sharansrinivas-g

It seems that having tentpole actors from other language industries walk around in slo-mo is just what's need to classify movies as Pan-Indian. Anyway, Jailer does just that and this film fails spectacularly. Rajnikanth does what's required of him. However, Nelson doesn't. His screenplay is flaccid. He takes a well-established narrative template and botches it with a paltry execution. Nelson seems preoccupied with lifting scenes from Hollywood films that he's forgotten that making a Superstar film is actually pretty easy. You need a few mass scenes, a few punch dialogues and a simple story that acts as a bridge between the aforementioned mass scenes. How could you botch that up?

After Beast, this is yet another dismal film from Nelson. Forgettable fare.

8/10 for Season 1. 3/10 for Season 2.

There's a trend in episodic TV or streaming content nowadays where the protagonist starts at the bottom and by the end of the first season, he makes it to where he needs to be. So, when you excitedly start the second season, you're horrified to realise that he goes back down again. It's happened to so many iconic TV characters in the last 10-15 years, from Don Draper to Ray Donovan to even Nurse Jackie and Louie.

Season 2 of The Bear is just that. A dismal and excruciatingly slow-paced series that meanders from place to place, person to person. The show does get many things right especially when it comes to supporting characters (the mom was perfect combination of anxiety and mayhem) but the plot does very little to help the show. I loved season 1 of The Bear and I despised season 2 for Christopher Storer's relentless attempts to push the lead character deeper into the ground.

Even non-American people know of Marilyn Monroe's life. Such is her legacy. So, when this movie attempts to create a false world that Marilyn grew up in, you immediately want to reject it for its lies. This is the worst thing to happen to Marilyn Monroe since sleeping pills.

The story is just so awfully written for one to feel pity for Marilyn. The writer and director seem to have forgotten that all we feel for Marilyn is pity because it's well-documented how we feel sorry for her and how much we detest Old Hollywood and JFK for the way her life went to the dumps.

What we needed was a more soulful account of her life and what we got was trashy Page 3/TMZ baloney.

Why is it that every Asian movie that's been recommended to me turn out to be riddled with problems?

The protagonist seems to have just a couple of expressions, with the most prominent being the frown. She's either on the verge of crying or getting angry. But, she frowns so much that I'm addressing her as Miss Frownyface. Then, there's the mentor turned antagonist, Chef Paul. His acting is cliched. There's no originality in his performance. The supporting actors are given very little to work with and so, I shall excuse them.

The story progression puzzles me. The writing is unconvincing. Is this Whiplash or is this Parasite or is this that episode of Squid Game where the rich English-speaking gamblers show up? Is this a serious drama about an abusive mentor or an intelligent satire about the class system or a sardonic parody that lets the whole movie down? I'd say Hunger is all of the above. And, that's why it doesn't work.

The pacing is uneven. The characters are illogical. The film is supported by brilliant cinematography and good music but the most important beam that should support the film is the screenplay and actors, and they don't do enough.

I am genuinely interested in watching other films starring the protagonist, just to see if she's Miss Frownyface in other projects as well. I'm not even joking or mocking, I am convinced that she relies on her tiny bag of stock expressions.

Let me be clear: as much as I wanted to like this film, I just couldn't. There were quite a few issues that many people seem to overlook.

I'll admit, I'm a sucker for slow-paced arthouse dramas. Call Me Chihiro should have left me with a wide smile but it doesn't. There are many arcs that are opened and left incomplete. There are many questions that aren't answered. For instance, why is the schoolgirl taking photos of Chihiro in the early scenes? What drove her to do that? We never get to know why she did it. Some might say, that's inconsequential, but it is. If the directors finds it fit to introduce his characters in an odd manner (the schoolgirl certainly is stalking), the reasons matter.

Parenting is at the core of Call Me Chihiro. We see various examples of bad parenting. And, in later scenes, we see the children of these parents rebel but these arcs are incomplete. We don't get a scene where the parents react to this rebelling. Do they accept their flaws, do they openly talk about it with their kids, we don't see it. There are a couple of scenes where one of the parents confronts Chihiro but the same parent doesn't address this with her own child. The film is full of visual metaphors that convey the feelings of the characters which help us read the room but while these add to the story arcs, it feels like you've been robbed of a good ending to these arcs.

