LloydBayer Reviews (282)

Oppenheimer (I) (2023)

Sealing the fate of mankind is Oppenheimer in the most important film from Christopher Nolan.

[9/10 · 22 July 2023]

It took nine seconds to decimate the city of Hiroshima with just one first generation atom bomb. That was in 1945. Today, and as of January 2023, there are over 12,500 advanced nuclear warheads around the world. Relating that fact to the review of this film, it doesn't matter whether the atom bomb was invented or the ability to split the nucleus of an atom was discovered. If we could put the knowledge of weaponizing atomic energy into a box, lock it and through away the key, we would still have a huge problem; because the name on that box would read - Pandora.

Greek mythology also tells us that Pandora was betrothed to Prometheus. Ironically, the Prometheus referred to in this review is the Pulitzer winning autobiography of the titular J. Robert Oppenheimer. Based on American Prometheus, Oppenheimer from revered director Christopher Nolan sets about telling us exactly what the book does, and that is to relive the triumph and tragedy of the 'father of the atom bomb'.

True to Nolan's style of presenting an organic puzzle, the narrative is an interview within an interview interconnecting three crucial timelines in Oppenheimer's life. Presented in black and white is the 1959 Senate Confirmation Hearing of the Atomic Energy Commission for Director Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr) who was responsible for defaming Oppenheimer as a traitor, communist and spying for the Russians. Due to this accusation, the AEC hearing begins in 1954 revoking Oppenheimer's security clearance. And the planning and resources leading up to the detonation of the first atom bomb - codenamed Trinity - takes place in 1945. During the constant shift in these timelines, we come across a plethora of characters (from A-list actors) orbiting Oppenheimer like charged neutrons, pun intended. The most important are General Leslie Groves (Matt Damon) supervising the Trinity program at the New Mexico desert in Los Alamos. Director Lewis Strauss as a direct threat and rival from the get go. And the women in his life, wife Kitty (Emily Blunt) and mistress Jean (Florence Pugh).

Several other important characters weave in and out of his life as a professor of theoretical physics, to heading the Manhattan Project in Los Alamos, to his downfall as an all-American hero. During all this time, we are witnessing the slow build-up and moral anguish of a man who used his intellect and charismatic leadership to create something the world has never known before, and then realise that his creation is nothing but the key to end all life as we know it. This epiphany, if we can call it that, comes to Oppenheimer in flashes of vivid and horrific images. But even before that, Oppenheimer's most tortured vision is the materialisation of a Sanskrit verse from the ancient scripture of the Bhagavad Gita - "I am now become Death, the destroyer of worlds". With sunken eye sockets and haunting blue eyes looking at a distant but devastating future, Cillian Murphy as the titular Oppenheimer is an instant front-runner come awards season. Not because he ate one almond a day to transform his physical appearance, or because of his brilliant personification of a psychologically tortured character, or because of the cold and unaffected relationship with the women in his life, but because of that short yet powerful scene when those words are spoken.

From its very first scene of rain drops creating ripple effects on the puddle of water it falls on, to the very last scene depicting annihilation of all life on Earth, Oppenheimer is an indicator that Nolan defies convention and mediocrity. Despite being overlong at 180 minutes, and seemingly unevenly paced, Oppenheimer is Nolan stepping away from his penchant for action and sci-fi adventure films while getting back to his roots. If you're thinking Memento, you are in for a cerebral experience. Known for making us think, and even question what we see, this is Nolan channelling his magnum opus in not just telling the world what we have deliberately forgotten, but telling it a way we will never forget. With continuous bombardment of facts and figures, theoretical science and application, and historic names behind the nuclear arms development program, it's a marathon of a film to get through, but never dull. The moment every viewer is waiting for comes two hours into the film and turns out to be Nolan's crowning sequence. We first see it, then we hear it. Then, at the very end of the film and during a hair-raising conversation between Oppenheimer and Einstein, we feel it in all its wrath. We feel a sunken weight like watching a Greek tragedy unfold - and that is Prometheus stealing fire from Zeus and gifting it to mankind.

Prey (I) (2022)

Visceral and feral, Prey is the new Predator with the tables turned. The hunter is now the hunted.

[8/10 · 8 August 2022]

If Charles Darwin was still around, he would have called this film an abomination of his theories behind the struggle for existence, or widely known as Survival of the Fittest. Going by that theory, only the deadliest of predators can survive by evolving and moving up the food chain. So what becomes of their prey? A trophy collection for the hunter.

We saw this 35 years ago, when an alien predator single-handedly dismembered heavily armed soldiers led by a commando played by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Human heads and spinal columns became keepsake mementos for this otherworldly hunter. But every sequel that followed Predator in 1987 became a mashup trying to capitalise on the original. Every follow-up project, including crossover collaboration with Alien Xenomorphs turned it into a forgotten franchise. Until now.

Set 300 years before the events on the first film, Prey not only works as a prequel, but also shakes the ground on which Darwin based his theory of evolution. That change is a strong female character in the lead. Played by Amber Midthunder, Naru is a Comanche woman skilled as a tracker and plant based healer. Much to the dismay of her tribal elders, Naru dreams of becoming a great hunter like her brother. Her moment of reckoning arrives with the arrival of a deadly alien predator, thus setting in motion the hunter versus hunted dynamic, and for the first time in the franchise, the prey tracking the predator.

As a follow up to sci-fi thriller 10 Cloverfield Lane, it helps that director Dan Trachtenberg has done franchise work before. Even with its B-movie budget and streaming media release, Prey looks and feels very much a cinematic achievement that must be experienced on the big screen. Sprawling cinematography of the Northern Plains, a haunting musical score reminiscent of The Last of the Mohicans, and an indigenous American actress in the lead role, gives Prey an authentic retrograde akin to a western of yesteryears. The action sequences and visual effects are just enough, and the cool shots this time is a brutally inventive limitation to the predator's cloaking mechanism, or invisibility.

While gender equality isn't exactly on the nose, it's plain to see that the screenwriters have ditched the testosterone fuelled alpha male approach of the first film, and instead builds on the secret weapon of a woman. Nara can be compared to Ripley in Alien 2.0, but the difference here is Prey is set in the year 1719. It wouldn't even matter if the film is set 1000 years ago, because that secret weapon is one that every woman is born with from the beginning of time. Male chauvinists won't know what hit them. And neither will the predator.

Elvis (2022)

A visual and acoustic feast of everything we know about the legend behind the iconic name.

[8/10 · 15 July 2022]

I would have been in diapers when Elvis Presley passed away in 1977. I don't think my parents even met when Elvis was in his prime, circa 1960s. And yet, here I am talking about a man that first captivated the hearts of an entire nation, and simultaneously, the world. If we are watching this film in 2022, it just means one thing ladies and gentlemen - Elvis never really left the building.

While there are several films, documentaries and TV shows about Elvis, and even conspiracy theories that he is still alive, the fact remains that no other American singer, alive or dead, has achieved so much fame and fortune in such a short time. A caption at the end of the film boldly states that Elvis remains the bestselling solo artist of all time. Even today, 45 years after his death, the Elvis Presley estate earns about US$ 40 million annually in royalties. That's about the same Justin Bieber makes from his concerts. The big difference being, Elvis is long dead, and when he was alive, never set foot outside the United States. So why is Elvis Presley still such a beloved household name, even posthumously?

Directed and co-written by the king of style, Baz Luhrmann does bring all the bells, whistles, buckles and jumpsuits you would expect in a film about the king of Rock 'N' roll. But unlike the 1988 TV movie Elvis and Me, a 240 minute intimate version told from the perspective of his wife Priscilla Presley, this 2022 iteration appears to be less about Elvis, and more about the forces that rocket propelled Elvis into instant stardom, and then contributed towards the death of that star. This is played out in three acts, where the first is Rise and Fall, the second is Comeback, and the third is Supernova; but told from the perspective of his serpentine manager - Colonel Tom Parker.

We get a glimpse of Elvis as a child in a poverty stricken family from Tupelo, Alabama to Memphis, Tennessee. Years later, and heavily influenced by Gospel and Rhythm & Blues by the local African-American community, Elvis' first public appearance in 1954 with That's Alright Mama sends the crowd into a frenzy and the female audience quivering in carnal ecstasy; Not by his baritone voice or pretty boy looks, but by the sight of his hip gyrating like a machine-gun firing unlimited ammo. Something like this had never been seen before and the crowd wanted more. But with each performance, Elvis became a novelty, even as allegations of animalistic vulgarity and voodoo doll dancing started flying around until the moniker 'Elvis the Pelvis' stuck. With Elvis as his golden goose, the Colonel tells us, the viewer, that the rise and demise of Elvis is due to us, because he loved being loved. It's a bitter-sweet ending we knew was coming.

