Reviews

Pilot ended well with a cliffhanger, but the reveal didn't live up to the expectations, and nothing else has been special up until episode 4. I won't call the show boring but it's dragging already, with trite dialogues and scenes.

Never review any shows midway, but the ratings had me baffled. Rotten Tomatoes has rated it very highly, which is often misleading, however, even IMDB has high ratings for it. Pretty sure ratings will eventually fall to their right place.

Honestly, there's not much excitement about this Loki-universe, nor any interest in what might be behind the TVA.

At best, an average show thus far. I do hope it gets better.

June 23, 2017 can't come soon enough after seeing Wonder Woman (precisely who I went to see) in all her resplendence and force today (March 24). The Dehradun theater full of some extremely well-versed crowd (comic book nerds as yours truly!) clamored with whistles and applauds! I wish I could watch all my DC-Marvel flicks in Dehradun instead of yet-to-catch-up NCR!

Good days are coming for DC! The promising Justice League is taking shape too. If nothing else, Suicide Squad (read Margot Robbie aka Harley Quinn) will ensure that :)

About the film, how can a comic book nerd not enjoy a movie featuring the big three with Flash, Cyborg, and Aquaman! Went in without reading any reviews and enjoyed it thoroughly.

Recommendations: 1) WATCH in 2D 2) Work through the first half patiently, second half more makes up for any deliberations. 3) REMEMBER - Superman and Batman become the heroes that we know today after this film's conclusion. Supes "sacrifice" and Bats (un)brand of justice for Lex Luthor are powerful scenes that subtly bring forth the real heroes to the world.

Finally, with all the overtly critical reviews doing the rounds, I rest my case with the below image that sums the situation neatly. (can't post the image/link here but please feel free to Google search with "world cinema reviews" to see it)

8.2/10

Of late, mainstream cinema is once again seeing some solid films with time loop as an underlying plot, e.g., SOURCE CODE, LOOPER; and now, "Edge of Tomorrow" is another deserving addition to that list.

Strong Points—

Emily Blunt: plays a headstrong and beautiful leader. No wonders Cruise's character didn't mind being murdered by her time and again! She is not there for eye candy; complements Cruise in each and every frame, and makes her presence felt strongly. Apparently, she underwent some intensive physical training, along with yoga, while preparing for the role. Effort clears shows and works well for the film.

Tom Cruise: his popularity and dashing looks are more than enough to make a film box office success; however, these qualities often overshadow his performance and we tend to overlook how robust a performer this man has been. Ever since TOP GUN Cruise has been a consistent actor, always delivering the goods for his productions. This film is no different; stardom aside, he excels in the role. Watch out for his transformation from a mildly timid man into a leader and ultimate savior.

Screenplay: terrifically done! A lot of cine goers prefer a certain degree of complexity in a film dealing with non-linearity, and most times the complexity simply can't be avoided. Here, the makers purposely put together a storyline that should come across as elementary to every casual cine enthusiast—so, don't expect a PRIMER or even SOURCE CODE. Very cleverly, the repeat scenes are first shown in length, and then, after a few replays once audience is also well acquainted with all that is happening, arbitrary cut-to scenes to the relevant point in storyline are used.

Blunt and Cruise: love story angle is nicely intertwined into the plot without ever overdoing it or impacting the storyline. When a hottie and hunk hook up some love-sparks are bound to flare; good thing makers didn't ignore this natural human disposition in favor of: duty/saving the world comes first.

Good humor throughout. Supporting cast is majorly a part of comical elements of the film.

A minor weakness was the ending. It wasn't at all disastrous but should have been left at Blunt sacrificing herself to give Cruise a shot at delivering the killer blow and killing Omega, and dying himself in the process. However, the film did maintain an amorous and somewhat humorous tone throughout, so perhaps director went for a happy ending. Furthermore, when Cruise and Blunt were tracking down the omega, they came across an idyllic house; in that scenario I so wanted a little display of intimacy! It might have been calamitous for the plot; except, we never know...maybe it did happen :)

Plot does seem like a concoction of "Groundhog Day" and "Starship Troopers" but it is not blatantly lifted, rather reworked purposefully. Special effects are expectedly good, and so is alien (Mimcs) design.

