isaacsundaralingam

Atrociously cringe-worthy dialogues, but still a decent movie nonetheless.

Also the fact that it was set in Afghanistan, but every character was speaking in English with an Afghani accent felt silly. Nobody else but English speakers do this... where you make a movie about another country, then cheapen it by anglicizing (think even movies like Gladiator where ancient Romans speak English). Have you ever watched say, a Chinese movie about something happening in Brazil where everyone is supposed to be Brazilian but speak Mandarin? Or a French movie about Japan where all Japanese people speak French? I dunno, I would have preferred the same movie in Arabic to preserve authenticity. This just felt silly, and it's silliness that shouldn't have impacted an otherwise decently inspiring and heartwarming movie!

Alright dude, we get it - Muslim Mughals are evil, barbaric people. Hindu Marathas are progressive, peace loving, equal rights champions who bleed patriotism and courage. Not to forget that Sambhaji is basically Indian Jesus, if Jesus could take on a thousand men at once in a fight.

15-20 minutes into the movie and I've already hit my tolerable quota for how much brainless patriotism I can absorb, and it's then just like being a spectator at a gladiator event, but with military grade binoculars to get all up close to soak in the gratuitous blood and violence. And oh, the final 30 minutes was basically just The Passion of the Christ, but with more testosterone and with none of the poetry.

Action scenes were cool sometimes though, but that's about it!

* movie reveals Richard De Zoysa was gay * Googles Richard De Zoysa - educated at St. Thomas' College, Mount Lavinia Bro, we're never beating them allegations lol

On a more serious note however, Rani is a movie that was sufficient enough to satisfy, but not to impress. And I suppose I did go in hoping to be impressed, based on everything I've heard about it. But I wouldn't necessarily hold it against the movie as I would myself for my lack of historical context as to the political reality of the time, which is so readily apparent throughout the movie to be all the difference in how likely you are to judge its effectiveness.

Ajith's latest film, Vidaamuyarchi, is definitely leagues above the trash he's been in over the last few years. Good scripts seem to be this guy's kryptonite because there hasn't been a single decent Ajith movie since Yennai Arindhaal-a whole decade ago! And no, Nerkonda Paarvai was a disaster; cope harder.

However, when the first trailer for Vidaamuyarchi dropped a couple of weeks ago, it felt like this movie could actually be pretty decent if executed well. Watching it in cinemas reinforced that the execution is what ultimately holds it back from being a truly good film. The plot itself wasn't terrible, but the writing surrounding it felt completely unaware of the mess it was creating. Those flashback sequences and everything in the third act? A testament to that chaos.

The first half of the movie was surprisingly good, albeit a tad slow. It set up a few intriguing narratives that made us curious about where it was headed. But then, around 15 minutes into the second half, it nosedived into a predictable mess. You could practically see the rest of the movie unfolding: our hero takes down the villains, and you're just left waiting to see how quickly you can get home. Toss in a few unintentionally comedic moments, and you've got a film that squanders its potential as an action thriller.

Still, it's not a movie I'd outright advise against watching. While it's not a masterpiece, it's definitely not bad. Technically, it's very sound, featuring gorgeous cinematography and serviceable action choreography that will at least keep your attention. And as far as Ajith movies go, that's a win in itself. Let's just hope the next one is even better!

I hate that I'm going to sound like one of these anti LGBTQ idiots, but does making a movie about a trans person automatically make critics want to pat themselves on their backs for how brave they are for liking it?

Do trans people really feel empowered that this movie has 13 Oscar nominations or do they feel like their identities and their struggles are being co-opted by a bunch of ignorant top hats who are desperate to show everyone how great and compassionate they are for how much they stand in solidarity with the movement without realizing that they're making a mockery out of it?

If not for all the Oscar glazing, "Emilia Perez" is a movie I would have disliked and not cared for as much, but all this just makes me want to actively hate on it.

What is this trend in Tamil cinema where these trash movies that no one watches are all botted up to a 9.8 with more than 2k votes within just hours of its release?

I mean, I've seen this trend before (Santhanam's Kick, Hansika's Guardian), but those were truly just unfathomably horrible movies, whereas this movie is not even close to being as bad. Now don't get me wrong... This isn't a good movie in any way, and nor is this is an excuse for how poorly this movie was written, or how badly it was executed. But it's just so blatantly shameless when these movies bot their ratings up to near perfection, almost as if they themselves are aware of just how horrible the movie really is.