I'm also not sure why the protagonist takes it upon herself to bury an old homeless man on her own. Why can't she call the authorities and report the passing of an old homeless man? And, how is it that even when a blind patient is missing from a hospital, no one seems to call the authorities.

The film attempts to find the same vibe as Amelie or Happy-Go-Lucky but it doesn't reach that because while there are some quotable lines, it just doesn't work the same way it did in Amelie or even Ladybird.

Call Me Chihiro at best is a middling letdown. Despite breathtaking visuals and interesting characters, the film's screenplay forgets much of the drama it creates and it exists in a strange and uneven realm.

Having seen the 2-hour long Suzume, I will admit that the film's emotional core is intriguing. It's that of a 17-year-old girl still grieving her mother who died 12 years prior. Taking this and the brilliant animation aside, the rest of Suzume is quite simply... below average.

As much as I didn't want to hate Suzume, I hated it mainly because of the shoddy characterisations. Even the voice-over actors were unconvincing. As someone who has been indulging in anime, J-dramas and K-dramas, it's that female characters are written rather poorly. Think of the last K-drama you just watched; was the main female lead clingy, confused and almost easy to convince into doing anything?

The titular character of Suzume falls head over heels for a mysterious young man she meets. Moreover, every problem that begets the protagonists is kick-started by Suzume being a clueless and dumb 17-year-old schoolgirl. The film's plot wouldn't be afoot if not for her and throughout the film no one seems to acknowledge that she is the cause of the hell that's about to break loose.

The protagonist creates the mess, cleans it up after a lot of trouble and chalks that up as personal growth. How does this make the film great?

Writer's note: IMDB needs to make zero, a rating. Pronto.

First, the filmmakers came for the farmers. Then, they came for our women. Now, they've come for our children. Leave us alone!

Repeat Shoe is a disgusting attempt at filmmaking disguised as a Yogi Babu comedy. Even the comedy is flat. At least Gurkha had one or two funny lines (and let's be honest, Undertaker was awesome) but in Repeat Shoe, the entire film is tone deaf. What is the central theme of this film? Some little girls (as little as 9 or 10 years old) are being sold as sex slaves! A young girl lives with her alcoholic cobbler of a father who openly states that he killed her mother. Two scenes later, the father sells his child as well. Father of the Year, ladies and gentlemen.

Filmmakers and supporters of these filmmakers/films will immediately jump to their defense stating that they are simply reflecting real life stories. In that case, I'd like to ask, why can't you make a documentary about these girls that are being trafficked? Did you really have to direct a movie where a little girl is pushed into a room with an old man? Does the little girl even know what's happening in the scene? This movie is just morally wrong.

Now, we come to the execution. The film runs for less than 2 hours but it's actually runtime is about 30-40 minutes. Every scene is stretched way past the point of no return that almost everything in the film just feels unnecessary. If you don't have a story for at least 90-100 minutes, don't make the gosh darn movie!

I can go on and on but this movie is just the worst. Let me just leave you with this: if you are depicting sexual assault and/or harassment of minors, stop using little girls in that scene! It's shameful and disgusting that you'd do something like this.

Ronin is an action noir crime procedural thriller about a group of mercenaries hired to steal a box. What's in the box? We don't know. Who hired them? We don't really know much about that either. Ronin is an excellent thriller that charmingly deconstructs the aforementioned genres and scene-after-scene delivers mind-blowing writing, execution, action and performances.

Ten star-film you may say. But no, this 90s action epic drops the ball in the third act and becomes all too predictable instead of being inventive. Whatever the case may be (you may like the third act or agree with me on this), this is a must-watch for fans of action, thriller and noir genres, and for any fans of car chases.

There cannot be a spoilers mention for this film as there's really not much to it. The first scene tells you what the backstory is. A sculptor is madly in love with a black girl named Venus, who becomes his muse and soon, leaves him penniless. That's the most amount of plot and character development you'll ever see.