If Elvis was solely about Elvis Presley, this would have been the best film of the year. Sadly, it isn't. The editing is a mess with too much political agenda and too little about Elvis, the person, the performer, the husband and father. His stint in the US Army and Hollywood is a blur. The assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy gets prominence, while the make and break of his relationship with Priscilla is side-lined for two short scenes. Between Comeback and Supernova, it's all blitz, glam, Cadillacs and private jets at blinding speed, until we see actual footage of an obese Elvis belting out his last cover song Unchained Melody to a crowd of thousands. Although his version of the song is spellbinding and etched in infinity, Elvis looks haggard and ghastly. The fire is gone. The end is near. Supernova.

What happened in between? How did a Southern country boy loose his identity and become a commodity? Some of these answers are presented through a break in the fourth wall, and as often as Parker tries to convince us that there would be no Elvis Presley without him. Caught in a Trap? As the puppet master that took 50 percent of the profits but maintained 100 percent control over Elvis, Parker will also try to justify why he is not the villain of this tragic story. While the script and story line is limited by hit and miss inadequacies, the delivery by Austin Butler is par excellence. If Rami Malek rocked you as Freddy Mercury in Bohemian Rhapsody, Butler looks and feels possessed by the ghost of Elvis. It takes a few minutes for you to catch the resemblance, but once that happens, you can't keep your eyes off him. You would also need a few minutes to recognise Tom Hanks as Parker. With a Pinocchio nose and heavy prosthetics, Hanks is limited in facial range as a distant second compared to Butler. Together, this is their story, and theirs alone. The consequence of which is we don't come away knowing more about Elvis than we already knew. But in between, we get a photographic replica of an icon that changed music from nothing to everything it is now.

Minions: The Rise of Gru (2022)

Gru Has Risen

[6/10 · 1 July 2022]

If anyone is keeping track, this is a prequel to the Despicable Me films but a sequel to 2015's Minions, making it the fifth film in the franchise. It's still a prequel because Gru is a school kid, but turning out to be a villainous prodigy, hence the title - Minions: The Rise of Gru.

Set in 1976 San Francisco, the film depicts how a bunch of dimwit minions get recruited by Gru (Steve Carell) as his henchmen. But before that, an opening montage pays homage to Bond films, with a heist perpetrated by a supervillain group calling themselves the Vicious 6. An ancient Chinese artifact is stolen, but one that grants world domination to the wielder. Even with so much power, what the Vicious 6 didn't count on, is a meddling little 11-year-old brat who would prove to be their worst nightmare.

While the nonstop medley of gags while fly past most kids watching this film, adults will get a kick out it, more so with the names of characters and the voice actors involved. Jean-Claude Van Damme is Jean Clawed, Lucy Lawless is a nun called Nunchuck, Dolph Lundgren is a Swedish roller-skater called Svengeance, to name a few. Then there's the throwback to 70s era pop culture from Blaxploitation to Evel Knievel and Bruce Lee. Soundtrack from Diana Ross, The Carpenters, St. Vincent, Rolling Stones, and it rolls on. All this culminates towards a final act reserved for extended fight and chase sequences, that even if you have somehow missed in a ton of superhero films of the last decade, shows signs of ageing and been done before. Inevitably, the target audience is kids. While the film does a lot to grab their attention, albeit with bare bottom Minions, the ending is forgettable.

If Carell and his posse of gibberish speaking Minions are the only reason for returning to watch this film, then kids as well as their chaperones are in for a ride. Gru's delightfully evil genius, matched only by the stupidity of his ultra-cute Minions is always a treat to watch, and hear. The voice actors this time, a plethora including Julie Andrews, Michelle Yeoh, Russell Brand and Alan Arkin, are the extra toppings that altogether will greenlight more adventures for our despicable supervillain.

Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

Welcome back to the danger zone. Buckle up and let Maverick take you on the ride of your life.

[8/10 · 28 May 2022]

As any avid cinephile will tell you, a film's original score or theme song has the power to ground that film into a classic. Top Gun from 1986 has this distinction, not just from making that film a classic, but because the theme song went on to be called Top Gun Anthem. It starts with the synthesised but faint chime of a church bell, before the melody escalates into a crescendo of 80s instrumental rock music. As symbolic as it sounds, the church bell here is a dual tone for both grief and glory.

Calling Maverick a sequel would only be half-truth. From the moment you hear that synth church bell in the opening sequence, you feel like the last 30 odd years didn't happen. It even begins with a frame-by-frame recreation of the original film's iconic intro on the decks of an aircraft carrier. We see the silhouettes of navy personnel dispatching and receiving warplanes against a low-lit but vivid sky, followed by a familiar text caption explaining the US Navy's weapons school programme. This sequence is more than just the cool beginning of Top Gun: Maverick, this is the start of an instantly familiar feeling that will immerse you into nostalgia for over 80 percent of the film's running time.

Making this umbilical connection to such a beloved film in the first few minutes, especially after 35 years, is both risky and rewarding at the same time. Part of that nostalgia also includes flimsy one-liners and corny jokes among characters, but also a half-baked and implausible story. And part of that is an inside joke as to why Pete "Maverick" Mitchell is still Captain, while most of his colleagues are either top brass or have retired. Only Tom Cruise can answer that question with the cocky recklessness but Godlike flying skills of the legendary Maverick. Which is why Maverick has to now train a bunch of crème de la crème navy pilots for a daring mission that is pure suicide. Although the "enemy" country is never mentioned, encountering a Mi-24 SuperHind and fifth generation MiGs during the mission tells us the objective is in Ivan's backyard. But sending navy pilots without hardened combat experience in last generation F/A-18 Hornets against the aforementioned enemy, in a mission impossible mission, is like taking a knife to a gun fight. Implausible narrative silliness, but who cares, right?

Then comes the remaining 20 percent with fresh content - grief and glory, and a lot of closure. One of the advantages of such a long gap after the first film, is that screenwriters can now fill in the blanks. One is the introduction of "Rooster", son of "Goose", who Maverick lost to an accident in the first film. Prepare for some emotive tantrums and chip-off-the-shoulder baggage between Maverick and Rooster (Miles Teller). The other is probably the most genuine, bitter-sweet, heart-breaking moment in the entire film and easily the best, and this is when Maverick visits and old friend - Iceman. I won't say anymore. Glory is reserved for the last 30 odd minutes and it's a high octane adrenaline rush for the audience as well as Maverick and his team. Even if it's big bucks CGI, it just feels real. Unlike recent blockbusters with mind-numbing visual effects and eye-popping camera angles (looking at you Marvel movies), Top Gun: Maverick has some of the best white-knuckle air combat displays ever seen in a film, and it all feels real. Tom's cruising charisma does the rest. All you have to do is sit back, buckle up and enjoy your supersonic flight with 100 percent fan service.

Luca (2021)

Breezy summer fun, Luca is just the remedy for wonder-starved kids and travel-starved adults

[8/10 · 29 June 2021]

Fish out of water films are nothing new for Disney and Pixar. But using the concept of yearning and discovery from beloved animations like Finding Nemo or The Little Mermaid, Disney takes another plunge, this time off the coast of Italy. In its purest form, Luca is a beautifully told story about friendship, sacrifice and loyalty, through the fun, frolicking and fleeting moments of youth. The magical beauty of the Italian Riviera as a backdrop will capture you from the first few seconds of this animation, and transport you right through to its bitter-sweet ending. In between, prepare to abandon all your worries and let wanderlust take over as we discover that fish out of water, and specifically a sea monster, can appear to look human.

Voiced by Jacob Tremblay, Luca is a sea 'monster' living in the vivid blue waters surrounding Portorosso, a small town that looks like it could be part of Cinque Terre. After befriending fellow sea monster Alberto (Jack Dylan Grazer), they discover that the world above is a fascinating place. Learning to walk and hide their true identity becomes fundamental to blending in with humans, but not so much as the effects of gravity and their newfound love of the almighty Vespa. After fun but failed attempts at riding a Vespa made of scrap, Luca and Alberto crave at the chance of riding the real thing. With a lot of help from Giulia (Emma Berman), a human girl their age, they might just have a chance at acquiring a real Vespa if they win the town's annual triathlon. What follows is the preparation for the race, with stiff opposition from the local bully who can quite literally tell that there's something fishy going on.

With an unspecified time period, the gorgeous visuals and production design would have us believe that the adventures of this trio of misfits are set in the 1950s. For the keen eye, there are also bread crumbs dotting the background with Italian pop-culture of a bygone era. And yet, the heart of this film is a coming-of-age underdog story with a message that is hard to miss. Although on the nose, the metaphorical and literal message in Luca shares the same sentiments as the Academy Award winning Best Picture - The Shape of Water - that humans are capable of fear and loathing of anything or anyone different. While Pixar films have long explored complex themes of existence and belonging, this is a film about acceptance. And on a deeper level, feels like a calming whisper about inclusivity, identity and the fact that we are all the same no matter the label.

Story artist of Coco fame turned debut director; Enrico Casarosa is clearly not aiming for anything as profound as Pete Doctor's Academy Award winning Animations Soul and Inside Out. That ambition aside, Luca is still a loveable film with warm exchange of culture and a deep rooted love for life in simpler times; like those bygone years when you could go to the beach in summer and wear what you want without worrying about what other people think. No labels.

