Movie Impressions: Dawn of Justice

“This is how it starts, the fever, the rage, the feeling of powerlessness; turns good men, cruel”. I believe Alfred (played brilliantly by Jeremy Irons) perfectly summarizes my emotions as I saw these once beloved beacons of hope turned into sad, depressed murderers. I felt helpless that I couldn’t do anything about it as I treaded through the long muddled story. Now to be fair, this movie had a very huge task to pull off. Not only did it had to introduce Batman to the current DC Extended Universe, introduce Wonder Woman in her big screen début and set-up Justice League, while living up to the hype of ‘Batman vs. Superman’ that have kept fans eagerly waiting for decades. It seems that the problem is pretty straight-forward, it tried to be too many things at once and an off-beat direction for these heroes made everything fall flat (for me).

The story has an interesting premise though. 18 months after the events of Man of Steel, Superman is out into the world. And with the destruction he has caused, everyone is not very happy. And that includes Bruce Wayne, who we see driving through the debris as Superman and General Zod fight, only to see his office building collapse before his eyes with dozens of his employees falling to their deaths. When Wayne looks up at the flying gods, while comforting a child who just lost her mom in the incident, he boils with rage. This gives such a good set up for Batman’s stance in this movie. The way it is shot is genuinely terrifying and makes us feel emotion despite being a re-tread of the fight of the last movie. I just wish that this kind of execution remained consistent throughout the movie.

Nevertheless, it was a mess. Very early on it awkwardly starts to cut in between all these storylines and subplots that can really make finding a clear narrative rather tedious and confusing, and it is not an excuse for a ‘complex’ story. As you must have seen other reviews, I too agree that a lot of these scenes could have been cut to make time or replaced with scenes that more clearly forward the story (especially the Pa Kent scene).The Justice League tie-ins also are pretty lazy and are just dumped on you all at once, that breaks the flow of the movie right at its peak of conflict. All the character motivations except Batman’s were pretty thin, and a lot of the time people are left filling the blanks which causes all sorts of ambiguity that can change how you perceive the story. It also has these wonky character arcs that no have no sense of progression and just somehow happen. Ultimately, it’s a lot of great ideas but the movie wasn’t able to work with them in a cohesive manner or really tell them in the best way possible. It has too many things going on and each one of them is given equal importance (rather than appropriate importance) so that nothing can really stand out from each other that can show you, “Yes this is what needs your max attention.”

However, when it comes to the visuals, which is clearly where Zack Snyder’s expertise lies, is great. I was so happy from the trailers that I saw Snyder’s Watchmen-esque flair return to a great degree, which I believe was sorely missed for the most of Man of Steel. It feels so relieving to have some colour in this movie even though it gets really muted at places. Larry Fong’s cinematography allows each shot to move fluidly that makes those action scenes just that much better and no awkward zoom-ins like MoS. One big advantage of having all these different heroes is that they bring their own distinct tones with them which makes for great visual variety and sonic variety in the soundtrack. The presentation here is awesome. However, if one criticism has to be made on the visual side is that the CGI, though much better than Man of Steel, still feels inconsistent at places and the 3D ruins everything. But this movie is technically well made through and through.

To be honest with you, I was not one of the Batfleck haters. Sure I was surprised when it was announced but knowing from films like Argo and his love for the character, I was pretty confident he would pull it off. And by heavens does he make a great Batman. To quote Kevin Smith ‘This is by far the most cinematic Batman we have seen’. I mean he looks Batman, he has the physique of Batman and he has the presence of Batman. And that costume is just exquisite. He portrays a great Bruce Wayne as well with a suave playboy-ish charm while also letting us know just how much he doesn’t want to be at those parties and is just there for the information he can gather. Anyhow, I still think the movie did not allow Affleck to fully stretch his acting muscles. When an on-screen Batman looks so much like the comics it leaves you even more flabbergasted when he outright starts using machine guns and kills people left-right-centre. And no, it’s not because I’m not willing to accept any new interpretations of the character, and we have seen him kill before (however it must remembered that those were more tongue and cheek than this). But I at least want a clear justification for it. Sure it can be argued for that the Robin suit scene or the fact he is an old embittered Batman is it, but I still think it can be explained just a bit more concretely. Also it’s confusing that some thugs he would kill while others he would brand. Also the killing is just outrageous with exploding cars and Gatling guns. I would say that instead of Batman just killing efficiently, him being excruciatingly brutal in his action leaving thugs in agonising pain would’ve made for a much scarier version of the character by giving thugs a living hell than a swift death. But it’s subjective and I’m still stoked for a solo Batman flick.

