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

Yudham Sei (2010)

The general consensus of Yudham Sei: “An edge of the seat thriller.” I agree with the choice of words. I was actually on the edge of my seat contemplating on walking out of the theatre. That was thrilling, compared to the film.

Yudham Sei is self-indulgent pretentious garbage that I wouldn’t watch even if I was to get paid for it. Homeless beggars would rather sleep on the streets than sleep in an air-conditioned theatre that screens the film. Director Mysskin has tried too hard to make a powerful film by playing with the audience’s emotions. With the film he shocks, provokes, inserts twists, milks sentiment as and when he wishes.

The lead character is J.Krishnamoorthy. He runs fast, he takes on eight people with a penknife and wears leather shoes. The man is labeled as a “good” guy. That’s how the central character of the film is written. He has hardly any depth. All you know is that he is “the best police officer” and that he wants to find his kidnapped sister. How are we to understand him and his wants? He is glorified by making every other character around him seem insensitive. This is the limit of Mysskin’s talent. He might be able to capture and invert beautiful shots of cobwebs, cardboard boxes, watermelons, snakes, skies, lampposts and water, in various colors of light, but a consummation of all that doesn’t qualify as a film. It’s no more than a power point presentation of google image search results.

You know right from the beginning that it’s a talented crew and they could be good at what they do. Unfortunately, they’re in the wrong hands. Mysskin uses them in all the wrong ways. He has an eye for detail but not the honesty of an artist. He goes to the extent of making a direct reference to Rashomon by using the film’s name. It wasn’t a tribute or a token of appreciation; it was a shameless attempt at letting the audience know that he’s someone with international exposure to films. As if we’ve forgotten about him not giving credit to the original material that Nandalala was adapted from. Mysskin has low self esteem, he doesn’t have faith in his script and therefore he tries to get the music to drive the film. Newcomer K certainly has talent but it’s the truth, everyone has to start at the bottom.

The screenplay is laughable. It’s so horribly contrived. Half the story is narrated by a nearly dead man who laughs and drinks despite having two bullets lodged in his intestine. The characters keep doing things that are out of character. Mysskin, the director should never hire Mysskin, the screenwriter again. From Mysskin’s films, it’s pretty obvious that he’s a film-maker only because he wants to be one, not because he enjoys making films. It’s shabbily overdone and the visual metaphors just make it worse. Yudham Sei is like eating a burger filled with just mayonnaise. You’re going to feel like throwing up. I could write another thousand words about why the film sucks so hard, but I’m going to spare you of that. It’s poison. Stay away from it.

Rating – 0/10

Biutiful(2010)

Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu who has directed three award worthy films in the last decade with Amores Perros, 21 grams and Babel, now delivers his fourth. Just that Biutiful follows a linear storyline could give you the idea that it'd be a notch under its predecessors, however, its narrative stays steady. The main character Uxbal is described as "Devoted father, tormented lover, mystified son, underground businessman, ghost seeker, spiritual sensitive, consumer-goods pirate, guilty conscience and urban survivor." All personified by actor Javier Bardem whose face expresses a multitude of emotions just by the slightest twitch of a muscle. He nails every nuance of the role. What he embodies is more a human being than a character. You're in his state of mind when you're watching Bardem's visceral projection of a man who eventually concedes to the bitter truth that his end is near and it's all over, but still remains someone who's trying to keep everything from going to pieces.

Every minute you're watching the screen, you're not in your seat. You're right there, in the film. You're in the world the Inarritu has created. The film tells you little about Uxbal, nonetheless, he seems familiar. The time capsule of the film comprises just a slice of his life which is penetrated with shrill humanity. Biutiful lives up to its title in every way. The streets of bedraggled tenements in Barcelona are turned pretty by cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto's magic touch. You might be unable to connect the dots after the first watch, but it won't matter. It's the heartfelt journey that counts. If there's something terrific about the film, it is the film itself. When I think back on what was good about the film, I don't know what to put my finger on, although its greatness is one that can be sensed early in the film. Nothing stands out; everything seems to have been channeled through a pipeline. What comes out is something that is experienced with palpable melancholy and leaves you in emotional shambles. You're in for a work out.

Rating- 10/10

Aadukalam(2011)

I happen to agree with the general consensus on Aadukalam: Thumbs up. It is certainly worth the price of your ticket.

Pettaikaaran and inspector Rathnaswamy are rivals in the cockfighting business. Pettaikaaran trains his roosters exclusively for tournaments. He has three accomplices in the business- Dorai, a bar owner who invests in Pettaikaaran’s cocks, Karruppu who positions the cock before every battle and Ayug, the medic who helps the cocks rejuvenate so that they’re back in action. When Rathnaswamy can take no more of the losing streak, he sends his men on a raid and arrests people involved. Pettaikaaran’s men refuse to submit to the situation, so they hit back. A series of battles ensue and they finally settle on the ultimate cockfight tournament. While the story is hinged on the cockfighting business, the film examines the minds of the characters in it, through which it deals with dark themes such as power, jealousy, disloyalty, greed and the human ego. The love affair between Karuppu and an Anglo-Indian girl works as breezy humour even at times where the film intends to be serious.

Director Vetrimaaran has wrapped everything into a single unit with crisp direction. With Aadukalam, he surpasses Polladhavan, his debut film. Splendid acting by the cast is what the film mainly benefits from. The characters might not be complex, but they’re credible. The music is a perfect fit, including the godfather soundtrack being played at regular intervals for which, credit hasn’t been given.

The film isn’t without its share of flaws. Cockfights are more interesting than watching Dhanush bash up five guys. What the film lacks is in the aspect of storytelling. You get the arc of the story, but it is told rather plainly. The ending? It sucks. Don’t let that stop you from watching it, it takes away little from the film.