Cruella (2021)

Devilishly fun and visually gorgeous, Cruella will reignite the thrill of being back at the movies.

[7/10 · 4 June 2021]

Behind the fairy tale façade and contrary to popular belief, Walt Disney productions have always had a dark side to their stories. Look no further than the vicious murder scene in The Lion King or that heart-breaking sequence that emotionally scarred every child who watched Bambi. Based on the 1961 Disney animation - One Hundred and One Dalmatians - followed by the 1996 live action film of the same name, Cruella is Disney in delicious dark mode. And that's just the cream on top.

While the film works as a prequel to 101 Dalmatians, the real reason you are drawn in is the origins story of the titular character. I'm talking about villainous but also anti-hero type characters last seen in films like Joker or Disney's own Maleficient. If you're reading this and thinking 'supervillain' then we may be on to something and why this film is sensationally menacing, stylishly chaotic and visually gorgeous.

Set in 1970s London, the story begins with the birth of Estella, followed by a childhood stained with tragic events that make her a boisterous delinquent. But redeemed by the kindness of two pickpockets, the trio makes a living for themselves as petty thieves. Eventually, Estella lands a job in an upmarket fashion store but works as a janitor until she grabs the attention of the owner, known as Baroness. As the utterly fabulous queen of the London fashion scene, but also a narcissistic and spiteful boss who snatches credit from everyone else, Baroness becomes the catalytic spark that turns Estella into Cruella de Vil - a mysterious fashion terrorist hell bent on sabotaging and toppling the Baroness.

Up until this point, you could be mistaken into wondering who the real villain is. That is a divisive question that can split the audience into rooting for the Baroness or Cruella. Not a fair choice given both characters are immensely and impressively watchable. Emma Thompson as the Baroness is superbly sinister and icier than a similar role played by Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada. Emma Stone as Cruella is refreshingly kinetic, with eye catching splendour armed with supervillain haute couture, and on par with the energy exuded by Cate Blanchett in Thor: Ragnarok. Their screen presence, the costumes and gowns they spite each other with, and the set design is amped up with an arsenal of no less than 37 rousing tracks that are period inspired from the 60s to the late 70s.

On the flip side, Cruella never delivers on the darkness it conveys. In this regard, and for the sake of pun placement, there is more bark than bite. That's because the Cruella we meet here has never harmed a dog and has no intention to. The Dalmatian fur coat scene? It does happen and it's a killer! So why Cruel-la? Because of her murderous instinct arising from a plot device that is better seen as a revelation rather than a twist. Either way you look at it, the last half-hour feels fluffy, with bits of slapstick moments that fit snug in a Johnny English film. But as a follow-up from the fiercely entertaining I, Tonya, director Craig Gillespie has a wild card with Cruella. Just don't set your expectations too high and you're in for a wildly entertaining, over-the-top high fashion, high mayhem drama that at the very least, should reignite the absolute thrill of being back at the movies again.

Soul (2020)

Surging with imagination and narrative clout, Soul is the spark that brings Pixar back in form.

[9/10 · 29 December 2020]

Ever wondered what your true purpose is in life? In its modest 100 minutes of runtime, this is the first of many questions Soul will throw at you; Questions that we have been asking since childhood, but that which no sage or science has ever been able to answer convincingly. In an attempt to answer some of these questions, the studio steers away from making this a visually groundbreaking masterpiece, and instead builds on its own purpose with a combination of skill, grace and narrative clout that we once loved about Pixar.

This wouldn't be the first time Pixar (and owner Disney) tackled grand themes of existence on a deep and metaphysical level. Inside Out in 2015, followed by Coco in 2017 which both won Academy Awards for Best Animated Feature, were also similarly themed but delicate in their approach in narrating the frailty of love, loss and life. And if we go even further back, so were Academy Award winning animations Wall-E and Up. So it isn't always noise and big bucks visuals from Pixar to keep kids thrilled, while parents catch a much needed snooze. And yet, the best Pixar films have historically been the ones that strike a balance between delighting children while giving adults something to think about. Soul leans heavily towards the latter.

That warning aside, Pixar veteran director Pete Doctor (Up and Inside Out) also sets a backdrop that perfectly resonates with the title of this film - New York. Perfect because of the noise, crowd, clutter, traffic, pedestrians, and perpetual rush of everything that we have always complained about but miss so dearly now, not just in New York, but also globally. As such, the ache of urban wanderlust is like a shot in the arm when the film opens in New York and when we first meet Joe Gardner (Voiced by Jamie Foxx). Joe is a middle school music teacher caught between his day job and aspirations of a career in jazz music. Despite objection from his mother (Phylicia Rashad), Joe lands an impressive audition with jazz legend Dorothea Williams (Angela Bassett), but on his way to his first performance, has an accident that sends his soul into the Great Beyond.

We call it "limbo" which in Latin refers to purgatory, a state of being between heaven and hell. In the film, Joe cannot come to terms with the thought of his own death, so escapes from the Great Beyond but ends up in the Great Before, a place where souls are prepped for life as humans. In the ensuing process, Joe meets 22 (Tina Fey) who has long resisted being incarnated as a human. 22 is scared of everything she knows about humanity, while Joe believes he has a second chance at finding his reason to exist. Eventually, Joe and 22 make their way to Earth, but not in the way we expect. It's around this point in the film where Soul really starts to surge, and then swell to a thought provoking and emotional level that brings the whole idea to its expressive peak. The answer - if you get it - is astounding, but also like something that has been staring at you in the face all along.

Soul is aware of its boundaries in not being too ambitious (pun intended). Calling this film inventive would be a stretch, but at the same time, this is Pixar back in form with a screenplay that reaches beyond its coveted expression for realism. Add to that an upbeat and original musical score, a plethora of talented voice actors in madcap supporting roles, and a creative team that blends artistry with reality in a creative "spark" that ignites inspiration and joy, and you are literally watching a film with all that jazz.

The Sixth Sense (1999)

Still fresh after multiple viewings

[9/10 · 13 June 2020]

Writer-Director M. Night Shyamalan might be a hit or miss with his recent films, but the title that made him a household name as a master-twister was his third film The Sixth Sense. It was so good at the time, that almost every film Shyamalan wrote and directed after this film was expected to have a twist ending by default. On its own, The Sixth Sense is a well-made supernatural thriller starring Bruce Willis as a psychologist and child actor Haley Joel Osment (whose breakout role was Forrest Gump Jr) in his care. Their investigation into a series of paranormal incidents leads to a terrific revelation that no one saw coming at the time. While the scary bits may feel mediocre, the twist ending is still fresh for a film that is over two decades old. Just two years after the release of this film, writer-Director Alejandro Amenábar used this particular twist ending in the highly atmospheric horror-mystery The Others (starring Nicole Kidman) with great effect.

Se7en (1995)

Still a great thriller with a terrific twist ending.

[9/10 · 13 June 2020]

Any movie buff will tell you that the mid 90s were glorious years for Hollywood cinema. They will also tell you that Seven was and still is a great film from that era. Although Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt make a terrific pair in this buddy cop neo-noir psychological thriller, this film has one of the most intense, nail-biting, suspense driven final moments ever written for screen. And then, if that weren't enough, there is that unbelievable twist ending that no one saw coming. The secret weapon in this film is not only the serial killer who is always one step ahead of these cops, but the fact that this character remains hidden throughout of the story. You won't even find him in the official movie trailer and for good reason.

Eli (I) (2019)

Redeemed by its major twist ending.

[6/10 · 13 June 2020]

When seen solely as a horror film, this one has nothing new to offer. Packed with the usual and rather standard jump scares, Eli will seem like a fairly predictable horror film that you can yawn through. But as a horror/mystery, there is something else at work here, albeit with intent to throw us off. It works, and largely due to the fact that we are misdirected from the beginning, given to believe that the titular character is in need of a rare medical procedure to cure his auto-immune deficiency. His parents have spent a considerable sum of money that requires isolated treatment (and here begins the clichés) in a scary looking mansion. As the mystery unravels, so does everything else we have seen before - dark corridors, foggy mirrors, apparitions in the mirror, contorted creatures - which Eli is a victim of, and no one believes him. All this is thrown in, with intent, for two reasons. The first is to prolong the running time, which is never a good thing. But the second reason is where this film is redeemed - the major twist at the end that has the story spinning on its own head. It's a twist that viewers with either love or hate, but definitely one most won't see coming.

Joker (I) (2019)

Dark, gritty and unsettling but also an imaginatively bold and beautiful origins story of the Joker.

[9/10 · 3 October 2019]

Forget the title. Abandon everything you know about the Joker character from the Batman movies and DC Comics source material. Forget the previous screen iterations of the Joker. For just a moment, and I'll dare say, forget about the most popular and beloved version from Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight. Don't even think or expect this to be a superhero movie. There are no fancy latex costumes and certainly no studio powered CGI. Made from a frugal budget and running at a healthy 120 minutes, this film doesn't promise anything you would expect in a Hollywood blockbuster and doesn't ask for anything in return either. But right from the very first minute, you will be smitten, because this is essentially a story about Arthur Fleck, and not really about the Joker as we've seen before.

