abhijith-alpha

Han Joon-soo is a rebellious high school kid who routinely flunks classes, gets into street fights and spends time with his other 2 delinquent friends. His parents, tired of his irresponsible ways, decide to abscond, leaving him with 100 dollars, to teach him a lesson or two about growing up. As the saying goes, when it rains, it pours. Immediately as he's about to run out of cash, he finds himself with an abandoned baby with a note claiming it is his child. After a few unsuccesful attempts to ditch the baby, he decides to take care of it. The rest of the movie deals with his increasingly precarious situation in school and financial-wise, as he struggles with his responsibilities. His only help is his two male friends who have their own problems, and his genius classmate, who harbours a crush on Joon-so. The acting is OK, as Jang Kaen-suk uses his good looks and devil-may-care attitude to swagger through the movie, but he does show some range in the latter half of the movie as his character starts struggling.Song Ha-yoon is somewhat stoic and child-like at the same time as the genius high schooler, and one might think it uncharacteristic for a young genius to behave the way she does. Having known some actual child geniuses, I agree with her take on the role, but they could have dwelt more on her interactions with Joon-so and the baby, as this is the way she gets herself involved in Joon-soo's life. It felt as though the movie ended just when the romance was starting to blossom. The parents have some funny moments, and Kim Jung-nan as the sympathetic Miss Cho is yet another promising character with little screen time. Watch it if you want to waste some time.

As a movie, this doesn't have anything original or special about it. The story is a straightforward comedy-romance banking on the star power of Uhm Jung-Hwa and her chemistry with Daniel Henney, who play the leads. Min-June (Jung-Hwa) is a lawyer/legal-aid/secretary working for a Japanese firm, which is in the process of being taken over by a company led by Robin Heiden (Henney). She is a somewhat clingy woman who believes in true love, and can't understand why men keep dumping her. Robin is a "practical" man whose view of relationships go the opposite way. They have a chance meeting in Hong Kong, where Min-June crashes her car onto Robin's. Once she's back in Korea, she realises Robin is her new boss. The premise of the movie is that Robin tutors Min-June in the ways of modern relationships, as she tries to win back her flighty ex-boyfriend, and in the process, fall in love with each other. The movie takes its time to even get to the "tutoring" part, with plenty of time spent in mildly interesting interactions between Min-June and Robin, as she tries to "seduce" him with her wholesome ways, while he sees her every move coming a mile away and makes fun of her, thus proving his points. Finally, he offers to tutor her, and Min-June successfully wins back her ex, Jun Hyeong. But even as he's with her Jun Hyeong says something about the new Min-June, which leads to her realising that she can't be someone who views relationships as power games. She breaks up with him, and the rest of the movie is dealt with minor misunderstandings on the way to the happy ending. Apparently this was a hugely popular film in Korea, and one of the attractions was due to the fact the intriguing bilingual dynamic between the Korean-speaking Min-June and English-speaking Robin. Also important is the fact that Uhm Jung-hwa, who can be safely called the First Lady of k-pop, similar to what Madonna is in American pop, was going through a purple patch of successful movies in the prime of her movie career. This is definitely an important entry in her filmography, as well as Daniel Henney's. Other than that, there's nothing special to talk about. It could have done with better screenplay and editing, as there are parts that needed to be longer, especially the one where Min-June's relationships with her family members are explored, and Robin Henney's past relationships, as there's nothing much in the movie other than a few pieces of dialogue which delves into the reason behind his attitude towards relationships. There were plenty of parts that could've been cut short as well.

Jun Ji-hyun, in a career-defining performance, shines brightly as the unpredictable, vivacious dynamo of a girl. She zips through the screen and into our hearts as a slightly unhinged girlfriend, prone to extreme mood swings and mildly sociopathic behaviour. At the receiving end of her wrath, and affections, is Gyeon-woo, the hapless boyfriend. Played by Cha Tae-hyun in his feature film debut, Gyeon-woo is a perfectly ordinary college guy, who struggles with motivation and aimlessness. Nonetheless, he is a guy with no malicious intent in his heart, and Tae-hyun turns the 'lovable loser' stereotype into his favour, by imbibing Gyeon-woo with deep empathy, emotional intelligence and awareness. He becomes the perfect foil to Ji-hyun's fiery and energetic Girl. I did not realise the runtime was over 2 hours, because time seemed to fly by as I laughed at their antics, cried at their sorrows, and learned from their journey. The Girl who needs to move past loss and tragedy; and the Boy who needs to learn real responsibility, these are people who need help, and finds some of what they need in each other. Even with our 2020 sensibilities and how relationships should be and how men and women must treat each other, the movie gets most things right; the most important of which is the journey of falling in love together, with competing feelings within and the pressures of the society outside weighing on them. I cannot write more, or write better about thins movie, because I feel my thinking and writing skills haven't caught up with my emotions yet. Apologies, dear reader. I can only recommend you, very strongly, that you watch it. Preferably with your Significant Other.

Direction 8 Acting 8.5 Story 8.5 Music 7.5 RATING 8/10 Stray Observations This was the second time Jun Ji-hyun and Cha Tae-hyun courted each other, with the first time coming in the 1999 ensemble drama series "Happy Together". Many of their co-stars would also become huge Hallyu (Korean wave) stars later. The parody movie segments were excellently done and funny. Koreans did Meta long before we knew it. Ji-hyun and Tae-hyun would reunite onscreen 15 years later for "Legend of the Blue Sea", in which Tae-hyun has a cameo as conman trying to swindle Ji-hyun's character near the Han River. Sadly, it's only for 4 minutes, but let me tell you, in those four minutes, and with Ji-hyun having minimal dialogue, they still have more chemistry than between Ji-Hyun and Lee Min-ho, who plays the male lead. Tae-hyun did a sequel, called "My New Sassy Girl" in the same year, which I shall consider to not exist.

Juanna Martinez and her widowed dad struggle to keep a living and raise her daughter by working a series of odd-end jobs like working in a supermarket, a gym, and selling fruit in a cart. After a particularly deadly incident while selling fruit in the streets, Juanna decides to look for a more stable and safe job. She spots a 'help wanted' advertisement in the shop front of a Japanese restaurant, Osaka, and decides to apply. Despite not having any previous experience in Japanese restaurants, she is hired because of her long history of working in Italian and Mexican eateries in the past. Once in, she diligently works her way in the kitchen. With medical benefits and the leftovers that she can take home, Juanna seems to have finally found some stability in her life. Once she finds the stability, she starts to become creative with her job. She experiments on the Japanese dishes at home, and within a year, can be seen to have progressed enough to impress her reluctant dad and enthusiastic daughter, with her sushi. But, progress at work seems difficult, with a boss who seems determined to hold on to traditional ways of Japanese cooking. I would leave the rest for the audience to enjoy, because, even if we have seen empowering storylines like this before, and can predict the story beats, watching it unfold is still a pleasure. Independent movies like this are a delight to watch for mw, because it feels like I'm watching real people struggling with real issues that I can find a few streets down my house. The acting is very natural, with the exception of a few stilted scenes, the emotion is real, poignant and earned. The cinematography reflects Juanna's mind, starting with muted colours during the hardship phase and increasingly becoming colourful as she finds joy and passion in her job. There is plenty of commentary about how society and economy is set up in a way to keep the working class working all their lives without ever being able to securely retire. There is also the narrative of personal development, of how someone can pull them up by their bootstraps, but the movie does very well to put it alongside the structural issues of poverty and economy rather than a reductive, fancy, neoliberal tale of emancipation.

RATINGS

Direction 6.5 Story 6.5 Acting 7 Cinematography Very Indie Overall 6.5

VERDICT: A wonderful one-time watch that combines food, multiculturalism and empowerment.

Jillian Bell belongs to the tribe of comedic supporting actresses who often shines brighter than the pretty female lead of the movie. In 22 Jump Street and Rough Night, she was the only thing that held my attention.

So when I checked the cast and realized that she had been given star billing, I was happy. I expected an average, soapy, fell good, warm-under-the-blankets movie, considering the subject of the movie.

And I was glad to have been wrong. It was not an average movie; it was a very good one.

Brittany Runs A Marathon goes beyond the normal superficial fat-person-gets-a-scare-gets-fit-gets-happy-ending story. Yes, it does have those aspects to it, but it goes deeper than most New York-based young woman coming of age stories.

First off, Brittany is a smart person who is barely surviving in the big city, held hostage to the gig economy that has run amok in the US for income. She is stuck with a group of friends who look down on her and string her along to make them feel superior. Her roommate Gretchen (singer and YouTuber Alice Lee in a thankless role) is one of those conventionally pretty young woman who wants to become a social media star, who keeps Brittany around to pad her own insecurities. She is the fat girl of the group, and as a defense mechanism, she develops a great sense of humour (a high speed wit that definitely stands out among the various funny-as-a-defence-mechanism characters I have seen in many movies). She has the fast, club, drug lifestyle; everything a 30-something New York girl can be expected to be like.