On the other side of the ring, Henry Cavill isn’t given much to play with Superman. This is surprising because he atoning for the events of Metropolis could have made for some real moral dilemmas and a serious commentary on the super-man. There isn’t any difference when he plays Clark Kent and Superman and somehow has no charisma whatsoever. It is sad because I honestly think that he is a good actor who can get to near- Christopher Reeve levels if directed well. The Dr. Manhattan approach to Superman is a clever concept on paper but he comes across like a victim of circumstance a bit too much and is always avoiding people when he should’ve been actively trying to defend his stance. Yet we got a really ignorant Superman who doesn’t want to give a damn about humanity….until he just does at the end, somehow. Yes, Superman shouldn’t be an unsullied symbol of hope. However, the whole point of Superman is that he tries, no matter the odds stacked against. He is the guy you can depend on. Sometimes he may succeed and other times fail, but he still tries and never gives up. It’s what makes us look-up to this guy. It’s what makes him a hero.    

I was pretty surprised how much I liked Lex as what he was, even though I didn’t like him overall. At least he doesn’t have a real-estate plan this time. And he has some good interactions with Holly Hunter’s character. And that’s where the good stuff mostly ends for me. I wouldn’t place blame on Jesse Eisenberg more than on the characterisation. His motivation is also pretty confusing, again making us fill in the blanks (in a bad way). But in this case, I would blame the poor dialogue writing, which is a culprit for a lot of the vagueness in the movie. The fact is that we have come a long way from ‘mad-scientist’ Luthor to a much more high-profile and infinitely more intriguing version of him in his more White-Collar demeanour; a cool and calm intellect that serves as his edge over Superman. This version of Lex just comes across as more of an annoyance than a threatening ‘villain’. ‘Granny’s Peach Tea’ was a good one though and more moments like that could have made Lex more cunning and manipulative as we hoped he’d be. 

The supporting characters are generally good here. Among them the most prominent would be Wonder Woman. Gal Gadot was okay in it enough for me to be curious about her solo movie. Laurence Fishburne as Perry White was also good but the awkward editing places him at really off times where you can’t appreciate it. Lois Lane was made  into a damsel by having Supes save her so many times that it makes him look like her stalker. They try to give her a subplot but in all honesty it seems so filler when we could see more tense banter between Clark and Bruce. As mentioned before, I liked Jeremy Irons as Alfred. I saw more of a camaraderie between him and Bruce rather than a father-son dynamic, which is admittedly fresh. 

That brings us to the actual Batman vs Superman portion of the movie. Surprisingly there isn’t much confrontation, just 3 scenes, one of them being a 7 min fight. I believe almost everybody expected a conflict of ideologies. So I was disappointed to find out that it’s very much an externally manipulated confrontation rather than self-motivated. But to be fair, hints of it do appear, especially through Batman’s motivation. However, I don’t think they really built up to it rather well. The only one great dialogue is between Bruce and Clark, which we have already seen from the trailers. I really wanted more of it. The motivation behind Superman as I said was pretty weak and the movie also tries to ruin Batman’s as well with pretty much making him an impulsive killer at that point. Also they went for the Kryptonite route which I get you don’t have many options when you are fighting with Superman but since MoS was pretty proud to have a kryptonite-free story, I was hopeful that they would find a new twist. But they do find a new twist in the resolution of this fight. It makes sense while being really underwhelming at the same time.

Okay so the story isn’t the best, neither are the characters in my opinion, but is the action good at least? Yes,  though there isn’t much of it. As mentioned before the main fight is 7 mins. It’s ok but I wasn’t satisfied enough. I was looking for more choreography and more tension ‘in-the-moment’. My favourite action scene, like most, would be Batman in the warehouse. Well-orchestrated and at the moment I did not care whether he killed or not because at that moment, the person on the screen, was Batman. It was glorious. Then you have the main so- called ‘trinity’ fight with Doomsday. The disco eyes of Doomsday were becoming a bit sensory-overload and the shoddy development all throughout the movie did not truly invest me in this fight. And by the time the ending came it was already running way to long and I just wanted it to finish.