This is an erotica. There's plenty of nudity and some softcore level humping in the film but what bothers the most is when the narrator, a wealthy art collector finally takes home the Black Venus, filmmaker Claude Mulot seems to have had cold feet and lets his female lead "stay moral", thereby even if our narrator owns the Black Venus, he does not own the muse. This kind of poetic justice seems rather odd for a film with gratuitous sex. It's kinda like asking "What's another sex scene in an erotica?"

There's literally nothing else for you to look forward to. The acting is third-class, the production design seems to have been borrowed from Merchant-Ivory and it's as if the production always never had enough lights. Every shot feels dark and gloomy, and hence is apt for nighttime viewing only. Given its subject matter, that's a good choice. Cinemax, with its modern filmmaking techniques and better looking girls, is a better choice for you boys.

I'd give this 4/10 mainly because it lacks sex scenes where it was most necessary. You've got to close the arc, Claude!!

Mild spoilers ahead.

Plein Soleil is brilliant and it's the kind of movie I wished Talented Mr. Ripley would have been but Anthony Minghella doesn't give us that. He gives you a nearly 140-minute slow-moving film. Plein Soleil on the other hand is exciting and thrilling, right until the last minute where the director decides to undo the novel's amoral character meet a moral end.

In Patricia Highsmith's novel, Tom Ripley is amazed by his own cleverness in getting away. That's what made Ripley a great anti-hero. The last minute of Plein Soleil takes what was already a brilliant film and makes you question it as a whole.

Brilliant performances, stunning cinematography and a perfect Nino Rota score elevate Plein Soleil into a masterpiece. If you can end the film right before the last minute, you'd have watched a brilliant French masterpiece.

MILD SPOILERS AHEAD.

The trailer branded Sooryavanshi as some Avengers kind of ensemble film. To be frank, the other two cops don't show up until the end of the second act. So, this is Akshay Kumar's movie all the way. I do wish that you could have hired someone else instead of Katrina Kaif because she still hasn't grasped acting. All she does is pout, glare and dance in the rain in a skimpy sari.

The last 30 minutes were not only action-packed but incredibly funny too. I love self-referential humour and there's a lot of it when the three characters get together.

I am staggered by Rohit Shetty's attempts to unpack terrorism as he clearly doesn't understand the concept. There's a scene where Akshay and a terrorist have a battle of words that's essentially:

"Why did you kill all those people." "Well, they killed my family" "Yeah, but you killed many families in return."

Dude, Rohit, you can't simply put terrorism as they killed my family, so I killed them back. That's petty vengeance. Terrorism is a much bigger monster. But, then again, this is the guy who made Dilwale. So, I shouldn't really complain.

All in all, the action's pretty good. The sound is pretty loud. The plot takes a lot of time to get settled. And, Ranveer is effortlessly funny in the third act. So, that's Sooryavanshi for you. I'll definitely watch if Rohit does a proper ensemble movie but I'll wait for it to come out on Netflix or Prime.

First Season - 10/10 Second Season - 4/10

I LOVED the first season. It won over me. I loved almost all the characters. Season 2 began in a familiar way but halfway through, something strange seems to have happened to the writers who've decided to F up Ted Lasso's good demeanor. Supporting characters that I once rooted for, I now despise and the odd love stories, triangles and quadrangles, were just time fillers.

We all love Coach Beard. He's the silent killer. But that single character episode in season 2 kind of kills the thrill of watching Beard yell out one-liners or make tiny nods. Roy became insufferable in S2 and I had zero empathy for Rebecca or the NFL-inspired sub-plot early on in S2. It just made no sense as to why you'd take something that works well and screw it up over 12 episodes. Great acting by everyone but the writers don't deserve it.

John Ford's movies are to die for. And when John Wayne's in the lead, you know it's gonna be great. The Searchers is epic in every word. But, it's also an odd mix of a revenge western, a goofy comedy and a sullen romance. That right there is its biggest problem. Instead of staying with the main plot, Ford goes through a roster of characters and scenes that are rather comical - like Lars Jurgensen and his over-the-top accent or the romance/wedding. These scenes take over 20 minutes of valuable screen time and drive you to boredom. You want to see revenge not a silly brawl between two men to win the heart of the woman. You want to see Wayne's growl not laugh. Stick to the main plot, John Ford and you will have a brilliant film.