Final verdict: this is Doug Liman best work after the masterful "Bourne Identity" and I hope he keeps at it now! Indeed a fast-paced, entertaining, and high-octane showdown that deserves a big-screen outing.

8/10

Trivia: Verdun and D-Day (Normandy) are clearly references to World Wars; there is also one reference to TERMINATOR's judgement by a Sergeant Farell played Bill Paxton!

FIRST CLASS was 'the' perfect film and many wondered how Singer would topple it. He actually doesn't, but what he made is the best possible follow up film that could have been made.Singer had his task cut out; not only he had to make a good sequel to FIRST CLASS but also work his way around previous incongruous films in the franchise, without discrediting any.

The 3rd X-Men film was the biggest hurdle; makers simply did not foresee more than a dozen films, and franchise still going full steam ahead. Singer successfully cleared away all mess without impacting any of the origins stories or key highlights of characters. Wolverine still gets the adamantium, Magneto continues the evil/vigilante route, and back-bone of X-Men gets fortified again with Scott and Jean back.

It is one of those few films that were better made on-screen than originally written—SIN CITY and, up to an extent, V FOR VENDETTA to name a few others. Sending Wolverine back into past instead of Kitty was a masterstroke. Time travel conundrum is handled beautifully—no surprises though, after all Cameron was involved consultatively. Quicksilver's connection to Magneto neatly slipped in the story too (The Marvel-Fox standoff means we will see a different Quiclsilver in Avengers: Age of Ultron!).

First Class remains the best because it was an intelligent and genius film, yet an all-out mainstream entertainer. On the other hand, Days of Future Past is a dazzling display of genius direction and ingenious screenplay—brings the X-Men universe back on track.

Some Awe-inspiring Scenes and Components

Quicksilver saving the hides of Xavier, Magneto, and Wolverine in Pentagon.

Future Sentinels: astonishing creativity and impeccable design; clearly a lot of thought behind these. Hats off to the SFX too! (More than Mystique's, I felt Rogue's powers were the key, though.)

Desolate Future: gives the exact feel of a despondent, gloomy world; even comicbook pages didn't capture it this good!

Whitehouse breach and being palisaded within the 'structure' (too awesome to be spoiled!) Magneto uprooted.

Associations to previous films; at times humorous (best ever pay back 'F--- off' :) and metal detector to name a few), at times elucidating (mentions of Azazel, Banshee, etc.)

Overall, a brilliant film that opens up the X-Men franchise to possibilities anew. Some might find it little lacking in action, however, considering what all it had to deal with and what it is building up to, it was perfect dose of action.

Original Timeline: Haywire!

Timeline Now:

FIRST CLASS (1960s around Cuban missile crisis)

DAYS OF FUTURE PAST (1970s around JFK assassination <> Future: 2020s)

X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE (1840s-1980s <> Wolverine's memory loss)

X-MEN 1, 2, 3 [2000s <> story/incidences conveniently merged into a collapsed timeline; school is formed but Multiverse accounts for Xavier being unacquainted with Wolverine, the events of LAST STAND (Phoenix Saga), deaths of certain characters, etc.]

THE WOLVERINE (2010s)

Upcoming Films:

X-Men: Apocalypse (? <> plot undecided)

Wolverine 3 (sequel to The Wolverine)

Drawbacks: Hardly any. One minor disappointment was Warpath—his look (facial features and getup) did qualify but stature was very smallish; the guy is 7 feet+ giant in X-Men universe

Post Credits: Age of Apocalypse is nigh! Shows En Sabah Nur in action; the Four Horsemen stand guard closely.