Maybe it is my fault that I had too big expectations from this movie. However a movie called Batman v. Superman should have been better than we what we got, regardless whether it’s for fans or not. Or maybe it shouldn’t have been called that in the first place. I hear people say it’s for comic book fans, and I will not claim that I have the most extensive knowledge in comics. However, I don’t believe that merely referencing comic book material or imagery while you ignore the core of these great characters, true justice to the source material. And at a lot of parts it relies too much on your prior knowledge of comics (which is probably why I missed out on so many subtexts). It should work as a movie first. I do presume though that ultimately all this will be a sort of ‘redemption’ arc for these heroes and that by Justice League we will truly see our heroes in their classic forms. And if they handle it well, it could be pretty damn great.

So do I think this is a bad movie? No, not at all, because movies like The Last Airbender still exist. Do I think it it’s the best thing ever? Since I appreciate classic DC and that the movie has some general filmmaking flaws, not that much. But movies are subjective. I’m just giving my opinion as unbiased as I can be. I’m still pretty curious for a lot of the upcoming movies as now we can finally see what other filmmakers can bring to this franchise. I also respect Zack Snyder and team in giving us a very different and bold vision on the big screen. That being said, I really want to urge the creative team behind this DCEU to have a little more faith in their characters as they are, because I believe the Justice League are not supposed to be brought down to our level and reflect our society too much. For me, Justice League represents the best of what humanity can be and who we can root for as champions of the Earth.   

Star Wars: The Force Awakens- A Movie Impression

"Fans are going to love it" George Lucas said. And to Disney, Star Wars' new 'overlords', that would probably be music to their ears. However, that doesn't imply that the filmmakers did not put any sort of creativity into it, 'cause they did. In fact, it looks pretty marvellous. Oh…and spoiler alert.

J.J. Abrams' style was pretty much made for Star Wars, ironically as seen in the Star Trek movies. Nevertheless, he has a good eye for spectacle and enough respect for the Franchise. As a result we see the return of real locations and practical effects. I am really happy that the sense of wonder and adventure is back and isn't bogged down by senate meetings. Coming back to the spectacle, this entry has (in my opinion) given us probably one of the most evocative imagery seen in Star Wars yet. From the beginning with a silhouette of a starship in front of a planet or Rey whizzing past giant Star Destroyers buried in the sand on her land-speeder. And even the Space Battles and Dogfights are also really top notch. And all under the grand score of John Williams. Though honestly all those fast cuts do get exhausting sometimes. Also to be noted is that this movie also maybe has the most diverse locations we have seen in one Star Wars movie.

Note that the locations are diverse for 'one' Star Wars movie, not necessarily in the series. And same goes for the story. Some plot points do feel recycled like the droid character having the secret message who is found by a person in a desert planet and has to be brought back to the rebels. That being said, it does serve as a good introduction to the series for Star Wars virgins and also a reintroduction for fans as it does sum up all the great moments of the original films in a new light. It also works in a thematic aspect where you can say that history had repeated itself. However the last straw for me was Starkiller Base, which was another Death Star but bigger! I mean why would The First Order pursue the exact same plan that destroyed their precursor organisation in the first place Nonetheless I give the movie props that it injects a lot more emotional impact into the scenes and I liked that it was to some extent the continuation of the Skywalker family saga. Mark Hamill also acted amazing with those facial expressions at the end. 

I really liked Rey; she does grow on you overtime. Even though at the surface she does seem like your typical wide-eyed protagonist but there are clear signs of deeper unexplored territories. However, I will agree she is kinda paper thin in this movie but her chemistry with Finn spices things up. Finn out of all the characters is probably the most interesting to me of the bat because of his pronounced moral dilemma that makes him leave the Stormtroopers, even though it never clearly explains and we probably will never know since we saw him confused right at his first battle so that doesn’t give us much history too. Daisy Ridley and John Boyega’s performances are pretty much why you will feel invested in the protagonists.