Kollywood gives us hope by opening 2011 with Aadukalam.

Rating- 7/10

The Ghost Writer (2010)

I've heard of first person shooters, but first person films? Not until I saw The Ghost Writer.

While playing fps(first person shooter) games, you cower when you die and feel glory when you kill. When you're doing neither, you feel fear, tension and excitement; all at the same time. That's how you feel when watching The Ghost Writer, which I'd call - a first person film.

Adam Lang, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has been accused of torturing British citizens of Islamic heritage. Being a grave violation of human rights, it has caused a stir amongst the people of the nation. In an attempt to repair his blemished image and win back the people, he decides to write a memoir. For that, he needs a Ghost Writer. That's where the central character of the film, the unnamed ghostwriter comes into play. He has no identity and his character is intentionally undeveloped. But he is a character. He acts and feels what you'd feel in such a situation. Yet you do. You feel the tension not because you empathize with the character, but because you feel it is you who's being hunted.

I'm in a delicate position having to review this film without giving away any details. The film is plot-driven. Unlike most plot driven films that focus on keeping you engaged and giving you adrenaline rushes, this one aims its attention at building atmosphere. It's all in the air. There's interdependence between the cinematography and the sound design, which itself maintains the right balance between the score and the sound from stationary objects that you're just subconsciously aware of. Indeed a first person film. It's a film to be experienced. Seventy-seven year old Roman Polanski has made yet another masterpiece. Chinatown, The Pianist and now The Ghost Writer.

I felt I needed to dedicate an entire paragraph to praise the performance of Ewan McGregor, who carried a major part of the film on his shoulders. It's a generic performance. He had to communicate what the character felt with great reserve, so that it'll get to you in a subliminal way. It's a great performance that's hard to appreciate the first time. When he notices that something is amiss, he investigates. He fears for his life, but he's keener on uncovering the mystery. McGregor's prying eyes were rightly cast. There's a shot where he's shown towered by everything around him. That's symbolic. He's a speck in a huge world, having to find his own way. The film in spite of the amassing tension not once chooses to burst fire with emotion. Rightly done. The supporting performances of Tom Wilkinson, Olivia Williams and Pierce Brosnan are all on the mark.

The Ghost writer is a triumph of a film that deserves to be hailed with Oscar nominations- best actor, best adapted screenplay, best cinematography, best score, best sound editing, best picture and most of all, best director. But that didn't happen. If The Academy ever decides to give away belated Oscars, The Ghost Writer rightfully deserves a few.

Rating- 10/10

Mar Adentro - The Sea Within (2004)

A film about a man who narrowly escaped death but survived to be a talking vegetable could’ve moved the audience to pieces. As toneless as the film may be, the quadriplegic is one of the many people in the film, whom we don’t care about let alone empathizing with. He’s treated neither as a survivor or a sufferer. After hiring a hypersensitive lawyer, he hopes to be killed, mercifully. Just as you’re expecting the case to start, the lawyer ends up as a quadriplegic herself. They’re both lust for each other but sadly they can’t have sex. So, they talk about it, visualizing it with their eyes closed. The guy can’t feel a thing, which includes his penis yet he manages to two-time and has multiple (visual) sex partners. Those in the film that aren’t disabled fight with each other, over shaving and bathing him. The acting is terrible except for that of Javier Bardem who does what he can to give the film, well, something; although, his inanimate presence (mostly with a pencil in his mouth) isn’t something you can sit through for two hours. Every scene without him isn’t worth watching and every scene with him is repetitive. A priest comes to convince him that life is worth it and guess what? He’s a quadriplegic too. If there’s anyone you can empathize with, it’s the cameraman who makes it a point to move the camera in every scene. There’re about half as many wheelchairs as people and they’re more interesting to observe. The screenplay is a recorded debate on euthanasia, which reaches a ‘living is a right, not an obligation’ verdict. Two hours of babble to get to this? You won’t get past the first hour. I wholeheartedly agree with the message. This quadriplegic film should’ve gone where it deserved to be- in the waste basket.

Rating- 3/10

Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)

Who would’ve thought that a trick like this would work a second time? Paranormal activity 2, the prequel of paranormal activity although released after its sequel initially works. That’s as much credit as I can give the film. With each thud you’re going to skip a heartbeat. It convinces you that while dying might be bad, living with intense fear is worse. The constant wave like noise gets under your skin and tells your instincts that something terrible is about to happen. I’ve covered the first half hour of the film. The remaining hour is a spoof of the first half hour. The ghost turns hospitable by opening and closing doors, but when it doesn’t receive the due “Thank you”, it burns a man’s testicles. When the teenage girl tries communicating with the ghost, the ghost starts flirting with her by saying that he wants pussy. And a hat. Since she doesn’t respond positively, he wakes her up by whispering her name in her ear. Not very imaginative, is he? From here on, he goes on a series of pranks with locking her outside and triggering a false fire alarm when she’s making out with her boyfriend in the pool.

Here’s the twist- it’s not a ghost, it’s a DEMON. The head of the house refuses to acknowledge the demon’s existence. Now, the sensitive demon feels insulted. The increasing anger of the demon drives the remaining half hour of the film. From here on, it works neither as a comedy nor as a horror. The film throws sucker punches by banging open every door that could possibly be opened, when you’re expecting the frying pan to fall on the wife’s head. The characters are not believable. They hold on to the camera even when the certainty of their lives is suspended by a thin thread. There’s more chemistry between the camera and the people who feel it up than between the husband and the wife. To make up for that, the demon’s character is well developed. He suffers from identity crisis. But the people in the house don’t know that, do they? So they assume that talking about the demon would just enrage him further. How close it all came to never happening!