The movie, after taking some time to develop her surroundings, starts delving into the story when she invariably has to go the doctor to score some prescription drugs. The doctor, very subtly and sincerely without judgement, advices her to drop 50 pounds in bodyweight. Alarmed at the health situation she's facing, she goes to the gym, and realizes it's too expensive for her (yet another 21st century problem which drives people away from fitness), and decides to take up running.

The scenes were she starts to run is one of the best scenes regarding mental health that I have seen in movies. She looks out at her footpath, and the surroundings, and is hesitant. Doubts run through her mind, and somehow, she wills herself to run one block. She does, and is completely winded. The next day, she runs another. Soon, she decides to make this an important habit in her life, and even joins Moneybags Martha (a delightful Michalea Watkins, a fellow SNL alumnus) in her running group. She makes another novice runner friend, Seth (a very good-looking Micah Stock). Meanwhile, as Brittany realizes Gretchen might not have her best interests at heart, she goes less and less out with her, and her relationship with Gretchen, slowly deteriorates.

Brittany lucks out with one of her pet sitting gigs, where she decides to stay when the owners are traveling around the world, and she also meets (Utkarsh Ambudkar), a fellow millennial who is stuck in a rut.

After finishing a 2 mile marathon and later a 5k run, Brittany is determined to finish in the prestigious New York Marathon, and throws herself into her new lifestyle. But progress is not always smooth and linear, like how most sports movies make it seem. She relapses into bad habits occasionally, is hard at herself for it, and punishes herself with grueling schedules. Along the way, the movie opens up her deeper emotional issues. Every time Brittany seems to be on the verge of making a genuine milestone, something happens which triggers the old insecurities. We go into the story of her parents' divorce and her love towards her late father, and how her brother-in-law took care of her. Her defense mechanism, which helped her during hard times with her father and later in school, have been holding back her progress, and slowly but steadily, she learns to let people who have good intentions towards her into her life. She opens up to Seth and Catherine, formerly known as Moneybags Martha, and decides to apply for jobs that she trained for. She decides to change her relationship with Jern into a healthy one, and makes boundaries with him.

The movie, written and directed by a man, based on the true story of his best friend, seems to be surprisingly realistic towards the experience of a woman who is physically and psychologically unhealthy on her journey towards healing her wounds. This is Brittany's story, and that means we get to see her at her best but also at her worst, many times, as she tries to drag herself out of her personal hellhole. The viewer is privy to not just her light speed wit and funny one-liners, but also acerbic and cruel comments, both borne out of her deeper psychological wounds. The subtleness and great care shown by the writer-director in depicting every aspect of a self-empowerment journey is what makes this movie stand out among such movies.

The cinematography on New York is well done, with minimal use of extravagant, beautiful shots that are a staple of rom-coms set in the city. The lighting is very appropriate to the scenes. The colors are bright whenever Brittany is in New York doing her thing, but goes darker when she goes into one of her dark phases, which I thought was a nice touch. A little care with editing, especially the inclusion of the epilogue would have made this a taut movie, but it seemed like the director decided to give Brittany her happy ending. He seemed to have been reminded by someone that too much realism could sometimes turn off people who came to watch a feel-good movie, apparently.

DIRECTION 7 SCREENPLAY 7 ACTING 7.5 CINEMATOGRAPHY 7

VERDICT: 7/10

THE LIES SHE LOVED (2017)

A quiet drama about a woman, who finds out her boyfriend is not who he says she is, compels with its focus on characters.

Director Kazuhito Nakaye Writers Kazuhito Nakaye, Nozomi Kondo Starring Masami Nagasawa, Issei Takahashi, Kotaro Yoshida

Masami Nagasawa plays Yukari Kawahara, a researcher for a beverages company, who lives with her boyfriend Kippei Kodei, played by Issei Takahashi. Kippei is a quiet, unassuming doctor. The film makes it clear that Kawahara is a dedicated career woman who knows very well how lucky she is that her boyfriend is a caring man. In spite of being together for 5 years, Kippei is yet to meet Kawahara's parents, which seems odd in retrospect but while watching the movie was somewhat understandable. He seems to be an introverted guy who has a healthy internal life.

One night, instead of Kippei it's the police who show up at their apartment. They tell her that Kippei has had a hemorrhage, and collapsed in public. He was taken to hospital, where he is in a coma, and when police looked through his identification records, they found out that his credentials were faked. Kawahara is devastated to discover this. Did he love her truly, or was it an act as well? Eventually she decides to hire a detective to find out who her boyfriend really is.

The movie is a slow placed drama looking at the lives of 3 people. Mainly, it's about Kawahara, who realizes I that in spite of her outward appearance of independence, she really did love her boyfriend, and want their love to be as true as it is for her. The second is an investigation into Kippei, who it turns out, was spending his days in a café writing a novel. The third is the private investigator Takumi Kaibara (Kotaro Yoshida), who investigates Kippei's past from the clues found in his novel. His private life, which is in shambles, is nicely complimented by Kawahara's life, which he advices and sometimes admonishes her, could easily go his way, if she went down the same path of suspicion and cynicism as him.

As far as sentimental stories go, this is well done, with the mystery of Kippei's past looming in the storyline, and combining, not without subtlety, with Kawahara's mixed feelings of being deceived and the love she feels for Kippei, and her uncertainty about how she should go from there. There is genuine emotion in this movie, and although slow-moving, it keeps the emotion genuine and powerful, and the mystery, central yet subtle. The screenplay keeps the focus on Kawahara's journey, and thereby focuses our attention on her, and cuts distractions.

VERDICT: Slow, but enjoyable. For people who deeply were in love with someone who went through periods of doubt, surely

Direction 7 Acting 7 Music 7 Overall 7

READY OR NOT: A REVIEW

The movie is about a young woman marrying into a rich and eccentric family, who force her to play a deadly game on the wedding night to be accepted into it. Samara Weaving plays the poor bride who fell in love with a rich guy, who discovers, to her shock, that her in-laws want to kill her before the sun rises on her wedding night.

The idea isn't exactly original. The direction is somewhat listless and tries to rely heavily on horror movie tropes. The actors try to make it convincing but this is a group collected on their good looks more than their abilities. Compounding the issue, the weak screenplay and weird lighting and colour grading saps the performance out of even a seasoned veteran like Andie MacDowell, the most well known among the cast. This movie has bits and parts that work for it, but overall it was a letdown. The twists and turns of the scripts were telegraphed miles before they arrived; the physical comedy and horror wasn't distinct enough to compensate for the unoriginality; the character motivations were predictable and overall falls flat.

Weaving tries her best, one of the young actors with good screen presence. Her performance is caught between the unlucky young woman running from an unfair situation and the vengeful bride a la Kill Bill. But her strong screen presence is wasted here in script indecision as she shifts back and forth between these two personas too many times to weaken the arc. Surprisingly, Adam Brody, whose character started off as the stock irresponsible brother, is the most realized character in the movie, and was the only one who held my interest every time he was on screen. His inner turmoil, the wrestling between emotions of guilt and shame, and loyalty to the family, is a good example of an actor making the best out of the limited range his script originally allowed him to do.

Most movie tropes are present in "Ready or Not", the lucky girl, the sensitive rich guy who hates his rich family, the sneering matriarch, the charismatic and scenery chewing dad, the practical and in-charge mom, perpetually drunk brother, in-laws varyingly ambitious to spoilt, professionally creepy family butler and the unfortunate maidservants. Unfortunately the director seems to have stopped halfway between making the film a truly great horror film that also provides scathing social commentary. The movie seems to have settled into a middle path between proper satire and shallow commentary on the state of the world. Considering how much the ideas of the callousness of the rich towards the less privileged have been expressed well in many horror movies, and the overall script had the wherewithal to deliver it, this movie falls short for me. Sometimes, fun and gore, packaged somewhat competently, isn't enough for me to rate a movie good. This movie is good, but only by a small margin. I wouldn't watch it again.

FINAL THOUGHTS What a waste of an opportunity. All the ingredients where there, just not in the right amounts.

Andie MacDowell looks weird. I blame the editing and the lighting.

Adam Brody is really good.

Some of the cinematography is really good. The inside of the mansion, in many scenes, is simply beautiful.

RATING 5.5/10

The poster of Miss Baek that I saw misled me. It showed Han Ji-min, who plays the titular character, holding a gun and shielding a child. I went in expecting a thriller, something that was not helped by the fact that the first scene of the movie was a crime scene. Detective Jang-sup (Lee Hee-joon) is shown approaching a dilapidated house in a broken down section in the outskirts of Seoul. Inside the house is the dead body of middle-aged woman, possible dead for weeks. He takes some notes, and the scene ends. Next, we are shown a young but scruffy woman washing cars. This woman, we soon learn, is Miss Baek. Rough around the edges, coarse and no-nonsense, she makes a living working multiple jobs, and lives with Jang-sup, who apparently is her partner. Jang-sup tells her about the dead woman, and we learn that it was Baek's mother. Flashbacks show that she was an alcoholic and was abusive towards Baek, and her indifference at the morgue identifying her mother shows Baek hasn't forgiven her. Another flashback shows a schoolgirl Baek defending herself from sexual assault, dealing a grave injury to a rich kid, who dies, and her getting sent to prison for it. Life has hardened her and she thinks a normal life isn't for her, frequently rejecting Jang-sup's proposals of marriage. It was only at this point that I knew I was in for a drama (and a well-made one so far).

