mohan59

Pixar has cultivated a strong reputation amongst adult filmgoers, discerning critics and young audiences for seamlessly blending captivating stories with astonishing visuals. As a member of the first group who originally started in the third, I have never felt let down by Pixar, barring one exception (The Good Dinosaur). Now, sadly, there is one more to that list.

The premise is bold: to tell the origins behind what made this Andy Davis' favorite toy in 1995. With sensibilities and technology having advanced far since then, I'd thought Pixar had more resources (and not less) to paint a canvas that is not only richly rewarding but also pays generous homage to an iconic franchise. With the added element of space adventure, the science fiction angle offers excitement and terror of the unknown in equal measure. Unfortunately, all of these ingredients are not used well at all and the dish falls flat.

The screenplay is the biggest disappointment. It starts on a confident note, suitably establishing the atmosphere but by the third act, it whimpers and staggers, leaving the parallel timelines ushering more questions than answers. The normally super-reliable Michael Giacchino also underperforms, the score nowhere near memorable an iconic character truly deserves. I also felt the tell-tale signs of studio executive interference in some scenes that Pixar usually hits out of the park.

On the positive side, Chris Evans and Taika Waititi are standout performers. The visuals are gorgeous and rich in colors. But that's about it.

Very disappointed 4/10.

The plot is an archetype hero's journey blended with Mexican mythology as backdrop. The basic premise is easy to follow, but there are some roundabout ways to convey the stakes. A couple of sequences are a touch too mature for a kids' show: how does one explain the scene where the main character directly questions her father on her out-of-wedlock parentage? And how about the scene where the main antagonist simply rips the heart out of an underling for her failure?

However, that is taking nothing away from the animation and visual palette. Both are truly stunning and every frame seems to be painstakingly conceived and rendered. There is generous homage to cultural heritage through freeze-frames of mythological deities and eye-popping (literally) character design. The voice cast shows their varied pedigree to perfection, with some clever selections. Aside from the excellent Zoe Saldana, the uber-smooth Diego Luna and the comedic timing of Allen Maldonado, there are blink-and-you'll-miss-it cameos by the likes of Danny Trejo and Gael Garcia Bernal.

The show's creator has apparently gone on record saying this is like Lord of the Rings but with more fun. If that is true, I suppose the approach can be justified, when having a kids' show depict themes of violence and family adultery with carefree candor.

Inside Job is well-written, full of clever plot devices that take delightful aim at pop culture trends and contemporary affairs. The characters are quite colorful and serve the overall premise with aplomb. The voice cast is also superb, with Christian Slater being an inspiring selection. The humor is what makes this show so refreshing - the jokes are frenetic and range from slapstick to splendid.

Will be looking forward to season 2.

For a film that should have been released two years ago, No Time To Die has had plenty of time to become "alive" in theaters worldwide. As a Bond vehicle, it delivers on all fronts (well, almost all). It packs a wallop in several departments, most notably in a heavyweight supporting cast, but there are a couple of small moments where it misses a step or two.

The plot is very modern and technical, harnessing the age-old concept of cutting-edge medical research being exploited by megalomaniacs for nefarious means. The pre-credits sequence is innovative and goes against conventional wisdom: for once, it features neither Bond nor a traditional battle of secondary, disposable good guy vs secondary, disposable bad guy. Rather interestingly, it sets two cornerstones of the film: vengeance and filial ties. As the plot moves forward, the stakes and players become clearer, but the antagonist's full motivations aren't revealed yet. When Bond decides to come out of retirement and rejoin the battleground, he realizes old foes have remained as lethal as they were, but newer adversaries have changed the game. As personal and professional wounds continue to haunt and mount, Bond and his allies must race against time to save a global catastrophe.

The film's strength comes mainly from a stellar cast: established franchise veterans like Ralph Fiennes and Christoph Waltz combined with first-timers like Lashana Lynch and Rami Malek. While paling in comparison with the electric Green-Craig duo, the Seydoux-Craig pair forms the emotional core while the exchanges between Craig's Bond and the supporting characters range from truly delightful to awkward passing of the torch (Lynch's Nomi asking one last favor for Bond was a bit cringey, to be honest). Locations, a perennial hallmark in Bond films, serve the story's purpose with panache, the villain's lair especially sinister and reminiscent of films past. The writing team deserves credit for being contemporary but the pacing in the middle third becomes sluggish and contributes to the running time of nearly 3 hours. Cary Fukunaga's eye for visual detail comes across in numerous, gorgeously shot sequences. The action is frenetic and slickly choreographed and while Billie Eilish's theme may not carry the sweeping grandeur of Adele's Skyfall nor the daring lyrical foreshadowing of Chris Cornell's You Know My Name, it does convey motifs of family ties and fractured pasts.

No Time To Die is a well-rounded, appropriate adieu to a definitive Bond interpretation: Daniel Craig proved his doubters spectacularly wrong when Casino Royale was released and fifteen years later, leaves with an indelible mark on a fabled franchise.

This documentary starts off with the right tone: the immediate aftermath of a domestic violence incident, with a dawning sense of horrifying gravity. As we are introduced to the "characters", the layers are slowly peeled off to reveal a crime of unbelievable brutality and appalling negligence. A little boy lost his life for absolutely no fault of his and everyone is left asking "Why? How could this happen?"

The filmmakers chose to put sharp focus on both the primary perpetrators as well as systemic faults that allowed this inexcusable event to occur. There are several pointed questions asked, with an attempt to draw strong lines between social entities. The main players - attorneys, extended families - say their side of the story and there is no doubt this was completely preventable. However, the issues behind this case are deeper than they're perceived.

And that's where the film starts to unravel. A puzzling segment on artificial intelligence acts as a distraction, with the pace stumbling. The episodes themselves seem a bit rushed: one feels this story deserved 8 parts, not 6 due to the amount of circumstances and causes contributing. I also felt the undercurrent of official incompetence and/or apathy wasn't effectively conveyed. Yes, attorneys face hostilities for executing court orders but the overall impression I got was this was a failure isolated to Gabriel's circumstances, the endemic disease plaguing the social welfare program was covered all too briefly.

The Trials of Gabriel Fernandez makes for truly gut-wrenching viewing, few scenes come with a deserved warning. But what could have been a searing, game-changing perspective on children-family-welfare services dynamics is somewhat let down by inconsistent pacing and inordinate haste.