From here on, it’s hilarious. The dog gets tossed from one corner to the other, you can’t be sure if it got humped just before, because the demon’s invisible, but it certainly seems so. This scene in particular, is rib crackling especially for PETA activists. Of course, the pets are always killed first. The screenwriters have obviously seen Fatal Attraction and Cape Fear. The film ends like the first one, with everyone dying. The Demon is a wrestling fan; it performs a chokehold on the husband, a choke slam on the wife and walks away with the baby (an allusion to the golden belt). Why the baby? Apparently, some old hag in his ancestral tree hadn't honoured a deal with the demon- to exchange a male infant for riches.

Rating- 2/10

Open Water(2003)

Two people kicking against water, the sound of it and sharks. This is a film that attempts to do no more than tell the bloodcurdling story of a couple left in the middle of the sea. It isn't something that'll go down easy. Every cinematic element is used in the barest amounts with the exception of the camera. Not much has gone into developing the characters but that doesn't stop the characters from being real people. The sound of the water induces temporary aquaphobia. Open water is cinematic minimalism at its biting best. Its simplicity is what makes it so effective. It accomplishes what it intends to without attempting to foray beyond and entertains you without requiring your complete attention. Just let yourself into the world and you're in for a treat. Movies like Open Water are rare in the 21st century. The film rests on ideas, less on technology. This little gem of a natural horror based on real events is not to be missed.

Rating- 8/10

Conviction (2010)

Even the excellent performances of Sam Rockwell and Hilary Swank can’t save this absolute farce of a film. Conviction is such a drag. There is nothing interesting about the story. But just the fact that it’s a real story about a brother and sister, who spent most of their childhood in foster homes, fighting for justice managed to attract a lot of good actors. Once they’re on board, director Tony Goldwyn lets them do all the work. He just sits by and watches them work while translating the screenplay in a color by number fashion. The pace is steady only because the director makes no attempt at capturing your attention. Depicting real events hardly matters when what you see on screen isn't the least bit believable. Not worth your time. Just skip it.

Rating - 4/10

Easan (2010)

Critics didn’t treat Easan very well. Many reviews mentioned that the second half of the film wasn’t related to the first, that there could’ve been more time spent in the editing room cutting down the time duration and that eventually, it wasn’t worth watching. I’m a person who trusts critical opinions over trailers. Since I watched Subramaniapuram free of cost and loved every bit of it, I decided to pay my respects by watching Easan at the theatre. It would be difficult to disappoint me since I had little expectation.

As soon as I came out the theatre, I felt something strong surge through my head. The last part of the film was so unsettling that I really didn’t know what to say. But I could feel something. The film was powerful enough to create such strong emotion in me without meaning to do so. Easan is a film that has so much substance that it can be appreciated more in retrospect. The more I think of the film, the more I see its brilliance. Now, that doesn’t mean it’s going to keep you thinking. It’s the film maker’s brilliance I’m talking about. The amount of importance he gives to little details is astounding.

Easan’s a film that carves a niche for itself in kollywood. I’ve seen nothing like it. The screenplay isn’t something that comes from a lucky brainwave but something that is a product of great insight, something that’s been studied for a long time with interest and attention. It has a plot, but the film isn’t plot driven. The plot while being complex in itself is told with such authenticity that it keeps you engaged the whole 200 minutes. Before you get to the plot, there’re a lot of culturally relevant aspects that are focused on. Once you get to it, he still retains some of the focus on Chennai culture.

The film maker, Sasikumar has studied Chennai, its people, how they think, how that thought translates to action and how society reacts to it. Besides, he doesn’t take sides or tell you what to think. He just shows things for what they are and gives you the freedom to decide how you feel on issues that we know of but hardly talk about. There're some strong themes that have been dealt with very subtly that I'd rather not mention, but you'll know it when you see it. He knows that films aren’t about stories, but about storytelling. And he’s a damn good storyteller. By adding new characters, one at a time, the story is unraveled, bit by bit. Easan, he narrates with brutal honesty- it has gore in the right amounts and at the right time to make you feel just the way you would if you saw it happening right in front of your eyes.

This is not just another Tamil film. Heroes and Villains don’t exist. There’re so many characters and not one of them is neglected. Sasikumar decides to treat them as characters and show them for what they are. They don’t do what they do because they’re ‘good’ or ‘bad’. You see their wants, their motives and their actions. The actors who play them, retain their characters in their shoes as long as they’re on screen. You understand the characters by what you see, not by watching them tell you how they feel.

James Vasanthan has done a good job scoring the music for the film. Most people are bound to compare it to that of Subramaniapuram, but they compare it not by its use but how the music tracks stand out, alone. Instead of being present for the purpose of entertainment, it has been employed purely as a device for storytelling.

The main stand out of the film, is the camerawork. My sincere appreciation goes to Sasikumar for expoiting cinematographer Kathir and to Kathir for letting himself be exploited. This is just why calling Sasikumar a film maker would be understating. That isn’t what his definition limits to. He’s an artist. I’ve seen the film twice in the theatre, spent almost seven hours watching it and I plan on watching it again when it gets a DVD- release. Yes, it is that good. For what it is, I believe it’s a flawed masterpiece. There're a few parts of the film that were rushed. Has it outdone Subramaniapuram? I don’t think so. Subramaniapuram had more raw ferocity to it. Easan, covers so much more but doesn’t have that grit and it isn’t supposed to. Subramaniapuram is as great a debut film as Easan is as a second film. The former was clearly a labor of love while the latter shows Sasikumar’s evolving maturity as a film maker.

Rating – 9/10

Machete (2010)

I'd been waiting to see Machete after I saw the fake trailer of it in Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino's Grindhouse. I enjoyed both parts of Grindhouse, Planet Terror and Death Proof. While I liked Death Proof more, I felt Planet Terror deserved more appreciation.