JFK Assassination: Magneto was accused of President's murder, found a related video here - Bent Bullet

TRIVIA! Special Cast: consisting of Oscar winners: Halle Berry, Jennifer Lawrence, Ellen Page, and Anna Paquin, Hugh Jackman, and Ian McKellen. Other acting stalwarts and promising talents include: Patrick Stewart, Peter Dinklage; of course Michael Fassbender is due an Oscar soon :)

8.3/10

Godzilla, and ONLY Godzilla, stood out in the film.

Fantastic special effects and creative look of the monster—the anthropomorphic design startles you at first but you eventually get used to it and even admire the look—are film's USP. The other two MUTOs (purposely keeping to just the acronym) seemed somewhat averagely done, female one more so than the male.

Film definitely intends to pass through as a special effects spectacle (and does so to a large extent), though, it doesn't hold a candle to Pacific Rim's visual grandiose. Few scenes do leave you agape with wonder:

Godzilla's radioactive blast, both the times (second one delivering fatal blow was better than first)

Male MUTA's headfirst, full-stretched plunge into sea

In the name of story there isn't much, in fact, saying anything more would ruin the somewhat little plot there is. Maybe just me...I was actually sleepy-eyed once or twice; film could also have been a little more pacy. And...what a big letdown to see Bryan Cranston follow "Breaking Bad" with such a film.

Overall, you won't be missing much if you skip it, or...just go ahead and watch for that guilty pleasure!

I understand the aim was to make a character-based disaster flick with focus on lead character, and the lead character does justify itself. However, everything else, script, acting, direction went haywire. What do you think?

6.3/10

The sequel to Amazing Spider-Man is a tried and tested formula film that will deliver gold at box office. Other than raking big bucks, it has its share of weaknesses and good points but there is nothing 'amazing' about it as such.

Spider-Man continues his struggle with himself, his life (love and otherwise), conclusions, and pretty much everything a normal adults does. This makes him a superhero everyone identifies with easily (perhaps the reason there is never an apparent overdose of Spidey).

Strong points of the film: Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey: Emma is a vivacious actress who lights up the screen every time she enters the frame. Personally, she was the reason I actually decided to watch the first film when it clearly seemed unnecessary. The sequel has her carry on the good work; she and Andrew Garfield together, still sparkle. In fact she is what keeps Spidey grounded and thinking clearly. Without her guidance, we all know how confused our web-slinger gets.

Supporting cast: primarily Dane DeHaan (Harry Osborne), Aunt May (Sally Field), and Paul Giamatti (Rhino) deliver strong performances, even though they had very minimal screen time to make any more impact. Osborne looked the right amount of ominous and can be looked forward to in upcoming films.

The final 10 minutes: sum up everything a Spidey flick is all about, and energizes the audience. With no hope of deliverance, a kid picks up the mantle against an undeniable threat; Spidey gets over his slump and get back in the battle field.

Other than these, Garfield does well as Spidey, the film starts off pretty well too, and there are some good laughs here and there. After a long time, got to chance enjoy an effects laden film in good old 2D, thoroughly enjoyed the 3D-less experience.

Weak points of the film: Script is in complete disarray, and no matter how perky a chemistry Stacey-Garfield share, there is no salvation for a film scripted this poorly.

Electro: Jamie Foxx simply...well, sucked—such a waste of potential. Rhino in his few minutes looked a much better villain.

All in all a decent one time watch. You enjoy it and the same time wonder what is the need of continuing with the franchise.

Upcoming film: Sinister Six have been given a sneak preview: Doctor Octopus, The Vulture, and Mysterio are more or less going to be unleashed. Rhino and Osborne look promising, others better be good because with Emma Stone (Gwen Stacey) departing from film there may be no saving grace for film, unless it is perfect.

Post-credit: there is an X-Men: Days of Future Past scene that runs after the credits. It has a young William Stryker, Mystique, Toad, Spike, Ink, and Havoc. No apparent connection with Spider-man'a next film.

7/10 P.S., of course, Stan Lee has a cameo!

Continuing after the cataclysmic events of "Avengers", the film focuses on the S.H.I.E.L.D. and its agents-primarily Captain America, Black Widow, Falcon, and Nick Fury. The evil in the film is present throughout as an undercurrent--shuddery presence of the Winter Soldier and a bureaucratic leech.