I'm not sure if I should feel bad for Kathir for getting bad projects or be pissed off at him for choosing them. The actor can do wonders - as showcased in Pariyerum Perumal - but here he's just another young man with a short fuse. How many of those have we seen in the last 100 years! It doesn't help that he begins to stalk the heroine. It doesn't help that his character is underdeveloped save for a few mannerisms. It doesn't help that almost all the characters are stereotypical.

There's no originality in the film. Take the scene where the hero and heroine meet for the first time. He's at a bus stand and he gets slapped by the girl who is soon told by her friend that he's not the one who had been harassing her. This meet-cute/slap-cute trick alone has been used in a handful of films in the last decade.

Sarbath just doesn't cut it. Regular Tamil viewers might find it engaging but a seasoned viewer will be scratching his head immediately, knowing the trap that lies ahead.

I was never about Jezza's own show having seen The Great Escapists in which the easily sellable Hamster failed to create an entertaining spectacle while May on the other hand now has two great shows on Prime. Having seen the entire show, I can now proclaim that Clarkson's Farm is the finest show I've seen in the last decade. It's not too pretentious, it's not too dull or technical. It's simple, honest and great fun. From the crops to the sheep to the chickens, there's a great variety of animals and the human contributors (especially Gerald) are also great.

Sheeping, Wilding, Pandemicking and Harvesting were all stunning episodes that elevate the show to a greater heights. Can't wait for Season 2.

The lead character has a poorly written backstory which doesn't explain the stories of his sibling or father. So, when they show up, you're confused as to what's happening. Nobody is from the people who brought you John Wick which means that the action is top-notch while the story is severely underwritten with a lot of hushed up moments.

What all did John Wick do before he retired? What is this syndicate really called? Who runs this? How did the associates of Viktor's kid not identify John Wick at the gas station?

There are many similar questions left unanswered in Nobody. But, here's the really good thing about it: Bob Odenkirk owned it. He punches and kicks his way through and gives a thoroughly convincing performance. Could he be the next Liam Neeson? He sells the deadpan delivery, brooding stares and rage. Thankfully, the film is just around 90 minutes and the pace doesn't lag.

So, why am I rating it low: because the story is underdeveloped. Or if this was developed well, it just doesn't show. Action movies usually have a simple plot but we are not in the days of Rambo or Eraser. The third John Wick film showed that you can have an episodic plot with many developments. If you can excuse the lazy writing, you'll enjoy the film. I couldn't excuse the writing mainly because it had more than one writer. So, I enjoyed Odenkirk and the action, but was let down by the rest of it.

It may sound crazy but I think that if reviewers can call this "an ode to love" or "a poignant tale of one-sided love", I think we might as well address the problem with the kind of love we see in films. It's either stalking or simping. Ram, the protagonist in 96 fell in love with Jaanu while in high school. She too falls in love with him. Ram is forced to move to a different town, thereby breaking the connection. They meet over two decades later. Jaanu is happily married while Ram is still single, still a virgin and has never loved any woman or attempted to date any woman other than Jaanu. He somehow thinks that he's fine with not loving again or even feel the company of a woman again.

In the present timeline, Ram is a photographer and his alienated approach to life and women piques an interest in a photography student who accompanies him on his travelogues. This then might be the only shot Ram can have at love. But, in a later scene, Jaanu meets her and spins a yarn as to how they fell in love and got married. So, to put it simply, Jaanu realises that the student had an interest in the mentor and decided to nix it. This then is the greatest ode to Incel culture and simping.

Granted Nagarajuna hasn't had a good film in a while. But, why does he tend to choose roles of either maverick policemen, maverick investigators or maverick soldiers? What is it about a job that grants a gun and a team that makes Nagarjuna happy? Is he wanting to return to action? If so, why just this avenue? There are so many stories he can choose from. He's Nagarjuna! The problem with Wild Dog is that it's ineffective from the word 'go'. The writing is lazy and reminded me of an early 90s made-for-TV film starring Peter Weller (I think).