Never heard that name before? Don't worry, no one else has. That's because almost everything about this film is fresh and reimagined; but also masked with layers of familiarity. I'm referring to a very cinematic late 1970s New York City with a distinctive Martin Scorsese vibe. And although several scenes seem to say we are watching the story unfold in Gotham City, what we see is the naked soul of New York and not DC Comics' mirror image of the former. With this comes chaos and panic in flawed, fractured, vile and unsympathetic people. Arthur Fleck doesn't believe he is one of these people. He cares for his ageing mother while trying to make ends meet as a rent-a-clown. He has dreams of becoming a stand-up comedian, and an encounter with TV talk show host Murray Franklin (Robert De Niro) might give him half a chance at success. But no one ever said life is fair, right? Between dealing with a neurological disorder that causes uncontrollable bursts of laughter and retreating from the pain of everyday life, Arthur has to cope with being an outcast, a loner, a looser, a misunderstood bystander desperate to be accepted. If this weren't bad enough, his mother reveals a family secret that becomes a catalyst and turning point in the story.

What follows is a two-pronged approach into dissecting what Arthur is becoming, while simultaneously implying why he must pursue who his father is. The answer and consequences of finding the truth is an eye-popping moment because the subject is just boldly imaginative and equally subversive to everything we think we know about the character. Which to its credit, makes this film a head-smacking original. And while the Joker is much more than an origins story, this is a film made with a lot of creative freedom, which is clearly visible in the character arc of Arthur Fleck. That means very little or no studio arm twisting to rope in the cash cow. You could say director Todd Phillips and Joaquin Phoenix as the titular character have not only reimagined the Joker from an iconic villain to devastating vigilante, they have rewritten events and characters from DC Comics into Arthur's world. In doing so, they have written and published a cinematic language that was once lost, forgotten, eroded by the cash flow that came from tentpole Hollywood blockbusters, that ironically, includes superhero films to blame.

While the story is linear and simple to follow, it does everything but give you easy answers. What the film is really aiming at is the moral and mental conflict, and physical and psychological transformation of an ordinary man into a pathological killer. As this person, Joaquin Phoenix is incredibly and immensely watchable, going from childlike innocence to someone capable of unimaginable terror. Equally astonishing is his actual transformation into a sort of contortionist with a unique cackle that sounds like a crow on concentrated caffeine. You can't take your eyes off him, and while you are subconsciously aware Arthur is a work of fiction, at no point will you have the time to compare Phoenix to other actors who played the Joker. Another interesting inclusion is De Niro, who at first appears to be in a cameo role. But there is more to his inclusion than it seems. Outside throwing back to similarly introverted roles in Taxi Driver (1976) and Raging Bull (1980), as the aforementioned Scorsese psychological dramas set in New York, De Niro also has a key role in molding Arthur. You may see it coming but when it happens, it's a shocker and in itself worthy of a second viewing.

Dark, gritty, and at times unsettling, this is Joaquin Phoenix like never before, and the same can be said about the new Joker; but also hauntingly beautiful and an impressive cinematic achievement. Unconcerned with any or all previous versions of the titular character, Joker will leave you with an overwhelming sense of empathy for a person just trying to fit in. If you don't see it that way, the joke's on you.

Little Monsters (2019)

A zombie movie with heart? Little Monsters has a lot of it and one sweet Caroline.

[8/10 · 26 September 2019]

An Aussie zombie movie? That's the first question that comes to mind when you hear about Little Monsters. But make no mistake, the only thing little about this film is its 90 minutes of runtime. The next question would be the odd casting choice of Lupita Nyong'o in the lead role. But anyone who saw - Us - Jordan Peele's terrorizing mystery-horror from earlier this year will attest to Nyong'o fitting the bill. And boy, does she!

Cinematically speaking, and with no pun intended, zombie films have been done to death. And yet, for some strange reason, 2019 has no less than three mainstream zombie films that all share a common thread. The first one was The Dead Don't Die, a curious deadpan horror-comedy staring Bill Murray and Adam Driver. Little Monsters, though not groundbreaking, is instantly and entirely gratifying over the latter film. You won't see a zombie for the first twenty minutes, and that's because writer-director Abe Forsythe is setting up a warmhearted story with some insane situational humour to boot. We follow failed rock band singer Dave (Alexander England) who is forced to live with his sister and nephew Felix after a botched attempt at trying to get his girlfriend back. All hell breaks loose in the literal and cinematic sense when Dave accompanies Felix and his kindergarten class on a field trip to an amusement park. For Dave, his nephew and the other kids, survival isn't an option and that's because they have no idea what they're up against. No one in this film has heard of the '47 Rules for surviving the Zombie Apocalypse' either, something that was groundbreaking to zombie movies in the hilariously action-packed Zombieland (2009), and whose follow-up Double Tap is the third zombie film for the year as mentioned earlier. But then no one in this film (and even the audience for that matter), would think salvation would come in the form of a super sweet kindergarten teacher - Caroline.

While that's a que for the Neil Diamond song of the same name, Nyong'o, in a bright yellow dress and an equally sunny disposition is literally gold as Caroline. With the ukulele Caroline's been empowered with, I'll even say that Nyong'o has the one up on Julie Andrews from The Sound of Music. But can you imagine Julie Andrews in a blood soaked dress? Between singing Taylor Swift's Shake it Off, hatching an escape plan, and assuring her kids that the blood on her dress is nothing but "strawberry jam", Nyong'o plays an atypical role for a zombie film but in a very refreshing way. Besides anchoring the film, you really start to appreciate her incredible range as an actress and why her Oscar winning debut role in 12 Years a Slave was so well deserved.

While much of this film is inspired by George A Romero's Night of the Living Dead and its sequels, Forsythe infuses Little Monsters with his own brand of crass comedy, some utterly tasteless and even crude with the inclusion of Josh Gad as a child TV personality. Gad is super bad, albeit intentional with profanity, but also a scene stealer when it comes to iterating how conflicted celebrities can be in showbiz. The film also has questionable origins to the zombie outbreak in an undisclosed location in Australia, where the amusement park is conveniently set next to a 'US Army Testing Facility'. This doesn't live up to the Romero films that inspired it, but as a zombie film, Little Monsters is cuteness overload with a lot of heart and a lot of cheer, and also blood and gore to match.

Spider-Man: Far from Home (2019)

Far From Home is goofy fun with lot more screen time for Peter Parker and why Spider-Man could be the next big thing in the MCU.

[8/10 · 4 July 2019]

Remember what superhero films were like many years ago? Eleven years ago, there was no such thing as the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It wasn't until 2008 when Robert Downey Jr (in the mother of all comebacks) set the ball rolling in Iron Man. And even then, we had no clue that that film would pilot an entire franchise to its grand finale a few months ago. Avengers: End Game, though epic in proportion and conclusion, did leave some lingering questions about the fate of many of the Avengers and the franchise itself. But now that the battle smoke has settled and along with it, the hype and anticipation too, Marvel fans can sit back and enjoy a superhero film that doesn't take itself too seriously. You could also call Spider-Man: Far From Home a Marvel Lite film, because that's all it is and tries to be.

Like Superhero films many years ago, Far From Home isn't about an elaborate plan to save the world. You won't have to keep track of a superhero ensemble trying to outwit an evil mastermind or why said mastermind wants to wipe out humanity in the first place. At its purest level, Far From Home is about a boy who likes a girl, but doesn't know how to profess his feelings for her. That's a highly relatable predicament for anyone who has been a high school teenager, which is the case with Peter when he learns that his crush MJ (Zendaya) is on the summer field trip to Europe. Also onboard is Peter's best friend Ned (Jacob Batalon), who like the other kids in his class, is still 16-years-old. Why they are not 21 (after Bruce Banner snapped everyone back to the 'present day' storyline in End Game) is cleverly explained within the first ten minutes of the film. In fact, a lot happens in the first ten minutes of this film, including a spoof farewell to the slain Avengers in End Game (looking at you, Academy Awards). As expected, one of them is Tony Stark, who lives on as Peter's mentor in memory. But Stark didn't die without leaving something behind for Peter - a pair of sunglasses with UV protection, and, tactical support. This little device will prove more than handy during the whirlwind tour through Venice, Prague, Berlin and London where Peter encounters a new friend and mentor - Mysterio.

Jake Gyllenhaal as Quentin Beck, aka Mysterio, is a new and terrific addition to the MCU's ever increasing list of superhero characters. There is unaffected charisma and noble determination that Gyllenhaal gives in Mysterio, but it's his brotherly fondness for Peter that makes us believe the latter is in the good hands after the demise of Tony Stark. Where Far From Home excels is not in the expensive CGI built action scenes, which in my opinion has become tiresomely explosive and repetitive, but in the character dynamics that are equally goofy and down-to-earth candid. Sure, every superhero must battle worthy supervillains, and all that, but Peter's greatest nemesis is his own every-day life. The peer-group pressure arising from several awkward situations Peter and his friends find themselves in significantly dials up the humour quotation in this film, while keeping the story rooted to the reality of kids being naïve, curious, expressive, and yet fragile at the same time. Holland has a nuanced awareness of this which gives his Peter Parker a steep learning curve in even the very mundane aspects of being a teenager. Such is his delivery in this film that holistically, you could say Tom Holland is the best actor to dawn the Spidey suit, even surpassing his own role in 2017's Spider-Man: Homecoming.

