Reviews

For me, Life of Pi was a yo-yo between overt romanticizing of vignettes of Indian life and times by a non-Indian author, and a movie that has some seriously profound insights in spite of the same. The quaintness of a zoo in Pondicherry, finding religion, the mystique of Indian dance, the uprooting of a family owing to economic circumstances - all had an overtly lyrical, if not particularly original - aura. Then, suddenly, we find Piscine Molitor Patel aka Pi Patel (Suraj Sharma) - a castaway in the middle of the Pacific ocean - with all his beliefs called into question. Is there a point to overt faith? Can a human and a large carnivore be (to borrow from Star Wars) symbionts? Where does a man who has lost everything find hope, and the will to move on with one's life? Somewhat if not profoundly moving, Life of Pi is about how we are shaped by our bouquet of experiences, and how, from those experiences, one can draw upon great reserves of strength

In times when one's existence in the real world is troubled, one watches a movie like The Grey. Simplicity itself. Ottway (Liam Neeson) leads six survivors of a plane crash – a rough and tough oil drilling crew – across the wilderness of Alaska towards possible safety. One by one, the grey wolves pick on them, decimating their numbers, apparently unmitigated by little heroic acts of bravery. So does man trump wolf or vice versa? The Grey simply suggests that it perhaps does not matter – "Once more into the fray. Into the last good fight I'll ever know. Live and die on this day. Live and die on this day" – authored by none other than the director of the movie (Joe Carnahan). Yes, live and die on this day. Based on the novel "Ghost Walker" by Ian Mackenzie Jeffers, The Grey is a stunning movie, elemental and stark. Like life at present – stark and elemental, and live and die on this day ergo, the rest of one's life

Evelyn Salt (Angelina Jolie)'s talent for the action heroine is obvious, her choice of plot is two decades too late. It is distressing that every aspect of the plot seems to have been drawn from some currently irrelevant Cold War cliché, and, in spite of the same, some of the sequences are barely believable. Cut to the story. An interrogation of a Russian defector reveals that the CIA interrogator – Evelyn – is possibly a double agent (why he gives this information voluntarily to the CIA at large is but one of the faux pas of the movie). In any case, Evelyn performs her dubious role admirably in battling the forces of law and order while fulfilling her near-impossible assassination missions through various decent to good action sequences, and suffice to say that many realities are stretched. When you have finished yawning through the Defcon II and suicide bomber and Universal Soldier-like sequences, the movie trails off rather ambitiously in the quest for a sequel. All the best on that one, Evelyn

Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law play unconventional super-sleuths as Guy Ritchie boldly re-incarnates Sherlock Holmes. At first, it appears that this is a more of a mix of the typical graphic novel elements - mature themes encompassing the dark occult, complex relationships and the like - than vintage Holmes. The movie eases up after a while, and in the end, when all is clarified, you may be forgiven for having believed somewhere along the line that this was a bit too nouveau a reincarnation. Irene Adler adds a classic touch to the melange, and the female leads as well as the villain and his retinue, are exceedingly well-developed characters. An movie with new dimensions to offer on the central character, an out-and-out hit and a great entertainer that does not falter

Like Enemy at the Gates (snipers), The Hurt Locker focuses on a single war-zone (Iraq, circa today) and one category of soldier (bomb detection squads). Unlike the morality tales like Lions for Lambs, The Kingdom and Body of Lies, there is no lesson purported to be delivered herein. This is about the intensity, and the role of each of the members of an elite bomb detection squad, in the heat of combat. Unavoidably, the groups gets embroiled in other aspects of war that is strictly not their domain, such as sniping across vast expanses of desert, or giving chase to bombers across dark urban alleyways in the dead of the night. The spirit of the group is epitomized by one Marine – who returns injured and cussing from the epicenter of battle to home and family, and then in an epiphanic moment in a supermarket, decides to return to the Bravo Company for another 365 day stint at what he really loves doing. Great "action" sequences delivered with a deliberate lack of melodrama

Avatar does not seem to be a movie that is suited to the cynic as audience (!). What of Ehwa (Gaia?) in a distant planet, an indigenous people with lifestyle and roots in the bounty of nature around them, their inevitable conflict with the human race and its endless quest for resources – this is all schmuck, says the cynic. There is a been-there done that aura about the movie – whether it echoes the indigenous tribes and fragile ecosystem of the Brazilian (and a dozen other) rainforests, or whether the unlimited greed for mineral resources brings to mind America's global warmongering in search of oil, it seems that the core of the movie is drawn around a rehash of all-too-familiar elements and the fact that these elements are of course finding increasing resonance in an increasingly aware world does not take away from the fact that the core of the movie is somewhat unimaginative. But what is undeniable is the sheer quality of the graphics and the overall cinematography – the attention to detail and the sheer quality and complexity of the visual imagery bring to mind Jurassic Park – another genre-defining milestone in the use of technology by Hollywood. This is a movie that is likely to be a resounding commercial success in the short to medium term, but on a more measured inspection both critics and the public may find it wanting