One day Baek chances upon a little girl, Ji-eun, on the street, shivering from the cold and covered in dirt and bruises. She takes pity on her and takes her to a food stall. Soon a well-dressed woman appears looking for her, and even though she is suspicious, she lets the little girl go. Beak finds out that the woman, Mi-kyung, is the girlfriend of Ji-eun's neglectful father. Mi-kyung, respected in the locality, makes money by doing various hustles and the welfare check the state pays for Ji-eun's upbringing. Beneath the smooth and polished veneer though, lies an abuser whom Baek can identify from her own tragic life experiences, and she embarks on a mission to save Ji-eun from Mi-kyung; to prevent what happened to her from happening to the little girl.

This movie is a story of two women in unfortunate circumstances, and a girl, whom they fight over for different reasons. Han Ji-min, who made her name in Korean soap operas, delivers an emotionally powerful performance as a survivor of abuse and unfortunate circumstances. I haven't seen her other works, but I can confidently say that this movie must count very prominently in her career. Kim Si-ah, who plays the little girl, radiates innocence and hurt from her eyes and body language. Kwon So-hyung, who plays Mi-kyung, pulls out all stops to match Han in every frame, a worthy adversary to Miss Baek. She elevates Mi-kyung from an evil stepmother archetype to a complicated woman who struggles mightily against her circumstances as best as she can, making her as compelling as the titular heroine. In a way, she is what Baek would have become, an ugly, distorted mirror image of her, if compassion and empathy were missing from her.

The battle between these two anti-heroines takes place among the outskirts of Seoul, where the underclass, ignored and underrepresented in mainstream, struggles to make everyday living. Away from the shine of the glittering cityscape, the camerawork gives a gritty realism that perfectly accentuates the tight script. For a first time director, "Miss Baek" is a superlative effort from Lee Ji-won. Korean cinema has a rising young superstar.

VERDICT: Excellent drama, worth a watch.

When I was a kid, I loved Superman. The Batman was a terrifying creature of the night, as terrifying as the monsters in horror movies. I used to switch off Cartoon Network at 7 PM, just before the ominous theme music, composed by Danny Elfman, started playing. Then I grew up, went to college, saw a bit of the world, went through some hit, and matured a bit. Somewhere in between, a friend reintroduced me to the Animated Series, and we binge-watched the whole thing and the Justice League cartoons, back-to-back. Took a few weeks, and I had my mind blown.

This was the time when MCU was starting to dominate Hollywood summer lineup, Avengers was on the way, and I had seen most of the X-Men movies, Blade, the old Superman movies and Iron Man. Still a novice, compared to my friends. Then I watched Batman Begins. This was my second Christopher Nolan movie (the first being Inception), and my expectations were high. It blew me away. The attention to detail on everything, the story, the characters, the city, the tone of the movie, blew me away. It was everything I didn't know I wanted from a superhero movie.

Nolan's version of Batman starts with the him being released in prison in an unnamed Asian country into the hands of Henri Ducard, played with righteous but villainous intent by Liam Neeson, who imparts his particular set of ninja/ju-jitsu skills to young Wayne, seeking to recruit him into the League of Shadows (a toned-down version of League of Assassins from the comics). LoS is a secretive cult of ninjas who consider criminals as the absolute scum of humanity and that death is the inevitable punishment they deserve. They also have periodically destroyed cities across the world, which they consider cesspools of crime and anarchy. But they do have a great martial arts curriculum.

Wayne has reached this point in life, after growing up and going to college, struggling to deal with survivors guilt and all other sorts of trauma after seeing his parents gunned down in a mugging as a kid. He has tried to seek vengeance, and realized that it was pointless, before he could go beyond the path of no return. After being taught a lesson or two from two people; his childhood sweetheart and lawyer, who tells him the difference betwenn justice and vengeanece; and the crime lord of Gotham, who opens his eyes to power, privilege and fear; Wayne takes off from Gotham, trying to learn how criminals think.

This is such a humongous task that it was impossible not to get lost in the dark parts of human nature. When Ducard offers clarity of thought, Wayne jumps at it. He begins his training, and the usual montage ensues, with swordplay, smokebombs and other versatile ways of fighting interspersed with some heart-to-hearts between the mentor and the mentee, examinations of personal tragedy, attempts at closure and philosophy. Bruce Wayne is finally finding his purpose in life and a way to go about it. But when it comes to the final test, he falters; he refuses to kill a farmer who murdered his competition. He has come to a decision that he would never kill, and he refuses to play judge, jury and executioner. In the attempt to escape the punishment for this insubordination, Wayne destroys the lair, and in the process, indirectly kills their leader, Ra's Al-Gul (Ken Watanabe in a cameo). He saves an unconscious Ducard, leaves him with a villager, and leaves for Gotham.

Finding that Gotham is worse than when he left, he decides to put what he learned to action. Steadily recruiting allies, he builds the Batman bit by bit, using technology that is realistic (unlike the Marvel movies), discovers a cave underneath the mansion, and sets up his base. Tech support is provided by Lucius Fox, a brilliant Morgan Freeman, an old friend of Wayne's father who has been relegated in the Wayne Corp by its current chief. Old sweetheart Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) is now ADA, and willing to stand against organized crime. The honest cop, Sgt Gordon, is skeptical but wiling to take a chance. More than an hour into the movie, the Batman finally appears, in a claustrophobic fight sequence, after terrifying a bunch of smugglers like a slasher-movie villain. Theatricality and deception, taught well by Ducard, as crime boss Falcone, who for some reason has personally arrived on the scene, is legitimately terrified out of his mind, and is caught and chained to a floodlight for the police to find at the scene of the crime. The Batman has arrived.

As he moves through the darkness, he is every bit as frightening to the criminals as we are of the criminals. Christian Bale does a great job, using just his mouth, chin and jaw to convey rage, power and ruthlessness. But in the light, he appears as a man in a costume, as human as any other, making his mistakes along the way as the legend of the Bat grows. Loyal Butler Alfred, played with gleeful joy by Michael Caine, provides guidance and witty retorts as Bruce Wayne settles in his role as protector of the city at night and playboy during the day. But more threats are coming.

The final third is as enjoyable as what came before, which includes a mass rioting scene, the full use of Batman's technology and cooperation of his allies, and the biggest and most enjoyable set piece involving the Monorail. The Batman is the most compelling character in his own movie, which is something superhero leads don't often get to say about themselves. This deep examination into fear, guilt, loss, responsibility to society and ethics is served wonderfully by the great writing and screenplay, which is augmented by the superb cast wonderfully directed by Nolan.

VERDICT 8.5/10

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

What a cast. Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine, supported by Gary Oldman, Liam Neeson and Cilian Murphy? God damn.

Batman Begins remains a refreshing take on superhero origin stories, even almost 15 years later.

This movie is a triumph of cinema. I am sure there are aspects of movie-making I missed, which Nolan and co executed wonderfully, because I was so engrossed in the experience.

Doctor Sleep feels like an attempt to ride on the coattails of Stanley Kubrick's classic The Shining (1980). That feeling is the big problem with this movie.

A research on Google shows that Doctor Sleep is based on author Stephen King's novel of the same name, released in 2013. The intention of the director was to create a faithful adaptation of the book. Apparently, King did not like Kubrick's adaptation of The Shining. But cinematically, it was a masterpiece and rightly has its place in movie history. So the director has to pay attention to the fans of the movie as well, which creates conflict in the direction and toe of the movie. The movie moves slowly, building characters, but this happens in fits and spurts, with a time jump in between. The two time jumps, in my opinion, were done slightly erratically, especially the second one. The development of some characters fell by the wayside, which is an issue with such jumps. The final act of the movie, which occurs in the infamous Overlook Hotel from The Shining, is everything falls apart, where the director finally loses his grip on the threads. In the end, it's a movie caught between being a sequel to The Shining, a faithful adaptation of the novel and the director's effort to balance both.

The acting is good, overall. Ewan McGregor does some acting after a long time, putting in a sympathetic performance as a man trying to recover from the deep trauma of spending time as a kid in the Overlook Hotel. Kyleigh Curran shows some range as Abra, someone who 'shines' brighter than anyone so far, and has to learn to cope with her abilities. Some of her character development has been cut down in the film, for narrative speed. The same goes for Emily Alyn Lynd, whose Snakebite Andi starts off as promising, yet the development never takes off. Rebecca Ferguson plays a character that should be menacing on paper, yet the onscreen version never portrays this woman's danger. Zahn McClarnon, who was the MVP of season 2 of Westworld, plays Crow Daddy, who extracts enough from his character with the limited screen time.

