Shame (2011)

Shame is one provocative and abstract piece of cinema. As a whole, I thought the movie was fascinating to watch but because it refuses to present the story in the conventional way, a lot of it is left very much to the viewer’s own interpretation!! For example what was the whole story really about? What is the title “Shame” specifically referring to?

Potential spoiler alert! Don’t read this next paragraph if you have not seen this movie yet.

After looking at the comments of some viewers in various internet movie forums, I am more inclined to agree with a minority who concurred that the Michael Fassbender’s character and his sister must have had some sort of incestuous history. With this angle taken, the movie can been seem as being very much about the curse of the shame felt by the character, rather than the more commonly published and straightforward classification of this being about someone with a sex addiction. The incest angle fits in better to the characters’ behaviour throughout the movie. That final scene in the subway train was also rather abstract. I take it that the appearence of an engagement ring on the lady’s train passenger’s hand and Michael Fassbender’s continued passive reaction as being a hint of a possible positive change in him to NOT surrender to his urges as he did in an earlier similar situation.

Spoiler alert – “safe” to read on further ….

I did think that some of the nudity were unnecessary and probably included more for shock value than art. In fact, I think the few brief frontal nudity resulted in the film getting a traditionally taboo NC-17 rating in the US which basically equals to an adult’s only “X” rating. While much have been raved about Michael Fassbender’s strong performance, I think the films’ success is more attributed to its director Steve McQueen who have not only managed to draw stellar performances form its stars but also given the film its own unique mood. Steve’s unique style keeps you fixed to the screen and he has especially good with some effective long lingering takes such as that scene following Michael’s jog along the streets, and the train flirting sequence. Carey Mulligan was also superb and her very slow rendition of New York New York was as breathtaking to watch as it was to listen to! This is a one of a kind movie and deserves to be watched by any serious movie fan.

Ratings: 4 stars

Take Shelter (2011)

Take Shelter was first taken noticed in the Sundance Film Festival in 2011 and found its audience by word of mouth. It went on further at the Cannes Film Festival with wins for its director Jeff Nichols. It has an unusual premise of a seemingly study about how a person finds himself going insane through increasingly extreme episodes of hallucinations and nightmares of an impending storm. The film’s lead Michael Shannon’s performance provided the film’s main drawing power. His portray of a man tormented by his mental visions and depressing thought of going insane is frighteningly convincing. The scene of his outburst at a community hall dinner function was especially powerful and impactful. Equally impressive was Jessica Chastain who plays the silently suffering wife. So while we see Michael’s character expressively performed with the torments he is experiencing, Jessica’s performance is one of subtle suppressed emotions. Both worked well and made the film what it is.

Despite the film’s low budget, the film looks impressive and the special effects did not look tacky at all. Like so many arthouse movie or independent films, Take Shelter refuses to pander to the audiences by offering clear explanations over the characters’ behavior or events. The films’ ending is deliberately ambiguous and demands the viewers to debate about it with fellow viewers on film forums long after the credits have finished rolling.  If you are game for something different and thought provoking, by all means give this small indie flic a try. I suspect you will like this more than you would have thought otherwise.

Ratings: 3 stars

The Avengers (IMAX 3D) (2012)

Yet another super hero adventure from Marvel. The Avengers has not one, or two, but six super heroes battling a super villian. This has been promoted as teasers in the past few years at the end of the credits for the standalone movies for Thor, Hulk, Captain America and Iron Man. After all the hype and long wait, one can’t blame the audience for their high expectations for The Avengers. The verdict?

The good news is that the movies doesn’t suck. The bad news is that it is not exactly spectacular either. One reservation I always have for movies with too many main characters is that they would all be lost in the grand scale of the movie without making any impact. Happily The Avengers manage to provide each of the main characters (and even the supporting ones) the opportunity to project their individuality and presence felt with their own moments. What I also liked was the humour which made fun of themselves, and the moments of comradery and heroic feats which adds characters to the comic book heroes. What did not work that well for me was the noisy mayhem in the streets of New York city towards the end of the movie. The excesses here reminded me of the similar scenes of mayhem in the Transformers movies which I had always found mindless and boring.