Speaking of "Nesippaya", there's just one redeeming aspect of it, and that is Kalki Koechlin's screen presence, which did stand out as refreshing in a movie where the acting was always try-hard and exaggerated. It has sparks of a decent premise too, but what good is a premise if it can't be executed well? The movie progresses through incompetence; whether that be of the hero's or the villain's, it's indistinguishable as if they're all sharing a single brain cell throughout the movie. You could think of a million ways in which the movie could end an hour into its runtime if only a single character was competent, or just even not a complete idiot.

The movie is a waste of time, and if you're somehow on this IMDB page, looking at the 9.8 rating and considering if you should go check it out, let me direct you and your hard earned money in the right direction, which is anywhere else but a theater where this movie is playing.

The only reason I checked this movie out was because it was Indonesia's official submission to the Oscars this year. And having watched a few but amazing Indonesian movies in the past, I was rather curious what this year's entry was about. But not too long into the movie, it becomes quite obviously apparent that this is a movie about a very heavy subject matter in the hands of someone who just lacks the nuance to approach it with any level of sensibility that isn't just "r*pe bad".

I know nothing about the director, but this movie reads like the works of someone with a very 'cinematically artsy' view of how victims of r*pe and SA would behave, and that makes it rather unintentionally comical. The scene where Martha first returns for her father's funeral in a 'traumatized' state and waves at the corpse with a half-smile is about as prophetic as a scene could be as to how this movie perceives acts of sexual violence and the trauma it brings with it.

It's a very 'made-for-festivals' movie where the mere act of filming poverty or gratuitous acts of sexual violence could give the filmmaker the impression that they're now exempt from actually having to present something of value. There isn't much I really liked about this movie; both conceptually and even technically, and I just found it to be a huge waste of time.

So she commits murder by shooting her lover in the face in a hotel, almost as if to recreate a similar non-fatal shooting incident at the exact location from years prior which involved a writer she is obsessed with, sentenced to just 3 years in prison for this crime, is pardoned by the president only a year into her sentence because her Nobel Prize winning writer friend wrote a well worded letter to the president requesting her pardon, and we're somehow supposed to admire her for that?

While the movie surely has some interesting ideas contrasting the paralegal in a suffocating marriage with the writer whose independence is asserted, the movie ultimately falls flat with a story that goes nowhere meaningful, and with a character whose admiration is morally dubious at best.

I'm not really going to structure my review for this, and instead use this as an impression dump. "Vettayan" was definitely the best Rajni movie since "Petta", but it's also the case that there just hasn't been a half decent Rajni movie since "Petta". "Vettayan" does its best to hold ground, but it still ends up being a rather tiresome watch. The main reason for this is just how long this movie went on for when it didn't really need to.

The first half was pretty good and while that might have been enough to keep your attention for a while, the second half fumbles the ball as soon as they reveal the direction of the movie. There's nothing here really that you haven't seen a million times before, but at the very least, there wasn't anything embarrassingly bad... except maybe the action, as has been the case in every Rajni movie, where the best action choreography you could do with a 70 year old man is to get him to swing his arms and flick his wig.

It's a passable movie for sure, and by Rajni standards, that's a good thing.

Has anyone ever told you that the caste system sucks? I mean, of course they have, but Nikkhil Advani's "Vedaa" is going to scream about it again anyways. You would think that a movie about the caste system is practically a layup, but for some reason, it treats the topic with a level of seriousness that's almost comical. "Vedaa" puts all its energy into fighting shadow boogeymen, where by the end of the movie, all you've watched is yet another commercial action flick with a caste discrimination setting, made to satiate either the fans or the ego itself of a particular actor.

All that being said, at least the movie tries to keep you entertained, and entertained not by the quality of the movie you're watching, but rather in a sense of being entertained by random car chases, gunshot action and fight sequences. It's Bollywood being Bollywood at the end of the day, and this is as Bollywood as it gets.

For some reason, this 2022 movie got a Sri Lankan theatrical release this month in 2024. I have watched some amazing Pakistani movies before, but never a Pakistani Punjabi one, and so I was curious to see what this movie was about, especially given how highly rated it is on IMDB. Well, big mistake, because what the hell did I even watch?