Alright time for the biggie, Kylo Ren or Ben Solo. Yes he is the child of Han and Leia and he kills Han Solo, which face it, was inevitable. Speaking of Han and Leia, I liked that their relationship was sort of on the rocks since Jedi and making Han the mentor character of the movie was a good move. I believe Han Solo had a pretty good character arc from careless smuggler to a father who has to take responsibilty. Anyway, I think that people who say Kylo Ren isn’t intimidating are coming with the wrong mind-set. Sure he doesn’t have that presence of Vader and is a baby face with perfect hair. And that is the point. It shows vulnerability, it shows that he is still not completely with the Dark side. And with the events transpired, maybe we will see this person become the Bad-ass that Darth Vader was over this series of films. And to be honest, no one really wants another Darth Vader per se because you cannot top Darth Vader. Kylo Ren on the other hand makes you curious about his road further it's like you're following both protagonist and antagonist develop. 

Now you might have noticed a theme with the characters that much of it is kept under wraps. I am not sure if that’s a good thing. It makes a significant impact to the depth of characters and it’s also same for the story. Too much things are left up in the air for future stuff or is rushed past for the next set-piece. At times it looks more spectacle than story. It doesn't help the movie stand on its own. Even though looks immaculate visually, a lot of the times it feels superficial. Now I do understand that Disney and Abrams had to play it safe for now considering they had to impress the old fans and also attract the new fans. I still expected more though, maybe it’s my fault. Nevertheless it’s Star Wars and it’s back for a foreseeable future probably, I just hope they tell stories and not just do fan pandering.   

ps. Do I think Rey is a Mary Sue? Well maybe yes, but again it goes on record that it really did need some more development all round.

                                                                                 

Movie Impressions: The Peanuts Movie

To be honest with you, I wasn't really exposed to Peanuts.Unbelievable right? Though before watching, I did do my research and read a bunch of strips. And from what I can see, the movie is faithful to its source material. It is rather surprising to me that Blue-Sky studios actually took time off from milking the Ice-Age franchise and produce a refreshing animated movie that I have seen in a while.


The story is brisk as we follow Charlie Brown trying to woo her crush, The Red-Haired Girl in an attempt to finally have a fresh start to have a friend who doesn't ridicule him . The situation is simple and relatable in that way and feels, human. The story really feeds itself from the source material and its history, almost to the limit that if the story taken to isolation just might not have the depth that it has. Now the story being relatable is also a predictable one. But if you have seen any romantic movie, you could have guessed it, so the question here really is 'how' instead of 'what'. The sense of  humour here is also nice with some witty writing and visual gags that reference the past but adding a unique twist to them. Though, I wish it tried to go into more high-browed social/psychological satire like some of the Peanuts strips did but I guess the whole story in here can be interpreted as a story on crushing. Nonetheless, the main highlight of the movie is going to be its presentation and the various nods to the comic and the animated stuff.

The biggest nod of them all would be the animation style. It blends hand-drawn with 3-D computer animation superbly. The bodies of the characters are fully fleshed 3-D shapes but have eyes and expressions like as if they were drawn by pencil, it really adds visual identity to the movie that bridges the gap between the comic strips and the movie. It also is a nice addition that the overall animation itself plays in a stop-motion kind of style that again fits perfectly in Peanuts. I was really happy with the animation here plus the cinematography in general is really well done, presenting you a very welcoming world and is surprisingly homely. And also sometimes they actually punctuate or add thought bubbles here and there which I thought were nice touches.

Charlie Brown and his gang is the heart of what Peanuts is and it is really good that they had such an illustrious history because it motivated the writers to be faithful and create something that could be on that level. Charles M. Schultz, the creator of Peanuts, said that Charlie Brown was the caricature of the average person. He suffers from a big inferiority complex that comes from his many mishaps-which I can identify with honestly- and yet still pushes forward towards his goal. He is the quintessential underdog which makes you root for him instantly. The story also doe .There are a myriad of other people in this movie with equally intriguing characteristics and it would be too long if I described all of them. But each one of them is unique in their own way does add variety to the experience(Such as Lucy.)