The plot is standard and predictable - angst-ridden/confused/misunderstood young teen, adults too busy with their own drama, an absent-minded scientist, a megalomaniac antagonist with a duplicitous facade, a robot that tries too hard... All ingredients are present, no problem.

Big Hero 6 worked well because of a decent plot, characters that we could identify with and some fantastic animation. In this film, the animation is impressive. The voice cast isn't too shabby either. But all that good work has been badly let down by atrocious character development. The main robot lacks charisma. The comedic robots are too slapstick-y. The human characters don't stand apart from their mechanical counterparts and that is saying something. But it's astonishing how deeply flawed the main lead is. She hates being bullied, but has absolutely no hesitation in asking her robot friend to vaporize her tormentors. She makes life hell for her single mom and constantly bosses around. Not a knock on the actress portraying the girl, but the writers who chose to paint her with significantly negative traits.

Admittedly, there are real-life instances where children are so confused and bewildered by circumstances beyond their control, they lash out in inexplicable ways. But when one gambles on making an animated feature, one goal is to make audience empathize with lead character. Hope the filmmakers consider an expanded arc because this film could have been so promising, but ends up being so unpalatable simply because of poor writing.

No other film captures the essence of Batman as this does. With an engaging story, exceptional voice acting and a magnificent soundtrack, there is never a dull moment. Although it starts a bit formulaic, the expertly-constructed non-linear narrative draws one into a tale of doomed romance and vengeful desires. Several scenes deserve special mention, especially one where Bruce finally embraces the Batman persona. Symbolism occurs as a tragic motif of the past returning to haunt the present for more than one character.

The film's recent entry in Netflix should earn more fans than it initially garnered during its theatrical release. It has everything a film based on comic book should have and more. A must-watch for any Batman afficionado.

9/10

June 11 1955 will go down as one of the darkest days in motorsport history. It is also a day that changed car racing forever. Mercedes-Benz, Jaguar and defending champions Ferrari were all vying for the prestigious 24 hours of Le Mans trophy; between them, they had won the last four editions. With a line-up that included Formula 1 legends Juan-Manuel Fangio and Stirling Moss, Mercedes-Benz believed they had the package to challenge Ferrari and win again.

The stage was set for an exciting battle.

Three hours into the race, a collision occurred between Mercedes-Benz's support driver Pierre Levegh and Austin-Healey's Lance Macklin. The high speed crash sent the Benz out of control, with Levegh being thrown out of his car and landing on his skull, killing him instantly. The Benz continued disintegrating, sending hot debris into the tightly-packed crowd. The severed engine hood acted as a guillotine, decapitating many spectators who had no time to react. Mercedes-Benz's use of magnesium alloy in their body also played a part, with many fans suffering grave injuries due to the intense heat from the scorched powerplant.

All this is not depicted in the film. What we see, however, are the delicate, tense moments between the team principal Alfred Neubauer and Levegh's driving partner John Fitch. The visibly-distraught Fitch appeals to Neubauer to withdraw from the race, to which Neubauer initially refuses outright. The visuals after the crash are stark: the atmosphere is a deep indigo while the soaring flames are scarlet red-and-gray. The cars themselves appear to lose a bit of their sheen: the sleek silver of Mercedes dulls, the bright red of Ferrari overshadowed by the flames. Eventually, sense prevails over Neubauer and he withdraws his team from the race. As morning dawns and the horrific tragedy (eighty-odd dead and hundreds more hurt) sinks in, Fitch and Neubauer exchange a quiet glance, as the remaining Silver Arrow Mercedes-Benz 300 SLR is hoisted onto a truck and Fitch departs in a car.

The animation in this short is elegant, poetic and understated. The drama is palpable, some scenes are so contrasting they are almost painful to watch - case in point, the camera pans the section of crowd that received the brunt of the Benz's impact while there is a carousel in the background, still running with bright lights. The choice of colors deserves mention as well and the score adds a sense of gravitas to it. The epilogue mentions the legacy, with Mercedes-Benz quitting racing altogether while Fitch embarks on a journey to improve safety in motorsport and every-day driving.

Do watch it if you can, one of the best fifteen minutes of your life!

This is a pleasantly surprising film. Partly because of the narrative - I was expecting a pro-Ford take on the celebrated rivalry, after having seen the Amazon documentary (I think it's called the 24 hour race or something). I was proved wrong.

By choosing to focus on the two primary characters (superbly portrayed by Matt Damon and Christian Bale), James Mangold's gamble pays off handsomely in this tale of man and machine against all odds. Ford vs Ferrari is as much as Miles-Shelby's dogged perseverance against stumbling blocks from their own backers as it is against their iconic European counterparts. Their partnership is chalk and cheese - the diplomatic Shelby complementing the "difficult" Miles but it works remarkably well. There is a good reason the American calls the Brit "Bulldog" as Miles' tenacious pursuit of the perfect lap motivates people around him to go further. The action and humor prove an effective blend in driving the narrative forward. The cinematography, score and sound design are expertly done, capturing the intimacy of characters' personal lives as well as the frenzied restlessness of race days.

In terms of performances, Bale and Damon have a terrific chemistry and Mangold exploits it shrewdly. While Bale tends to overact in some scenes (his facial expressions border on the ridiculous sometimes), he nails the eccentricities of a war veteran-turned-race-driver character to perfection. Unlike others, I did not find his accent surprising, but his preparation and dedication to his craft continue to leave a lasting impression. That said, this film completely belongs to Damon. He has the best scenes, the best lines and the meatiest character. His Texan drawl may not be pitch-perfect, but his control and restraint form the essence to the story as well as a ideal icy foil to Bale's hot-headed, fiery persona. The supporting cast is quite decent, though I was disappointed to not see the John Bernthal get more screen time.

Ford v Ferrari wins not because of the titular rivalry, but inspite of it. A very enjoyable and entertaining racing film.

For far too long, Marvel Studios' PR department has been waging a sustained assault on us patrons' psyche with over-the-top promotional material, ranging from comic conventions, merchandising, endless trailers/previews and cultural references. Whoever is heading that unit needs to take a vacation, along with the staff. Immediately. This is a serious request.