Roland Emmerich of Independence Day, The Day after Tomorrow and Godzilla fame brings another (doomsday) magnum opus that seems to be pieced together from all three, with a few dollops from say Volcano and the likes. 2012 starts well and the heightening agitation of Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) as events start unfolding that give credence to barely believable theories, and the same along with the sense of urgency of young scientist Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) are quite well depicted. In fact it is quite remarkable that the failure of this movie is identical to that of The Day After Tomorrow - a lack of believability in the emotional content - beyond the fact that Jackson Curtis does appear to be quite attached to his kids, every other interpersonal relationship in the movie for some reason appears contrived - and this is just why all of the one hour or so aboard the ark is excruciating. In summary, it will be difficult for Emmerich/ Hollywood to keep attracting audiences to these doomsday sagas with ever-improving special effects alone - the movie needs to hold together with genuine human emotion - the rest is just programming

Jude Law, Rachel Weisz, Joseph Fiennes and Ed Harris capture both the all-out poignancy of war as well as the frailty of man in the face of personal and extraneous challenge, in Enemy at the Gates. Easily one of the best war movies that I have seen, young Vassili Zaitsev (Jude Law), sharpshooter from the Urals, finds himself the hero of the Battle of Stalingrad on account of his superlative sniper skills. He also finds love in the beautiful Moscow-educated Tania (Rachel Weisz) and the two catch some fleeting intimate moments in the midst of the horror. The fame and love awaken jealousy in no small measure in Commissar Danilov (Joseph Fiennes) who clears his conscience in one last cathartic act. And the showdown between the deer-hunting German nobleman sharpshooter Major Konig (Ed Harris) and Vassili is the piece-de-resistance of the movie. It is a rare combination of the depiction of the large-scale brutality of war coupled with the cat-and-mouse game of the two sharpshooters

Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) gives a stunning performance in Tanantino's latest – Inglourious Basterds, - that sees alternate history as two parallel and similar plots are hatched to put an end to the Third Reich. Rather limited in the insanity quotient, and actually serious in parts, the plot revolves around the Nazi-killer team led by Lt Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) and their encounters. Typical chapter-based Tarantino narration – the first scene about the purge and introduction to the central character of menace, the long scene and encounter wrt Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger) in the basement, the showdown between Hans Landa and the German actress, are the most memorable. The inexplicable fact of Shoshanna owning a theater in the heart of Paris explained away rather trivially, the sharpshooter Pvt Frederick Zoller (Daniel Bruhl) and his mixed emotions, the ramblings on Goebbels' propaganda, the strange silhouette of Marcel and his giant pile of inflammable film make sure that Tarantino's quirky touch is very much alive and kicking. A mellower, more circumspect Tarantino, but enough to keep fans engaged

In Metamorphosis, Kafka explores social reaction to a man being transformed into a giant insect. In Blood Diamond, bounty hunter Leonardo DiCaprio shows the best and worst of humanity as he races through strife-torn Africa to liberate a family. District 9 has a Blair Witch Project style reality TV format buildup – aliens land up in Johannesburg with little to offer and nowhere else to go. They are stigmatized ("prawns" as epithet), victimized ("humans only"), and isolated and forced to live in a giant slum on the city outskirts. Their only hope of returning to their planet finds an unlikely hero in the form of Wikus Van de Merwe (Sharlto Copley), who, largely motivated by his own desire to return to normal, brings hope of deliverance in a disturbing milieu. District 9 manages to showcase the best and worst of man – persecution and sheer human cruelty, the arms race, and the profiteering from vice, in sharp contrast to the coming of age of Van De Merwe and his last gasp effort that gives the "prawns" their only last vestige of hope for escaping from the cruelty of man. An outstanding movie and one that, irrespective of the analogies I began with, I find it hard to think of a parallel