But Machete? I can't find one reason to recommend this film. It's not so much of a misfire or a disappointment. It's too dull to be given even that much of importance. A movie like this isn’t one I expect to satisfy my intellectual appetite, so I don't pay much attention. Its entertainment value is supposed to grab my attention. Does it do so? Not one bit. I won't tell you what it's about, there's nothing special about it. There's gore, in amounts that neither entertains nor provokes you. The film's a snooze.

In trying to recall the film, I remember it ends with nuns, priests, rock n roll stars(who've picked up a trait or two from 50 cent) and Mexican parasites in blood lust mode, all of them spraying away bullets hoping to reach orgasm. It's a blood bath, sadly, not of the holy Christ. The screenplay is laughable with dialogues that are caricatures of already existing catch-phrases. "You Just Fucked With The Wrong Mexican." Woah! That did send a shiver down my spine. Jessica Alba gets on top of a car and screams “ We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us.” A crucified priest decides to say “God has mercy, I don’t. You go to hell.” Cool? Smart? Maybe, if you’ve just reached adolescence.

Danny Trejo is lethally magnetic but nothing that Machete does is even close. Machete's a guy with enough scars to prevent his dead body from being recognized, constipated expressions that'll make you restrain your laughter(Out of, not fear, but pity), a cartoonish raucous voice and a weapon belt with a lot of knives that look like they were stolen from some old lady's kitchen at midnight.

If anything, I'm glad I watched this cheap gimmick because it's been on my hard disk long enough, now I can free 1.22 GB. But you don't have to sit through 100 minutes watching it, just to free your hard disk, you could take my word and delete it right away. I know, there's a lot about the film I haven't talked about. Those aspects just exist, they are not worthy of criticism.

Before the credit rolls, we're asked to look forward to sequels. Machete Kills. Machete Kills again. The missing object in the sentence is Robert Rodriguez' reputation.

Rating - 4/10

Stone (2010)

Some people tell lies. Others live them.

Jack Mabry while appearing to live the life of a ‘good’ human being is confronted with thoughts that aren’t supposed to occur to such a person. He’s been married for over forty years, has never broken the law and works as a parole officer trying to reform people. But what does that do to him? There isn’t a soul he trusts; he’s carved that way. Prison inmates are trying to keep up with him by creating an impression and get him to believe that they’ve turned over a new leaf. With all the experience he’s had, he sees through all of it. Not for long.

Gerald Creeson better known as ‘stone’ is under the supervision of Jack. Empty and pointless is what he believes his life is as long as he’s in prison. There’s desperation to break free. He believes he deserves it. Attempting to needle the vulnerable side of Mabry by sending his sexy wife, Lucetta, to meet with him, he hopes to be released. How long could that last?

Lucetta is no femme fatale, as the trailer would have you believe. A buoyant, effusive, middle-aged nymphomaniac is what she is. Stone tells Jack that she’s an ‘alien’.

Madlyn, Jack’s wife is like stone. Jack has threatened her before and the memory of the experience doesn’t fade away. She’s stuck in a loveless marriage and doesn’t have the nerve to raise the issue about her ‘soul being kept in a dungeon’.

There’re some interesting issues raised by the film, and without being answered or taken a stand for or against, are put in front of us through the characters. Does sin come naturally to human beings? Does being physically imprisoned mean no freedom? Are we all hypocrites after all? Is it foolish to sought after the righteous path? Is there a definite righteous path? Is there a higher power watching over us and our actions?

Jack is the lead character and it’s his perspective that is the focal point of the film, which is why we don’t know what’s happening. Like him, we don’t know whether to trust the characters or not because clearly they all have their own motives. The narrative doesn’t intend to spoon-feed its viewers. You have to see the film again through the eyes of each character, pay attention to their reactions and understand their motives with which you determine whether they have done what Jack believes they did, or not. This is no ordinary thriller. It’s heavy. It’s complex. It’s an in depth character study. John Curran’s real deal is in displaying these characters, how they feel. What’s going on inside their heads.

Acting is first rate. Robert Deniro, a name that echoes unforgettable characters- Jake Lamotta, Travis Bicke, Jimmy Conway, Vito Corleone and a lesser known Rupert Pupkin, has shown that even at this age he’s capable of doing much more than what he’s been doing for the past ten years- frowning, cursing, head tilting and spastic nodding. Edward Norton, who has proven time and again that he’s not merely an actor with expressions but a character artist, delivers a gritty performance. This one’s nothing like his other characters. People have complained about this role being similar to Primal fear and American History X particularly because all three of them are prisoners but that’s just being myopic. That’s like saying Robert Deniro is not versatile because he’s played only gangsters and tough guys, or even more abstract- in almost every movie of his, he’s malicious. It’s not what viewers choose to reduce those complex characters to, with a word or two. It’s the way the characters are played. Vito Corleone and Jimmy Conway are both Italian Mafiosos but are their characters similar? Not at all. In spite of all the praise I’ve given these two actors, it is Milla Jovovich who steals the film. Her performance is something that I’d characterize as a combination of Karen Black in Five easy pieces and Uma Thurman in Pulp fiction. She’s the soul of the film. Frances Conroy is spot on with the character. She doesn’t have much screen time but when she’s on screen, you see her dying within and losing hope, shred by shred.

The director, John Curran and the screenwriter, Angus Maclachlan have made an original film that works only because the actors understand its subtleties. The other elements although unable to atomize themselves on independent merit are all appropriate. The sound design is at a strangely different frequency focusing more on background noises, the score is haunting and the cinematography, I have to point out, would’ve really enriched the feel of the film had it been shot in black and white with low key lighting- in the realm of film noir. What’s left at the end is an incomplete puzzle of a film that you’re expected to finish. Stone doesn’t go easy on you. It is a film of major distinction that made me feel privileged as a film viewer. For my intelligence was not just respected, but trusted.