A remake of a supposedly iconic Pakistani movie from the 70s, "The Legend of Maula Jatt" feels as if it was doused in a barrel of testosterone, and I don't mean that in a positive sense, but rather in a primitive and barbarically disgusting one. It was bombastic, loud and painfully over the top, and while one might argue that it's one of these "turn your brain off and enjoy the action" kinda movies, it doesn't help when the movie is so brainlessly unoriginal, it feels like you're being punished for simply having a brain. There was nothing attractive about this movie, and it just felt very unsettlingly barbaric, but as if it were something stylish or cool.

Couple this trash with a horrible theater-going experience where two separate Pakistani families brought along their kids who were running around, shouting and screaming throughout as their parents (and grandparents?) did nothing to stop them, or at times, shout and laugh along with them with no regards for the rest of the audience in the theater, you're left wondering if all this loudness is just a Pakistani Punjabi thing. I hope not, but it was a horrible enough experience that I'd never want to check out another one of these loud, obnoxiously insufferable Pakistani Punjabi movies.

Justin Baldoni's "It End with Us" could at times be as melodramatic as it is attractive, but what it undeniably is, is a decent look into the effects of domestic violence and generational trauma. Since release, the movie has been subject to a lot of behind the scenes drama that I'm not going to focus on here, and instead just approach it for the movie that it is.

Starring Blake Lively as Lilly Bloom, the movie sees her falling in love in 2 different stages of her life... Both instances somehow being impacted by her experiences with domestic violence. I've heard complaints about how much the movie deviates from the book it's based on, but having never read the book myself (nor even aware of its existence before the movie), I was rather content with the movie I watched. While it at times does play up the melodrama to cringe worthy levels, the underlying approach to such a heavy subject is done with tact, and that makes the movie a decent watch overall.

"It Ends with Us" is about as young adult romance as it could get, with all the clichés and stereotypes of the genre on full display, and that in itself could mean that it's mostly going to appeal to a particular demographic. And that's a good thing perhaps, because while I did find it interesting, it's not good enough to warrant me recommending it to most people. It's a movie that will be liked by those who usually enjoy cutesy romantic young adult dramas, and would at best be white noise to anyone else.

"Borderlands" is entirely new territory for me. I've never played any of the games and am not even remotely familiar with what it's supposed to be about. But from what I hear, even those who did play the games find this movie to be unsalvageable trash. It's as every bit a generic big-budget sci-fi comedy as one could expect, and even that characterization does it a disservice, as something generic could even at times be passably fun. It has absolutely nothing worth praising, as every aspect of it, from its comedy, to its plot, to its action, to its world-building, to its CGI, to everything, is as lazily conceived and even lazily executed as one could imagine. It's a movie that's very rightfully being panned and however much it's currently failing at the box office is very easily deserved.

There's not much to say about Neeraj Pandey's "Auron Mein Kahan Dum Tha" except that the movie itself is unsure of what it wants to be. It's at times a romantic drama, and at other times, an action movie or even sometimes a Rashomon-esque mystery thriller. But at everything it tries, the movie fails miserably. The worst of its crimes, moreso than the whole outdated soul-mate stuff, is how utterly predictable every bit of it was. And predictability wouldn't really matter in a movie like this, if only they didn't try to make it a movie that has a secret to be revealed. But for all its flaws, the movie is rather vanilla and inoffensive, and doesn't really give you a reason to go beyond 'dislike' into 'hate' territory. So yea, it's essentially a movie meant to be discarded and forgotten.

Dhanush has always been one of Tamil cinema's most consistent actors in terms of the quality of projects he accepts. So when he makes his directorial debut, one surely must be excited to see what his storytelling vision really is. It's not very surprising that he tries to model his debut along the lines of some of his most acclaimed work as an actor (think "Asuran" or "Vada Chennai"), and for the most part, he has a story that's good enough to get the conversation started.

"Raayan" is a movie about an orphaned family of siblings fending for themselves in a city infested with gang violence and one where the volatile instability of their lives are highlighted. It has all the markings of a good 'Vetri Maaran-esque' movie, and it promisingly starts off in that regard too. Right until the movie's interval block, it has its sights set on where it would want to end up, and does a great job keeping the audience interested and invested in the movie and its characters.