All in all, The Avengers provides 2 hours of roller coaster theme park ride fun. The IMAX 3D added the right element to make the experience even more involving. I thought the 3D effects were good although there was restrain in exploiting the technology. If I have to make a comparison, I would say that my favourite recent super hero movie is X-Men First Class because it had more heart. The Avengers is purely geared towards providing the adrenaline fun and does not pretend to be anything else.

Ratings: 3 stars

Chronicle (2011)

What we have here is a movie that follows the now familiar found footage, hand held camera style. I am generally not a great fan of such a format although I have to admit that it has been proven to be most effective and worked very well for some gems such as Cloverfield, The Last Exorcism and the Paranormal Activity series. Here we have the premise of three high school friends who gain super powers after exposing themselves to an unknown energy force when they explored a mysterious deep hole in an open field one evening. Unlike Spiderman and other super hero movies, these three kids don’t understand what it means by “with great powers comes great responsibilities”. Instead of using their new found super powers to fight crime and saving the world from destruction by some mad villian, they chose to use their powers to play practical jokes on unsuspecting victims. As time moves on their powers appear to grow stronger, and they becomes careless until one of them becomes uncontrollably destructive.

The plot is an interesting twist to what we are programmed to expect from Hollywood movies made about people with super powers. So what worked for me was the film’s original take on the genre of super “heroes” but what did not work for me was the found footage style which I felt was totally unnecessary. The flow and credibility of the movie was often hindered by the indirect and often unbelieveable explanations on how the footage was pieced together from various sources. I am not sure why this style was used by the movie makers. Usually this is due to limited budget but I can safely say that this is not the case here because the quality of the special effects was very high and not something one would expect from a shoe string budget independently produced movie. The overall acting by the cast of unfamiliar faces was also very good. I am very sure the movie would have played better and be more entertaining had it been filmed in the conventional manner.

Ratings: 2 stars

Titanic (3D) (2012)

Watching James Cameron’s remastered re-release of Titanic in 3D is like catching a breath of fresh air after the recent disappointments at the cinemas. Who can imagine that watching this again after some 15 years later would be just as engaging and as spectacular today? I remember with nostalgia seeing this at least twice in the cinemas when it was first released, each time in a packed hall. As a testament to the movie’s amazing drawing power, the film was still playing to a packed hall today. It still manages to captivate the audience’s imagination for over 3 hours, many of whom I suspect have already seen this and own the movie at home. Somehow, James Cameron had managed to capture the imagination of the audience right from the first frame and never let go until it finishes. It is involving as we identify with and get emotionally involved with Jack and Rose, it thrills as we marvel at the scale and realism of the reenactment of the disaster. James Horner’s now classic music brings back memories of how we first enjoyed this and Celine Dion’s rendition of the theme song reinforces the power of her voice. Kate Winslet and Leonardo de Caprio were superb and unforgettable as the ill fated lovers. There was not a dry eye by the end of the movie. We laughed as if on cue at the funny one liners, draw in our breathe at the moments of suspense, hissed at the villains, and cried at the tender moments. Now that is truly movie magic!!

I had to admit I was initially reluctant to watch this again. I felt a bit apprehensive about watching this in 3D as it sounds like another attempt by greedy Hollywood mongrels to cash in on the 3D craze, and my experience with the recent 3D re-imaging of The Phantom Menace left a lot to be desired. Well I am happy to report that the 3D conversion this time did not feel like such a big let down. Even though there are no stand out 3D moments, its effects were subtle and I do say, add an additional dimension to a familiar tale. I loved the illusion of depth in the water, at the ship’s corridors, and halls. Following Jack and Rose race through the ship’s narrow corridors with the added depth provided a nice touch to the scenes. I wouldn’t go so far to say that they we so realistic that they will make you feel like you are right there in the action, but they provided just the right added “new” element to the experience to make it feel just that little different.

So all in all, my recommendation to you is go and watch this in 3D today!

Ratings: 4 stars

The Grey (2011)

Liam Neeson is one hell of an actor and with The Grey proves that he can carry an entire movie literally on his own. With a face that’s lined with wrinkles that seem to reflect the hard life he had gone through and those deep intense eyes, Neeson can convincingly portray the raw emotions of a man on the verge of self destruction and in extreme despair. I can imagine that part of this could very well have been attributed to his own personal loss (his wife died from a freak ski accident recently).