Winter Soldier has the feel of a political thriller, yet delivers all the excitement of a mainstream action-adventure, aided by a good script, neat screenplay and just about right wittiness. When it comes to the cast, everyone delivers in tandem. Chris Evans keeps up the good work from the prequel. He is indeed one of the best casting in garb of superheroes--in fact, almost all Marvel characters have been transitioned to the big screen with utmost perfection. Do watch out for the great Stan Lee in one of his meatiest roles, just around a memorabilia museum! Captain America is the most morally correct superhero (probably next to only the blue blur or on par) and his belief in humanity is ever so unwavering. In a world full of turmoil and corruption he is the beacon of integrity friends, colleagues, and people in general look up to. Even someone as wary as Nick fury trusts Steve Rogers to an extent.

"First Avenger" was a good film too; it rightly focused on the maturation of Captain America from a shy teenager into an icon. In that effort, supporting cast came out a little lopsided. "Winter Soldier" makes up for that. It gives enough screen time to the likes of Nick Fury (long time coming), Black Widow, and above all, S.H.I.E.L.D as an organization. Falcon and winter Soldier have been strategically under-exposed, it is expected that upcoming Captain America films will explore them in-depth, as a separate/parallel thread from "Avengers." Overall, "Winter Soldier" isn't just a big extravaganza; it has the same strength of character previously seen in Iron Man and X-Men First Class. Meaning, some more catching up to do for DC.

For fellow comic-book nerds! Bucky has been brought back at the right time. He might eventually take the Captain America mantle from Steven Rogers, as shown in the "Death of Captain America" and "Fear Itself" arc. The film itself sets the tone for that change. An inspiring and honest man like Steven Rogers is more useful weeding through a flawed, corrupt administration than as a field operative-impacting not just a mission or two but chastening the whole outlook.

Mid/post-credits: There is a lot in here and plenty of dissections to be made. A certain specter and an almost-immortal Nazi general are comprehensible, obviously cascading from previous films. However, there are some exciting, new additions: an object-manipulating female and a super speed male.

Scarlett Witch and Quicksilver will be more than handy in the upcoming battle against Ultron. Plus, are we right in perceiving an eventual, on screen bridge forming between the Avengers and X-Men via a famous father of the two new characters. It is not as apparent as the Captain America shield in the first Iron Man film, but provides some nerd-fodder to fuel the engine of imagination and possibilities! At last, Bucky pays the Smithsonian museum a visit--some goods signs, eh?

8.4/10

In hindsight, "Noah" was a 'queer adaptation' of a well-known, straightforward apocalypse story—loaded with heftiness and ostensible profundity, yet enjoyable.

Some critics would just go ahead and criticize Aronofsky for this pseudo-intelligent film, while some would appreciate his attempt. And, of course, there will be obvious objections from some religious sects. Takes some courage to do something of this sort and serve it to the masses; fortunately, the result at box office seems quite satisfactory.

Noah is definitely not the best Aronofsky, but a good initiative to introduce the masses to another artistic style of film-making. Striking imagery aided by Aronofsky's trademark hip-hop montage, impressive background research (a director is allowed some creative leeway), and a strong performance from Russell Crowe, Emma Watson, add to the film.

Side note: Theater I usually visit is always packed to capacity for 'Anderson/Lin/Bay' brand of films (that's obviously what most go for when seeking sheer entertainment) and almost empty for, say, 'Lynch/Malick/ Bergman' brand of films.

Noah, with its rousing trailers, brought in the masses alright and got them cerebrating too. This group of school/college going students was the perfect example. They started out like "what the hell is this!" (on NOT finding the fully fledged action-adventure the trailers promised). By the end, though, group was more than satisfied and appreciated/debated the little bit of symbolism that was there in film.

7.5/10

A definite improvement on its predecessor, but falls slightly short of an ardent fan's sky-high expectations— nonetheless, an entertainer that is bound to grow on you with repeated viewings.