Did you know that in some regions the title is actually Snoopy and Charlie Brown, The Peanuts Movie? Honestly, I couldn't have been asked to write the whole thing for the title of this post, but it actually makes sense since half of this movie is also centred on Snoopy. These sections are bookmarked in the story and the premise is Snoopy (being the intellectual he is) is writing a story inspired by Charlie Brown's current predicament, and places himself as a WW1 flying ace saving his love from the clutches of the Red Baron. I like the sense of fantasy here and how it parallels with the main narrative. But sometimes it becomes too distracting. I would have loved it though if these sections provided some easter eggs for plot points that would happen later on but it is mostly its own thing. I adore Snoopy as a character though. He is like the poster boy of those animals that are shown more intelligent and talented than their human companions and he acts as a sort of wingman for Charlie Brown, always spurring him on to meet his challenges. Fans would also like to know that Bill Melendez's archival footage was used for Snoopy and Woodstock. In fact I actually like the voice acting in general, it's almost exactly how I imagined them as I was reading. I heard they used actual kids which is cool and I also chuckled at how all the adult voices were just trombone sounds.


Honestly, this movie has opened up a new world for me in Peanuts and it has certainly gained a new reader. To sum up the film in one word, I would say 'adorable'. It is a really good film. Admittedly the story is a bit on the weak side but there are definitely some emotional moments that are executed well. The characters are super-enjoyable  almost leading to the question that without the history that surrounds them, could this movie actually have stood on its own? Nonetheless I think it stands as a great example of respecting the source material its based on and trying to expand it rather than needlessly 'update' it. I think with films such as this and Creed , Hollywood may have finally started to have a heart.

Movie Impressions: SPECTRE 007

The ending of Skyfall arguably was a promise to return to a more classic bond. Yet it also dawned a rather grim realisation that Bond just may have become obsolete both as a concept in films and the real world where computers and information reign. Though can the return of SPECTRE prove otherwise.

The movie starts with the very familiar gun-barrel entry, the first time in the Craig-era Bond films. Following the ominous words 'the dead are alive' it perfectly segues into the opening sequence in Mexico City's Day of the Dead festival. In 90% of the interviews/reviews I have seen; everyone quotes this opening, and it is for a good reason. Starting with a beautiful continuous tracking shot of Bond through the busy streets of the city (to a brilliant score) that gradually builds up to a crescendo of a brutal fight in a helicopter in the air above hundreds of civilians in a town square. This opening in my opinion is a great summary to what a Bond film is and effortlessly captures the character's essence. I was a bit on the fence with the new title track by Sam Smith, but with the visuals in, it fits a lot better.

When asked about SPECTRE, former-bond Pierce Brosnan replied that got confused whether he was watching a bond movie or a bourne movie. Once I saw the story, I do get his point. To be honest it tries its best to marry classic bond sensibilities with the personal, gritty tone of recent escapades. But it just doesn't work. The plot (to be honest) feels a bit longer than the story actually is and it tries to wrap up stories from previous films with varying levels of success. Hence largely the cornerstones of interest would be the action and characters.

The action in here well done with practical effects with good editing;so it doesn't leave you nauseous. However none of them could really top the intro. The DB10. I thought would be the return of automotive gadgetry in Bond, but it wasn't so since half of them didn't even work... . The chase scene that we do get is again, well done and also has an absolutely befitting score behind it. But the chase at times felt a bit boring since it was an empty street and it somehow felt too short to be really tense. Some of the locales such as Austria and Rome looked superb though I was longing for a diverse colour palette like we saw in Skyfall.

This being my first Bond review, I have to say that I was one of those people who wasn't completely behind Daniel Craig's casting and still he doesn't physically fit my description of the character. However, you cannot deny what he brings to the role is really something fresh, and he continues that in this movie with one of the best grunt faces I have ever seen. Léa Seydoux plays Madeline Swann who is the female lead of the movie. She also carried herself really well, strong and elegant but I would say do not expect Vesper levels of foil. I did like Dave Bautista's Mr.Hinx; imagine Oddball mixed with Jaws, 'nuff said.
Team MI6 represented by M (Ralph Fiennes), Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) and Q (Ben Wishaw) were enjoyable to a degree given their involvement in the story, though a little more character development wouldn't have hurt. Surprisingly, Monica Bellucci's role was small given that she was a main cast member. Andrew Scott is a good actor, but his role in here was too much of a prick than a genuine threat.