Rating-9/10

How I Met Your Mother (2005 - )

On First attempt, I watched three episodes of the first season. I’ve seen films as long as 4 hours (Once upon a time in America) and I can’t remember myself feel time move slower than it did for each episode of “How I met your mother”. If you take an IQ test before and after watching an episode, and plot a graph, it would result in a downward slope. Its objective is to burn your brain cells and it is successful at doing so. Well done. Its setting has some random guy whom you don’t see on screen (Thank the creators for that, we have enough imbeciles on one show) telling his kids how he met their mother. They feel like they’re being punished. Unfortunately, they’re not alone. We, the audience, feel more punishment than any of them. (For those of you who’re fans of the series, I feel I’d be being rude if I didn’t put it in imbecile-friendly words-I don’t mean it’s because we empathize with them but because the show is excruciating (Oh, forgive me, I mean painful))

People around didn’t take my criticism lightly and urged me to watch it again, this time with the suspension of disbelief. I didn’t want to be a contrarian, so I gave it a second chance with episodes “Swarley” and “Stuff” from Season 2. It was a laugh riot. The series' creators, the joke. A horrible, mind numbing experience is what it was. It’s no surprise though, that its acquired a huge fan following, a majority of which, probably includes lonely women who’re willing to go to the extent of spending time with a charismatic (effeminate in my opinion) supporting TV character to make up for their insipid life, and guys who’re trying to learn one-night-stand moves from the same, Barney Stinson. Sure, he’s a funny character but what’s new? We’ve seen so many of them. On the contrary, there is something that’s sincerely funny- Neil Patrick Harris while being a homosexual in real life plays a straight guy here. And fans are thinking “Wow, what a daring actor.” He disappears into a character that’s defined to the T by one word, womanizer. Alas! How could I forget the pitch perfect dialogue delivery of larger-than-life dialogues such as “Suit up.” Each time Harris says that, it’s his dignity he’s suiting down.

Everyone involved in this is trying so hard to sell. Slow down, there’re enough whores in the industry. There’s not an ounce of sense, realism, subtlety or creativity. ‘The Simpsons’ is more realistic and its characters despite being more improbable are believable. I know. I know. You’re probably going to say, so what “it’s fun!” Fun? Only if the rest of your day involves staring at the hour hand of a clock.

In a season where Martin Scorsese has stepped into the television scene and directed the pilot of “Boardwalk Empire”, there’re actually people waiting for the next season of “How I met your mother.” Just what the hell? If you watch and enjoy this drivel so much, let me let you in on a little secret, the creators have no respect for the intelligence of the viewers and hence the excessive use of canned laughter. They don’t believe you’ll get the jokes unless they prompt it with previously recorded laughter. And You? You think they’re AMAZING. Please, have a little self-respect.

Rating - 3/10, for a culturally fitting opening theme.

A Dry White Season(1989)

The story takes place in 1976 in South Africa, around the Soweto riots, during the Apartheid system that lasted from 1948 until 1994. Students of African origin are protesting against education in a vernacular medium. They don’t want to end up working as messengers, mine workers and gardeners. One of them in the rally, Jonathon is caught and whipped. His father, Gordon, a gardener is worried that his police record would ruin his future and so he approaches Ben(Donald Sutherland), his white boss for help. Turning a blind eye to the unjust practices of the government, he just says they must’ve had a reason.

The boys refuse to quit protesting and strike again. This time, however, it turns out really ugly. The cops open fire and many children are killed. Jonathon is taken to prison and beat up unto death. A troubled Gordon tries to take it up with the court with the help of a witness inside, but in vain. He’s arrested and tortured until he gives up the witness but enduringly, succumbs to his injuries. Ben, on the other hand, tormented being by his own conscience refuses to look the other way this time. He takes the matter into is own hands and approaches a Human Rights lawyer, McKenzie who suggests that he “chuck the lot”. He replies saying “That’s what I said to Gordon when his son was whipped, that’s what I said when his son was killed and now they’re both dead because of my neglect. I cannot give it up.”

There’re a few memorable courtroom scenes displaying blatant corruption and second class treatment by the legal system of the blacks. Unfortunately, that’s all there is, from the director, Euzhan Palcy. If you’re moved by anything in the film, it is its subject. It is a sensitive subject and anyone who’s intolerant to injustice will have some feeling evoked. The film simply has no tone and there is some safri duo kind of music played repeatedly in the background which is completely unnecessary. We’ve been told enough that it takes place in South Africa we don’t need the score to tell us that just as many times. Furthermore, there’re some unforgivable technical flaws in many aspects. She’s had a clear vision but been very negligent with respect to the small details. She just wanted the story told and she does it with little consistency.

All in all, I’ll have to call this a bad film that could’ve been worse if not for its on the mark acting. The real standout of the film is Donald Sutherland who turns in a terrific performance personifying perfectly the lead character’s political awakening.

Rating-4/10

Viva Zapata(1952)

Emiliano Zapata is a delegate of an aggravated union that is rebelling against a long time corrupt president who dismisses their claims as trivial. While most of the union members choose to be patient with the issue, Zapata who says " We sow our seeds with tortillas not patience" remains unyielding. They go to war, they overthrow two presidents, a general and it finally the throne comes to Zapata.

Zapata is faced with the same problem when his brother Eufemio Zapata starts doing what he wants with no respect for the law, he takes the land that belongs to the farmers and abuses their wives. Zapata tells these men that there is no such thing as a leading man and that "You have to find it in yourselves." He resigns from his presidency post and leads another mutiny for the farmers. He's been bribed with property, money and gratitude from big men but nothing means more to him than to be at the vanguard of an army of peasants. This thing in particular seems to have inspired the main character of The Hurt Locker.