Because what we have been led to believe is Black Panther is the best superhero film ever made on the legendary African warrior.

This film is nothing of the kind. Instead, it is a compelling and competent drama of greed, loyalty, vengeance, and social standing. Other reviewers have pointed out that this film is quite overrated and not worthy of the hype. To be very honest, that was my feeling as soon as the credits rolled. It was a few minutes later that my appreciation of the film's tone and import started to change. This film is not about a fictional kingdom or a mysterious metal or other tangible things. It is more a study of who we are as a human race and where we stand today.

I will try not to spoil the film for others. There are numerous scenes where characters wrestle with their inner conscience, confront a dilemma or two, and balance critical decisions with consequences. These scenes are not hoisted out of reality, we experience moments like these ourselves. Circumstances can make past decisions look outdated and wrong, even. At the same time, embracing change a little too quickly has pitfalls as well. There is a line said by a male character, which goes thus: "It is tough for a good man to be a leader". And it is true. Not everyone is born a leader. People learn and evolve over time, dealing with situations that sometimes are beyond their control. And by presenting those situations, the filmmakers have chosen a path that can be a little underwhelming to viewers at first, but relatable to us in some ways. I would even go as far as to say the overall theme of this film is more about what we are willing to do to protect who or what defines us without losing sight of what unites us all. It does sound serious, but the film manages to tackle these topics. Not expertly, but in a reasonably convincing fashion.

The cast is near-perfect. While Chadwick Boseman could have done better by adding a little spark to his T'Challa, he has an extraordinary screen presence in the guise of the titular hero. A simultaneous ninja-statesman, his brand of aggression, without any outward weapons, is ferocious and decisive. Danai Gurira and Lupita Nyong'o are excellent as General Okoye and War Dog Nakia respectively. Their fight sequences are superbly choreographed, along with those of the others. Michael B Jordan's acting chops are legit, he exudes menace and power as Killmonger. Daniel Kaluuya is a strong addition to an already-impressive line-up. But I was most impressed by Letitia Wright as Princess Shuri, the feisty younger sibling of the King. A firebrand techno-genius who can handle a skirmish quite capably, some of her inventions make Iron Man's creations pale in comparison. I expect to see more of her in future installments, if the post-credits scene is anything to go by. Seasoned veterans like Forest Whitaker, Angela Bassett, John Kani, and Sterling K Brown support the main cast with their renowned expertise. And not for the first time, Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis' scenes together are a delight to watch. While Freeman does provide some comic relief, it is also refreshing to see him get actively involved and bring his own skills to the table.

As for the crew, one important point first: bear in mind, the director is a relative newcomer in the competitive world of big-budget superhero franchises. I have not seen Fruitvale Station or Creed yet, but Ryan Coogler had a lot on his plate when entrusted with the enviable task of directing this highly-anticipated venture. He delivers a really watchable film, even if some adrenaline junkies might complain that the action sequences are few and far between. By choosing to focus on drama and intrigue instead of fast-paced, mind-numbing action (my number one reason for hating Avengers: Age of Ultron), Coogler makes a calculated move to pose questions about ourselves. His crew back him up admirably, whether it is Rachel Morrison with the camera (some of the wide-angle shots were gorgeous), special effects, or music. The production design is top-notch, the sweeping, high-tech interiors of Wakanda contrasting rather charmingly with the rustic, almost-idyllic outdoors. At just a touch over 2 hours long, the pace is neither too rushed nor sluggish.

My sincere advice to those who have not seen this film yet: if possible, erase the sky-high expectations caused by Marvel's hype-machine and watch for what it really is. You will probably enjoy it more.

8/10

Although a film's watch-ability may not be directly implied by its Academy Award nods, there is a reason why the 1991 version became the first animated feature film ever to be nominated for the Best Picture category. That version had everything: gorgeous animation, songs of warmth and affection, tremendous voice acting, and a story that was both traditional and far-ahead of its time. We all know how Belle, well-read as she is and dissatisfied with her laid-back village life, longs for adventure. Her father, the eccentric inventor Maurice, is a kind of a bumbling simpleton at first, but is indeed a caring parent and protective of his precocious daughter, whose talents are not lost on him. A village which at once becomes a mob on the mere whim of a deeply narcissistic, insecure person.

With such an impression, I was hoping that the live-action version would take the film's already-legendary status even further and make it an all-time classic. Alas, I have to admit I am disappointed. There are several things in this film that were not in the animated version: the lead protagonists' backgrounds are more defined, there is a minor twist in the final act, Le Fou's predicament is more deserving of empathy than the foolish sidekick he was in 1991 are the ones that come to mind.

First up, the story. It stays largely faithful to the original (save for the twist I mentioned above). The humor works rather well, but is rather forced at times, leading to some awkward chemistry between the lead pair as well as between Gaston and Le Fou. In terms of progression, here is where I felt let down: Beast offering his gigantic library as a token of affection to Belle was a pivotal moment in the animated version, it made Belle realize that there is a softer side to her ferocious host. The title song also feels a bit flat; when Angela Lansbury sang with her heart, you could feel the quickening of the heartbeats, the racing of the pulses, and the irresistible magic of the moment when Belle and the Beast dance in the ballroom. As Belle finally trusts Beast by resting her head on his shoulder and the Beast is totally taken by surprise, his servants encourage him further, enhancing the timelessness of both the film and the song. Sadly, the live action has no such charm. The build-up is rushed, the song ends before you can realize what is happening, and Emma Thompson, as celebrated a thespian she is, tries her best but is unable to match Lansbury's memorable rendition. I was also disappointed to not see "Being Human" in this film, it was a song that demonstrated the servants' aspirations and could have served to illustrate how their lives where before the curse took effect. And with just a touch over two hours, the film's pace seems prolonged and ponderous.