Coming back to Wild Dog. The acting is lazy while the action feels uninspired. The CGI is so 90s while the BGM seems to have been taken straight from first-person shooter games. There is not a single character that sticks in your mind.

When I was watching this film, I was reminded of Payanam, a superbly crafted thriller surrounding a plane hijacking. Nagarjuna plays an NSG in that film and his role in Wild Dog is no different from that, except for the fact that Payanam had far better writing. Wild Dog just isn't wild anymore. I don't think it's even a dog.

It wouldn't be wise to not mention Swing Vote, the film that I believe inspired Mandela. I would have been upset had they tried to replicate the film directly. However, Madonne Ashwin gives us a breathtaking and intricate film. Mandela is Yogi Babu's shining glory. It's a phenomenal entertainer. It lives to make you laugh. A majority of the scenes are designed to make you giggle, guffaw, chuckle or even smirk.

The surprise package of the film is Yogi Babu. I expected almost nothing from this film and throughout this almost 135-minute, I was constantly telling myself how good it really is. Mandela is political satire at its sharpest. Something Manivannan would do with gusto. It's great to see such smart films in an era of stupid remakes.

There have been many films that can be described as slick, cool and stylish. But, it all began with Thief in my opinion. It's an ultracool film that defines Michael Mann's filmmaking style - darker night shots, grey day shots, a synthesizer-led score, slow-pacing, most dialogues recorded at low volumes, loud gun shots, long and drawing takes and a minimalist approach to storytelling - it's all available in Thief.

It's sad that Mann's later films (including the late 2000s remake of Miami Vice) do not have the same energy as Thief or even his 90s masterpiece, Heat. But, enough about that. Thief is James Caan's film all the way but most characters are written and played well, that everyone has a fair share. Robert Prosky (whom I grew to love in Hill Street Blues) is brilliant as the mob boss, Tuesday Weld's role sadly was under-written. They gave her a history but left it right there. The best of it all was Willie Nelson, who in his first and only talking scene delivers a fine performance. I just loved how Willie as Okla kept staring at James Caan's Frank with joy and glee. It was a spectacular performance.

Thief has its shortcomings. Much like later Mann films, it's slow, the main plot is a little hard to follow (because the dialogues can be too observant), and importantly style can sometimes replace substance (like the improbable climax shootout), but it is nevertheless an early 80s gem and perhaps Mann's finest hour.

There may be many great baseball movies but there's only one classic and it's not Redford's The Natural or Costner's own Field of Dreams. It's Bull Durham, an underrated movie from 1988.

Tim Robbins is a natural fit as a cocky young pitcher and so is Kevin Costner as the veteran ball player whose main job is to coach Robbins into becoming a better player. The humour is first class and it's tough to single out a scene in particular. If you like humour that's not in your face ha-ha, you'll love Bull Durham.

But, wait, I haven't told you about the movie's biggest strength - Susan Sarandon. This is the movie where I fell in love with the woman. As Annie Savoy, she's smart, sassy and incredibly sexy. Her lines are impeccably written and her character is just fun to watch.

What Bull Durham had in humour and spirit, Field of Dreams made up with sentimentality and nostalgia. Nevertheless, I will also consider Bull Durham to be the better film, mainly because the filmmakers weren't trying to make a great film. They weren't trying to give it a glow like Field of Dreams had. They just wanted to make a fun baseball film in the league of Major League and they hit the bullseye!

Grown Ups 2 is just as gross as the first one. It's gross enough to be an Adam Sandler classic. And that's what it is. Some movies give you a warm feeling and Grown Ups 2 gave me that feeling; a blanket of comfort when I know nothing can go wrong. The absence of Rob Schneider (who was the butt of most jokes and gags in the first movie) meant that poor David Spade had to take his place. Spade does a pretty good job at it thankfully. Kevin James however was the highlight of the movie with his subtle one-liners and his "Burp-Snarts". Taylor Lautner is a close second for his over-the-top frat boy performance.