Plus Points: Good to see Jackson venturing into the relatively uncharted sections of the book, things that J.R.R. Tolkien left to reader's imagination or just briefly mentioned, for example:

Expulsion of Sauron from Dol Guldur by Gandalf and co.

Jackson also gives some identity to the otherwise generalized evil characters in the novel, like, Azog the Defiler, Bolg. This does give evil-side some counterparts to match against plenty of known good characters.

Addition of Tauriel and Legolas in the film was a masterstroke too, and will work really when film reaches the crescendo in the battle of five armies. Inclusion of Legolas in the 'Hobbit' storyline is quite a shrewd move, since there in nothing in Tolkien's writings that denies it. However, it means Legolas and Bilbo were acquainted to one another prior to the fellowship's meet at Rivendale (in LOTR)—there is nothing in LOTR film that indicates this or otherwise! Open barrel ride was another great modification; the low-key and secretive barrel-escape of the novel, wouldn't have worked with the audience not familiar with Tolkien's work.

Some Drawbacks: In Hobbit 1, exclusion of Gwaihir the Windlord—the king of magnificent talking eagles—was the one of the biggest disappointment for me. In this film, it is the mistreatment of Beorn's character; got his grandiose represented horribly wrong. To rub salt to the wound, script completely abridges Beorn's role to a meager sneak peek. Hope they redeem Beorn's to its deserving glory in the final battle.

Length of the film is not an issue here; it is the improper utilization of length that makes the film drag at times. Could have worked on Visuals and special effects are undoubtedly brilliant...just like all the previous films. Hence, 'humdrumness' of visuals work well for someone new to the franchise, whereas, for someone who has followed it all through, film's special effects offer nothing new. It wouldn't be counted as a drawback for any lesser director...but from Jackson we expect magic every time! Overall, a good film that seems more of a stepping stone to the grand final, or so I hope! 8.3/10

Plot: Parren family moves to a beautiful country house, soon to find out it's haunted. The Warrens—supernatural researchers—are the only ones who can help.

Based on real life accounts of Parren family's paranormal experiences with demonic entities and Warren couple helping them out, The Conjuring has a very generic plot that is just about perfectly executed.

Director James Wan explores the well-worn horror sub-genre 'haunted house in remote country' and comes up trump. It is indeed one of the better crafted horror films in recent times—punching well above its weight all through—that is buoyed up by solid performances from all and sundry.

The film doesn't simply surge into action, it first sets up an eerie atmosphere that envelops the viewers, yet steers clear of any yawn inducing moments. At the same time, it isn't overcrowded with exaggerated spooky moments either, just enough to keep the audiences on the edge of their seats.

Post-film, "Hide-and-clap" is definitely going to be the in-thing (along the lines of Bloody Mary, if you recall that). There are some well accomplished, decisive scenes around clairvoyant Mrs.Warren's perceptive visions—watch out for ones by the gloomy lake! Moreover, it isn't just a hard-core horror film that taxes you no end, there are some very dulcet family-time scenes and lighthearted humor too, that eventually make viewers feel/care more for the characters.

Best part was watching the film in good, old 2D with bare minimum digital effects.

Overall, a good watch—experience enhanced more because of a well-engaged, reactive yet disciplined, theater audience! 7.7/10

The real summer blockbuster of 2013, and when it comes to the "big and monstrous" Pacific Rim dwarfs anything ever produced by the likes of "The Avengers" or any other big-budget extravaganza.

Film uses a very basic plot—heroes defending the planet against invading aliens coming through an undersea portal between our world and another dimension. Del Toro reintroduces Kaiju—monolithic monsters (such as Godzilla) wrecking havoc on the planet, and mankind's only defense against them, Jaeger—kind of ostentatiously large version of Iron Man armor controlled neutrally by a human pilot, the evolved versions use two pilots sharing the neural load by psychically bridging their minds through a technique called "drifting".