At its core, Far From Home is a teen romantic comedy resonant of the dreadful years of adolescence but also the rewards that come with it. But as a superhero film, we get a lot of screen time to focus on the character development of just one superhero, and just like the good old day. Yet Arguably, the film's release is in close proximity to End Game. This also means the film is either the final chapter to the Infinity Saga, or the beginning of a new era which could see Spider-Man as a significant character in the continuously evolving MCU. Either way, what happens during the film is well worth the price of admittance, but stay seated for the two head-smacking end credits scenes and you might just walk out with notion that you got more than you paid for.

Hotel Mumbai (2018)

At times hard to watch, Hotel Mumbai reminds us of the dark times we live in, but also humanity's innate ability to prevail.

[7/10 · 20 March 2019]

"26/11" is a date many people will never forget; perhaps as many as a billion people. It's the day terror struck the heart of India through separate but coordinated attacks across various parts of the Mumbai metropolis. Even now, a decade later, the very mention of that tragic event can open wounds that have barely healed. Debut feature director Antony Maras knows and respects this, which is why Hotel Mumbai is not only a gripping thriller based on those events, but also one with an unusual perspective.

Maras also knows that as a docudrama, re-enactment of that terrible day can hardly pass for popcorn entertainment. Having co-written the script based on interviews with eye witnesses and news reporters, Maras also avoids offering any political commentary other than what is already known. As such, we know very little about the ten young men who infiltrate the Mumbai slums on nothing but a rubber dinghy. The film doesn't even say where they have come from except for implied clues in their Punjabi accents and extremist ideologies. What is certainly clear are their instructions to inflict maximum carnage for the whole world to see. And so it begins - civilians from the Chhatrapati Shivaji railway terminal to the popular Leopold Café, and ultimately the Taj Palace Hotel are gunned down mercilessly by perpetrators armed to the teeth. In nail-biting detail, the film goes to great lengths to depict the fate of those victims - panic, terror, and massacre - in that order. Editing teams have also done a bang on job in seamlessly blending the film's dramatized events with real news footage. There is also restraint applied in not going over the top with what could have been gruesome but exploitative violence.

And yet, Hotel Mumbai is far from perfect. In reality, over 170 people lost their lives in twelve separate attacks over a period of three days. In the film, the bulk of the narrative centers on four assailants who terrorize guests and employees of The Taj Palace. The perspective shifts from them receiving cellular instructions from a voice referred to as "The Bull," to the opulence of the famed hotel, followed by its systematic destruction from within. Opposite these four terrorists are a few key people handpicked to either survive or perish - Dev Patel as an eager young waiter and father, Anupam Kher as daring head chef Hemant Oberoi, Armie Hammer and Nazanin Boniadi as newlywed hotel guests and Jason Isaacs as a Russian businessman, among few others. With the only interjections being brief TV footage of other areas under attack (including a shot segment showing terrorist Ajmal Kasab detained in hospital following his capture), you start to wonder why the narrative doesn't shift from the hotel to the remaining ten or eleven other places hit. This is followed by absurd and misplaced humour depicting these terrorists as fresh off the boat (no pun intended) and naïve to modern amenities of civilisation - a stark contrast to their otherwise unsympathetic and deadly composure.

Hotel Mumbai doesn't raise the bar if perceived as an action thriller (especially for a global audience). To be fair, I doubt this film was intended as such. But if the film is intended to showcase an outburst of humanity, resilience to persecution, unimaginable selflessness, and the miraculous will to survive, then Maras, along with the cast and crew, have crafted a heart wrenching film that will become a crowd-pleaser, albeit unintentionally. And adding to its merit, there isn't a single character that can be defined as either a hero or a villain. Patel himself is back to his career roots, but is masked out (along with Hammer) in all the ensuing chaos, that there isn't an actual lead character. But as the title suggests, Mumbai's sons and daughters were slaughtered along with foreign visitors. The fact that the siege culminated at the Taj Palace Hotel is of no consequence given the diabolical nature of pure hatred. The film gets this right without being too on the nose. And then some. In the wake of recent and similar atrocities in Christchurch, New Zealand, the horror and the realism in the act of snuffing out innocent lives can be hard to watch. It's a reminder of the dark times we live in, but also that we prevail because we are human.

Glass (2019)

As the conclusion to this original superhero trilogy, Glass feels unfinished and empty.

[4/10 · 18 January 2019]

As with most of his films, Writer-Director M. Knight Shyamalan's widely appreciated trait is to pull the rug under our feet during the film's closing minute. Which is why we all thought Split was a psychological horror film until the last minute, where that final unbroken shot sweeps across a diner until it stops over Bruce Willis' David Dunn. That's when we realised we were watching the sequel to one of Shyamalan's best films - Unbreakable. When Spilt revealed that it existed in the same universe as Unbreakable, it instantly positioned those films as two-thirds of a trilogy. And almost immediately after, Shyamalan revealed that Glass would be the finale to an idea gestating for nearly 20 years. That itself sounds like a labour of love for Shyamalan who not only embraces but also defies popular comic book logic.

Picking up roughly a few weeks after the climactic events in the previous film, Glass has Willis' vigilante David Dunn, James McAvoy's deeply disturbed serial killer Kevin Crumb, and Samuel L Jackson's titular criminal mastermind assemble for a face to face showdown for the first time. You just have to wait for nearly the entire length of the film for that to happen. To get there, Shyamalan takes us through a long and elaborate setup where he's showing us one thing but secretly doing something else; His preferred modus operandi maybe, but this time employing the illusion of delusion. Which is where Sarah Paulson joins the story as a psychiatrist whose speciality is in debunking people deluded into thinking they are superhuman. Read that again. In other words, there may have been others who think they are superheroes. This is the single most commendable idea in the entirety of this trilogy. It simply means that unlike popular characters from the Marvel and DC comics, Shyamalan's superheroes are not from another planet, or a result of lab experiments gone wrong. It's an idea that has immense potential, not only for this film but also for any indie filmmaker who wants to tell a superhero story in the future. Shyamalan got this right, but only in theory.

The execution is a different story, and why Glass is a shattered mess. As much as Dunn, Crumb and Mr. Glass are fleshed out characters on their own, they are strangely incompatible together. It's as if Shyamalan has invested so much attention on their individual character development that he has overlooked the whole purpose of what they were meant to become. Instead, a lot of time is spent reintroducing the same characters again. That's an unforgivable mistake for the final episode in a trilogy. The passage of time is also another questionable flaw. Dunn is seen in his rain poncho from 19 years ago and he is helped by his son Joseph track down petty street criminals. If not for a fully grown Spencer Clark Treat as Joseph, you would think nothing has changed since the first film. On the other hand, McAvoy was praised for his outstanding versatility in Split. Shyamalan knows that and so gives us a triple dose of McAvoy cycling between Hedwig, Kevin, Barry, Dennis, Patricia and even more of growling and wall crawling from The Beast. The air of mystery and terror turns to repetition, which feels like a stall for time and a full hour before Jackson's catatonic Mr. Glass has anything to say. Have you ever seen a film where the notoriously verbose Samuel L Jackson does nothing but blink?

In time everything falls to pieces. The biggest problem with this film isn't how disjointed the narrative is, or the unnecessary recap of the previous two films at laborious pacing, or even the complicated attempt at another twist ending. The problem is that despite nearly 20 years in the making, Glass feels unfinished and empty. Akin to the concept in the film, it's like finding a solid gold bar and then throwing it out through a window.

Roma (2018)

A meticulous crafted film that transcends stereotypical bias on gender, class and race.

[9/10 · 16 December 2018]

If you were asked to tell a story to a bunch of strangers, what would it be about? A colourful and grand tale of adventure, or a more somber and subjective story you would rather not talk about? Mexican writer/director Alfonso Cuaron's Roma is one such story where ordinary characters find themselves in situations so commonplace, you could say these situations occur to a million people every day. But if a thing of beauty is a joy forever, Roma will be remembered for a long time, simply due to the immersive nature in which this story is told.

Known for his sweeping long takes, Cuaron's opening shot is just over four minutes long of a driveway being washed with soap and water. For a Netfilx release, there is an ever present danger when watching this film on TV or a handheld device, in that viewers could be tempted to fast forward seemingly unimportant segments through the course of the film. A little bit of patience will go a long way in rewarding the viewer with not just one, but two incredibly emotive moments that are both staggering to take in. For this to achieve full impact, we are first conditioned by the mesmerizing nature in which the story unfolds. When the camera finally lifts up, we see the person cleaning the driveway. She is the domestic help to an upper middle-class family in the titular Mexican city. Though indigenous, Cleo (Yalitza Aparicio) is very much part of the family she serves, yet her place as the help is clearly defined. Cleo's Caucasian employers are Sofia and her husband Antonio, their four children, and the children's grandmother. But there's trouble brewing in the family. Antonio's unexplained and lengthy travels (as a doctor) often leaves Sofia and the kids in a state of dysfunction. From regularly cleaning up dog poop to comforting the kids when they fight, Cleo is eager to help out in every way possible. All this changes the day Cleo learns she is pregnant. Worse, the egocentric would-be-father wants nothing to do with it.