I am not sure if the lead pair is miscast. On their own, they are pretty efficient: Emma Watson is convincing in her portrayal of a forward-thinking Belle. Dan Stevens is left to bare his soul as a tortured fiend, which he does mostly well. But its when they are together that feels a bit underwhelming. Paige O'Hara and Robby Benson's chemistry in 1991 was terrific and amazing, the former's gentle civility perfectly contrasting the latter's jarring cruelty and eventually transformed elegant nobility. It was refreshing to see Le Fou (played by the excellent Josh Gad) have a human side to him, which made his performance all the more relevant in these times. Luke Evans is equally superb, as the obnoxiously self- centered Gaston who manipulates people to his will. Kevin Kline deserves plaudits for his portrayal as well. However, I don't think Ewan McGregor was that convincing as a French candelabra, to be honest. With an odd French accent, his banter-filled exchanges with Cogsworth lack the rapier wit of Jerry Orbach-David Ogden Stiers' double team. The film does have some positives though: Le Fou's characterization, the lead pair's backstory (both mentioned above), and the stunningly exquisite production design. The detailing was intricate and dazzling, especially in the castle's interiors and Belle's ballroom gown.

Overall, this film works, but in hindsight, I should have watched this without much expectation. So that would be recommendation.

At the outset, I was not very keen on watching Civil War. I felt the superhero genre had hit a saturation point, a plateau on which writers were trying to churn out new ideas, more stars were being hired to play lesser-known comic book characters, and the merchandising was nauseatingly omnipresent. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how others look at it), I have not seen Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice, nor do I intend to. So with all that, I walked in for a Friday night screening with mixed feelings.

Pleasantly surprised is probably the right description. Yes, the plot is fairly convoluted. I didn't use a timer, but I felt Iron Man had more screen time than Cap. The airport scene is mind-bogglingly devastating and Spidey does add a breath of fresh air to the narrative. But those are not what make this movie stand out from others in recent past.

The movie's strengths are its themes and the questions they pose. Since man learnt to draw lines on sand, intervention, especially in international diplomacy, has been THE topic of heated debates, caused embarrassing scandals, resulted in gruesome conflicts, among other unforgettable pages in our history. As much as military prowess is coveted, it leads to fateful consequences that are more often than not irreparable. No wonder, the famed German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel declared "We learn from history that we learn nothing from history."

Another striking reflection this movie renders is loyalty in the face of escalating isolation. Cap is prepared to lose his more powerful friends than abandon his former World War II buddy, who can't help question Cap's judgment during one of his saner moods. Chris Evans' portrayal is convincing in terms of being fiercely protective of someone who has left an inerasable trail of blood. Sebastian Stan's Winter Soldier is almost a comic book version of Arnold's Terminator, barring the iconic bike and shades. The disappointment is in unanswered questions on how or why those in his team are as committed to the cause as he is. The cameos of Ant-Man and Hawkeye are gimmicky as well, but Anthony Mackie's Falcon thankfully adds the necessary humor to keep the interest from flagging.

The third feature which is pretty much obvious to everyone is a role reversal between the primary leads. While Cap has morphed from a patriotic soldier in First Avenger to a violent renegade in Civil War via the path of a reluctant leader in Avengers, Iron Man has done a remarkable volte-face of his own from a cocky vigilante to an obedient company man, suffering an identity crisis along the way. The two men were already having a prickly relationship in 2012 and 2015 but in 2016, the arguments are no longer verbal. The punches, jabs, kicks, flying discs, fire blasts are all intended to cause maximum damage. As the curtain draws, we are left with an open-ended conclusion, a bruising battle ending in an uncertain stalemate with neither man a victor.

Honorable mention must be made of new additions Daniel Bruhl and Chadwick Boseman. I was very impressed with Bruhl in Ron Howard's Rush where he played the obsessive, cold-blooded Formula 1 legend Niki Lauda battling a life-threatening racing accident to return to the circuit. Here, he does a brilliant job as a scheming military Colonel who is out for vengeance. His motives at the beginning seem distinctly nefarious but as the MacGuffin is eventually revealed, his rationale now pleads for empathy, even if his methods are still highly questionable. On the other hand, Boseman has a promising screen presence and acts with an uncanny restraint, holding his own against seasoned industry veterans. Like Bruhl's Colonel Zemo, his T'Challa swears revenge as payback for a family tragedy but chooses to be a better man. I confess, I will watch the Black Panther movie when it releases (as announced) in 2018.

Infusing politics in movies based on comic books is not unlike playing with a loaded gun. That being said, credit must be given to writers of this movie who walked the tightrope of offering us themes based on modern events while still driving and shaping historic characters.

I had seen a previous documentary titled "Explosive Evidence" about this particular flight. It used recreated sequences to portray a brazen act of terrorism that has no meaning to this day. That documentary pales in comparison to Air India 182 in several aspects.

Utilizing a mix of parallel timelines, people interviews, actual audio wiretaps, archived and recreated footage, Air India 182 has a powerful impact, not unlike powerful as the explosion that ripped the aircraft apart on a cool Sunday morning in June 1985. We are made aware of the background - a potent bubbling cauldron of politics and religious independence leading to violent consequences. We are told of the numerous mishaps and missteps in the investigation leading to the accident (some look deliberately introduced to render an impression that the flight took off as scheduled without any interruption). We are deeply touched by the lingering grief of family members who lost their loved ones on the ill-fated flight. We are shown battle-hardened air force men and sailors admitting to tears and retching on recovering the dead from the Atlantic Ocean. We see how a tiny little town in Southern Ireland helps deal with a massive disaster and ease the irreparable pain of families torn apart. It makes for such captivating (and emotional) viewing, I barely paid attention that this happened more than 30 years ago.

Air India 182 is a harsh lesson to all of us in "Live and Let Live". We all have differences, but in allowing those differences to cloud our judgment and lead us to wrong decisions, we have nothing to gain and everything to lose. As one Royal Airforce (RAF) airman from Wales says in a choked voice - "I saw a piece of chocolate among the items recovered, it had fresh teeth marks. If that is not demoralizing, I don't know what is!"

Highly recommended.

The Good Dinosaur begins with a "What-if" premise. A possibility that would have likely altered the course of evolution on Earth but what it does, and it does with refreshing honesty and exquisite realism, is tell a simple tale of friendship and coming-of-age.

As children, we all had fears. Some irrational, most age-driven, and as we grow older, a majority of them fade away with the loss of innocence and gain of knowledge. Each of us has that journey to take in overcoming those fears (or at least attempt to). As Arlo, the youngest of three in a family of five, is lovingly raised by Henry and Ida, he exhibits timidity bordering on paranoia, with the simplest of errands scaring him out of his wits. His father takes him on one such journey to get him out of his "comfort-zone" but in a cruel turn of events, Arlo loses both his father and his way, ending up in a completely unfamiliar region. After a series of adventures ranging from frivolous to frightening, he finally comes to face his fears in a life-or-death situation. As he walks home to reunite with his family, his mother initially calls him "Henry", a testament to the fact the boy has now returned a man (for lack of a better phrase) and is later overjoyed to watch her son return at last.