Loaded with some ultra-cool weaponry (like Plasma gun, Rocket Elbow, Missile Launcher, Hammer) Jaeger's best was indeed the good, old Sword--only a tad bigger! The two scenes with swordplay—one mid-air, one underwater—simply blow you away, would have loved seeing more of it—hopefully in the upcoming sequel!

A lot of films tried capturing the 'grandiose' of comics or graphic novels—especially the colossal alien villains—but it is Del Toro who has hit the mark closest, yet. Jaeger's designs, including its gait, movement and fights were perfect in all its grandeur. Kaiju could use little more refinement/clarity when it comes to dark and shady underwater scenes.

In all, Pacific Rim has raised the bar very high when it comes to spectacularly grand designs and visual effects—Del Toro accomplished his vision on screen by collaborating with some proved artists of the field.

His coterie included: robot and monster designers Wayne Barlowe, Oscar Chichoni, David Meng and Simon Lee, and Francisco Ruiz Velasco, famed for Hellboy II and The Hobbit. Special effects were handled by John Knoll and Hal T. Hickel ( Star Wars d Pirates of the Caribbean), Shane Mahan (Iron Man), John Rosengrant (Real Steel) and Clay Pinney (Independence Day, Star Trek). No wonders the awesomeness that transpired on on screen was a visual treat like never before.

Even though a second fiddle, the star cast delivers as it was expected to. Idris Elba was impressive as a hard-boiled leader, Charlie Day and Ron Perlman provide the much needed gags at the right moments and Charlie Hunnam looked good too(perhaps his meatiest role since Green Street Hooligans).

Calls for a definite theater watch!

8.1/10

Cinematographer: Peter Zeitlinger Dedicated to late Roger Ebert, Encounters at the End of the World is another avant-garde documentary piece by Hergoz. Along with his cameraman (Zeitlinger), this time he ventures to southmost point of the planet—Antarctica, South Pole.

Ebert is clearly all enamored by the film, praising it highly, and rightly so.

Hergoz's largely extempore interviews with scientist and travelers in various Antarctican base camps form the base material of the film. He eventually uses these casual interactions to explicate an underlying script for the film.

The footage beautifully captures the exotic Antarctica—loony penguins running wild, astounding seal-calls, luminescent jelly fish, under-surface tunnel leading right below the South Pole—leaving you simply bewitched. Mesmerizing underwater footage gives you a feel of the nether regions. Personally, I would have preferred the dead-silence of the sea bottom. However, realizing that the silent period would be little too long, Hergoz substituted it with cathedral-like music.

Making this film seem so natural was no mean feat, and wouldn't have been possible for any other, even capable, director. Due to his reputation, Hergoz was allowed exclusive access to some publicly inaccessible areas and personnel. An excerpt from film Wikipedia page: "The film was shot in Antarctica as part of the National Science Foundation's Antarctic Artists and Writers Program. The entire film crew consisted of Herzog, who recorded all production sound, and cinematographer Peter Zeitlinger. The two went to Antarctica without any opportunity to plan filming locations or interview subjects, and had only seven weeks to conceive and shoot their footage. Herzog often met his interview subjects only minutes before he began shooting them.

Filming in Antarctica is usually overseen by the National Science Foundation's media office, which approves and supervises all film productions. Because of Herzog's grant from the Artists and Writers Program, he was allowed to film with no minders or oversight from the NSF. This allowed them to film the "seal-bagging" footage, which is not typically deemed suitable for public release." Of course, you can read more in the wiki-page itself.

Peter Zeitlinger's astonishing behind-the-lens work deserves a special mention here. As always, he measures up to the vision and eccentricities of Herzog every time—exploring ice caves forged by fumaroles (volcanic steam and gas) on the slope of an active volcano is the best example of it.

Through this film, Hergoz is basically asking a question about Earth and mankind's distant future.

8.2/10

With "Happy People: A Year in the Taiga" Werner Herzog (along with Dmitry Vasyukov and crew) once again ventures into an exotic, distant land; narrating traditional (at times prehistoric) way-of-living of the 300-odd people in the remote village of Bakhta in Siberian Taiga.