The music is minimal; the direction is muted, only coming to life in the big, supernatural moments, which was a nice touch. Otherwise, this is half a commercial Hollywood horror movie, and half a supernatural drama.

RATING 6.5/10

The show "Legacies" is a spin-off of "The Originals (2013-18)", which was itself a spinoff of the hugely popular "The Vampire Diaries", which ran from 2009 to 2017. "The Vampire Diaries" was one of the most popular vampire-romance-teen boom of the mid-2000s, and even with the decline in popularity of the niche, it brings a huge tranche of backstories and characters to "Legacies", which can either be heavy baggage or a rich source for material to start from. One season and 5 episodes in, I am reasonably satisfied. Considering my low expectations from a CW show.

I have not seen a single episode of The Vampire Diaries or The Originals, yet I don't feel like I have missed much. In fact, Legacies makes a light touch with its legacy, bringing in themes and hints of back stories, just to tantalise the vbiewer a bit, make them interested in exploring it. It doesn't make me feel like I am taking a test for a class that I never attended. I like this approach, as it doesn't turn off a new viewer, yet keep viewers of the old show interested.

The main protagonist seems to be a teenager named Hope Mikaelson, who is the geanddaughter of a huge character from the preceding series, strong enough to make the other characters pause when dealing with her, but not in a bad way, narratively speaking. She seems to have heavy baggage, a recurring theme with supernatural teenagers, having seemingly killed and eaten humans and other being for fun when she was little. But it seems like her rehabilitation has been largely successful, as Danielle Rose Russell's portrayal of a teenage Hope makes her look almost like any other American teenager. Salvatore School seems to be just like any other American high schools, just with a bunch of supernatural kids instead of human ones. The school is run by Alaric Saltzman, another legacy character, who is human, yet considered popoular and important enough that he is a large presence on this show too. He runs the school, keeps a check on bad supernatural elements in Mystic Falls, plays a father figure to Hope, and himself is the actual father of two teenage witches. Man seems to have a lot on his plate. Into this volatile mix comes orphans Landon and Raphael. Having recently discovered that Raphael is a werewolf, his adopted brother Landon Kirby is trying to find a safe place for both of them away from humans. As luck would have it, they are found and taken into the Salvatore School. Therein begins the chaos of the first season.

Aria Shahghasemi, who plays Landon Kirby, is a terrific young actor. This guy gives a performance at a level that is not exactly a requirement for shows like this. He has terrific chemistry with Rose Russell, who plays Hope and is intended to be the primary romantic couple in the show. His level is so high, fun to watch in every scene he is in, and gels well with almost every actor. This guy literally could manufacture chemistry with an inanimate object onscreen. His journey of a confused orphan trying to find a safe space for his brother, while trying to discover his true parentage while exploring romantic feelings with Hope is the best CW arc in years. Peyton Alex Smith as Raphael emits scorching hunk energy and smoulders when required while battling identity crisis as a new werewolf. The actresses playing Alaric's witch daughters have shown remarkable improvement from the first episode until now.

16 episodes in, the show hasn't exactly figured out how to organically fuse the A stories, B stories and C stories from episode to episode. The utilization of supporting players is also not optimal, which is a problem seeing as except Alaric and Landon, other characters aren't good enough to carry scenes on their own. I hope this gets solved soon. The more the other actors are involved with the story, the more the character development and possibilities. Also, they get better at acting that way. No one is asking for Marvel's the Runaways, but I'd personally love if the school factions come to play more of a role in the coming seasons.

VERDICT: better than expected from a CW show

The Good Liar is a good little movie. The setting is small. It is an intimate story of two people at the throes of old age, an old woman trying to find love, and a confidence artist, who seeks to entrap her. A classic con movie story, its twists and turns are compelling enough to keep one watching, the main reason being the terrific acting performances from Ian McKellen and Helen Mirren. Two of the greatest performers to have come from the British Isles, they elevate what would have been roles which wouldn't have required heavy lifting, to Broadway-worthy efforts. Simply put, they are beautiful to watch, elegance personified, and dominating the screen gracefully. Sometimes it felt as though the theatre screen wasn't enough to cover them.

The director, Bill Condon, is known for extracting great performances from his actors from relatively flimsy scripts. His credits include the terrific Chicago (2002), the last 2 chapters of the Twilight series, Mr. Holmes (2015), Beauty and the Beast (2017) and The Fifth Estate (2013), which follow a similar template. The screenplay is lean and efficient, in a sense, but gets complicated in a few places, which is not something one shouldn't complain too much with this kind of films, where great revelations are required in short spans of time to serve the story. There are aspects of European history that's delved into, but again, just a touch and enough to serve the story to move along.

The film is at its best when it focuses on Sir Ian and Dame Helen acting circles around each other. The camerawork is very good, almost unnoticed in its brilliance. It sometimes is slightly pulled back; simply watching them perform with each other and with whatever furniture is in the shot. Sometimes it focuses close-up, and it works great when you have actors who can tell entire stories with a single glance, or facial expression.

VERDICT: Great watch, and a good guide for young actors who want to get into romantic lead roles.

Direction 6 Screenplay 5.5 Acting 8 Cinematography 7.5 Rating 6.5/10

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

Ian McKellen and Helen Mirren! Ian McKellen and Helen Mirren! What else do you need? I cannot believe this is only the first time they're acting in a movie together. What took it so long? Ian McKellen and Helen Mirren! Ian McKellen and Helen Mirren!

BRIGHTBURN (2019): A REVIEW

Director: David Yarovesky Screenplay: Brian Gunn, Mark Gunn Starring: Jackson A. Dunn, Elizabeth Banks, David Denman

Brightburn is a well-made little movie about what would have happened if Superman, instead of being grateful to the planet and his parents for taking him in, started to go wrong after discovering his powers. This movie is a nice little antidote to the barrage of superhero movies, sequels and reboots of decades-old movie properties that we have been getting.

The movie starts out like a parenting horror movie, as the (possibly) infertile Breyers (Banks and Denman) receive a gift from the skies crash-landing in their neighbourhood, and the kid growing up in montages is shown to be quite a delight. Smart, skinny and going through the horrible school experience that is somehow a rite of passage in America, he discovers his powers by accident and starts to test it around, unfortunately at the same time he is buffeted with a bevy of unkindness and unpleasant behaviour. I expected the movie to go in an adolescent superhero fantasy up to a point, but the screenplay goes quickly to a dark turn, as Brendan (Jackson Dunn), starts lashing out at threats, real and imagined.

The atmosphere changes into horror very quickly, and the creepy scenes where Brendan is hunting his prey have been wonderfully shot, supplemented by great music, and the great performance of Dunn. He manages to infuse Brendan, in spite of the bloody havoc he is wreaking, which we can see in full glory thanks to the R rating, with a possible humanity and innocence. Which is unnerving in retrospect. How much would one allow a monster to get away with, if only he/she looked like us and was cute?

Elizabeth Banks and David Denman play the bewildered and increasingly outflanked parents as they grapple with what their beautiful boy is becoming. The rest of the characters are represented as the typical Midwest Americans, salt-of-the-earth people, that one sees portrayed in many Hollywood movies for their innocence, optimism and work ethic and good-natured dumbassery. Unfortunately, with not much time spent on fleshing out their characters, they lack depth, and come off as seriously inept and one-dimensional. When making a horror movie, it is important that your side characters are more human than cardboard cutouts; otherwise the viewer wouldn't empathize with them, or care for their survival in the face of onslaught from the protagonist. There are missed opportunities with the father and the possible girlfriend, which would have elevated what is a good movie, into a great one. For now, we are left only to wonder what could have been.

RATING

Direction 7 Screenplay 6.5 Music 7 Acting 7 Overall 6.85

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

Better horror movie than most horror movies released this year Better superhero movie than most superhero movies released this year This kid is going places. He cute, innocent, creepy, scary all at once and in varying degrees in different situations

IT: CHAPTER 2 A REVIEW

Ensemble movies are always difficult to pull off. There are concerns with the character arcs, who gets importance and who gets not, and they get muddied by studio concerns about which actors get more screen time. An example of this would be the X-Men franchise, which, with the glorious exception of X-2 and to an extent, Days of the Future Past, never could achieve a satisfying compromise with storytelling needs and studio-mandated decisions.

It: Chapter 1 was a perfect example of the heights it is possible to achieve when everything happens smoothly. Partly because they were working with a cast of teenagers who, with the exception of Finn Wolfhard, weren't global stars and partly because the script demands it, and also because the coming-of-age genre and horror genre allows for such compromises. The Chapter 2 was always going to have to underachieve, simply because of the scope of the material that was left to cover from Stephen King's mammoth book, but also because of the lofty standard set by the first movie.