Thematically, The Good Dinosaur checks most of the right boxes - friendship, loyalty, maturity, family values, and the ability to let go and be yourself. Most of them are ably fleshed out, with some curious contrasts (the paradox of the dinosaur speaking and the wild-boy making guttural noises being especially delightful). Also, I found some similarities with The Lion King - a young member of the family in search of oneself and his place in larger scheme of things. Technically, this is a visual marvel - the stunningly realistic backgrounds, the mesmerizing use of light and perspective, the understated score by Academy Award winner Mychael Danna and Jeff Danna elevate this film significantly. I did feel that the voice cast, with notable exceptions of Raymond Ochoa as the Dinosaur and Jack Wright as the wild-boy, could have been chosen better; considering the film was plagued by production difficulties, this is probably an unintended consequence.

The biggest surprise to me was the traditional Pixar short preceding the feature presentation. Titled "Sanjay's Super Team" and focused on a middle class Indian Hindu family, the short had me and my friend (both of us are from India) spellbound and when it ended, we looked at each other, exchanging meaningful glances. I cannot say more, but those who appreciate that ethos are in for a pleasant surprise. Impressive effort from Sanjay Patel and team.

In terms of past Pixar offerings, The Good Dinosaur may not provide a convincing commentary as an Incredibles or pack as much emotional punch as Inside Out but it has its moments. It celebrates familial togetherness, embraces friendship between unlikely comrades, and educates belief in oneself. In a modern world increasingly tearing itself apart, a prehistoric parable is probably worth the entry price.

For some reason, I couldn't quite catch this movie in theaters and I managed to watch it on an international flight. And boy, am I glad I did!

As far as concepts go, I was astonished at the amount of detail and coherence in execution. The visuals are absolutely stunning, the colors rich and vibrant, the characters utterly memorable and some of the most poignantly heart-breaking lines of dialogue ever spoken/sung in any movie, let alone feature animation. It is every bit a Disney-Pixar classic and as emphatic a return to form as it can get.

The story revolves around a young girl child who is happy in her world and has to suddenly acclimatize to another environment when her family has to move. Growing pains and social issues affect her while she grapples with increasingly complex situations, both at home and school. Meanwhile, the interplay between the five primary emotions inside her mind is both dynamic and fraught with compromises, much like how we deal with others everyday. As things come to a head and young Riley is about to make a life-changing decision, the events that follow leave a lasting impression, with an increased appreciation of the phrase "emotions are what makes us human"!

I recognized some dichotomies - for instance, Minnesota, usually perceived cold, is regarded as warm and comforting by Riley while San Francisco, renowned for its sunny weather, is seen as foreign and unwelcome. The other contrast I noticed was all five emotional figures (Joy, Sadness, Anger, Fear, and Disgust) do not always stay true to form, with Joy especially exhibiting nuances far beyond what her name implies - case in point, her touching admission preceding the last act (that entire sequence was too much for my eyes to take, by the way). All this might be considered a tad too much for young children to appreciate, but with time, they may probably realize how beautifully honest this movie was in trying to portray their growth and the underlying issues.

Certainly, it is not without flaws: the plot meandered a bit 2/3rds into the length; Joy's "A-ha" moment seems strangely contrived, despite the impact it had; the music was adequate but not truly captivating as in the case of other Pixar offerings. But the beauty of this medium is that it offers filmmakers opportunities to steer audiences to more engaging experiences; Pete Docter and Co accomplish this with aplomb.

In terms of cast and crew, the voice actors are superb selections - Lewis Black aces the Angry persona with generous dollops of sarcasm; Mindy Kaling is just perfect voicing Disgust; Richard Kind's performance as the imaginary Bing Bong is an absolute tear-jerker, while Kaitlyn Dias shows remarkable poise playing Riley. But it is Amy Poehler who steals the show in a coruscating blend of vivacity, vibrancy, and vicariousness. Her Joy is not an infallible leader, but one who accepts others in the face of challenging situations and plows ahead with inspiring positive energy. The animation left me spell-bound, especially the sequence where thoughts are shown to be abstracted, and are endowed with a lot of heart. The movie is fairly short, but a running time of 94 minutes is appropriate justice to a slightly heavy subject matter. The humor compensates with trademark Pixar staple of jokes, albeit intended for slightly more mature viewers. Pete Docter gave us the outstanding Up six years ago and ably accompanied by Ronnie del Carmen, has categorically demonstrated that he is a fabulous storyteller and a master entertainer.

Inside Out is every bit a Pixar fan's well-deserved reward for patience. Do yourself a favor and watch this magnificent gem.

How does a terrorist leader, long gone missing, know that a Secret Service Agent on Presidential detail has a wife who works as a nurse?

Why would the same terrorist leader still keep the President alive when his only bargaining chip (the son) has gone and all nuclear codes have been obtained?

How does a group of terrorists (with one looking totally out of place with long hair) masquerade as staff for the South Korean Premier and waltz into the most secure seat of power in the world without any credentials or background checks?

How on earth are we supposed to believe that Aaron Eckhart is a President?

How did Mike Banning believe that Forbes survived that brutal blitz on White House when his own mates died like puppets and still be the good guy? And what were they busy talking about when Forbes had a clear instruction to eliminate Banning?

Why did artists of the caliber of Antoine Fuqua, Melissa Leo, Morgan Freeman, and Ashley Judd (the wisest of them all, decided to dropout after copping it in first sequence) sign on for this caper?

Too many questions, too many plot holes. Olympus Has Fallen has a tremendous cast, but with such a terrible story-line, unbelievably woeful dialogue, one-dimensional screenplay (Mike Banning could be the Hulk, for all I care, he can escape anything), it is nowhere close to the class of a Die Hard or an AirForce One.