Although it fails to be as great as Elia Kazan's best works, it definitely can be considered a good film. There're some very memorable scenes and both Anthony Quinn and Marlon Brando are excellent in their respective roles. Brando created 3 consummately different characters in 4 years, Zapata, Terry Malloy(On The Waterfront) and Stanley Kowalski. Another film, released in these golden years of Kazan's career, I happened to miss was Julius Caesar, another role that received recognition from the Academy. On that, you'll see in my next review. But, to conclude, if acting happens to be an important aspect of a film to you, you should watch Brando deliver some really fierce acting chops in Viva Zapata.

Rating - 8/10

On The Waterfront (1954)

One thing I can guarantee about On the Waterfront, is that it is a film you won’t be able to admire on the first watch. You’ll just wonder, is this what the hype is all about? When a film is made so well, you get engulfed into the world and become part of the world. You just perceive everything in a matter of fact way. On second watch, you don’t get into the world because you’re already familiar with it. It isn't a complex psychological thriller or a Tarantino film. This time, you remain an external entity. You enjoy the pleasures the film has to offer.

Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando), a simple minded dockworker winds up being a witness to a murder. One that he has been made an accessory to, coming to know of it only after the murder's been committed. No, all of this is given straightforward. It's his guilt that determines the future of his actions which is the film's main focus and how his lawyer brother, his rags to riches boss, an enraged priest and the sister of the murdered guy, try to bring him to their side of the fence.

Let me get done with the flaws first. One part of the film that seemed completely unnecessary was the relationship between the sister of the murdered guy(who also happens to be a sister in the church) and Terry Malloy. The poor chemistry is something a five year old can ascertain and bet his life on. How can she love a person whom she believes "lives like an animal and has no feelings." But considering the epic feat the film achieves as a whole, we forgive this. There's a very memorable scene in a car between the two brothers which sticks to you long after it's gone. You see what has brought Terry Malloy to such a sense of resignation. And Brando in those scenes.. it's worth writing an entire paragraph on.

From The Godfather and A Streetcar named desire, we saw Brando work on two different planes. With On the Waterfront, he reaches a new dimension. It’s simply impossible to tell which of the three is better than the other. All three of them are delivered with the same magnitude, on three different axes. It just amazes me, how acting had evolved so much in the 50's but now, over fifty years later, we hardly have any of that caliber.

The main strength of the film lies in a co-ordinated effort between its cinematography and its editing. Although each scene stands on its own merit, it’s the cohesiveness of the scenes that makes the film feel spontaneous. Just great.

The supporting actors are excellent. Eva Marie Saint, Rod Steiger, Lee J. Cobb and Karl Malden, all of them. The actors were all nominated for an Academy award with none of them winning. It seems to me that the Academy loved all of them so much they couldn’t choose between the three.

The soundtrack is old school and it is the best fit. Elia Kazan has shown to be one of the best talents of the 50s. Considered an actor’s director, he brought out the best female performance ever on screen from Vivien Leigh in A Streetcar Named desire, a performance and film I strongly admire and recommend as much as I do with On The Waterfront.

Rating- 9/10

Invictus(2009)

If there's anything about Invictus that is great, it is Clint Eastwood's brilliant direction. A director known for creating melodramatically lopsided films, this time has taken the most uninteresting part of Nelson Mandela's life and made a movie out of it. Leaving out his years in prison, his struggle against the apartheid in South Africa and his rise to presidency, Eastwood chooses to focus on his involvement as a cheerleader(pun intended) for a rugby game.

There're problems everywhere in South Africa- people are homeless, shortage of food, crime rates are increasing, people are unemployed and the economy is down. Nelson Mandela has all of these problems to fix but there's no urge. He needs a driving force. That is The Springboks rugby team of South Africa. Francois Pienaar leads the rugby team. Mandela leads the country. This is what they have in common. He wants Pienaar to lead Springboks and win the world cup so that he can draw inspiration from it to lead his nation to stability.

Morgan freeman is an actor who slips into roles that he can fit in. He doesn't get into a character out of his comfort zone, unlike the great Daniel Day-Lewis, one of the most daring actors of today. His accent and mannerisms are similar to Mandela's, yes, but even that sometimes goes out of synchronization and reminds us that this is Morgan freeman, not Nelson Mandela. When I think of biopic actors resembling their subjects, the first that comes to my mind is Robert De Niro as Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull- a complete disappearance into character. What went in and came out was De Niro, but that character had nothing of De Niro in it. Freeman will be remembered for The Shawshank Redemption and Million Dollar Baby, not for Invictus. He probably had some left over love from the Academy to be preferred over Sharlto Copley in District 9.

Matt Damon's vigorous Oscar-worthy performance as the uncompromising Springboks captain is filled with the right amount of power that is required from a supporting role. After being snubbed for The Talented Mr.Ripley, this was a good make up by the academy.

Both of these actors are just the underlying bricks that Eastwood uses to build something that lies solely on his shoulders. His talent as a filmmaker seems to age like wine. Last year, we saw him transform from a good actor to a great actor and this year, he proves once again that as a director, he's legendary.

Most people are calling it this year's Frost Nixon, but personally, it brought back memories of Slumdog Millionaire. An entire nation following something, rooting together for the same thing with the hope of being able to share the team's joy.

This is a film where you know exactly what is going to happen once you've watched the trailer. A straight-forward film with a predictable trajectory, nonetheless an enjoyable one.