For as well as it started, it's the movie's second half that disappoints massively, as it just comes across as if the movie is stuck not knowing where to go from here. It has very few points of interest from thereon, and the story beats just don't seem to work. The movie drags and drags to the point where you're now just waiting for it to end. The second half has nothing to offer and that stance is insulted further by the time we get to the movie's climax, which seems to be entirely unaware of the mockery it's making of the entire movie and its premise. It's disappointing especially, considering how promising the movie looked during its first half.

Most of the mistakes in this movie comes from bad flow and writing. It had the foundation to succeed, but didn't have the experience to build off that, and that is ideally where Dhanush would have to improve should he want to continue down this particular path of storytelling. And as for whether this movie is worth checking out in cinemas, no, it's not, don't bother.

When the very first scene of the movie has Deadpool digging out Wolverine's decomposing corpse from "Logan" and using it to fight a bunch of NPCs, you know you're in for something irreverent and fun. And fun, of which the movie has plenty. It's true that over the years, people have grown accustomed to Ryan Reynolds' style of humor, which since the popularity of the first "Deadpool" movie, has followed him around into every other movie he makes. But there's always something special when Ryan delivers the same obnoxious 'c*ck-and-b*lls' jokes wearing that loveable red suit.

What convinced us all to go to the cinemas and check this movie out after the years of being sick of superhero movies however, is not Deadpool in and of itself, but the addition of Hugh Jackman's Wolverine to the mix. It's a character so beloved and one we can almost never picture anyone else in, and this movie is further proof as to why. It's a pairing that we knew would always work out well, and unsurprisingly it does. It's the banter between Deadpool and Logan that makes this movie as fun and enjoyable as it is, and credit to both actors whose chemistry was the best thing about this movie.

All that being said, we're once again back to the inevitable Marvel problem of having a paper thin script which has the now banal world ending stakes it always has. It's something that has been overplayed so much that it even makes a Deadpool movie somewhat tedious. It's a Deadpool movie, so sure you're about to expect some silliness sprinkled around, but where you don't want to see it is in the blueprint of the script. And unfortunately, that's where it is, with the laziness and the lethargy of Marvel's writing department sticking around like a sore thumb.

It's a movie full of banter and cameos and while that makes for an amazing theater-going experience, it's not enough to warrant longevity. The cameos are surprising, but only the first time you watch it, and that probably makes this movie the weakest of the three Deadpool movies. All criticism aside though, it's a movie worth checking out for sure while the hype is still on, because it's not going to be as fun once it's out on digital, when everyone knows what surprises to expect.

Let me start off by saying that while yes, this movie was pretty average, it was still a million times better than what I went in expecting, just off the trailer. "Twisters" is a movie about a group of tornado-chasers who, well, chase tornados for a living. Maybe that's a good enough a premise to attract an audience to cinemas, but ultimately, a good movie means good execution.

Things could have gone so bad so quickly with a movie about people chasing tornados, but the best thing about this movie is that it took itself seriously enough to not make the mistakes it very well could have. It has a decent story that's as much about the tornados as it is about the people in the movie, and while there isn't really anything memorable, it's still entertaining enough to pass the time. I mean, tornados are fun right?

Best not to go into this movie expecting much, because as horrible as the trailer was, I'd say if you are interested in checking it out, go in with expectations off the trailer, so that way you can at least be pleasantly surprised that it wasn't all horrible.

It's impossible to go on social media and not see people heaping praise for Oz Perkins "Longlegs". People are already calling it a masterpiece and almost everyone who has watched it seems to think that it's the best horror movie in recent times. So of course this gets me excited to want to check it out, and now that I have, I don't really feel as strongly about it as everyone else. This is not to say that Longlegs isn't good, no. It's a really well made movie, which despite its slow burn approach to horror, is really compelling and keeps you at the edge of your seat. It does so many things well that the collective is as good a horror movie experience one could want from a visit to the cinemas.

For all my praise, the movie also has some pretty unignorable low points and cliches. Cliches like the jump-scares but also in narrative that kind of cheapen the impact of the movie. That's about all I'm going to disclose here, as the less you know about it prior to watching, the better. It's still a pretty good horror movie though, with the right type of atmosphere as designed by its amazing sound and production design and helped tremendously by a standout performance by actress Maika Monroe.