There is the obligatory male-bonding boxing scene to state the mutual respect. Then, the haunted male hero with his nightmarish failure to save the First Lady consuming him. Then, we have the rising global threat of terrorism in the Far East. The mix is already potent and putrid. Add Gerard Butler's average acting and it just becomes worse. The only one to come out of this muddled mess with some credibility intact is Rick Yune, who portrays Kang with twisted sadism. The film needed a strong contrast to the hero and Yune provides it with sufficient panache, although his motive seems murky and unconvincing at best.

Do yourself a favor and watch this when it comes on a boring TV Thursday night three years from today!

It is early days yet, but the pilot was so engrossing (and Fox infuriating with its endless barrage of commercial breaks), it deserved a review.

Set during the Cold War when relations between the Big Two are still ebbing and flowing, we are taken on an intriguing ride on the back of an American couple: Phillip (Matthew Rhys) and Elizabeth Jennings (Keri Russell). They make an everyday pair but there is something brewing from (and between) them. Their motives are ulterior, the tension palpable, the strain of a highly dangerous mission clearly burdening them. Despite two kids, Elizabeth has a singular purpose, a determination not as concrete in Phil's heart which is in a state of mental flux. He is getting weary of the masquerade but is a thorough professional, as his slick talents in hand-to-hand combat and imposture bear testimony. Not every step goes perfectly to plan, though. A tricky hurdle comes their way and as Phil and Elizabeth eradicate it, she begins to understand Phil's dilemma and choses to defend him from her superior.

Meanwhile, the FBI is hot on the trail of three people suspected of espionage, one of whom has a description. Through a cruel twist of coincidence, the Jennings become neighbors to one agent Stan (Noah Emmerich) whose sixth sense makes him doubt and investigate them, even as Phil gathers intelligence that the Feds have them on their radar. As the stakes in this fascinating game of cat-and-mouse rise, there are glimpses into who Phil and Elizabeth really are, what brought them here, and how they end up together.

It is an engrossing story, interspersed with great moments of tension, decadence, and charm (who would've thought Phil Collins and Fleetwood Mac could make such inspired choices for background score?). The writing is top-notch. Matthew and Keri are excellent casting choices, since portraying enemies as genuine people is not as easy as it looks. A very positive start from the show's makers.

Can't wait for the next episode!

First things first. This is nowhere near as dreary as Quantum of Solace. That was one film which after watching gave me the feeling: "Did I just watch a Bond movie or a star-studded documentary on water preservation?" At the same time, Skyfall is not Casino Royale either. Craig's debut Bond vehicle had the right mix of decadence, delicatessen, and deviousness on either side of the fence. Comparing films is not necessarily a good thing, but then, Bond flicks are prime targets for such a study and I would have to say this could have been a lot better.

To start with, the story fits in with the premise of Bond returning to his past to confront those pesky ghosts. Likewise M. In a story closely resembling Mission Impossible (1996), Bond must prevent a list of all field agents and their aliases from falling into the wrong hands. Although the list is lost, Bond nearly succeeds, but for an apparent failed shot from Eve (Naomie Harris), he plummets into the white waters below and is presumed killed on duty. Cut to a daring attack on MI6 HQ and Bond gets all teary-eyed about dear ol' England and reports for work, with a stinking breath and bloodshot eyes for good measure. His evaluation tests prove negative, but M (Dame Judi Dench, in a far cry from the imposing matriarch of the secret service) overrules them and reinstates Bond into active field work, much to the chagrin of Interior Security Chairman George Mallory (Ralph Fiennes). Packed off to Shanghai to resume his tete-a-tete with the assassin who stole the list, Bond fails again, but this time, is thrown a lifeline by a mysterious woman called Severine (Berenice Marlohe). She leads him to Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem), a former MI6 agent who was once loyal to M only to be sacrificed by her on a doomed mission and has now sworn vengeance on "Mommy" (as he calls M). Bond captures Silva but loses Severine along the way. A sneering Silva taunts M in captivity (similar to how Joker delighted himself in provoking Dent, Batman, and Gordon in The Dark Knight). Through a combination of computer wizardry and clever disguises, Silva escapes from the cage and bombs an underground rail line, throwing Bond and his pursuers off-track (literally). Meanwhile, as Silva has released few names from the list and those agents facing public executions due to blown covers, M is summoned to a court hearing where she faces tough questions. Bond has determined that Silva is on an all-out assault to get M and she barely escapes. Bond takes her to his childhood home called Skyfall in Scotland and proceeds to guard themselves along with the house-keeper Kincaid (Albert Finney). The first line of attackers arrive and Bond & Co deal with them successfully, albeit with M getting shot. Silva arrives in a helicopter and proceeds to decimate the house with heavy firepower. Bond increases the stakes by lighting cylinders in response to Silva torching his beloved Aston Martin and finally kills him with a knife, but is left downcast as M succumbs to her injuries. Eve reveals that she is actually Moneypenny as Mallory takes over M's job.

The story is not entirely original, borrowing elements from spy flicks. Bond's motivation which seemed to be under scrutiny in QoS (one of the few saving graces of that film) is taken for granted here, in a manner that is almost off-hand. The background score is jarring at times, and Adele's rendition of "Skyfall" is not bad but not great either. The fights are great but not memorable. Shanghai has been shot beautifully, though! As for acting, Bardem is the top-dog. His chuckling demeanor, his rat monologue, his macabre face as he removes his false teeth, all serve to paint him as a coldly vengeful former agent. Craig is great as well, but seems to be strangely subdued in some scenes. I got a great kick out of seeing Fiennes and I am really curious to know how the next instalment will pan out, given the prickly relationship M and Bond share. The two ladies are neither Black Widow nor Vesper Lynd but somewhere in between, which is all the more confusing. Ben Whishaw adds charm to a tiny role, but seriously, where are the gadgets, man? All said and done, this film raises more questions than answers. And those questions are more to do with the film itself, than anything else!

As a kid, I've always been interested in planes, big and small. I later discovered a truly fascinating series called "Air Crash Investigation" and have watched almost every episode there is. So when I caught the trailer for this film few months ago and also noticed Denzel Washington was involved, I was instantly hooked!