The film primarily focuses on village's main breadwinners: 'trappers' who quarry in the thick of below -50 degree winter in the wilderness stretching thousands of square kilometers, across the Yenisei River flowing alongside the village. The village is almost untouched by modernity and highly independent--snow-mobile and chainsaw few of the exceptions. Inaccessible most of the year, village can only be reached by a plane, or a boat in the short-lived, appropriate spring-summer season.

Herzog/Vasyukov esthetically showcase the authentic 'happiness' a human-being relishes even in absence of technology and materialistic advancements. All you need is a sense of freedom and accomplishment that folks in Taiga mostly come upon by the constantly keeping themselves constructively engaged. Instead of harming/modifying the nature, they have learned to live in harmony with it--assimilating their lifestyles around four different seasons: Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter.

The related blog-post has some delightful screen captures from the film covering the 4-season cycle and the specific chores set around them. Wish I could post them here, somehow! Posting sans the pictures, anyhow.

Spring:

-Passing on the conventional wisdom (Ski-making) -Setting up the base structure of quarry-traps -Smoking the Ski for shape and sturdiness -Canoe for fishing made of local wood -Widening of canoe using fire -Testing the new canoe and green huskies in first waters

Summer: -Constructing huts for deep winter in the wilderness -Thawing of the river, Yenisei -Inherent tendencies of the Orion kicking in!

Fall:

-Nut gathering squirrel connotes: "Winter is coming" -Night-fisherman: fish is attracted to the fire-light -Storing supplies nearby winter hut, away from Bear's reach -Bear hibernating but rats still a threat -Wading upstream: Transporting essentials to the hut

Winter:

-Checking the traps for quarry Earning his keep, smells prey! -After a hard day's work returning back to a roof that might cave-in under snow -Meanwhile, in the village: Fishing Holes Returning home for New Year/Christmas

Trappers visit family during festivities, notice the husky running behind the snowmobile--he runs all the 150 frozen kilometers of the river! After a short stay with family (till Jan 6, Christmas) a trapper gets back to his wilderness for a couple more months--to his hut (that is naturally insulation using earth and dry moss) with his best friend.

Thanks to Herzog, this documentary is a chance to live a dream lifestyle lot of us crave for.

Slow pace of the film prior to interval, detailing for Krypton, non-linear flashbacks, and Zimmer's background score all work well in building up a 'slightly modified' Superman universe. You have some nicely crafted out scenes demonstrating inner turmoils of Clark, while he searches for answers assuming different aliases. Some are: Clark saving his co-workers in an oil drilling plant after a mishap, confronting a drunkard in a bar.

Though, all the build up never reaches the expected crescendo.What happened in last 45 minutes or so (especially after interval) seemed like watching two different films altogether. Fights sequences needed some more personal touch from Superman; it was more destruction than action with wrecked buildings, shattered glasses filling up the screen with too much CGI/special-effects, at times too cluttered for human eyes to register. Other than this the film is made as it should have been, lack of romance/comedy is not a concern.

The films boasts of some A-rated cast, and most of them deliver well in their respective roles. Henry Cavill is perfect fit for the new Superman/Clark Kent. When it comes to villains, Zod of Superman 2 still remains the one to beat. Sidekick Faora did look menacing. As always, Superman's Earth mother (Lane) and father (Costner) are his emotional support and morality beacon, respectively. Growing up with perplexities about his being, they instill in him self-belief, help him control the God-like abilities, and ultimately mould him into the righteous man he is today. Jor-El (Crowe) and his son Kal-El don't get enough time together but Jor-El might not be done yet. However, due to non-linearity in film, none of the characters seem to have meaty roles; screen time is shrewdly shared across varying contexts.

Moreover, the film fluctuates a lot. On one hand you have a drained out Superman—during battling with Terra-modifying 'world engine'—soaking up the Sun against a sober BGM, you are reveling the scene, then suddenly, there is a cut-to scene and you have choppers flying, artillery blasting, and what not. Snyder perhaps does it purposely, to charge up the audience after the laid-back first half.