If you're a fan of the horror genre, you definitely would have to check this movie out in cinemas, but just be sure to keep you expectations realistic.

What if the moon landing was faked, but it wasn't? Greg Berlanti's "Fly Me to the Moon", starring Scarlett Johansson and Channing Tatum presents a movie where the White House tries to stage a fake moon landing scenario as backup, that is to be televised should the actual moon landing fail. It definitely sounds like a fun concept on paper, but rather than expanding on it through writing, the movie mostly hedges its bets on the star power of its leads to carry the movie. It's not a terrible bet though, as both Johansson and Tatum have really good chemistry, and make the movie tolerable simply through sheer screen presence, but it still lack the writing magic that could have propelled the movie further towards the moon. It's not a great watch, but still a decently passable one. Better wait for it until it's out on streaming though.

The first "Despicable Me" movie was great. The second was good. The third was poor, and this one doesn't need to exist. The whole movie is a series of events that lead nowhere, and contribute to nothing in the overall narrative. It has a villain whose name and face I've already forgotten, and a storyline that's as drawing board as it could get. It tries so any things, but tries with such minimal effort, that it feels like it exists only to cash in on the title. The villain backstory, the heist scenario, the safe house scenario, the Super Minions scenario, the honey badger scenario... They're all just one nothing burger after nothing burger and before you realize that the movie hasn't really gotten anywhere, it's over.

It's a movie that's not really worth your time, and while it's certainly not boring, it's not going to entertain you in any meaningful way either.

Taking over from John Krasinski who made the first two movies in the series work so brilliantly, Michael Sarnoski (fresh off his critically acclaimed "Pig") gives us a glimpse into the first few days of the alien invasion in "A Quiet Place: Day One". The only real risk in a movie like this is how necessary it really is to the series (given that it's a prequel and given that it's something nobody really asked for), and how necessary it is wholly depends on how well the movie turns out.

"A Quiet Place: Day One" doesn't really break any ground, nor does it seem to give any meaningful insight into the alien invasion that started the whole thing, but it still does so many things so well, that you're not going to be walking out of the cinemas disappointed. Starring the amazing Lupita Nyong'o as a pessimistic cancer patient looking for a way to relive the happiest moments of her childhood during an alien invasion, the movie comfortably blends a very personal touch of empathy and connection in a movie with so much going on in the background. The emotions of the movie are handled really well, and yes that includes fear and the survival aspect of the invasion (that which made the first two movies work really well).

It's still the weakest of the three movies, but it's also capable of holding its own. It has enough material to keep you watching, and does what it does well enough to keep you on the edge of your seat. If you enjoyed the first two movies, there's a good chance you might enjoy this too.

Before every single movie screening for the past 6 or so months, the theaters in Sri Lanka have been playing the trailer for Prasanna Vithanage's "Paradise". And as someone who has visited the cinemas more than 60 or so times this year, I've watched this trailer so many times that I can basically recite it line by line. And I have to be honest, the trailer never really gave me the impression that there was anything remarkable here worth checking out. But I could not watch a trailer 50+ times and then not watch the movie when it releases.

Well, now that it's out, what is my opinion of it? It's a movie that doesn't really say very much (at least not directly), but it has so much conflict going on underneath the lines of dialogue that the movie starts growing on you the more you think about it. I watched this movie last Saturday (29th June 2024), and have had 3 full days to think about it before I'm comfortable with how I feel about this movie. "Paradise" is about a lot of things; political, socio-economical and even spiritual, and is written with a lot of clarity without ever giving away more than it needs to.

Roshan Mathew and Darshana Rajendran star as tourists from India who decide to vacation in Sri Lanka during the height of its 2022 political and economic crisis. They're here on a 'Ramayana' tour (the symbolic significance of which, is underpinned brilliantly throughout), celebrating their 5 year anniversary, and with their local guide, the softspoken Mr. Andrew (played with so much grace by actor Shyam Fernando), travel around parts of Sri Lanka that are said to be significant to the 'Ramayana' mythology. But when the couple are robbed at knifepoint on their very first night, things escalate to a point where it's no longer about the robbery, and more so about the self serving power dynamics of the various people involved.