From Children of Men in 2006 and Gravity in 2013, Cuaron's nuance is in the way his characters are subjected to an impending crisis and the chaotic nature of said crisis. Roma has a lot of that crisis, but this time Cuaron is invoking a very personal story in what has been referred to as a semi-biographical episode during his upbringing. There is both a clear adoration and tribute to the women who raised him, but it's the manner in which they are presented that makes this film more of a memoir than a conventionally told narrative. After an hour or so of runtime, it becomes clear that there is not much of a plot, but a series of events strung together like sequences from a dream. This is where the film gets its heft. Circa early 1970s, Mexican socio-political events unfold in several frames, but mainly in the background. Like a renaissance painting, there is so much happening on almost all corners of the screen that it's easy to lose track of the strong bond forming between Cleo and the family she serves - Testament of which lies in the last fifteen minutes of the film, or the second of two powerfully crafted moments in the story; Powerful and moving, and all without a musical score or even the expressive sound of a violin.

Presented in crisp, clean, 65mm black and white, this is also Cuaron serving as cinematographer for the first time. The result is a rich, visually stunning array of compositions filled with jaw dropping texture and depth. Coupled with Cuaron's signature long takes and stupendously juxtaposed satire, we are drawn into an entire world made with gorgeous micro-macro detail. But it's a world we watch objectively and from the sidelines. Perhaps that is part of the point of this film - a monochromatic introspection that transcends stereotypical bias on gender, class and race. Aparicio (in her debut role) conjures this feeling in Cleo with remarkable realism. It's in the way she looks, talks, and nurtures the family. It's in the way she mothers those kids as her own. It's in the way she is needed but also taken for granted. Yet, when it's her turn to receive help, all she has is us looking back in awe but also suffering with her. In any other film, all this would be mere melodrama but with Cuaron's as the auteur, Roma is a beautiful film crafted with meticulous detail. With limited release in cinemas, most people will be limited to watching this film on a Netflix streaming device. That shouldn't be a problem when the best part of this film is its soul and not its size.

Creed II (2018)

Creed II isn't as impressive as its predecessor, but it's a film Rocky fans cannot miss.

[7/10 · 29 November 2018]

At a time when Hollywood is increasingly dependent on CGI fueled blockbusters about saving the world (is it seven superhero films for 2018?), it's always a joy when an old franchise has something new to offer, much like an unexpected visit from an old friend. Right from the first Rocky film in 1976, almost every film in the franchise has managed to raise a lump in your throat. That's because the Rocky films, though fictional, have maintained an almost true to life timeline of characters for over two generations. Fans will also tell you that the Rocky films, especially the first two, were less about boxing and more about two conflicted individuals who find happiness and then closure in each other. Somewhere along, we felt a kinship while forgetting that these were just characters played by actors. Then came Creed, an unexpected but wonderful film that many believed to be a spin-off in the right direction. But as much as we enjoyed that film, little did we know (or even foresee) that this was the padded beginning of the end of a beloved 40-year-old franchise.

Part of what made Creed immensely watchable was the gaping wounds in Michael B. Jordan's Adonis Johnson, the illegitimate son of Apollo Creed. This sequel digs deeper into those wounds and even rubs it with salt. But those wounds don't belong to Donnie alone. Opening in Ukraine, Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren) - the former Russian boxer who left Apollo dying in Rocky's arms in Rocky IV - is training his son Victor for a grudge match against Donnie. Whatever political undertone there was in the Raegan era 1985 film is left unexplored, instead, we are given to understand that Drago has been living in scorn for the last 30 odd years. Following the defeat at the end of Rocky IV, his wife left him and Victor, and the USSR has despised him for losing to the Americans. His only chance at redeeming himself is by using Victor to challenge Donnie, who is now the new WBC Heavyweight Champion. Although clearly outmatched in strength, height, reach and even weight, Donnie accepts the challenge. Eye for an eye maybe, but a recipe for disaster as Rocky puts it.

While Creed II might seem like a double-edged revenge film at first, its true intention is more about closure. New director Steven Caple Jr. gives this film a visual grandiose that surpasses its predecessor but only so much. It's bigger, longer, meaner, and stitched together with narrative clichés, but also reminds us of the frailty of relationships. This is well appointed in the effortless chemistry between Jordan and Thompson (returning as girlfriend Bianca) and between Jordan and Stallone in several scenes. Yet, the best and most tense moment in the film is a sort of face-off between Stallone and Lundgren at Rocky's restaurant. Drago blames Rocky for ruining his life. He also notices there are no pictures of him or the fight in Russia on the restaurant wall. For just a moment, you think they will pummel each other again. The story captures a lot of mental and emotional turmoil in Drago, who is thankfully not the campy villain he was in Rocky IV but a man who must make things right for himself and his son.

Ryan Coogler's Creed was a near masterpiece in not only reviving an ageing franchise, but also giving it a fresh new narrative. The fight scenes were tense and exceptional, a feat Coogler repeated with Jordan in Black Panther. The fight scenes in this sequel are satisfying at best, safe at worst. To be fair, sophomore director Caple Jr. had big shoes to fill, and it shows. Like Rocky II, Creed II has its merits but also its flaws. It also shows that this is a film written and produced in the way fans would expect. While this could spawn a whole new generation of fans, there's also a danger to the original franchise. The danger is that we may never see Rocky (the character) again and as played by Stallone. If that happens, this film would be Stallone's last outing as Rocky. And if that's the case, we either didn't see it coming or they completely ignored a swan song in favour of fan service. Either way, not to be missed for Stallone alone. Good bye Rocky!

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)

An uplifting and electrifying encore to some of Queen's best music and a salute to the man that made it all happen.

[8/10 · 8 November 2018]

Are you ready? Are you ready for this? The world's population in 1985 was well over four billion people. That same year, close to two billion people across 150 countries witnessed one of the greatest performances in the history of live music. It would also be one of the last performances by British rock band Queen, led by singer, songwriter and the greatest frontman of all time - Freddie Mercury. That was Live Aid and that's old news now. Bohemian Rhapsody serves as a biopic into the short but brilliant life of Mercury, his music, his struggles as person and the choices he had to make at a time when society wasn't so liberal. Yet no matter what you know or how much you love the sound of their music, nothing can prepare you for the final twenty minutes, or the 20 most important minutes in Mercury's life. For every Gen X or pre-millennial watching this film, this is the closest any of us will come to seeing Freddie Mercury and Queen perform on stage. Again.

The film begins and ends with Mercury in his iconic acid jeans and wife-beater vest at Live Aid. In between, we follow the transformation of Farrokh Bulsara from a shy baggage handler at Heathrow airport to the rock legend he would become. A brief and early segment tells us about his conservative Parsi-Indian upbringing, which ultimately serves as an important arc to the two sides of Freddie Mercury - the musical genius and the man in the closet. In retrospect, this is a very important part of Mercury's life that the film either gets right or terribly wrong. That's because the film is content in revealing Mercury's relationship with his girlfriend and then wife Mary Austin (Lucy Boynton). She was everything to him and the film respects that. But when Mercury gets seductive looks from other men, we are only given a hint of his confusion that questions his sexual orientation. As it seems, Bohemian Rhapsody has little interest in Mercury's personal life with other men and nothing more than mere implication. Instead, the focus is and where it should be - the camaraderie with bandmates Brian May, Roger Taylor and John Deacon - their love, joy, hate and heartbreak during the course of Queen's ascent into the household name it is today.

If Bohemian Rhapsody feels underdeveloped at times, it would be because many viewers may have been expecting a more detailed story behind Queen, the band's rapid rise to fame, and why their music continues to enjoy such longevity. While this part of the film feels patchy, with bits and pieces time stamped by years and concerts around the world, the film is really about Mercury's vision to write and produce music that was outrageous and outstanding, yet universally infectious. In the film, his lyrics and melodies come to him in epiphanies. It's a nice touch in trying to understand the brilliance behind his outrageously flamboyant stage persona, while also nodding to the fact that Mercury was known to be a shy introvert when not performing.

As Mercury, Rami Malek nails every scene with commanding aplomb, while struggling to cover his buck teeth with his upper lip. Like Queen, it's a meteoric performance for Malek who gathered a large fan following on TV's Mr. Robot. There are others too, Ben Hardy as drummer Roger Taylor, Gwilym Lee as lead guitarist Brian May, and an unrecognizable Mike Myers as a record label executive who together add supporting characters aid the story. But even if the biopic doesn't add up with which, who and what came first, all credit goes to Malek for capturing and almost reveling in Mercury's dynamic and electric stage presence, yet equally childlike innocence. Ultimately, Bohemian Rhapsody is a celebration of Queen's music, but with focus on Mercury as the band's creator. If that means controversies are left out, then it also leaves Mercury's brilliance and conflicts obscured in mystery. And that's the best way to remember a legend with an incredibly diverse set of octaves. "We will rock you", they said. They do and you better believe it. By the time you realise the end credits are rolling up, you'll find yourself hanging on the edge of your seat.