That being said, Chapter 2 doesn't disappoint too much. There are patented horror movie scares, although in lesser number than the first, which maybe affected the horror quality of the movie. Since It movies were designed as conventional horror movies, they needed to have more of them, unless they were leaning more into to the psychological aspects of horror, like the director Muschetti's previous work, Mama (2013), which borrowed techniques from Darren Aronofsky. The reliance of psychological and atmospheric tactics, when pulled off successfully, can bring great dividends, like Jennifer Kent's The Babadook (2014), which in my opinion is the best horror movie in the last few years. But this formula is difficult to pull off. Chapter 2 didn't pull it off, and the movie comes across as too much of a conventional horror film but without too many conventional jump scares.

Bill Hader shines among the ensemble cast as the elder version of the hilarious Richie Tozier. They found the perfect casting for both young and old Richie. The cynically funny, motor mouthed kid which hints at a complex character underneath is perfectly portrayed as an adult by Bill Hader, who might have been mistaken to be born for this role. His funny bone is kept at a balance here, without going overboard like the Marvel movie-style but doing just enough to provide a slight breather while keeping the tension intact. James McAvoy, as the older Bill, does his studio-mandated leading man, which I was mildly disappointed by, since he is, and remains, an actor who still brings something different to a Hollywood blockbuster, however conventional the role might be written. Jessica Chastain conveys the emotional weight of all the abuse that Beverly Marsh suffered. Even with the limited time given to her story, the abusive relationships that she keeps continuing to live on, and the toll the Deadlights had taken on her, is given a glimpse of in the movie, and is extracted by Chastain to the optimum effect as the capable actor she is. James Ransone is yet another flawless casting, as he embodies Jack Dylan Grazer's weird tics, twitches and mannerisms so well that within a minute of his being onscreen, even before another character uses his name, I knew this was Eddie. Jay Ransom, who played the Beast in the atrocious Beauty and the Beast TV series, plays the older Ben. Now all successful and hunk-handsome, he still has the young Ben's infectious warmth and serene innocence. Mike Hanlon, the kid with the least screen time in the first movie, gets the most in the second, is portrayed by Old Spice hunk Isaiah Mustafa. He alone has stayed back in Derry among the Losers, and therefore retains all of his memories regarding the clown, and has researched all these years, never believing It to be truly gone, and ready for the moment It returns. The haunting fear and old battle scars still remain with him, and it is yet again the difficulty of the medium which doesn't allow for a more detailed examination of Mike's personality and growth, severely affected by PTSD and secrets only he will remember and keep. Bill Skarsgard does his thing with Pennywise, making me think whether he should've been cast as the DCEU Joker.

Overall, the movie is well paced, and I didn't know how long the runtime was until I came out of the theatre.

VERDICT: 6.5/10

A one-time watch

Jack Reacher novels are a throwback to the old pulp western novels of 20th century, about the quintessential loner accidentally thrown into a situation in the American Wild West. To be honest, I didn't know about the novels before there was a big brouhaha over the casting of Tom Cruise as the titular character, because true fans of the series didn't like the fact that Reacher was 6'5" and Tom Cruise 5'6" (allegedly). Apparently cross-height casting is problematic only if the guy is shorter than the character (remember Hugh Jackman being cast as the ferocious Wolverine, who is, according to the comics, 12 inches shorter than Jackman). Just to make sure I wasn't going to be unfair to the character, I went to the local library and read Killing Floor, the first novel in the series. And I was floored. I would finish 6 more, more or less in sequence, including One Shot, on which the movie is based, before actually going to watch the movie. I totally understood why the fans were clamouring against the casting. Jack Reacher is a massive guy, and a big part of his personality and interpersonal communication, including tactics, negotiation and body language is tied to this physicality. Yet I could not point out an actor in mainstream Hollywood who is capable enough to convey this character. Clint Eastwood in his prime, absolutely. Chris Hemsworth? He doesn't have the intensity or enough acting talent although physiologically he would be accurate. Timothy Olyphant definitely has the acting range and physical dimensions but he wasn't known much outside Hollywood and the studio maybe didn't want to risk a franchise on a talented but relatively unknown actor. So we are stuck with Cruise, for now. I don't mind, I like him, and he is a genuine action star.

One Shot is a great pulp thriller. Jack Reacher, the movie, though, isn't a great pulp movie. It is definitely enjoyable though. The problem with action movies these days is convoluted storytelling, clichéd storylines, predictable twists and turns and most importantly, stupidly directed action sequences. So if you went in expecting the usual fare, you would be thoroughly disappointed. The plot has been condensed and several of the side characters have been cut for the movie. It makes sense from a storytelling perspective as those arcs, though adding richness on paper, can distract on screen. So this movie is a condensed version, focusing on few characters as they go about trying to decide what to do with James Barr, a shooter who is accused of killing five people, who asked for Jack Reacher as his only request. Reacher comes to town entirely on his own volition, as this is a character no one can ordinarily reach on their own, and surprises us with the statement that he is there to punish Barr, whom he knew from military service. Barr had gotten away with a crime that Reacher had investigated, and he had warned him that the next time he did something, Reacher would personally be there to ensure he was punished. The DA, the Detective and the defense attorney try to figure out what to do, Reacher decides to leave, but an unprovoked attack on him has Reacher thinking, and ultimately deciding to stay and investigate further.

This is more of a cerebral thriller, and the usual Michael Bay-esque explosions and shaky-cam fistfights have been replaced with realistic action sequences, including an exhilarating car chase and a funny bathtub fight sequence. They are placed well enough in between Reacher untangling the mystery one-by-one, with some wonderful old school investigation on the field.

The direction is wonderful, and this is obviously where Cruise and McQuarrie's enormously successful collaboration started. There are bits and pieces of wonderful comedy and sharp writing, some of them borrowed from Lee Child's book, sprinkled throughout the movie. Tom Cruise beings his famed intensity to the role, trying to convey the Reacher of the books to the screen. He nearly succeeds too. Physical dimensions like height and muscularity are some things that cannot be helped beyond a certain point. Richard Jenkins, a seasoned veteran, and Rosamund Pike, play the father-daughter attorneys who are caught up in the case. David Oyelowo, who plays Detective Emerson, delivers an excellent performance and is one to watch out for. Robert Duvall and Werner Herzog, titans of the industry, have interesting cameos and Jai Courtney makes a good antagonist.

VERDICT: Very good mystery-action thriller with smart writing, snappy dialogue and well-done action. Worth a watch. Twice, if you're into cerebral pulp.

STRAY OBSERVATIONS:

If only Tom Cruise was 5 inches taller.

Rosamund Pike is lovely. Just like Tom Cruise, it seems like I've been watching her in movies all my life, and she still looks the same as she was when I first saw her in Die Another Day.

So, I just saw the movie, which is considered to be the first and greatest American noir film.

The plot is just there to serve as fodder for all these people to chase or be chased by Sam Spade and bounce off him. It is either too little or too much, according to whoever watches. The performances are really good, everyone stands out, especially Sydney Greenstreet as Mr. Gutman, the rich 'fat man' who is behind the search for the titular falcon. The way we are not sure if he is the bad guy or not is truly down to the way Greenstreet has played him. He seems like a guy with too much money and too little to do at times, happy to laugh and indulge in some tolerance of the antics around him, but then a few dialogues later we see a deeply obsessed man, if we look closely. Peter Lorre as the swarthy Frenchman who might or might not be homosexual (like I care about that), matches Bogart in their scenes together. Mary Astor as Brigid, the Tough Dame, could surely be tougher than what we see onscreen. The romantic chemistry or sexual tension is between her character and Sam Spade is also lacking a little. Maybe I'm harsh on her because I'm comparing her to Eva Marie Saint's character in North by Northwest (1959), and I wonder if I should, because The Maltese Falcon came out 18 years before. But the movie is about one character, and that character is Sam Spade, played by Humphrey Bogart.

We have noticed that tough, unpredictable, cynical guys in movies. It is some kind of unwritten rule that in Hollywood, every aspiring star and actor should portray a hard-edged, mean streets character. Well, this movie, and the character of Sam Spade, is where it originated. Humphrey Bogart scorches the screen as a cynical, tough, street-smart detective, always a step in front of his enemies. He has got some shiny, smooth talk on him too, spinning stories to turn any situation to his advantage. But this guy is hard. He is cold, and I don't mean cold the way Edward Rochester is cold in Jane Eyre, hiding a deeply affectionate heart under the toughness. Sam Spade is truly coldhearted. There are things he does that I wouldn't, not just because of how societal morals have evolved, but because they aren't what a good person does. He doesn't seem to care when his partner dies while on a mission, he is having an affair with the said partner's wife, he doesn't like the police or the attorneys and makes his views known, and he winds up other characters involved in whole drama of the Maltese falcon. But he has some sort of moral code; otherwise this character wouldn't be the template for thousands of films to follow. His ruthlessness and unsentimentality seems to stem from old scars and half-healed wounds. I've to remind myself that this was made in 1941, when the Second World War raged and America still hadn't recovered from the Great Depression. Tough times, tough people, and no one tougher than Humphrey Bogart.