But enough about Neeson, what about The Grey? How does this movie fare among Neeson’s growing resume of diverse films? Well I would say that this works at some levels and doesn’t at other levels. What works is the film’s superb photography, and moody shots, some intense action scenes (especially the one involving a cliff hanger sequence) and of course, Neeson! What doesn’t work and this may possibly destroy the enjoyment for some people, is the many logic gaps in the story which may serve to distract the attention of some audience who demand authenticity and realism in their action movies. Case in point being the ability of how the characters can manage to survive the bitter freezing cold of the wilderness under the conditions depicted on screen, and some of the illogical decisions made by the characters. If you cast those nagging thoughts aside and just watch the movie without being prejudiced by any preconceived notion of how realistic it should be, you may just end up enjoying this!

Bottom line is we watch movies as a means of entertainment. If you want realism, go watch the National Geographic channel. I see The Grey as a metaphor about life and death which does not get all preachy but is instead is given the survival in the wild action treatment. The ending would probably enrage some of you but I see it as inevitable and uncompromising to the usual predictable stuff we have become programmed to expect.

Ratings: 3 stars

Wuthering Heights (2011)

Fans of classic novelist Emily Bronte be forewarned, this 2011 version of Wuthering Heights is definitely not your typical adaptation and you may be left feeling outraged. For one thing, this is the first time I believe that the pivotal role of orphan Heathcliff is played by a black actor! In fact there are no familiar faces in the cast. Then there is the film’s format which was 4:3 leaving black bars on the left and right of the TV screen!!! I have not seen a film in this format for years!! Finally there is the rather unconventional way in which the story was told. Brutal, vulgar, with hardly any dialouge, heavy accent when there was (thank goodness for the subtitles), no music soundtrack, and basically having not a single character worth sympathy or rooting for! Heathcliff for example is portrayed as a bloody good for nothing lazy bastard who is selfish and arrogant. I had not read the book and vaguely remember watching a BBC TV series many years back, so basically do not have any reference to make of this. Was Emily Bronte’s novel really this brutal and with such unlikeable characters? This almost plays like a case against people to fall in love!

So based on the above I would not fault you for concluding that you should stay clear away from this if you wish to retain your good impression of how good British costume dramas should be (think the recent beautiful adaptation of Jane Eyre). This may be true but I however have to confess that I did find this a fascinating watch despite my reservations of how this was presented at multiple levels. At the end of the day, director Andrea Arnold (previous credit includes the award winning Fish Tank) needs to be commended for taking all sorts of risks with this project and never yielding to the conventional in her approach, making this an interesting if uneven experience.

Ratings: 2 stars

John Carter (IMAX 3D) (2012)

Despite the terrible reviews and all the negative reports about this movie being a major flop, I went in with high expectations. Afterall the images and posters for the movie were awsome and I liked that it has this Star Wars adventure theme to it which I was desperately trying to re-live! I also had great fate in its director Andrew Stanton as he directed two of my favourite Pixar movies – Finding Nemo and Wall-E. How can anyone who made such wonderful and touching movies mess up on a major epic like this?

Sadly the film did not live up to my heightened anticipation. I would not brand the film as a total flop but because it failed to be the movie I was so looking forward to see, I felt let down by it. I think part of that blame lies with the film’s ordinary lack lustre script which failed miserably to make anything stand out and memorable. For a film of this nature it should have been more fun. I still remember with fond memory all those corny but classic lines uttered by various characters in the early Star Wars movies. The fans at the end not only remember the visuals and acting but also those unforgettable lines! I also found it quite shocking that there were no big names to carry such an expensive movie through. While I am open to watching new faces but for a mjor movie I would have expected top notched acting. While Taylor Kitsch was okay as the leading male, the actress playing the princess and demsel in distress, Lily Collins was not really that attractive nor appealing to watch. Give me Carrie Fisher anyday over Lily Collins.