Summer of 84 (2018)

Summer of 84 offers nostalgia as the blue pill and horror film as the red pill. You can only digest one.

[6/10 · 1 November 2018]

They say real outdoor fun ended with the 80s kid. Not just in the literal sense, but anything outside the confines of home - hours at the gaming arcade, playing neighborhood watch on bicycles, skipping school to be with a sick buddy, widely made-up conspiracy theories, and an endless list of everything typical of adolescence before the modern internet boom. Summer of 84 begins with a familiar kinship to the 80s, a story of four teenage boys desperate to prove that each is more man than boy. Even their names, Davey, Tommy, Woody, and Curtis seem cut out of the 80s cinema era from The Goonies to Stand by Me to the recent and hugely popular TV series Stranger Things. Throw in synthesized retro music, rebellious hip-hop fashion, a mere mention of Reagan and Bush Sr. and the film starts to conjure nostalgia specific to that period. Easier said than done? The real proof of the pudding is in actually tasting it. And here's where the film runs into a fundamental problem - a setup so big that it loses sight of the little details that goes into its own foundation.

Taking cues from films like Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window, which by itself spawned a generation of suspense driven thrillers from Fright Night to Disturbia, the premise here isn't new but the crux of the film is in the opening line that "Even serial killers live next door to somebody". That's protagonist Davey Armstrong's theory, amongst several others plastered across his bedroom wall. As the neighborhood newspaper delivery boy, Davey (Graham Verchere) is also privy to tabloid headlines before everyone else. When news of a second teenage boy goes missing, Davey is obsessed with finding the killer. Together with his buddies and armed with walkie-talkies, flashlights and a trusty pair of binoculars, Davey sets out to prove that his neighbor, police officer Mr. Mackey, is the serial killer.

Aesthetically, Summer of 84 will please every adult viewer who grew up in the titular era, and is bound to find something relatable in this film. Be it the music, the pop culture of the time or when opinions were in good faith and not obscured by the so called 'politically correct' atmosphere of modern society. But as a thriller, the story is only half as believable. Peppered with holes, the story also has us wired into believing that Davey and his friends have everything figured out, while precious little is done to make us care if they live or die. Then there's the problem with length. As much as fifty minutes goes by before we get the first and forced jump scare. The remaining fifty minutes is when things get interesting, of which the high point is when Mr. Mackey makes a house call. It's a well-played out scene and perhaps the most chilling moment in the film. Ultimately, the film ends up with a forked conclusion - one is the twist and one is the actual ending. Only one of these is successful in leaving a strong afterthought - and maybe, just maybe, the birth of a new serial killer in horror films.

First Man (2018)

First Man is an intimate account of how far one man went for the rest of mankind.

[9/10 · 19 October 2018]

The year 2019 will mark 50 years since an American astronaut landed and walked on the moon. In Hollywood fashion, it's only fair that a film celebrates this event as a glorious and patriotic anniversary. First Man is not that film. Neither is it a full-fledged biopic as the title seems to suggest.

If Whiplash, followed by La La Land were astounding films about the burning desire to go above and beyond the ordinary, returning director Damien Chazelle put's everything he's got into making First Man a poignant yet important story on what is probably the single most dangerous mission in the history of mankind. Yet until now, it hasn't seemed that way because junior school history books barely talked about the event without earmarking it as a historic date. Which is why Chazelle, along with scriptwriter Josh Singer (Spotlight and The Post) is audaciously tasked with not only gathering every detail that went into the Apollo 11 mission but also the brilliant yet impenetrable psyche of mission commander Neil Armstrong.

Following the development of the space programme through the 1960s, much of Armstrong's story is told from a first-person perspective. His personal tragedy early in the film along with his real life repute as an introvert sets the tone of the film. There was nothing stopping Universal Pictures, including Executive Producer Steven Spielberg, from throwing in an extra 100 million bucks to make this film an action packed white-knuckle crowd pleaser. Instead, the entire film feels like a modest presentation of one of the most applauded events that contributed towards the modern space age. Through Ryan Gosling's deadpan eyes, Armstrong is a recluse and never the hero history says he is. In retrospect to the eventual moon landing, the space programme in this film is marred with failure after disastrous failure with funerals of fellow astronauts as the only punctuation. But all through Armstrong's progression from flight engineer to test pilot to eventually being strapped into a Saturn V Rocket aimed at the moon, we are also shown what he was as an ordinary civilian. His sorrow and self-doubt, coupled with remarkable calm and restraint, escalate into a vicious circle with each setback. Yet caught between the political pressure of the tax payer's dollar and his personal will to succeed, the film's most powerful moments are the sacrifices he makes as a father and a husband. Gosling gets this right in equal measure as Armstrong the man, the astronaut and the icon he would become.

Equally decisive is Armstrong's wife Janet (The Crown's Claire Foy) who in two limited but explosive scenes jumps the que for a Supporting Actress nomination. Whether Foy gets it isn't nearly as important as her conviction in portraying the anguish of a wife whose picture-perfect family is under constant threat by her husband's employer. This is a highly relatable predicament for millions of home-alone mothers whose waking nightmare is seeing their spouse return in a casket from a job they loved more. Such was the dwindling expectation from the mission that one moving scene even has a NASA representative pen a generalised obituary to the would-be widows of the few remaining astronauts. All the courage, sacrifice and tragedy are supplemented by a large assembly of supporting roles whose teamwork and on-screen camaraderie builds a formidable launch pad (no pun intended) for the best and most rewarding segment - the lunar landing.

Both technically and visually, First Man is almost flawless and deserves to be seen on the largest cinema screen available. Just like Armstrong, Chazelle also applies a lot of restraint in not only limiting exposition to a trickle, but also employing just the right amount of visual effects to tell the story. But even the little in this film instantly puts to shame the overuse of lavish visual and sound effects in big sci-fi titles like Gravity or Mission to Mars. Watching a group of suited up astronauts stuffed into a steel bucket held together with nuts and bolts is not only a claustrophobic experience for the viewer, watching that tiny capsule rattle and roll and hurtle at a speed of more than a thousand feet a second can be exhilarating and immersive. That's more than enough for the billions on Earth who can only dream of taking that flight of fantasy towards another world. First Man does that in a very intimate and down-to-earth way, when everything about this film is about a giant leap from the earth to the moon and beyond.

A Star Is Born (2018)

A Star is born isn't just a great remake, it's really about Cooper and Gaga's unseen talents that makes this one of the best films of the year

[9/10 · 11 October 2018]

Remakes can be risky. While films have been remade within short proximity of preceding films, there have been iterations that once stood out but faded away with time. This is one such film where the story is well known but it's popularity rose and fell generations ago. Which is where debut director Bradley Cooper finds himself up against his first challenge - did we really need a fourth remake of A Star is Born?

The answer is resoundingly affirmative and all you need is the first ten minutes to be reeled in hook, line and sinker. But as much as this film is an absorbing crowd-pleaser, this is also an incredibly moving obituary to the fallen heroes in show business. Anyone who has seen the previous films should be aware how this will end and although Cooper respects the original story, his approach is fresh and captivating. Even so, Cooper's greatest triumph is the spell this film casts on its audience. There is magic and chemistry, which together brews a huge bowl of soul.

The first half of A Star is Born is absolutely charming in the boy-meets-girl department. Playing an alternative country music rock star, this is Cooper faced with his second challenge - as the lead character he had to also learn to sing convincingly well. But as the story goes, Cooper's Jackson Maine is past his prime. There is little joy left in electrifying a sold-out concert. There is nothing more to pursue but addiction and self abuse. Ironically, and throughout the film, the chorus to Jackson's main song plays out "It takes a lot to change a man and it takes a lot to try; maybe it's time to let the old ways die". It doesn't happen. Not until Jackson is smitten the moment he sees Ally (Lady Gaga), an unknown singer performing at a drag bar. What follows is a new and fresh take on a timeless love story of two souls on opposite trajectories but whose paths are destined to intersect.