RATING

Acting: Top-notch Directing/Screenplay/Characters: No need to worry, just go and watch it for Bogart.

Stray observations:

So this is why those Men's Rights Activists keep saying that men were men 'back then'. Back then you could call female employees all sorts of things like, 'darling', 'sweetheart' etc., and get away with it because they're subordinates. So today's MRAs want to go back to that time; acting tough, cracking wise, smoking cigars, calling their female coworkers patronizing names. This movie is the one that started the journey that made Humphrey Bogart the greatest male actor in American film history according to the American Film Institute. Who am I to disagree with them. Someone should explain the cinematography and other stylistic elements, because I got caught up with the experience I must have surely overlooked a lot. Humphrey Bogart is awesome.

Directed by James Gunn Screenplay James Gunn, Nicole Perlman Starring Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Djimon Hounsou

The Guardians of the Galaxy is a fun ride, if nothing else. Yes, it comes from the Marvel stable, so you can expect it to be full of banter and bickering among its protagonists. Yes, it is setting up a franchise, and/or adding to the overarching story the MCU is setting up, so you know there will be a studio-mandated climax and a cameo from at least one Infinity Stone. Yet it feels fresh because of the risk Marvel has taken by producing this movie with a bunch of relatively unknown comic book characters.

I am a comic geek. Yet I had no idea who these people were. In fact, until the success of the Avengers, I considered even Iron Man and Captain America as second tier heroes in Marvel comics. The trailers didn't help either, as I saw the usual trope of a ragtag team of misfits coming together, led by a well-intentioned man-child, supported by a dumb thug, a faux-feminist tough girl and two animated characters. Yet, this film was enjoyable, and most of it is down to the direction of Gunn and the excellent casting choices.

Chris Pratt, who we know as the chubby, funny well-meaning dumb kid Andy from Parks and Recreation (what a character he was), plays a movie version of the same, but has been given a muscled-up transformation. He brings a playful charisma and proven comedic talent to the role of Peter Quill, simultaneously the straight arrow and the goofy sidekick. Zoe Saldana seems to have made a career out of playing alien characters with paint drawn on them. She plays Gamora, the tough girl protagonist and possible love-interest to Quill. There is a super-intelligent, genetically engineered raccoon named Rocket, voiced by Bradley Cooper, and a genial tree called Groot voiced by Vin Diesel in his best work ever. The find of the movie is Dave Bautista as Drax the Destroyer, who shows off his comedic chops while also suggesting a complex emotional being underneath. The antagonists are unfortunately pale personas. The talented Lee Pace is wasted as Ronan the Accuser, who is actually a pretty complex character in the comics, reduced to villain plot device in this movie. Djimon Hounsou and Josh Brolin play even more thinly drawn characters, although their screen time is much restricted to be of any utility. Glenn Close, John C. Reilly and Benicio del Toro make extended cameos in another instance of Marvel casting great performers and giving them nothing to work with.

Quill is an orphan abducted from the earth by aliens when he was a kid after his mother passed away, and has been raised by his captors, a bunch of space outlaws. The movie has a Firefly-feel to it, yet this space adventure keeps things grounded by involving many settings that we earthlings can comprehend. The brightly lit space days in similar movies are replaced here by multicoloured cities with interesting but humanoid aliens, grimy prisons and kinky-looking spacecrafts. The characters come together in search of an Infinity Stone, and like in most movies involving a McGuffin; just enough time is spent on it to not bore us to death. The character interactions and the soundtracks are what keep us invested in the movie, in spite of the thinly drawn characters. Perhaps they shall address it in the sequels. After all, Marvel never stops with just one film. In James Gunn's, they do have a capable director who is a geek himself, and treats the characters with respect.

VERDICT

A definite popcorn movie. Very enjoyable. Watch it with Americans in their 30s, they will lap the whole thing up.

6.5/10

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

Karen Gillan, who was terrific in Doctor Who as Amy Pond, plays Nebula. Here is to wishing her a successful career in Hollywood. As of now she has done two Jumanji movies, and her best movie so far is Oculus (2013).

Chak de! India is a different beast. It is a Bollywood sports movie, and hence contains the usual trope of underdogs v the world. It contains enough moments of dramatic tension. Unexpected pitfalls, sports heroism and ultimate redemption are themes that pervade the movie. Yet it is well-made, in the sense that the characters seem real, situations believable and the song-dance-routine is benched for thoroughly enjoyable training montages.

The Indian Women's National Hockey team which won the Gold medal in 2002 Commonwealth Games inspires the movie. This was a monumental event in Women's hockey in India because it was the first Championship win of any kind after the 1982 Delhi Asian Games. On the way to the gold the Indian Women also defeated the mighty Australia in the semifinals, which contained three of the greatest ever hockey players among them, who were also the reigning World Cup champions, Olympic, Commonwealth and Oceania cup winners. The Commonwealth Gold was such an inspirational event that it sparked a revival of Women's Hockey in India, as they followed it with medals in the ensuing Asian Games, Afro-Asian Games, Asia Cup Commonwealth Games, and plenty of other tournaments. At the present, the Women's Hockey team is a medal contender in the tournaments it features in, with a world ranking of 10.

To add to the rags-to-winners story, the goalkeeping coach of the women's team was a former men's hockey player Mir Ranjan Negi, who was unfairly blamed by many Indians and hounded for decades after a particularly humiliating loss to eternal rivals Pakistan, in 1982 Asian games. It didn't help that the tournament was held in Delhi, the capital. He had sought his own redemption and had somewhat achieved it with this victory. The wounds on his soul had healed, even if the scars would never go.

One would think such an extremely inspiring story would prove to be a profitable cinema effort at the Box Office, and would have studios wrangling over movie rights. Yet it took half a decade for the story to finally release as a cinema because of many challenges. For one, it was doubtful if Indians would be interested to watch a movie where the main cast was a bunch of girls who played sports, and had no central love story or song-dance routines. The casting of Shah Rukh Khan, in the middle of a mid-career resurgence, gave the film the fillip it needed, and the production moved quickly. The casting of actual hockey players helped to keep things realistic, and even watching the match and practice session montages would never give one the doubt that these girls aren't hockey players.

Coming to the story, it deals with many issues such as calling out toxic patriotism and eschewing a compassionate one, misogyny in Indian society in general and sports, meagre resource allocation to sports other than cricket, regional and linguistic differences, and assorted issues that I wondered if the movie might be enjoyable at all. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised at how seamlessly the director had fit everything into a linear yet compelling narrative, getting out great performances from not just Khan but also the young actresses and the supporting cast. It still focuses a lot on Khan's coach. It is his story of redemption told through this wonderful sporting achievement by Indian women, but I didn't mind it for once. Shah Rukh, all intense and quiet yet fiercely determined, doesn't take over the movie and lets his costars shine around him, and the movie does pay tribute to women in the credits.

Definite watch.

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

Watch out for: Vidya Malvade as the captain, Sagharika Ghatke as fiercely independent forward, Chitrashi Rawat as the pint-sized dynamo, and Shilpa Shukla as the irate senior and Tanya Abrol as the angry Punjabi girl are simply marvelous.

The Fault in Our Stars, based on the bestselling Young Adult book of the same name, belongs to a very particular subgenre, which combines teenage romantic drama and debilitating disease. I have seen only a few movies belonging to this genre. Love Story (1970) is apparently the movie that is the gold standard in this genre. I have seen its modern successor, A Walk to Remember (2002). Suffice to say, I wasn't in control of my emotions for the next three days, and it might have cost me ten-fifteen marks in my XIIth Board English language exam. So, in spite of knowing nothing much about the movie outside of the trailer, I armed myself with a healthy dose of cynicism and went to the theatre.

And I cried.

2014 was the breakout year of Shailene Woodley. She had just wrapped up her TV show and her last four movies were the Oscar winning The Descendants (2011); the indie hit the Spectacular Now (2013); the experimental thriller White Bird in a Blizzard and dystopian thriller Divergent (both released in 2014). The last one, also based on a bestselling YA franchise, had made her a global star, and she had by then firmly established herself among the talented crop of young actresses in Hollywood. She continues her fine acting form here, portraying the cancer patient Hazel Grace Lancaster with great sensitivity and wit. She conveys energy of a doomed teenager exceptionally well, compassion oozing from her body, and quiet strength in the way she defies the role of a cancer patient. Eschewing self-pity, Hazel tries to manage her emotions while acutely aware of her parents' struggles, which she knows in her heart she will leave soon. Trying to make sense of her emotions, the well-intentioned parents send her to group therapy, where she meets fellow cancer patient Augustus Waters. "Gus", played by the talented Ansel Elgort in only his third movie, is a plucky former athlete who, after a losing a leg to cancer, is determined to lead a happy life. They inevitably fall in love, and there are a few surprise touches in their story, yet after the crying stopped I didn't find anything solid underneath the movie. Maybe I am too cynical. Or maybe because I don't have a debilitating disease and don't have first hand information on how people behave with such knowledge playing in their minds. I had a problem with how Gus fixates on Hazel at their first meeting and decides to pursue her, in spite of her doing nothing of any interest in the meeting. The fact that Hazel returns the affection without any conflict doesn't exactly cover up for this glaring hole in the plan, but maybe something got lost in the almost-literal translation of the book to the screen. There is a kiss scene between Gus and Hazel in Anne Frank museum, which I thought was wholly inappropriate, given the setting. Gus comes off as a cocky smart mouth, as opposed to charming rogue, which did make me wonder why they didn't go with Miles Teller, who had great chemistry with Woodley in The Spectacular Now. Maybe because Elgort has the wholesome corn-fed American boy look done pat.