If you noticed the Lex Luthor logo on the tanker (or something) you know what's coming next, not that there was much doubt. Clark Kent and Lois Lane meeting in Daily planet toward the end of film finally sparked some chemistry too. In all, by the end of film you get to see the familiar Superman all sorted out in his brain, and of course, want more.

One thing is certain, film ends on a good, promising note and a sequel, if any, will clearly have all the right ingredients ready.

I was really hoping for some post-credits scene (especially after seeing the Luthor logo) but there was none! 7.5/10

Yipin (Justin) Lin nails another F&F movie. The 6th installment doesn't just pick the tempo where Fast 5 concluded; it gets bigger too, and straightaway—no lag on plot development or character insights as it is already all set. From scene one you have fast cars in action, trailblazing through some beautiful locales.

F&F also provides what was amiss in Fast 5—a real villain of credibility in Shaw (Luke Evans), well supported by his sidekicks who match (even betters) Dom's crew blow-by-blow, i.e., until the climax of course.

Action in the film, as it was supposed to, overshadows all other aspect of the film but comedy, overall acting, editing, camera work, special effects, etc. gel well in this in this high octane showdown.

All in all, a perfect summer blockbuster for action buffs.

If the sneak-peek of F&F is anything to go by then the F&F 7 is going to be even 'massiver'—the newest addition (current tycoon of action films) to cast/franchise certainly indicates so! What more. Being a huge fan of Diesel's 'Riddick', I hope the success of F&F avails him enough riches to decently market/promote another potent, niche-focused, action/adventure franchise of his.

7.5/10

Plot: In the times of great depression--post WWII--a poor man searches for his stolen bicycle without which he won't be able to retain his new job.

It is an economically unstable time and an average family is barely scraping a living. The movie focuses on one such family – Husband, wife, their son and infant daughter.

The father-son duo takes the movie forward. Their interactions and simple day-to-day things have been presented artistically. There are obviously no wide-angle or high-flying shots, or anything grand in terms of camera work. The strong point of this classic is showing life on screen as it in reality is.

Everyone is aware of their hardships and has accepted poverty as being a way of life. Even in want there is hope, there is love, and family bonding strong as ever. No scenes have been pictured with "glumness" as such, but watching these scenes; the melancholy that surrounds you is a testimony to director class.

It is not a movie with fairy tale ending rather a perfect ending. In the end the protagonist resorts to desperate measures and repents, leaving us all with a sad thought, a bit of pondering and harsh realities.

8.3/10

Plot: Beautiful animated feature, about a brother-sister and their lost family, set toward the end of WWII when Japan is under constant air raids.

The story has been told in a flashback by Seita's (brother) spirit. The essence of the movie forbids war and it basically shows how a society pays for a war, how innocence (read young Sutsiko) suffers.

One might argue technically movie is not as accomplished as some of today's animated features but that would be a folly as there is a unique liveliness in the 80's animation and the background music compliments it perfectly – rendering it extraordinarily moving.

8/10

A young, introvert boy divulges into the mysterious world of 'Fantasia' through a magical book.

Based on the famous fantasy novel by same name, it is a definite must watch for fantasy lovers. Keeping in mind it was made in the early 80s, special effects are quite commendable and story is well told. Compared to this, sequel made in 90s (starring Jack Black) is loaded with some horrid SFX! Only drawback: Movie is primarily focused at a preteen audience unlike some of today's fantasy giants. But Petersen can't be blamed for that, as back then probably viewership base for fantasy movies was quite age restrictive and the fantasy genre itself wasn't so grand in world of cinema.

6.8/10

Plot: A man tries to uncover the secret of eternal life in a story which spans the timeline from past, to present, to distant future.

Darren Aronofosky has a knack of grasping weird imaginations and directing movies with unorthodox plots. The Fountain is another example of this.

Implicit as ever in direction this is another gem.

Dashing Hugh Jackman and beautiful Rachel Weisz have instant chemistry and it would be great to see them together again sometime.

Better watch it yourself as there can be varying interpretation.

8.1/10