There's a perfect blend of magnetic pull and charm between two characters, and then between said characters and the audience. This is known as screen chemistry but it isn't always convincing. We thought Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence were dynamite together in Silver Linings Playbook. Then came Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone's widely appreciated chemistry in the (almost) Academy Award winning Best Picture La La Land. In A Star is Born, Cooper and Gaga are not only incredibly convincing, their character bonding happens like street magic - right before our eyes but never really sure when it happens. And if this isn't convincing for the hardest of cynics, wait till you see them sing together. There can't be anything more real than the goosebumps that follow. Music as the essence of this film rings true but the story looses some traction in the second half once focus turns to Ally as the new supernova in showbiz. It's a stall for time until the inevitable happens and why A Star is Born is a heartfelt reach-out to the oft unseen and undesirable effects of being an adored entertainer. But as films like The Artist and Birdman have taught us, every star has a cycle from birth to death. Fundamentally, this film serves as a austere reminder of just that. Although Cooper has starred in some big films before, he has never performed as a singer (let alone film director). And although Lady Gaga has won multiple Grammy awards as a singer, she has never performed theatrically. This could have been the most disastrous pairing in cinema history but it's another challenge that Cooper has pulled off, albeit with near-exceptional results. There have been many before, even music divas like Madonna and Whitney Houston who attempted crossing over into cinema. Not many have succeeded. For Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, or Lady Gaga the pop star, this is the first and we certainly hope not the last. Insecure yet audacious, vulnerable yet spirited, Gaga's Ally is the literal and figurative definition of an underdog making it big in show business. Together, they make it worth every penny you pay to watch this film and it's a film you never want to end. But be warned. As the co-writer and co-producer of this film, Cooper doesn't stray far from the original story. If anything, the conclusion is far more overwhelming than expected. But backed by a strong supporting cast and a terrific list of songs, this version is not only the best compared to the previous films but also one of the best films of the year.

Ghost Stories (I) (2017)

Ghost Stories doesn't raise the bar in horror films but feels strangely original. And then there's that twist ending.

[7/10 · 26 September 2018]

Adapted from a hugely successful West End stage play of the same name, Ghost Stories will appeal to old-school horror fans where the journey has more importance than the destination. For this, co-director Jeremy Dyson (who shares scripting and directing duties with lead actor Andy Nyman) uses every opportunity to rattle our nerves but applies restrain to great effect. Jump scares are also limited in favour of an icy atmosphere that harkens back to classic British horror films. In keeping with that tradition, viewers can expect this horror film to have all manner of spooky threats from all corners of the screen. While this can be perceived as a limitation to the original stage production, the story remains the same and the main reason why this is a well assembled chiller.

Because of the plurality in the title, the film appears to be an anthology of short stories. Or does it? There is a common thread running through each of the stories and that is co-director Nyman as Professor Phillip Goodman - a cynic devoted to exposing urban superstition and fraudulent psychics. The opening credits show why Goodman has a chip on the shoulder for superstition, but having climbed the ladder and become a television presenter, the chip on the other shoulder tells us that he is also hungry for fame. Opportunity arrives in the form of Charles Cameron, a renowned paranormal investigator Goodman has idolised since he was a child. The sick and dying Cameron asks Goodman to investigate three cases of unexplainable paranormal incidents. Little does Goodman know, or is prepared for what lies ahead. And neither are we.

Each of the three stories are barely twenty minutes long but ensures a good fright at the end. If that isn't enough, a fourth story emerges, which according to a very special character is "the last key that unlocks everything". But we want even more, right? Patience will be rewarded, but not before realising that even as the title is obvious, the black humour is equally evident. "The brain sees what it wants to see", says that same character, setting into motion a cruel joke that not only serves as a devilish twist ending but also ribbon-wraps the entire package.

While true horror fans may think this film is more bizarre than it is scary (which could be a let-down for some viewers when each story ends), the real meat of the film is in the build-up and not so much in the actual confrontation with the paranormal. This is evident in the old-fashioned campfire approach to telling a ghost story, and with almost the same potency from the works of Stanley Kubrick to Stephen King. Technically, this also means the directors were trying their hands at all possible ways to scare the audience. That doesn't say much about raising the bar as a horror film but to its merit, delivery from key roles played by Martin Freeman and Alex Lawther nails it as tight as a tomb. Lawther, in the second story, is as creepy as a ventriloquist's dummy, while Freeman's character brings an ethereal crowning to the entire film. Ultimately, Ghost Stories is assembled from a deep love for the genre. While that can include certain familiarities, the film is also smart and sophisticated. Which when stacked up against modern day horror films, feels strangely original yet playfully subversive.

Calibre (2018)

A gripping thriller from a new and upcoming master of the macabre.

[8/10 · 31 July 2018]

The choices we make will ultimately define consequences we must face in the future. Or so, we've been told since a young age. Writer-director Matt Palmer gives that axiom a wicked spin in Calibre, a Netflix release not to be underestimated by its lean length and production budget.

Before the film reaches its inevitable and horrifying conclusion, Calibre will have the audience questioning what is right and wrong. Viewers may even find themselves rooting for either the timid and polite Vaughn (Jack Lowden) or the confident and outgoing (Marcus Martin McCann), old friends off to the Sottish highlands for a bit of deer hunting. This would also be their last getaway as bachelors before Vaughn marries his newly pregnant fiancé. Upon arrival at the local tavern, the duo find the locals less than hospitable. At first it's not clear whether the locals don't take kindly to outsiders or they just don't like big city executives flirting with the local women. A night of pub-hopping later, the next morning starts with a hangover and ends with a nightmare that doesn't end.

Thus begins Palmer's feature debut until it takes you to its mind-numbing and gripping final thirty minutes. If you survive this, the very last scene will leave you with an icy shiver. Very bad things happen in this film, some of which in quick succession and before we get a chance to digest the gravity of the horror unfolding on screen. While it's not about whether viewers can stomach some of the violence, the question that emerges is in identifying who the real villains are. Getting into more detail would be doing this shocking and edgy thriller a disservice but the two male leads are excellent, each in their own way. Lowden, fresh of the success of Christopher Nolan's war epic Dunkirk, and McCann building on his terrific performance in the 2016 post-apocalyptic thriller The Survivalist, are both exceptional in a simple story of a stag-weekend gone terribly wrong. Even so, they are both matched by strong talent from the likes of Tony Curran and Ian Pirie, playing village locals who are essentially law of the land.

Calibre is evidently shot on a low budget but still manages to keep the viewer arrested with a sinking feeling that the worst is yet to come. While the premise of a stag night gone bad, or outsiders having to outsmart suspicious locals have been done many times before, Palmer's story is somehow counter-intuitive to what one would expect. In between balancing our sympathies for the two leads against a situation that gets gruesome by the minute, Palmer deserves the most praise for taking a familiar story and giving it a diabolical yet intentional twist. Neatly embedded in the story are also subtle questions about the disparity of power, wealth, and justice, while offering nothing but a bleak answer as to how and why bad things happen to good people. It isn't a joyous film to recommend and neither is there anything pleasant about the film but if so much can be delivered with so little, then Matt Palmer is the name to look for as the new and upcoming master of the macabre.

Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018)

Tom Cruise saves the world again, and this film.

[6/10 · 27 July 2018]

I must have missed something fundamentally riveting about this film, or, the film is mostly the same as any other Mission Impossible film - Bike chases, car chases, aerial chases - it's all there and as good or as cheesy as the previous films. The story, however, did not hold my interest. Simply put, it's about thwarting a terrorist attack by double crossing double agents. Seen that before? The issue isn't just the tired old save-the-world generic script but the heavy onus on Tom Cruise to hoist and thus save the film from mediocrity; which he does single-handedly. But it isn't enough. The action choreography, though thrilling, has all been done before. Not only in previous films of this franchise, but the same as in the Die Hard and Bond films. If John McClane can take down a helicopter with a car and James Bond can take out a motorcade with a plane, then guess what? So can Ethan Hunt. But if these are standard expectations in superspy films, then there should also be a super villain we all love to hate. How good was Philip Seymour Hoffman in MI3? In this film, the villain, who turns out to be a double agent (SURPRISE!) is an embarrassment to the entire cinematic world of villains. But I like how he ended up resembling Two-face from the DC comics (so much for being a double agent...two face, get it?).

So if I recommend this film, it would only be for Tom Cruise and his infectious energy in every scene, with one in particular revealing Ethen Hunt has a heart of gold. As Maveric, Ron Kovic, Cole Trickle, Lt. Kaffee, Lestat, Jerry Maguir, Les Grossman, Tom Cruise has immense versatility matched only by his onscreen magnetism. At 56 he's still got it and probably the only reason "Mission Impossible - Fallout" is watchable. That said, the second biggest disappointment (after the wooden villain) is the lack of any real mission that is seemingly impossible to pull off. Part of what made the earlier films thrilling was just that: the hi-tech heist. From dangling upside down to steal a microchip in the first film to actually holding his breath for six minutes underwater in "Rogue Nation" (to steal another computer chip), doing the impossible was one of the highlights of those films. None of that here and no hi-tech gizmos either. Instead, new director Christopher McQuarrie (who previously wrote the brilliant "The Usual Suspects" and "Edge of Tomorrow") settles for oomph over an actual story that lets us care about any of the characters. Even the whimsical team camaraderie we loved about the previous films are missing here with Ving Rhames and Simon Pegg taking a back seat (and Jeremy Renner nowhere to be seen). Driven by its strong action formula, "Fallout" will entertain the masses, but memories of which will self-destruct in less than five months. If that sounds corny, wait till you see the last thirty minutes...or the longest 15 minutes in cinema to diffuse a nuclear bomb.