Coming to Christoph Waltz as Franz Oberhauser, I will have to go into spoiler territory.So feel free to skip, though it shouldn't make a real difference. Let me cut to the chase, He's Blofeld and it needn't be that way. After this 'shocking' reveal I still don't get why the villain couldn't be just Oberhauser because the story adds a pretty close, brotherly relationship between him and bond, and his primary motivation comes from a mere childhood grudge seems too low of a level for Blofeld. And his big plan though realistic is almost a rehash of Tomorrow Never Dies. Their relationships and the stakes (dare I say) are a bit too personal. Again if it were just Oberhauser it would have worked, but once you add Blofeld's name there will be the question of legacy regardless of it being a reboot or not. Bond has always been the thorn on the side of Blofeld's plans rather than the main centre of it. And if Bond wasn't, it doesn't explain why he started SPECTRE in the first place. Which is why I would have preferred him just being Oberhauser and it could have been that he inherited the organisation from Blofeld. Also Christoph Waltz tried his very best to present himself in the most interesting manner, but with only 3 scenes, he couldn't make a real lasting impression despite a chilling reveal, which is a bummer.

The awful truth is that the information age has taken its toll on the beloved spy. In fact arguably the real hero of the story would be Q considering the plot. In an age where computers do most of the work where does the 'suave spy' fit in ? This has been an age old problem for Bond: how do you keep him relevant? Overtime films like Casino Royale refreshed the franchise with a gritty tone or coming back back to the classic 'suave' tone as I call it. But honestly it doesn't matter as long as it has that 'oomph' factor to it. Even though Casino was gritty and much more darker there was still the ohh wow! moment to it which came out of its tension and emotional impact which matched to that of a really good bond villain or awesome gadgets, there was always something a bit out-worldly-feel to these films. That is what I felt SPECTRE was lacking, that sense of character, it just did not have that 'oomph' to it. That is except the opening sequence and the brilliant soundtrack by Thomas Newman. Bond will always be just that much larger-than-life because that is how Ian Fleming made him. And the moment you ground him too much the effect is gone.

Sam Mendes has done a terrific job here hand-on-heart, its just that the more personal story somehow did not let Bond unleash himself as much he should have been in my opinion. Nonetheless, I feel that we are in a strange transition period with Bond as he rediscovers his place in this changing world. Some teething problems will arise, but I think in the end we may have something truly special that would push the Bond's legacy forward.

Movie Impressions: The Bridge Of Spies

A film directed by Steven Spielberg, a script written by the Coen brothers,starring Tom Hanks and set in the peak of the Cold War. A very cliché intro surely but just cannot falter with it can you? Honestly ever since I heard about this production I really did not know what to expect. From the cold war setting and the spies thing, I thought it would be something more akin to Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy maybe. However, it's nothing like that and I am so happy because of that. 

The movie follows insurance lawyer James B.Donovan who was drafted in by the CIA to negotiate the exchange of imprisoned U-2 pilot, Francis Gary Powers for a Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance), a Russian Spy in US custody for which Donovan is serving as his legal counsel.

The first thing I noticed into the movie really was how fresh this movie looks aesthetically in terms of colour palette and the overall ambience. It has a way of showing large-scale geo-political tension in the stark differences in the environments of these different places and yet at the same time, is seemingly grounded and very personal. It feels like a reinvigorated Spielberg. You can still make out his classic techniques, but overall it feels quite fresh. I guess that just goes to the credit to the the production designer and the director of photography along with Spielberg himself.

The story starts as a legal courtroom drama a lot like Time To Kill where Donovan is pretty much forced by his firm to serve as a 'capable defence' to Abel only really as a formality and Donovan (in true lawyer fashion) becomes determined to give him justice and the public hates him for that. At this point I'm like "ohh I just know exactly what to expect." Then the U-2 scene happened and the movie almost turned 180 degrees and It almost became a different movie. It may be my own stupidity but nonetheless, it felt really good in the way the plot just changed like that. However, this change is not disrupting and is more of the evolution of the plot.

The pacing and tension in this is something I admired. The first sequence of the movie doesn't even have any dialogue in it, but the suspense of it all and the audience trying to figure out what's happening arrests you. Throughout the movie, it will hold your attention with a tight grip and the plot progresses in such a way that you will become really curious about what happens in the end. Also it has a very satisfying sense of closure to it and when the script hits those emotional beats right, it just takes it to a new level. 

Tom Hanks as James B. Donovan is a true heroic protagonist in his own right. We follow him as he drives the story, and often times he would put himself in such situations that just make you go 'why' in an entertaining way that is testament to his character. He has a very good chemistry with Mark Rylance's character, who also gives a rather brilliant performance as Rudolf Abel, making you feel for him and in turn justifying why Donovan went through so much for his defence earlier in the movie even though he was a spy and Donovan is despised for this in the public and his family's eyes. Their relationship is handled confidently. 