I am biased, or maybe plain discerning (:-))– but while I watch a fair number of Hindi movies, none seem to move me. There is the mediocre acting, the cinematography that is usually decades behind Hollywood, the emoting that is so contrived that I am shocked as to how it manages to consistently move people, but most of all – the movies do not seem to have anything to convey. And it is the last of the tests that New York fails to meet. Forget the acting, and do not even begin to compare the cinematography with the dozens of stunning Hollywood movies that use the Big Apple as backdrop. What will move you is the consistent message that terrorism just cannot be condoned, no matter what the motivations of the terrorist and no matter how much such motivations may draw our empathy. So, be it torture in custody or or be it abetting in the name of love – whatever be the insinuation or emotional reason – terrorism does not work. The positive message in all this – the dark shadow of this relentless persecution of terrorism shall not fall on the near and dear ones of terrorists – no matter how close the latter are. And this is the greatness of this movie, the way it rounds it all off and makes sense of the need to purge violence with violence, but highlights equally vehemently the need to show compassion for those that are left in the wake

One part of me wants to trash Transformers II – Revenge of the Fallen real bad. Another part, however, asks – what is it we were expecting anyway. Shia LaBeouf, vulnerable and quite the center of affairs. Megan Fox, sizzling, a modicum of dialogue also thrown in for effect. Relentless action sequences (with the side effect of destroying the last of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World). This is a teenage movie series, and we stepped in, forewarned of the same, and got everything that we might have expected. The question is – did this movie lift the franchise to a higher level? Did it lend character to Optimus Prime the way it clearly sought to do. Did you want to make up our minds about whether humans should be taking sides in an extraterrestrial battle, or whether the Autobots should be sharing their military technology with humans. I guess not, because this movie did not quite click

Vicky Christina Barcelona, like good food or fine wine, lingers in the senses long after the movie. Vignettes stick in one's mind – in no particular order: 1. The beautiful sights and sounds of Barcelona, in a lovely yellow tint. Last time I remember it is the no less beautiful French countryside in A Good Year 2. A strictly right-side-of-the-brain movie with art and spontaneity and passion 3. Vicky's confused affections that cannot reconcile till the very end 4. Christina's clarity about choosing ambiguity in relationships 5. The torrid Hispanic Elena 6. The matter-of-fact narration that lets you draw you own conclusions, unhindered

Watch the movie as a strictly sensory pleasure without judgment. With of course Woody Allen's masterful hand at depicting relationships

True to the first installment, The Pink Panther 2 begins with much promise by way of Inspector Clouseau's own brand of semi slapstick humor, loses its way somewhere around the middle, and then finds it again to round off a fairly watchable movie. As far as humor is concerned, one gets the feeling that there is an overlap of far too many elements – the stereotypes, the action sequences, the warped logic, the karate kid family create sequences that are delightful but in certain instances a trifle too much. Good to see Aishwariya in a substantial role, not the least towards the end. The ending is definitely not guessable, though I am not sure whether it is entirely logical. Well, all is fair in Clouseau's end-justifies-the-means-and-hilarity world

What makes Valkyrie clearly stand out from the common or garden Third Reich movie is the depiction of the careful build-up and execution of a plot where a majority of the participants are engaged throughout in a zone of ambiguity where while they are fairly sure of what to believe in, they are not clear about what their role in the same should be. Apart from the clear ideology of von Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise), the indecision of the likes of Olbricht (Bill Nighy) and the ostensible undying allegiance to the Fuehrer from the likes of Fromm (Tom Wilkinson), make for immense viewing pleasure. In the end, this is a movie set in war where there is not a single genuine battle scene, just the air raids in different circumstances – with his troops and with family respectively – that reinforce in von Stauffenberg his belief in the futility of it all. Rather, this movie is all about strong and carefully constructed character portrayals of a set of distinct individuals who chose to differ from the establishment, but in their own separate ways

In an amazing character portrait, director Ron Howard (The Da Vinci Code, A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man, Apollo 13) pits the dilettante-ish English talk show host David Frost (Martin Sheen) with all his charm and naivete and susceptibility to "mind games", against the redoubtable Richard Nixon (Frank Langella) whose pugnacious redoubtable personality was bruised but not beaten by the experience that was Watergate, in Frost Nixon. The clash of unequals is not concluded by any unexpected victory in favor of Frost – it is perhaps more of a case of the former president clearing a heavy conscience, going through a televised catharsis for all to see. Yes, as the movie mentions, television simplifies, and a single shot becomes the summary statement on a complex and difficult presidential tenure. Witness today's reality shows the need to capture that defining moment that woos audiences and "sums it all up", while completely missing the undertones, the buildup and the complexities therein. And it takes a brilliant performance by Frank Langella to show us just how acute those nuances can be.