The movie continues the current trend of flaunting 80s nostalgia. Sandler did it a few years earlier with Pixels and does it again in this. The entire third act of the film is set around an 80s themed end of the year party.

Simply put, Grown Ups 2 is for those people who comment "I see____. I click." on YouTube or Reddit. It's for the simple-minded, the ones who need some relief, the ones who don't care about the wokeness. That perhaps is why Grown Ups 2 joins the league of the Sandler Classics where other recent movies include Just Go With It and You Don't Mess With The Zohan.

I find myself thinking a lot about Rohmer's short film, The Bakery Girl of Monceau. It's a part of his Six Moral Tales, all aligned with the same story: Boy is previously (a) engaged, (b) married, (c) has a girlfriend, or (d) saw a girl on the street; Boy meets another girl who catches his interest; Boy is tempted to the limits to get serious with the girl (or in some cases, get lucky); Boy finally remembers the first girl and leaves.

In The Bakery Girl of Monceau - much like My Night At Maud's - the girl that the protagonist is initially smitten with, is someone he sees during his mid-day walks. The day she stops crossing his paths, the protagonist decides to continue walking around areas where he has either seen the girl before or where women of her kind would visit. He becomes desperate and hungry which leads him to a Bakery where he meets the second girl. She works at the bakery and is an early example of a fleshed out Rohmer woman.

I keep thinking about the Bakery Girl of Monceau because this could have been the plot of a "meet cute" film. But, it is not. The protagonist is tensed that the girl may have moved or may have even found another man. So, when the bakery girl asks him out, he says yes with very little enthusiasm.

Sometimes, I wonder if it's really that easy to stumble into a nice movie.. even if it's a short one.

First off, this is a far better film than the Whedon version. However, there were issues... a lot of them, story-wise and CGI-wise. But, here's the biggest question: if Snyder's almost 4-hour cut is still engaging, how much did he actually shoot?

ZSJL is eons better than JL. Many characters have bigger arcs. Many fates are met differently. The ending is tenser. It's the best DC film in the last 5 years. But, it's also incredibly dark and depressing. HBO Max should offer valium to everyone who has seen it.

I am glad that much of the bad humour in Whedon's version was actually Whedon's idea. None of it is here and thankfully, that makes the characters more serious. However, I do miss the tension between Bruce and Diana. The chemistry here is hardly visible.

I was initially surprised by the runtime but as soon as the movie began, I noticed a major fault - slow-motion. Snyder seems to have fallen in love with slo-mo. There's too much of it in the film and while it helps build a little tension, it's mostly annoying because you want to see what's going to happen next but Snyder's slo-mo shots are still keeping you waiting. At a point, I got bored and started skipping 10 seconds ahead to see the end result.

The BGM is here and there. It sounds like a rock concert at one point, a template superhero movie at the other and some weird Bjork crap at another. Every time Wonder Woman does something, you hear a hoarse woman doing vocables. You hear her over and over.

When the film's finally over, it's not over yet. We get a series of post-credit scenes that happen before the credits roll. My understanding is that it's just going to get much, much worse.

Now, with a Black Superman and an Emo Batman in the works, I'm interested to see how the next JL movie pans out.

Mild, mild spoilers ahead.

I found myself asking many questions halfway through Local Hero. At the end, I had even more questions that needed answers. I guess we look at cinema from a technical aspect and expect to find answers in the tiniest bits. But, Bill Forsyth simply looks at it as art, narrative art. Local Hero is a terrific film. One might say it's just a sequence of scenes put together. The plot that kicks off the movie follows Mac, who works at a Texas oil firm and has to go to a small village in Scotland and wager a deal for the entire place. The rest of the movie is about the small village debating about the price of their land, mermaids, beachcombers, astronomy and a stirring score by Mark Knopfler.

There are obscure things that might keep you wondering... like those unanswered questions I mentioned in the beginning. But, Forsyth's remedy is to accept it as nature unknown. The film's ending has had its share of debate. People aspire for a happy ending. Local Hero leaves people puzzled with its ending. It's.. for lack of a better word... obscure. Make what you will with it but remember, you're watching one of the most beautiful little films ever made.