Fortunately, the parents aren't portrayed as clueless impediments in the lives of their children, set up as a target of scorn and ridicule by the audience. The lovely Laura Dern plays Hazel's mother with great empathy, and along with Sam Trammel, who plays the father, makes the best of the thinly sketched characters. Nat Wolff makes the best use of his time as Isaac, Gus' best friend. Willem Dafoe interrupts the feel-good, non-conflict vibe of the movie as a reclusive and cranky author, and the beautiful Lotte Verbeek from The Borgias (2011-13) has a cameo as his assistant.

If you are a connoisseur of Hollywood cinema, you know how the broad strokes of the story will go, and you will cry, laugh and cry again at the appropriate times, and hopefully that should be fine. Because that is the most I got out of this movie. Good performances all around, but a one-time watch is all I recommend. Maybe two, if you're hanging out with your Significant Other and wouldn't mind crying a bit.

VERDICT: 6/10

Go for Shailene Woodley.

Rajkumar Rao plays Vicky, the protagonist of the movie, a talented tailor who is so blessed with skill his father thinks it must be connected to his 'previous birth'. Aparshakti Khuranna delivers a scene-stealing performance. You might remember him as the unfortunate cousin of Geeta and Babita who is often at the receiving end of their wrestling training. Here too, as the smart and pragmatic friend, he keeps his two friends in check on their escapades. Abhishek Bannerjee plays the cute but slightly dumb friend, who, in a refreshing departure, is not relegated solely as a comic relief. Shraddha Kapoor plays a mysterious visitor whose purpose in the town is unknown, and strikes a semi-romantic friendship with Vicky.

The movie plays out as happening during a festival in the small town of Chanderi, where a mysterious evil ghost named "Stree" whisks away men at night to kill them. Over the course of four days, the three friends go through various travails to keep each other safe while simultaneously searching for ways to get rid of Stree. The screenplay contains good character beats, surprising plot developments and twists delivered well. Sumit Arora comes up with a lot of smart, clever dialogues; and the actors deliver them well. My only issue was that with some tight editing, what was a satisfying movie experience could have been elevated.

In my eyes, this movie is yet another win for small town stories containing 'real' people as opposed to the glitzy, glamorous larger-than-life Bollywood productions. Rajkumar Rao is going from strength to strength as an indie-darling, while Shraddha Kapoor adds to her diverse filmography.

VERDICT: Worth a watch. 7/10

VIKRAM VEDHA: A REVIEW

"Vikram Vedha" starts with the mandatory alcohol and tobacco warnings, narrated by the two leads. Madhavan reads out the English part, Vijay Sethupathy the Tamil one. It is a clever way of laying down the contrasts between their characters, and perhaps more importantly, their respective fan base. Madhavan plays the cool, calm and ruthless cop, and Vijay plays the charismatic gangster oozing swag in oodles.

The directors, the husband-wife duo of Pushkar-Gayathri, have created the movie as playing out similar to the fable of Vikramaditya and the Vetaala. The King Vikrama sets out to kill the Vetaala who he believes is responsible for the evil plaguing his kingdom, and the Vetaala hitches a ride on his shoulders, telling him story after story, questioning Vikrama's beliefs and biases.

Inspector Vikram is an encounter specialist, who comes face-to-face with Vedha after an operation, which targeted Vedha's gang members. Vedha surrenders after his gang is wiped out, and thus starts a game of cat and mouse. For the movie's sake I won't say much more, but this movie is worth a few watches. The script is really good. Both lead characters have strong arcs, and even the supporting characters have clear and fleshed out personalities. Standing out from the bunch are Varalaxmi as the girlfriend of a gangster, and Shraddha Srinath as the lawyer who is the also wife of Vikram, characters with distinct personalities of their own and possessing an independent streak.

The movie is laid out as a puzzle piece, Vedha pointing out the pieces to Vikram, who starts to piece them together one by one as the movie picks up pace. You are asked to think, as the audience, and that is surprisingly refreshing even now. Movie is paced brilliantly except a few moments in the second half, and in a rousing climax, things come to head.

Dialogue writing is clever. This is a movie in which you pay attention to the dialogue closely. That said, one of the best scenes in the movie is completely devoid of dialogue. Vikram comes to delivers bad news to the widow of a colleague, in which Madhavan turns in a great, wordless performance. Of course, all the scenes involving Maddy and Vijay are brilliant, sparks flying as Vikram and Vedha feints, pokes and prods at each other, hoping to draw out a mistake.

Tamil cinema has been well served by this movie. Vijay Sethupathy is still going strong, adding yet another great movie and a great role in an already remarkable career. Madhavan is in fine form in his comeback, following up the boxing drama Irudhi Suttru/Saala Khadoos with yet another unconventional (for him) and effective role. The supporting cast shines well. They don't fall into the trap of falling into caricatures. The script helps them by fleshing out their characters, which allows them to ably support the leads. The background score is terrific, building up tension when needed and retreating to the background when required. The camerawork is brilliant, lights and shades changing according to the settings, or reflecting the inner workings of the characters' minds. The movie has some beautiful shots. Watch out for the cinematography in Vikram-Vedha scenes. You will see the slow transition from the sharp black-and-white colour palate, highlighting Vedha and Vikram respectively, in the earlier scenes, to the eventual greying of the space as Vikram grows even more conflicted. The blurring of the line between cop and criminal in his mind is reflected brilliantly throughout the movie.

I believe this movie has a larger message about the law and order situation of the state, and the country. Simplistic definitions of right and wrong end up problematic when context and history is not taken into account, and stopgap policy measures like encounter killings and shoot-on-sight orders are not the way to a healthy society in the long term (hint: UP). Civilization rests on the principle that we do not treat criminals the way they treat their victims, and when we forget that and go for an-eye-for-an-eye, the world will end up blind. It is to the immense credit to the directors and the cast and crew that this lesson is delivered in an entertaining fashion.

Verdict: One of the best movies of the year

Basically a rehash of the last 4 movies, the fifth installment of the franchise shows how far Jack Sparrow has come since the dizzying heights of Curse of the Black Pearl. He has travelled far, but in a downward direction.

Not being as drawn out as At World's End or as droll as On Stranger Tides is not good enough. Even with the addition of two characters who can be compelling if developed further, Salazar's Revenge seems like the storywriters went back and cherry-picked the best things from the franchise and then tried to spin it out as a new story. There's the legend of a dreadful place that seafarers shouldn't go to, more than a few curses, the undead/evil-incarnate pirate captain with his ghost ship, the naïve and idealistic young man seeking to free his father from a curse, the enterprising, enlightened and liberated young woman far ahead of her time, a hilarious robbery sequence, and of course, Jack Sparrow doing his thing. If only.

Jack Sparrow ('Captain' Jack Sparrow, he would've insisted once upon a time) is a shadow of his former self, drinking himself away because he just can't bring back his beloved Black Pearl. Unfortunately, he doesn't get any better, as an uninspired Johnny Depp sleepwalks through the movie. Which is a shame really, as Jack Sparrow is a singularly unique portrayal of a hero in a mainstream movie franchise. The spark and the sashaying, the peculiar swagger and the cocky assuredness in the face of uncertainty are all missing. The script doesn't help either, as this movie doesn't use the character in any way. He's just there. Instead, Henry Turner and Carina Smyth do most of the things of significance, whether it is rescuing Jack from being executed (again), or figuring things out. It's surprising to watch the man who figured out how to escape from Davy Jones' locker being unable to decipher the open sky.

Ian McShane was a disappointment in On Stranger Tides as the legendary pirate Edward Teach. The performance was not suited to the pirate who all other pirates feared (If you want to see what McShane is capable of, watch HBO's Deadwood (2004-06) in which he turned in the performance of a lifetime). But Javier Bardem doesn't disappoint here. With Johnny Depp disappearing again, he's left to save the movie, interestingly, just like Penelope Cruz, his wife, had to with the previous movie. He commands the screen, chewing, spitting and seething as Captain Armando Salazar. There is something about this actor, and he has never failed to excite me in any movie he was in. Channeling something, perhaps left over from No Country For Old Men, he is easily the best character from the last three movies. I almost wish he had gotten his revenge, just to make sure they kept him around for future use.