Once in a while there comes a movie that leaves absolutely no impression of any sort whatsoever. The performances are average, the storyline is reminiscent of many movies that one has see (in this case, perhaps, that would be say the noble stranger in Norseland of The Thirteenth Warrior, the salivating alien of, well, Alien and the chivalry and romance of say Beowulf), the special effects are nondescript, the emotional content is not engaging. In the last half an hour, I guess I had ceased caring about who, including the salivating evil (something called the Moorwen that looks like a Komodo Dragon with lights), lives or dies. Some amount of originality, and a storyline where the producer/director took a few chances with some out of the box thinking, would definitely have helped this movie

W captures the "disastrous" second stint of George W Bush and the decisions, especially Iraq, that near term history finds difficult to understand. With the highest office in the world, statements of being misled or gullible or plain misinformed are a sorry excuse for taking a country into an utterly pointless war and ignoring a worsening domestic reality. Bush Jr comes across as the quintessential regular guy - authoritarian father who held him in little esteem, a regular youth of dates and alcohol, the natural abilities shining through through a Harvard MBA, the seemingly effortless journey to the highest office in the land and then all the flaws of character leading to the inevitable. This movie is Oliver Stone's search for why a President was the way he was. Engaging but narrow in its scope

Appaloosa is not Ed Harris' directorial debut (there is the movie Pollock from 2000) but is quite a movie. Unlike the conventional Western (and the last I saw was the copybook 3.10 to Yuma), this dwells on a morally ambiguous woman (Alison - Renee Zellweger) and the cast's interrelationships with her. There is the very public romance with the marshal (Virgil - Ed Harris), the ambiguous relationship with the deputy (Everett - Viggo Mortensen), and then the obvious promiscuity and Everett's final solution that is as abrupt as it is surprising. Life does not always take the paths that one desires, and sometimes one takes ingenuous solutions to get it around to our choices. What truly is the moral high ground of a mere vigilante prone to violence, or the calumny of a villain (Randall Bragg – Jeremy Irons) who is erudite and convincing and commits little that can be unequivocally labeled as villainy in a difficult time.

If you have not read the novel by Jose Saramago (and I have not) it is difficult to be prepared for a movie like Blindness. In a regular orderly urban society, a man gets afflicted by a sudden attack of white blindness. So does his wife, and all those who get in touch with him - notably an eye doctor. The doctor's wife is the only one who miraculously escapes getting affected - and gives an increasingly large group leadership through the repression of state confinement and a complete degeneration of law and order within that confinement. The group moves from the hopelessness brought about by individual tyranny, to freedom and the order that voluntary and symbiotic coexistence brings, even in an outside world where all familiar institutions, including things as disparate as electricity and family - have ceased to exist. Perhaps it is because each individual in the milieu is dealing with his or her own personal tragedy, that there is no place for collective uprising or protest outside of a world where the ward defined the physical boundaries of groups of people. Blindness is about forms that society takes when faced with crisis - the disorder that stems from individual hubris and inevitably leads to ruin, and the empathy and coexistence that raises us above mere animals. A remarkable movie, though difficult to watch at times.

Clint Eastwood continues his glittering directorial second coming with Changeling. While Angelina Jolie is perhaps better known for her more "commercial" performances (with the possible exception of A Mighty Heart), here is a clearly well-deserved Oscar nomination. The movie is about a single mother and her boy that goes missing and her search for that boy. In the course of that search, many wrongs are righted – the LAPD is reformed, laws regarding detention without sufficient evidence are passed, a serial killer is unearthed and executed, a boy returns to his family. And in the middle of all this is the poignant undertone of the search by Christine Collins of her son Walter Collins, alternating between hope and despair and taking the viewer along with both

Slumdog Millionaire, for all the great cinematography, does not really capture the essence of Mumbai. Plenty of Indian movies capture the true stigma of poverty, or the true horror of the underworld, far better. Let us for a moment give Danny Boyle the artistic license, and run through the vignettes here. The depiction of poverty is a sham. The rioting is unconvincing. The beggary racket is trite and equally unconvincing. The fact that each answer coincidentially relates to each (painful) vignette in the life of the protagonist is a cruel joke? Is this even a movie worth making a fuss about? There is great cinematography, but in the end I feel sorry for the legions of Indian directors, unwept unhonoured and unsung, whose far better portrayals of Mumbai go unnoticed simply because they lack the "brand" of a Danny Boyle. If this movie is worth four Golden Globes, some of India's movies of 2008 are worth at least as many Oscars