Sol

Beautiful locations, brilliant actors are working for Netflix's Vatican drama The Two Popes. The writing, on the other hand, leaves more to be desired.

Pope Francis was not convinced with the direction the church has been headed and wanted to resign when he was a cardinal. He met Pope Benedict XVI to share his intentions but the pope had his own plans of abdicating the papacy. This movie is a dialogue between the two on the lush grounds of Vatican state. This also mentions the Vati-leaks, the possible reason for Pope Benedict XVI to resign.

It looks beautiful. The locations feature aerial shots of the Vatican, the pristinely reconstructed Sistine Chapel, and Pope's summer residence. All these are lush and soothing to the eyes. There are few shots from Argentina showing the background of Pope Francis. These elevate the contrast between the nature of Christianity from various parts of the world. I remembered visiting a small local church in Puducherry. All these churches look so alike yet feel so very different. The long aerial shots are great, but the meat of the film is the dialogue and that's where cinematography becomes unnecessarily overzealous. Shots don't remain steady to retain focus on the words but waver as if the cameraman feels bored by their conversation.

For a movie central to a dialogue between the two characters, the writing lacked the flair. Barring a couple of exchanges, there is rarely a lot to hold on to apart from cliches. There are some good lines like,

“Confession cleans the sinner's soul, it doesn't help the victim. Our whole church is in need of forgiveness. Where is our humility? Sin is a wound, not a stain. It needs to be treated, healed. Forgiveness is not enough.”

But they are far and few. I wanted it to be a cherishable thought exchange, or at least I expected that from two old guys ruminating over their lives and of the church, but despite having enough screen time for such exchanges, I did not get enough of thoughts.

The movie is worth watching for the acting. The casting by Nina Gold is phenomenal. Look at both the popes and their reel counterparts. The similarities are spot on. After seeing deeply human expressions from Jonathan Pryce, I wonder who else could have captured Pope Francis's essence so well. He is the star here. The quivering tone of regret, the self-loathing over the acts of the past and the anger at the institution for its acts is fluent and natural. Anthony Hopkins plays the other one, Pope Benedict XVI and comes out strong as ever. The steadfastness of his personality is well matched by Pryce's softness. Both have brilliant screen presence and have respect for the other's character. Seeing them together on-screen was a definite pleasure.

Recommended for both Jonathan Pryce and Anthony Hopkins and some pristine shots of St. Peter's Square and Castel Gandolfo.

Have a look at all the headlines about this film. Many acclaimed critics have seen this as per their intrinsic constitution. They all are right, yet they all wouldn't be complete, that is the power of subtlety.

Ever since I came to know that Chaitanya Tamhane was working on his next project, I was eagerly waiting for it. The subject of Hindustani Classical music was an added bonus, and on release, it met all the hype and yet had a bit more to offer.

This is Chaitanya's second film. After the success of the first film Court, the pressure to outperform must have been enormous. He showed that he is made of a special fabric altogether and holds ample capacity to sustain this pressure and produce another gem, arguably an even better film than Court.

Chaitanya Tamhane sticks to his title wholeheartedly. He was deeply committed to court as a system in his first movie of the same name. His steady camera was an unbiased, firm, nonchalant observer of a monotonous creeping pace of judicial proceedings. In the disciple, he takes on a bigger challenge. In his second feature, he still shows the same commitment to the title. He presents a tale of a disciple from the limited and focussed perspective of him being one. There aren't a lot of details about his personal life, or technicalities of the music he pursues. There is a laser-sharp focus on him being a disciple. From an observational study of a non-living entity like the judiciary, his second venture moves on to a living human being and the specific role he plays.