Negotiations or such banter in movies can go either way depending upon the writing of the dialogue and also the set-up to it. One moment you can get JFK and other times you may even have The Phantom Menace. And often times you don't even have that much visual flair to hold on to unlike here. This is where I feel lucky that the Coen Brothers were involved. They have written some nice dialogues that gel very well with certain superb character moments occurring from time to time. The dynamics that happen between Donovan and the opposing negotiators (notable mention to Sebastian Koch) is entertaining to me at least as they butt their heads in mental chess. 

At the end of the day what Bridge of Spies is, is that it's a well rounded experience, as you should expect from one of the best directors in Hollywood. It has a very interesting subject that is supported with superb performances and writing; and cinematography that really sells that particular period of history. It ultimately becomes a story of the value of human life. It has great emotional and entertainment value, and you should definitely see it, if you haven't already. Some are even starting to say that this is Speilberg's best film since Saving Private Ryan (1998). 

Movie Impressions: Sicario

Given the subject matter of the movie, Sicario could have easily become a rather generic man-hunt story in a setting that is relatively well-tread in Hollywood. But instead what director Denis Villeneuve and writer Taylor Sheridan has shown us goes way beyond a traditional drug war story into the very dark recesses of human conviction in a world torn by illicit activities.

We follow FBI agent Kate Macer (Emily Blunt) who eagerly becomes part of a special Delta Force team led by CIA officer Matt Graves (Josh Brolin) and his partner Alejandro Gillick (Benecio Del Toro) as a tactical liaison to aid the escalating war on drugs in the border area between the U.S and Mexico.

From the premise itself you can see what I was going on about earlier when I said that it really could have been a very generic movie. But it isn't. And that is exactly why I really can't really delve into the story without ruining the experience. Though as a hint I will give this: It's a very good example of the difference between the protagonist and the hero of a story. It has a very darkly poetic quality which is something I always admire in stories. And the way it wraps up things is oh so satisfying. 

Villeneuve paints a violently hostile atmosphere of Juarez, right at the peak of the Mexican Drug War. His direction is near flawless and he paces out everything brilliantly, Before you know it, the film turns from an action thriller into a gripping character drama almost seamlessly. Also the character stuff doesn't occupy or bog down the film in any way. In fact the action sequences here are so well done and they actually forward the drama and the tension in a way that is also visually exciting. I guess he just has a way with suspense that in the end satisfies you. Its perfectly balanced

This movie made me realise just how great Emily Blunt is as an acting force. There is a scene where she is sitting in one of the convoy cars and there is no dialogue for at least 5 mins or so. And she so effortlessly tells her reactions in the situation just through facial emotions. She superbly pulled off a very strong idealistic character and yet still was able to show her character broken down and vulnerable. Her character is very interesting from a story point of view because her perspective and her reactions mirror to that of the audience.When revelations dawn and you feel the shock, so does she. And in the end when she is left vulnerable, you almost empathise with her.

Benecio Del Toro gives a much more subtle performance, at times too subtle to barely notice, and there is good reason for it. And he is very good when he comes forward. Josh Brolin as Matt Graves is the annoying, wisecracking, yankee, levity-inducing character in every sense of the word.  I guess it really depends on the person watching and/or the specific situation in the film for his quipping to be irritating in a fun way or deeply distracting. I felt Brolin did a great a job in selling his character and how much of a douche he can be sometimes.

Saving the best for last, Roger Deakins is as much of a star as any of the actors on the screen. It is always enjoyable as a film fanatic to pick apart his creative shot designs. An overt example of this would be the climax filmed with night vision and infra-red. However, you know you are in a presence of a great cinematographer when even the airplane transition shot looks interesting. Even then I think what Deakins bought to this project in my opinion was his sense of naturalism (especially in the lighting) that completely immerses you in the story. It just takes the entire mood of the movie to the next level.