Rating 8/10

Oscar Predictions

Best Picture-

An Education

Up in the Air

District 9

The Hurt Locker

Avatar

Inglourious Basterds

500 days of summer

Precious

Invictus

A Serious Man

Best Director-

Kathryn Bigelow- The Hurt Locker

James Cameron- Avatar

Jason Reitman- Up in the Air

Lee Daniels- Precious

Neill Blomkamp- District 9

Best Actor-

Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart

Colin Firth- A Single Man

Morgan Freeman- Invictus

Jeremy Renner- The Hurt Locker

Sharlto Copley- District 9

Best Actress-

Sandra Bullock- The Blind Side

Meryl Streep- Julie and Julia

Carey Mulligan- An Education

Gabourey Sidibe- Precious

Emily Blunt- The Young Victoria

Best Supporting Actor-

Christoph Waltz- Inglourious Basterds

Alfred Molina- An Education

Peter Sarsgaard- An Education

Woody Harrelson- The Messenger

Anthonie Mackie- The Hurt Locker

Best Supporting Actress-

Mo'Nique- Precious

Anna Kendrick- Up in the Air

Vera Farmiga- Up in the Air

Paula Patton- Precious

Melanie Laurent- Inglourious Basterds

Best Original Screenplay-

Mark Boal- The Hurt Locker

Quentin Tarantino- Inglourious Basterds

Joel and Ethan Coen-A Serious Man

Scott Neustadter & Michael H.Webber-500 days of summer

Bob Peterson & Pete Docter-Up

Best Adapted Screenplay-

Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner- Up in the Air

Neill Blomkamp- District 9

Nick Hornby- An Education

Spike Jonze & Dave Eggers- Where the Wild things are

Geoffrey Fletcher- Precious

An Education(2009)

Sometimes an education isn't by the book. This is the tagline of "An Education." Set in England in the 1960s, where women were less wary, it revolves around the life of a teenage girl, Jenny. A bright inquisitive girl on her way out of school, inclined to art- literature, music, painting and french films. She belongs to a conservative, "bourgeois" family that is keen on her getting into Oxford.

Her life is routine. She studies, plays the cello and gets bored, oblivious of the fact that she's actually feeling bored. Only after you've done something exciting do you feel that by missing it, you are bored.

In walks David, a middle aged man who gives her a lift on a rainy day and then sends her flowers wishing her luck arousing suspicion. Peter Sarsgaard is suitably slick and edges towards creepy as the middle-aged smooth talker who seduces her by fulfilling her enthusiasm for conversation, cigarettes, literature, French films, jazz, expensive restaurants -- and yes, a connection to a man who understands her, unlike those "teddy boys" who wobble about on their bicycles while trying to get her attention. Once he's finished charming Jenny's parents he slowly begins working his magic on her with the audience feeling its side effects. Just his ornate presence on screen will make you side with him. You'll think "Yeah, he's an older guy. So what? He's still a nice guy."

Carey mulligan knows this girl, Jenny. She probably was Jenny at some point in her life. You get to see Jenny right there on screen. I don't know what I can appreciate of it because it might not actually be acting. Imagine being asked to get on screen and play yourself, would you deserve credit? Had I read the screenplay, the woman whom I would've pictured in mind would've been a lot like Mulligan. Teachers at school warn her that this Mr.Rochester figure is a suave sexual predator ready to pounce on her, but she takes that chance. By making a subtle reference to the influential novel "Jane Eyre" it is hinted that Jenny is fascinated by the idea of dating an older man.

Alfred Molina deserves all the acclaim that he's been getting for his portrayal of Jack, Jenny's father, a Bigot whose social life is limited to Jenny and her mother. He goes out of his way to be cordial to a friendly stranger and ends up giving his daughter's hand to him in marriage. All the trust that he never dared to put in people all his life, he invests in David.

The main thing about the performances is that this cast is a damn good team. Unlike Inglourious basterds, Up in the Air and Precious where we saw the actors slyly intervening for the spotlight, this is a mutual effort. The best part of An Education is its acting synergism. Lone Sherfig probably chose people who loved their roles more than the script. Going by the buzz, a Best Picture and Best Actress nomination is guaranteed, but I can't be sure if it will or should win. One award I really think it deserves more than any other film of the year is the Screen Actors Guild award for an outstanding performance by a cast, an award that will be added by The Academy in the future.

Lone Sherfig has given the film just the right touches. Where this movie is leading you to, isn't the point at all. It is the journey. There might be many paths you could take to get to the destination but Lone Sherfig pushes you in the direction she wants you to and yet you feel at ease. This isn't a compelling film. When I say that, I don't mean it as a flaw. She takes the age-old story of the "young girl, married man leads to disaster" and revitalizes it. The screenplay is well written by Nick Hornby with witty, sarcastic and contemptuous dialogues- a trademark of the brits. The point of the film isn't to judge how naive girls were but how people get sucked into believing that a dream can transform into reality.

A wonderful coming of age film that requires multiple watches to get its entirety, "An Education" is one of the years very best picking up its spot right at the top beside "Up in the Air" and "District 9."

Rating- 10/10

Vallavan(2006)

If you're amazed by feats that human beings achieve, you MUST watch Vallavan. Take my word, it will astonish you. Not because it shows you the heights up to which the human intellect can go, but because it opens your eye to the fact that, there exists no bottom.

Self deluded film-maker, T.R Silambarasan believes he is all that is required to make a film. He assumes himself to be the director, the screenwriter and the Lead actor. Only, what he does give birth to is a deformed offspring of a film. This is what happens to you when you take charge of all three primary roles, you fuck yourself and you get fucked.

T.R Silambarasan giving himself the privilege of collecting thrown up pongal.

