
8.In Yudham Sei a bearded drunkard who has a bullet lodged in his stomach tells the story; the psychopath of Nadunisi Naaygal is narrating his story to a cop.
9.The cinematography is solely for the purpose of catching your attention in Yudham Sei, in Nadunisi Naaygal it is used with authenticity.
10.The actors in Yudham Sei could’ve been replaced by pieces of wood; the lead actor in Nadunisi Naaygal digs deep and gets into the psyche of the character.
11.Yudham Sei tells you to kill anyone who checks you out when you’re changing in the dressing room, Nadunisi Naaygal tells you that victims of child abuse are unable to move on and need serious attention.
12.Yudham Sei gets 0/10 from me, Nadunisi Naaygal gets 8/10.

I don’t have to tell you which one to watch.

83rd Academy Award predictions.

Best Picture-

Will win: The King's Speech

Should win: The Social Network

Should've been nominated: The Ghost Writer

Best Director-

Will win: David Fincher- The Social Network

Should win: David Fincher- The Social Network

Should've been nominated: Roman Polanski- The Ghost Writer

Best Actor-

Will win: Colin Firth- The King's Speech

Should win: Javier Bardem- Biutiful

Should've been nominated: Edward Norton- Leaves of grass

Best Actress-

Will win: Natalie Portman- Black Swan

Should win: Natalie Portman- Black Swan

Should've been nominated: Julianne Moore- The Kids Are All Right

Best Supporting Actor-

Will win: Christian Bale- The Fighter

Should win: Christian Bale- The Fighter

Should've been nominated: Edward Norton- Stone

Best Supporting Actress-

Will win: Mellisa Leo- The Fighter

Should win: Mellisa Leo- The Fighter

Should've been nominated: Milla Jovovich- Stone

Best Original Screenplay-

Will win: The King's Speech

Should win: The King's Speech

Should've been nominated: Stone

Best Adapted Screenplay-

Will win: The Social Network

Should win: The Social Network

Should've been nominated: The Ghost Writer

Original Score-

Will win: The Social Network

Should win: The Social Network

Should've been nominated: The Ghost Writer

Original Song-

Will win: Toy Story 3

Should win: Toy Story 3

Cinematography-

Will win: Roger Deakins- True Grit

Should win: Matthew Libatique- Black Swan

Should've been nominated: Anthony Dodd Mantle- 127 hours

Editing-

Will win: The Social Network

Should win: The Social Network

Should've been nominated: Inception

Sound Editing-

Will win: Inception

Should win: Inception

Sound Mixing-

Will win: Inception

Should win: Inception

Should've been nominated: Stone

Visual Effects-

Will win: Inception

Should win: Inception

Art Direction-

Will win: Alice in Wonderland

Should win: Alice in Wonderland

Should've been nominated: The Ghost Writer

I won't be predicting the categories of animated film, foreign film, documentary, costume design and make up because I haven't seen all of the nominees. Even If I did, I wouldn't be sure.

EDIT: Result- 14/16. Didn't expect Inception to win for cinematography and The King's Speech to get more praise than it deserves.

127 hours (2010)

Aaron Ralston is going out to the Blue John Canyon, all by himself. Before leaving, he informs his boss.

"Where to?" He's asked.
"Don't know yet."
"Hope it is good."
"Always is."

He's an adventurer. In his eyes, he's his own man. He believes he can make it on his own. He ignores answering machine messages from his mother, he can't be bothered searching for his swiss army knife and he's not going to check again if he has everything he needs. He hasn't told a soul where he's going. The possibility of things going wrong doesn't cross his mind. Yes, pride goes before a fall. And boy, does he fall.

He bumps into two lost girls and offers to guide them. The three of them squeeze between rocks and let themselves drop into water. One of them asks "What if these rocks move?" to which Aaron jestingly replies "They're moving all the time. Let's just hope it's not today." That's taken for granted. Once he's on his own way, the rock just happens to move and he lands with his right arm under a boulder. What does he do? He tries chipping off the rock. He tries making a pulley to get the rock off. He screams his lungs out for help. All in vain. "Don't lose it," he instructs himself.

He goes on to realize that he has not enough food or water to last more than a day. By the time a missing person complaint is filed with the police and they start looking out, he'd probably have starved to death. He does regret the choice he's made but he's willing to stick by it and think his way out of the situation. "It was your choice. You made this choice," he tells himself. He drinks his urine, he sucks water off his contact lens, he distracts himself by enacting a conversation between Aaron the survivor, a talk show host and the Aaron stuck in "loser canyon". He thinks about having a son, he hallucinates about a party with Scooby Doo and the whole time he's videotaping everything that's happening. But that couldn't go on forever. He beings to recollect the best memories of his life; they're all in the company of his loved ones and he's of the opinion that they're worth reliving. For which he's willing to survive; even if it means leaving his right arm behind. He cuts it off, little by little with his 'made in china' knife. You see him in excruciating pain when he's cutting through his arm. Once he's finished ripping through the flesh, it is time for the bone.

The film personifies the man it's made about. It's a bold film. 90 minutes of a man who is trapped under a rock isn't something that people are going to rush out to theatres to check out. It couldn't have been more engaging. You see various shades of the character, Aaron Ralson. He's a survivor and is shown that way. The film makers respect him for that and don't try getting the audience to empathize with him. You're kept at bay. You won't feel sorry for him yet you want to know what becomes of him. What the character feels is expressed by James Franco, shown by the cinematographer Anthony Dodd Mantle and understood by A.R. Rahman's music. Mantle closes in on Aaron's face when there's intense feeling and zooms out to show Aaron's state of claustrophobic helplessness. Franco is dynamite. If he wins the oscar, he's definitely worthy of it. Danny Boyle, the director is a genius. The book must've told the story in words, Boyle does it with little talk, more with action.

127 hours is a gripping film that will appeal to both the film buff and the average viewer. It will probably be forgotten years from now but as long as the buzz exists, it's a film that's not to be missed. It might not be a great film but it most certainly is great filmmaking.

Rating- 9/10