"Paradise" is very intentional in the way it approaches things. Even if you might not like what's happening, you certainly would feel like there's more to this movie than what you're seeing. There's so much political, spiritual and critical messaging going on underneath, that 10 people watching the movie are bound to walk out with 10 different interpretations of it. It's impressive really, and impressive more so to me because I was not expecting it. The movie is strong in all fronts, especially from its acting caliber (namely actor Mahendra Perera, who plays Sgt. Bandara with such amazing subtlety), to the visual language of the movie, the recurring motifs and even the music. They all add up to create a movie that deserves to be talked about.

It might not be a movie for everyone, and I am quite hesitant to recommend it to all in general, but it's one of those movies that would give you what you want if you are the type of person who wants their movies to be more than just mindless entertainment. It has a lot of depth and substance to it, and if that's something that interests you, do go check it out!

Three bad horror movies in cinemas this month ("The Strangers Chapter 1" and "The Watchers" being the other two), and this just might be the worst of the lot. Russell Crowe stars in "The Exorcism" (which funnily has nothing to do with "The Pope's Exorcist" from earlier this year, also starring Russell Crowe), a movie about making a horror movie, where the meta storytelling is arguably more scarier than the movie itself.

Despite some decent performances by Crowe and Ryan Simpkins, the movie is hugely let down by a nonsensically stupid plot that's competing with itself to out-stupid every stupid horror movie trope in the least amount of time. It takes itself too seriously and tries to portray itself as more than the steamy turd that it is, through "deep" pondering dialogue, extreme close ups and unbearable long shots that last forever with nothing happening. It's pointless, inconsistent and it doesn't even seem to care. So maybe you shouldn't as well.

Have you seen any futuristic sci-fi/ fantasy movie ever? Well, then you have nothing new to see here, because there isn't a single minute worth of original thought anywhere in this 180-minute snooze fest of a movie.

Nag Ashwin's "Kalki 2898-AD" boasts a star-studded cast of Prabhas, Amitabh Bachchan, Deepika Padukone, Disha Patani, Dulquer Salmaan and of course Kamal Hassan (who is in the movie for a total of 5 minutes or less), and yet does nothing with the resources it has at its disposal, opting for a lazy checklist movie with every sci-fi cliche one could think of. You'd be better off going to watch it with a bingo card with the most popular sci-fi cliches (think lightsabers and force fields), and maybe that would perhaps make the experience somewhat interesting.

The movie progresses at snails pace, even so to the point that using the word "progress" feels like a crime. It might as well be a crime, the extent to which this movie tries to convince us of how serious we should be taking it. It has a laughable concept of the "Mahabaratham" mythology married to a cheaper version of "Alita Battle Angel", unimpressive sci-fi mechanics, costume design that looks no different than present day rock bands, fight choreography that's dud and boorish, humor that's annoying, characters with no dimension to them beyond a single sentence personality trait and most importantly CGI that's just painfully basic and unimpressive.

Imagine having to sit through 180-minutes of nonsense only for them to reveal that it was in fact nonsense, because whatever you thought you might have wanted from this movie is actually going to be in the sequel. Yes, there's going to be a sequel and why not. They even shamefully go as far as to call it "The Kalki Cinematic Universe" and the lack of self awareness just might explain this movie away perfectly. In any case, my recommendation is that if you're going to watch it, at least be sure to pack your neck pillow.

Ignoring the nepotism and the blatant plagiarism (inheritance?) of her dad's signature approach to horror (funnily including his flaws), Ishana Night Shyamalan's "The Watchers" doesn't really stand out in any way to be a memorable debut. And as mean and discouraging as it might sound, it mostly boils down to a laughably silly storyline and a rather amateur and unpolished directorial effort.

The movie is about a woman who is trapped in a forest with three other strangers surrounding almost supernatural circumstances. The movie unfolds in a way that makes you realize pretty early on that whatever explanation is coming probably isn't going to be all that convincing, nor interesting for that matter, but you won't realize just how spontaneous and silly it all turns out to be. It's not the worst concept for a movie but it starts off with such a plain presentation of lackluster enthusiasm eventually turning into just pointless lore-building that's so out of place and silly that it fails to make an impact of any sort.

The Watchers has a concept that could have worked better under more experienced hands, but unfortunately it just doesn't serve as good enough a showcase for debutant Shyamalan's talents. It's a concept that needed a lot more fleshing out than to give into the first silly idea that came their way. In any case, it's not really worth your time so just ignore this movie like you were most likely to anyway.