I am not going to go into the details of the story because even the slightest of information would spoil it. Yes, it is unpredictable. Very unpredictable. Sherlock holmes would agree. So would Sigmund Freud. The degree to which self-indulgence and dementedness can possibly reach, is something that hasn't existed in the world I live in, until now. Seriously, what was he thinking? Was he thinking? As an actor I wouldn't blame him. You do what you have to for that fat paycheck. But then again, you wrote the screenplay and directed the film. Why couldn't he put someone else? The answer is simple, people here are idiots. They want you to do things that they wanted to do but never had the balls to. He knows this. He strips himself of dignity and integrity and acts retarded to expand his fan club and increase his bank balance. You Hack, are you aware that films are a form of art? And guess what, he succeeds with his intentions.

It became a box office hit that ran for 100 days and was later dubbed into telugu. What does this say about Kollywood? It needs more honest directors like M.Sasikumar who directed Subramaniapuram, a film that was expertly directed with artistry, at the same time, preserving its tradition.

You might wonder why I let myself be tortured with this utter crap. I contemplated quite a few times on turning off the television set, but I came to realize that there have been a lot of films this year that I've loved and now I needed to hate. So, human beings, if you feel like 2009 was a showcase for good films, this is just what you need.

Rating- 0/10

Up in the Air(2009)

Jason reitman has an interesting point of view on the corporate world. In "Thank you for smoking", we saw a man who "talked for a living", a man who went around defending the tobacco industry. There's another man who goes from company to company telling people they've been let go of. As if that wasn't enough, he reassures them that it is not a misfortune, but an opportunity to let go of a life they loathe. "Up in the air" tells us the story of that man.

In a period of economic recession, it is only the firing companies that thrive on the losses of other companies. Ryan Bingham works for one of these companies. He calls himself a career termination facilitator. He has a secretary, a boss and a home. But they're not a major part of his life. The majority of his life is spent at hotels, airports and in aeroplanes. There exists no real connection between him and other human beings. A middle-aged bachelor executive closing in on 10 million frequent-flier miles, Ryan has his own protocols which he strictly follows. His philosophy is simple- Life is a backpack. He says "Human beings are the heaviest component of our lives." A heavy backpack will slow us down and "the slower we move the faster we die." He is incomprehensible and you don't know much about how he feels and you aren't supposed to, that is, until two women enter and become an important part of his life.

The performances in the film, every one of them, can be described in one word- Invisible. When the movie starts, thanks to the hype, you sit and watch, waiting for something brilliant to happen. To see some REAL acting. But you don't. As time progresses, you forget all the hype and you just watch it as it is, forgetting that all of this is staged. Clooney was born for the role. He is pitch-perfect in playing a guy who is distant yet magnetic, charming and brims with vitality. Anna Kendrick and Vera farmiga don't have as much screen time but when they are with him on screen, they match his energy.

Jason Reitman has done a great job in holding all the pieces of the puzzle together. He gives prominence to the themes in the film by his use of colour schemes. Only after watching "Up in the Air" did I realise that he had done the same in Juno as well. "Juno" had a mix of bright, bold and rich colours- Red,Orange,and yellow to emphasize on it being a simple,breezy and buoyant comedy. "Up in the Air" is more of white and black since it deals with the corporate world. It shows a clear distinction between things. We know Ryan is lonely. The only thing that makes us feel it is his use of colour schemes. Ryan's house was picked to have the barest of necessities and what colour makes that more obvious than white?

Despite the film being shallow in content, it is deftly executed with an equal blend of drama and clever,sarcastic comedy. An engaging, thought provoking film so perfect for its time, it is destined to become a classic. "Up in the Air" will be welcomed by The Academy with a red carpet and maybe an orange one for Jason Reitman.

Rating-10/10

District 9 (2009)

To be honest, I'm not really a fan of Science fiction films. I hated "The Matrix" and "The Terminator" series. In fact, the only reason I chose to watch"District 9" over "An Education" was because it has been a while since I've bashed a film. But to my disappointment, I happen to be in great admiration for the film.

Visual effects artist, Neill Blomkamp got his film education not from watching movies but from watching CNN, BBC, NGC and Discovery channel. He employs a cinema verite style in his directorial debut, District 9. There hasn't been a greater breakthrough in recent years. The last I can remember are "American Beauty" in 1999 and "Amores perros" in 2000. Yes, those were the most memorable debuts. But this one although not as great, will be the most memorable debut because it will make me watch films of the Sci-Fi genre, one that is new to me.

A lot of films have released in the past ten years where the narrative is presented as a documentary pieced together from footage, filmed in real time. District 9, however, is incomparable. It doesn't simply abuse the shaky camera, but combines fast cutting technique so that before you judge and appreciate it in the cinematic sense, you get conned, swallowing everything you see. It really is, "Transformers" for the thinker.

Its initial premise isn't very original. Aliens land on earth. For some reason, they choose Johannesburg, South Africa. They come in a spaceship but this time, they're malnourished, so they're harmless. Only, its human beings who are a danger to them. These human beings intend to send them back but love their weapons. So they're kept here and used as lab rats in medical experiments. All of this monitored by MNU, Multinational United. Enters, Wikus van de Merwe, a worker at MNU. He is ordered to give the aliens an eviction notice. Little does he know, that he's the one being evicted.

The only performance I can recollect from District 9 is that of Sharlto Copley, the lead. You see everything that happens in his life. He delivers what is expected from a simpleton who gets exploited. There is a scene in the film where he sees himself on screen being accused of having sexual intercourse with a prawn. On any other occasion, I would've found it hilarious. But Sharlto Copley's performance made me feel pity.

I don't know why, but I think that Neill Blomkamp and James Cameron both engage in bestiality and haven't had enough. In just one month, I've seen two films in which the main character's relationship is with an alien.

Grazing upon themes such as apartheid and Xenophobia, District 9 is a fresh,original and riveting film with high brow visual effects. A definite contender in the best original screenplay and best picture category but sadly, not in the best director.

Rating-9/10