Sicario is a very tense and unhasty thriller and that's great. It's a really well made movie, though again given its subject matter, it does get pretty graphic and the rest is pretty dark. So its definitely not for everybody. Nonetheless, the fact that in the end it becomes an emotional story that resonates to people that might not take much interest in the overall setting. I guess what makes this movie work so well is that it is both good in concept and execution. It serves as a really good example of what a film could be when every single facet of it; direction, cinematography, sound design and performances, etc. all work in unison to serve the story like a grand orchestral piece. That is exactly what this movie is.

ps. I believe that this movie warrants for a spoiler discussion, which I will come to soon...

Movie Impressions: The Walk

When I came into the cinema hall and took my seat right at the front row, I noticed some things that don't happen very often. I got to see a movie, relaxed in a near empty theatre without side-talks. I saw the Tristar logo in a new movie after a long time. And for the first time in my life I actually wanted to induce vertigo in me voluntarily. I think this shows that this kind of movie, you don't get to see very often. 

The Walk is a film by acclaimed director Robert Zemeckis and it tells the true story of (and leading to) the high wire-walk of the New York Twin Towers in 1974 by Phillippe Petit, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt.  

This event was in great coverage at the time, so was the intent of Petit so naturally this one isn't the first film to cover it. In fact the documentary Man on Wire (2008) by James Marsh and starring Petit is often considered to be a definitive telling of the story. I haven't seen it nor did I know about this story altogether before The Walk though from the looks of things, it takes much inspiration from the documentary in its presentation. 

However, through Zemeckis' expertise in modern film-making techniques, he knows what the medium brings to make this version stand out. So he focuses on the more experiential side of things. The story itself is very light on the mind as Gordon-Levitt's Petit talks us through his journey atop the Statue of Liberty like a circus presenter announcing his performance. We see Petit grow from being a lowly street performer to a daring artist. It builds up the climax from the start and keeps us engaged throughout the duration via a heist element with most of the first act introducing our protagonist. his motivation to walk the Towers and the relationships he makes in between. There is a romance angle to this as well between Petit and his first accomplice, Annie. It was handled well and was kept re-strained enough to not disrupt the main narrative and its conclusion is also something you might not expect. 

But as I said Zemeckis focuses on the experiential side of things and instead of trying to make us sympathise with this person with the story, he immerses us in the situation itself and encourages the audience to evoke the same emotions he felt, thus placing us right inside Petit's psyche. That is where the 3D comes in. This movie is one of those rare live-action movies where 3D actually enhances the story and is not gimmicky. If you are afraid of heights then you will feel vertigo, I know this cause it happened to me, and for the first time in my life I actually liked the adrenaline rush. I guess it helps that the film from the very start was made with 3D in mind. Each shot of the last sequence is designed to make you feel exactly what Petit must have felt that moment. 

There is a story that in one of the test screenings, a person actually started to vomit. It's that good. 

The place where I really cringed per se was in fact at the climax itself when he is walking the wire and he constantly alternates between the north and south towers to avoid the police. It's just that the nature of the sequence in the way its shown is really drawn out, full of tension and suspense. He just goes back and forth so much that after time, all of that rush just starts to fade out since he is just going back and forth. I was watching with my dad and he was just saying to me (paraphrasing here), 'this is too much, this guy is too stupid'. Now that I look back on it, I think the director wanted us to feel exactly that since Petit actually did start to show-boat after a while in reality as well. Nonetheless, it was becoming really detrimental to the tension and the excess of it all just took me out. 

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the centre piece of the movie when it came to the actors without a shadow of doubt. He effortlessly makes us see him as the character of Phillippe Petit and not as Joseph Gordon-Levitt playing Phillippe Petit, which is always a sign of a great actor. Gordon-Levitt did actually went method with this by training in wire-walking by Petit himself. And when it comes to the French accent, it is different than the Hollywood stereotype because as much as any language, French too has regional variations. For example Canadian French is different than Parisian French, what Gordon-Levitt was trying to achieve. I looked at footage of the real Petit and I believe he matched it quite well. Another special mention goes to Sir Ben Kingsley as Papa Rudy, Petit's mentor. He just brings both gravitas and levity to his role that added to the movie. 

The Walk is actually an apt title if you see closely. It is not a movie about the journey, neither is it about the person itself, it is a movie about the emotions that transpired in one of the most dangerous feats and the movie does a great job of making you feel those emotions. It is a film that tries to go beyond a narrative into something more abstract. It is about being in the moment. Zemeckis has crafted more of an experience than a story which makes it its own unique thing. And the best part is that it never makes a 9/11 statement.