This film is a tale of two flights: the first is there for everyone to see. A take-off in thunder and lightning which soon descends into mid-air chaos, then certain disaster only to be mitigated by the heroic, if unusual, actions of the Pilot-in-Command, Capt. William "Whip" Whitaker (Denzel Washington). In an inspired move (a clear nod to the doomed Alaska Airlines Flight 261), he decides to fly upside down to overcome a steep nosedive and completes a landing which is nothing short of miraculous. Capt. Whitaker is regarding a public hero, on the verge of a certain recognition from his pilots association, and apart from the crushing loss of his coworker-mistress, Flt. Attendant Marquez, is in good shape. Until things take an ugly turn and the second flight takes off.

A broken marriage with a past history of liquor abuse has left Whitaker a chronic alcohol and drug addict. Routine procedures following the immediate investigation into the accident have revealed higher than permissible BAO levels, which his attorney Hugh Lang (Don Cheadle) and rep Charlie (Bruce Greenwood) are confident can be overturned. However, Whitaker's guilty conscience prompts him into making repetitive arrogant claims ("No one else could have landed that plane!"). One such outburst causes a bad rift between him, Charlie and Lang, with a formal hearing only days away. Consorting with a hippie (Kelly Reilly), Whitaker tries to find some purpose but with the demons fast closing in, his crew caught in the crossroads of whether to support their savior or bring the truth to life, Whitaker's life nearly derails when he's thrown out by his ex-wife and son. Left with nowhere to go, he seeks asylum at Charlie's. The day before the hearing, his addiction gets the better of him, but somehow, he manages to "breathe" his way to sobriety and walks in.

The hearing is faithful to reality and hard-hitting. Melissa Leo shines in a great cameo as an investigator with pointed and charged questions. What follows is not entirely surprising, but the exchange between an investigator who is out to seek the truth and a pilot with a dark secret is not unlike many courtroom dramas we have seen before.

The story is pretty unique and decently authentic. The crash scene is superbly shot (couple of scenes inside the plane are not for the fainthearted!). The supporting cast do their job but it is Washington who "flies" this engrossing film with high-class acting. Not every seasoned actor can pull off a conflicted professional but so good is he that you see the pilot, not the actor when he dons that slick blazer with the shades and sticks that smirk on his face. His is a performance worthy of several award nominations. Maybe his third Oscar, who knows! If you are a Washington fan, do not miss this Flight!

I'll be brutally honest here. I liked The Dark Knight better than this. Even though its just couple of hours since I finished watching it.

Sure, TDK had its flaws, but then, it was such a marvelous noir saga, a treatise in crime drama that left us begging for more at the end. The phrase "page-turner" is often applied to engrossing books, but that could work just as well for the magnificent film. To this day, I cannot take my eyes off whenever I see TDK and by the time that ravishing interrogation scene between Batman and Joker is on, nothing is likely to stir me from my seat. By choosing to make the titular character undergo a perception shift, a massive (and ultimately successful) gamble was taken. And who can forget the late, great Heath Ledger's spectacular performance?

TDKR is not a bad movie per se. Seen alone, it has the ideal ingredients for a summer blockbuster: an A-list cast, monumental action sequences, modern themes of terrorism and official ineptitude, as well as intricate sub-plots which mesh well together at the end. There is more than a passing reference to the predecessors, especially Batman Begins (which, in my humble opinion, is an enormously underrated flick). And it works to a great extent.

Where this film fails as TDK succeeded is in the amount of layering. Some sub-plots were so complex that I was left confused as to where I was before that particular sequence (case in point: Blake's impromptu reconnaissance of a dockyard). Others were left frustratingly hanging in thin air. The plot also seems slow paced at first. While the first sequence is downright awesome, what follows afterward is distinctly underwhelming. Above all else, Batman is renowned to be a master strategist. Here, he ends up getting deceived not once, but twice at Catwoman's hands. You mean to tell me that eight years is good enough to make a superbly trained, marine-worthy, genius escape artist-cum-detective become dull? Really?

I won't go ahead and slate Nolan more here, simply because he gave me the privilege of watching two of the best superhero movies ever filmed in Batman Begins and TDK. The glass is always half-full in my eyes, and I'll admit that Hathaway and Gordon-Levitt were both perfect selections for their roles. I'm not too sure of Tom Hardy, since his performance is more physical than metaphorical but given his task was to exude a ruthless menace, he did his job. The rest of the familiar supporting cast are brilliant as before, especially with Caine showing his human side that we always suspected was well alive beneath that stiff British upper lip exterior and dry wit. I read somewhere that this is not a Batman movie, but a Bruce Wayne movie. And I fully agree. Having to reconcile (with unflattering results) with a life without Batman, Bruce is alone even as a social presence and a corporate figure. It is a true challenge but then again, Christian Bale turned in a remarkable performance in both BB and TDK (he held his own in those scenes where Ledger was not present). And in TDKR, he leaves an indelible mark on a role that would probably be the benchmark.

Batman Begins was all about "Fear" while "Chaos" was a running theme in TDK. TDKR does a great job in being a conclusion to the trilogy, but it is not the best one among the three, probably because there is no strong undercurrent of a theme here.

Where do I begin? Oh yes, the first time I heard that Pixar were coming up with their latest feature length offering from my sister, who is greatly passionate about character graphics and is desperate to join Pixar. Admittedly (like some of my fellow reviewers here), I found the storyline about an old man and a young kid stowing away to a legendary place in the South American jungles a bit dull.

But, boy, did Pixar prove me wrong spectacularly! As a visual treat, it's as perfect as anything you could ever imagine. The moments, tender and funny, never overplay and I found myself wiping my eyes on at least 3 sequences, most notably the one towards the beginning of the film: I laughed when Carl's family politely applauded, looking bewildered; I smiled when Ellie points out the cloud shapes; I was in tears when the doctor gives the shattering news that Ellie can't become a mom and finally my heart went out to a lonely old man who strives so much to keep a promise made to his wife when they were kids. It's impossible for a normal sane person to go through this scene without a pair of wet eyes.

The amusing moments begin when an old man Carl Fredericksen (Edward Asner), disgusted with the changing world, decides to take an adventure trip to Paradise Falls, a place where he and his late wife once dreamt of going. However, he has to contend with an overenthusiastic young explorer Russell (Jordan Nagai), an adorably foolish dog Dug (Bob Peterson), a pack of mutts trained by Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer), idolized by Carl and his wife but doesn't seem to be what he really is. On the way, Carl doesn't redefine loyalty or any of that heavy-duty stuff, but as a human being, he becomes less of an island and more of a lovable father figure, especially in the last scene. This effort at redemption is justly rewarded. Watch the movie to understand my point.