I was as usual also looking forward to some breathtaking IMAX 3D effects since this is my very first experience watching a 3D movie in an IMAX screen, but like The Phantom Menace this one was also a converted 3D offering which resulted in a less than stellar 3D experience. Once again, I get the feeling this might have been better seen without the 3D glasses since little of the action happening on screen took advantage of this technology. Ironically, the trailers for The Avengers, Spiderman and Warth of the Titans that preceeded the movie presented in glorious IMAX 3D were simply AMAZING and truly magical which convinced me that the ONLY way to watch a 3D offering is on an IMAX screen!! So imagine my disappointment when the main feature’s 3D felt flat for most of the time. Once again, I suspect the blame is due to it being a converted 3D film.

Andrew had proven with Wall-E his brilliance by managing to convey a touching story with the minimal of dialouge, and with non human characters too! But this is nowhere to be seen in John Carter. The issue of having martians speaking a different language was instead quickly overcome by a magical drink which acts like an auto translator, a convenient plot device. My conclusion is that Andrew needs to probably stick to animation and not work with humans in the future. I still believe that he can make great movies and it would be a shame if John Carter spells doom for his future career as a film maker.

Ratings: 2 stars

Hugo (2011)

2011 seems to be the year Paris dominated the movies. We had Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris, the black and white silent movie The Artist and now, Martin Scorsese’s Hugo! Scorsese has given us some of the most brilliant movies ever and mostly violent. It is hence with great surprise and anticipation when we found Scorsese attempting to do a family oriented movie, something he has never tried before. Can he pull it off tackling something outside his comfort zone of gangsters and gun power? Happy to report this as a resounding YES!!

Hugo plays like a classic and watching it, evokes nostalgic feelings of what the movies were like in the good old days. Set in 1930’s Paris, Scorsese’s vision of Paris may look heavily computerized, but it is a Paris that is wonderous, providing a magical backdrop. The heavy reliance on modern technology including the use of 3D, is seamlessly integrated to the old fashion tale of an orphan boy who finds his destiny in the unsual setting of a train station. The movie is also a grand tribute to the silent movie era, cleverly interjecting some history of how silent movies were made into the plot. Like the movie makers of the past which he is honouring who had to dabble with the new found technology of film, Scorsese likewise had to dabble with the new technology and with amazing effect. The mind blowing opening sequence set the tone of what to expect with the unusual camera moves. Scorsese also proofs he is as apt with the new technology such as 3D and computer graphics as any of today’s movie maker. Indeed if a movie can feel both old fashion and modern at the same time, it’s Hugo!

But Hugo does not just excel at a technical level. There is also the brilliant performances from its cast which includes veterans such as Ben Kingsley, Christopher Lee, Ray Winstone and Jude Law, and new comers like Chloë Grace Moretz (remember her in Kick Ass?), Sacha Baron Cohen (I am sure you remember him as the annoying Borat) and fresh faced Asa Butterfield as the titled character. Until I watch The Artist, Hugo would be my personal choice as best film for 2011.

Ratings: 4 stars

My Week With Marilyn (2011)

One of the delights of watching this modest scale British production is the star power in its ensemble cast. Apart from Michelle Williams’ portrayal of legendary Marilyn Monroe, which was duly recognized by the industry with her multiple nominations as Best Actress for many of the movie awards, there is also a string of ace British actors providing supporting roles with the likes of Kenneth Branagh (as Sir Laurence Olivier), Emma Watson (OMG .. there is life after Hermione!!), Dominic Cooper (Mamma Mia! He can act this fellow!) and the ever reliable Judi Dench. Ironically it is the male lead, Eddie Redmayne who plays Colin Clark, the innocent naïve wide eyed apprentice to movie director Sir Laurence Olivier whom we are less familiar with but Eddie carried his part convincingly enough.

The story is supposedly based on true events as documented by the Colin character on his experience working with Marilyn although I find the title a little inaccurate in that I think it was certainly more than one week spent with Marilyn in the production of the movie “The Prince and the Showgirl” way back in 1956! The movie chose the path to focus on the events during the weeks being narrated and wisely stayed cleared of any background or pre-conceived notion of what Marilyn Monroe was like. Williams also manages to capture the eccentric behaviour of Marilyn and yet gain our sympathy for the character even though she does not quite look the part. With its rich settings and insight into how movie making was like in England during the 1950’s the movie turns out to be as much a tribute to Marilyn as it is to the art of movie making!

Recommended watch.

Ratings: 3 stars