Brendon Thwaites, who I saw previously in the tepid Blue Lagoon sequel in 2012, as Henry Turner, turns in a performance as a young man seeking to redeem his father that'd make Orlando Bloom proud. Bloom himself makes a cameo, as Will Turner, captain of the Flying Dutchman, to warn Henry that some curses cannot be broken, and to stay away from Jack Sparrow, which like every child in the history of humankind, Henry disobeys, setting the events on their turn. Kaya Scodelario, fresh off running around with Dylan O'Brien in the Maze Runner franchise, looks to replace Keira Knightley as the First Lady of the series, and may succeed if she's given enough material in the coming installments. Geoffrey Rush, always welcome to mess up Jack's plans as Hector Barbossa, returns to delight once again, even though there's an unnecessary character arc fitted in. This is somewhat surprising, as Barbossa doesn't need extra embellishments to justify his tag of being a fan-favourite. Kevin McNally does his best as Jack's first and best mate Gibbs to infuse some humour into the proceedings, even with the pirates-are-dumb trope getting old. Golshifteh Farahani doesn't get time to make an impact as the voodoo priestess, but I'm sure she'll return to mess with Jack soon. Even with excellent performances in Top of the Lake and in Marvel's Iron Fist, David Wenham is relegated to playing a black-and-white Royal Navy officer. Sure, he's no Norrington, but c'mon.

The action sequences are not entirely original. The bank robbery sequence is reminiscent of the bank vault robbery sequence in Fast Five, though funnier. Captain Salazar's ship is a barebones frightener as opposed to Davy Jones' slimy, rotting Flying Dutchman. To see it approach your ship, day or night, and do its jaw-opening thing, would be more terrifying, on the whole. The climactic action sequence disappoints as a set piece, doing its job and no more.

First Half: 5/10 Second half: 5/10 Direction: 5/10 Screenplay: 4/10 Acting: 5/10

Verdict: Not boring, not listless, but not exciting either. Go for Javier Bardem.

Tom Hanks is an actor who gives me joy while watching. I've enjoyed almost all of his work that I've seen so far. I haven't seen his tour de force performances in Philadelphia (1993) Forrest Gump(1994) and Green Mile(1999). I'm working my way up to them. He was great as the plucky, pleasant yet steely World War 2 Captain from Saving Private Ryan (1998). He was absolutely bonkers as the foreigner without a country stuck in an airport in The Terminal (2004). He was enjoyable as the middle-aged man trying to finish college for gainful employment in Larry Crowne (2011).

Meg Ryan was once America's sweetheart. Until, apparently, she cheated on her then husband with Russell Crowe. Her career has never reached the stratospheric heights of the 90s since. I actually don't care about any of that. I have only seen her in one movie, Top Gun (1985), where she appears in a few scenes as the vivacious, attractive wife of Maverick's wingman Goose, who may or may not know of his bisexual tendencies. She struck me even then, when I did not know who she was.

You've Got Mail, for me, is the first time I'm watching America's former sweethearts on screen together, which is, paradoxically, the last time they appeared together, so far at least. I can see why they set box office records on fire. Under the capable hands of Nora Ephron, the story of two people who are in an online romance who are unaware that they are owners of two rival bookstores, gain uncommon colour. There is a sense of joy and wonder in how Ephron shoots New York, in autumn, I'm assuming, in all its colours and various local attractions. I checked, and found out that it's based on a play, and why not? The movie is undeniably cute, and I'm sure the author must have been pleased with the way the characters and the city they inhabit in were brought alive on screen.

Tom Hanks gives warmth to the executive who runs the Fox bookstore chain, which, going by the hints in the movie, is only a small fraction of his father and grandfather's business empire. He zips through the movie, spring in his step, spreading kindness around, and you could almost forgive him for all the small bookshops his megastore must've closed. I was surprised to recognize Dave Chappelle, in what must've been his Comedy Central heydays, playing the role of Tom Hanks' executive "Black best friend". It is a stereotypical thankless role, but Chappelle elevates it the way he invariably does, infusing the role with a dry humour and matter-of-factness that makes him feel like a real friend. There was a lot of potential in this unlikely pairing which went underutilized because Ephron concentrated on telling the love story.

Meg Ryan zips about the movie as well, running her niche children's bookstore, having expensive breakfasts with her rich aunt, and living the perfect life in the city of Dreams. Like in most rom coms, her place is too nice to have maintained on such income, even taking into account the rich aunt. Her intellectual reporter boyfriend, played delightfully by Greg Kinnear, seems to be yet another of those stereotypical college socialists who never realized to discard those dangerous ideas after graduation.

Hanks' and Ryan's characters have been in touch with each other before the movie begins, through an AOL chat room, those painfully slow internet mailing services that would confound the millennials today. They don't know who they are, and when Hanks comes to New York and establishes a Fox mega bookstore nearby Ryan's "Shop around the corner", they inevitably come into conflict. The movie proceeds along familiar character and story beats, although it kind of seems to lose its pacing a bit in the last ten minutes. Still, Hanks and Ryan remain one of the best onscreen couples to watch, and certainly compared to what we've got from Hollywood in the last two decades.

I shall leave things here, to be enjoyed at your pleasure when you have an afternoon free.

VERDICT

Acting: Cute, very cute. Music: Unremarkable, but alright Direction: Good Screenplay: Except last ten minutes, good. Cinematography: This is the New York we foreigners fall in love with.

This is a cute, silly, slight little movie, best watched with your significant other, on a balcony with a cup of tea and bread, while it rains. I guarantee you, the experience will be wonderful.

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

The Fox family tree is weird. Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan! I love these people! Sleepless in Seattle (1993) is next on the list. Lesbian couple mentioned without much fuss. Progressive, I think, even for 1998. Seriously, these rich New Yorkers must live like royalty. Almost makes me wish I was born rich in New York.

I'm not familiar with this comic series from Marvel. But after watching the first two seasons, I'm intrigued, and shall definitely read them.

The show is a slow burn, which suits me perfectly. It eschews the fast-paced narrative of CW shows which are often used as a substitute for lazy writing, hence The Runaways actually spend time fleshing out its main cast of characters. There is a realism in how teenagers interact with each other and with their parents at their homes. The high school and the city of Los Angeles, after an initial focus, fades to the background as most of the character interactions and plotlines take place at the residences of these characters.

The protagonists are obviously, the six kids, and the first season starts off with them trying to reconcile with a recent tragic incident in their collective lives. They are trying to deal with it in their own ways, and have fallen apart on the way. They slowly find their way back to each other, and unfortunately on the way also discover that their very wealthy and influential parents, who are also friends with each other, are very possibly criminals. They decide to investigate the matter further without arousing suspicion, while also going through growing up pains, identity crises, trust issues and newfound superpowers.

VERDICT: Worth it.

All the actors playing the kids are brilliant actors. Allegra Acosta, who plays super-powered orphan Molly Hayes, is the one to watch out for in the future.

ALWAYS BE MY MAYBE (2019): A REVIEW

DIRECTOR: Nahnatchka Khan SCREENPLAY:Michael Golamco, Ali Wong, Randall Park, STARRING: Ali Wong, Randall Park

Always Be My Maybe is the latest rom-com from the Netflix stable, which seeks to sate our thirst for such stories without sacrificing on political correctness or honesty in relationships. The movie is a breezy, flee-flowing watch.

We know how this goes. Childhood friends, separated by time and harbouring resentment from that last argument, meet again at differing stages of their career and life, rediscovers their spark and goes on to face trials and tribulations before they get together for good in the final act.

What is different, in degrees, is the warmth and spark of humour and honest sentimentality, which treats both the characters as equal partners in their relationship. I'm rather sick of the mainstream movie final act in which the guy has to do a grand gesture to convince the girl to stay (usually an airport run), or a big sacrifice, mostly related to their career, that one or both of them has to do ( Sweet Home Alabama). Hence, I was refreshed to see that each of them has to mature and move halfway to meet the other. Ultimately, it's not a compromise that does it, but a decision to move forward together.

That said, there are plenty of character beats, plot contrivances and segues that we've seen, and will continue to see on screen, a thousand times. Not enough time is spent on their childhood friendship other than the oft-repeated montage of moments. Marcus Kim (Park) still has a lot of growing up to do in his life, and by the end of the movie has only started his journey. He mostly remains a sharp-witted, talented but scared man-child throughout the movie. Sasha Tran (Wong) has to still learn to make proper human connections and not try to solve problems by throwing money at them. I know people like these, and having seen some of them grown and succeed, and some of them try to and fail, is the one of the many positives I took from the movie.

VERDICT: Great one-time or two-time watch. Definitely better than most rom-coms, which unfortunately isn't high praise.

Keanu Reeves is awesome.

Cribbing aside, this is a success for Asian Hollywood and general casting diversity in movies.

I mean, they are great as friends. But I didn't feel the spark. Then again, the spark is a creation of Hollywood itself, to sell unnecessarily highly priced diamonds.