The musical score is first class and embellishes each scene, giving it an everlasting lustre. The dialogues are witty, charming and as the old saying goes, never interfere with the narrative if not required, which leads to a truly memorable cinema experience. I'm definitely catching it again.

Take a bow, Pixar. For having introduced a synonym for excellence in motion pictures: UP.

This movie was pretty much hyped even before a scene was shot, I reckon. Partly because of the lead actor. But, I was intrigued at Aamir Khan's decision to star in a movie that is adapted from a Hollywood flick. I always had this impression that he did things in his own way and even though I had seen the Tamil version, which deserves a lot of credit in its own right, I didn't think that Aamir would be swayed to remake the film in Hindi.

I watched this movie after more than a month had passed since its release. I won't try to compare with the Tamil or English versions, nor will I give a detailed review of the movie. I will only attempt to describe those points which I felt were good or bad in the movie.

The story is a no-brainer. There is a protagonist, an antagonist masquerading as a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing, 2 ladies (if you can consider Jiah Khan's character as a lady, I thought she resembled a doped-out "escort") and little else. The pace is erratic, quick in some parts and lethargic in others. The cinematography is simply fabulous and very clever, managing to capture Aamir Khan's character such that he appears larger-than-life, despite his smaller frame and bulky physique. I also felt a certain connection with the HQ of the business empire owned by the lead actor (located in ITPB, Bangalore): I worked there for about a year. The music is average, with only Kaise Mujhe and Guzarish impressing from the soundtrack and the background score passes muster.

Coming to performances, I found all the people on the good side pretty wooden. Yes, even Aamir Khan was, I felt, not that impressive. Either he tried too much to bring out the stark contrast between the love-struck business magnate and the vengeful assassin or this role is not up his alley. Despite being the focal point of the story, I thought Asin overacted in certain sequences, but, this being her Bollywood debut, I guess I shouldn't be so uncharitable. Jiah Khan neither looked like a student nor tried to act like one. The only sequence where she is aptly cast is in the song that appears in the college celebration, pouting lips and swaying hips with remarkable ease. The only impressive performer for me is Pradeep Rawat. He backs his menacing fangs with savage atrocity and should have been given more screen time than what he got. This movie deserves his name as the title, just for his terrific acting alone. Some people may not agree with me, but I felt he did a commendable job.

Considering all this, I would give this movie a rating of 5/10.

The blue eyes are cold, calculating and mean business. The occasional smirk is reserved for those who deign to humor a man on a personal vendetta. The body is supremely athletic, the stamina relentless, the aim unerring, and the motive compellingly haunting, albeit confusing. And despite all this, there is a heart within the man. Oh yes, there is.

Welcome to the world of Daniel "James Bond" Craig.

Comparisons with the awesome Casino Royale will be inevitable but even with that, this movie disappoints a fair bit. The plot is wafer thin, the antagonist's objectives are very vague, the action sequences, though marvelously choreographed and shot, were one too many. Ditto product placements. And I just can't believe that this movie is only 106 min long. I thought we deserved better for a sequel. A giveaway of the feeble storyline, perhaps?

Enough mud-slinging. To start with the positives, there is Craig. Then, there is the fractious relationship between M and Bond. Hitherto, Bond movies have always shown M as this overbearing watchdog who seems to irk Bond to no end. Here, we see the grudging respect and the rare concern, despite not seeing eye-to-eye on most matters. Then, it's the uneasy partnership of the MI6 and the CIA. Oh, before I forget, the opera scene is terrific as we get to see Bond get into the nitty-gritties of sleuthwork, full of impersonation, intimidation, inventiveness and insouciance. The plane chase sequence is also good, an obvious homage to the classic Bond movies, where there were only propeller planes.

Other sequences that stay on the mind are Mathis' quiet exchange with Bond over the late Vesper and Bond finally tracking down his adversary. When the latter sequence started, I almost mistook it to be the same one where Bond kills Dryden in CR, prior to the credits. Speaking of which, the traditional action sequence that precedes it is sure to kick in the adrenalin but the credits song is just awful. Chris Cornell simply rocked with "You know my name" but this one had a weird rhythm and Alicia Keys' grating vocals.

Coming to the cast, Judi Dench and Mathieu Amalric are great. The Dame is clearly on top of her game, and I enjoyed each dialogue between her and Bond completely. Mathieu made a less-than-convincing part look interesting predominantly because of his short stature and a charming smile, masking a ruthless streak along the way. But the movie simply belongs to Craig. Any doubting Thomases should now be convinced that he is the right man to play Bond.

Rating: 6/10

The most impressive thing for me in BB was not the plot, the comedy, the music…it was the art direction. Lavish hawelis and regal courtyards form the backdrop of this comic thriller that sets the tone for much of the film's suspense moments. Even the cars look tastefully royal and the interior decoration, while a bit monotonous at times, is accurate.

Coming to the story, well, it's a no-brainer that it has been inspired from a National Award winning regional film. However, the adaptation has been well thought-out and competently executed. While not gripping, it is engrossing, except when Shiny Ahuja and Vidya Balan mouth their lines. Those two form the extreme ends of bad acting, with Shiny epitomizing over-the-top hamming and Vidya being more wooden than the classy cupboards in the palace. Apart from this, the cast is good, the music ably supporting, and the editing crisp. The rationale for the mystery is nothing less than sophisticated mumbo-jumbo but, it works nevertheless.

Now, if only I had a palace like that too...

For better than worse, this caper is worth its salt for the songs (obviously lifted) instead of the thrilling murder mystery it claims to be. This doesn't mean that the story was too original to be compelling – it is apparently inspired by the legendary Agatha Christie play "The Mousetrap".

Be that as it may, Gupt is weird because of two reasons: one, for having actors of the caliber of Manisha Koirala, Kajol, and Om Puri wasted in utter bile of roles and two, for having a pedestrian plot frequently interrupted by hummable, where-have-I-heard-that-before type of songs. Bobby Deol has a permanent snarl or an expression of utter bewilderment on his face in turn throughout the film. As to how this film became a hit is even more puzzling.