I just wonder if the title of the film should have been A Disciple, rather than being The Disciple. There is nothing exceptionally special about Sharad Nerulkar. He has given his everything to classical singing. He has let go of all other pleasures on road to masting the art form. Yet, he has his limitations. Coming to terms with one's own limitations is a battle fought alone. If your limitations fall in the realm of mediocrity, then this battle is tiring and disheartening. There is no one on the sidelines to cheer you up. The crowd is already with those who have risen above the rest and are fighting to go that extra edge where no one has gone before. But what of the ambitions of the commonfolk? A lot of them have already locked away a side of their personality after a few discouraging remarks from folks offering unsolicited advice. What of those who have the unrelenting perseverance to go on despite their limitations? Popular wisdom has nothing to offer on this, for such people are destined to walk alone silently on their personal journey. When Sharad laments about not being able to think of the right emotion to put in his singing, not even his Guru can help him.

Indian classical music has always venerated teachers of the art. This veneration and devotion is at times at par with worship or even beyond if that is possible. I think this movie would be one of the first ones to highlight even the finest and most talented Gurus are human beings. There is a scene where a classical music collector, Joshi, shares opinions, thoughts and rumours about revered musicians of the erstwhile era. Sharad's reaction is evident in the film's trailer. Joshi has his own perspective to look at those people without thinking about them beyond someone who renders music, which is almost like thinking about them as a machinist producing some output. This casual indifference to the process is a bit too much to handle for Sharad or even for us considering the point in which the scene meets us, for which the credit goes to Chaitanya.

Of all the various reasons why Chaitanya should be given credit for, these oft-overlooked bits make the movie a little more than being just acclaimed. I loved his wide-angle shots and patient camera work. He takes his time with the scene. The style takes time to grow on you. It is unhurried to the point of becoming meditative. There is no pomp or flair here. The slice-of-life style filmmaking continues from his Court days. This self-assured pacing of keeping the audience in the scene slightly beyond their comfort zone makes Chaitanya's work nothing short of an evocative painting. You see a modern art frame and the voids are filled by your interpretation. Those come alive with your personalities and outlooks and hence they say beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. Steady and long takes do that to your psyche. Just after the narrative puts in a comma as the action subsides in a frame, your mind starts extrapolating and imagining beyond that frame taking it as a prompt for further thought. That is likely the reason for so many different headlines trying to ring-fence certain aspects of the film. There are people praising the camera work, people praising the editing, some talk about the acting or plot and yet some go on a totally different tangent. The film gives that space to the audience to experience, process and interpret the scenes in their own way, and that is the success of this film.

Chaitanya did not go for established actors for this. He wanted established musicians to portray a slice of their life in the context of the film. Aditya Modak is a Hindustani classical vocalist who debuted as Sharad Nerulkar (amusing to say debuts, as I am not sure if he is pursuing an acting career as such). His Guru played by Dr Arun David is a foremost disciple of the renowned classical vocalist Kishori Amonkar (who might be an inspiration for Mai, but don't quote me on this). The character Mai, who makes a profound impact only with her voice and not shown on the screen. The voice is given by the distinguished director Sumitra Bhave, who just recently passed away. This casting is exactly opposite to another successful work in the Hindustani classical musical context, Bandish Bandits, where we see debutant actors learning and rendering classical music for the camera. That is a distinctive difference between commercial and arthouse, but more on that a bit later.

For non-veteran actors, both Aditya and his Guruji have noteworthy screen presence. Sharad's frustration and his anger on his own inability to overcome his limitations despite sincere efforts are very well presented by Aditya Modak. There is casual passing footage given to the current talent hunt shows and the fickle popularity owing to short-lived celebrities status. Aditya's reactions towards these shows hint at both condemnation and jealousy. Again, Chaitanya shows restraint in limiting the scope for this subject as it goes slightly tangential to his main theme. Other side actors who come for few scenes feel believable and natural. The 10+ months spent in casting were spot on.

Subtlety and exposition are two ends of the scale. No points for guessing which is the favourite of the producers and marketing guys. For commercial equations it is imperative that you want to know your target audience, you want to know exactly how the film should make you feel, where this is to be placed, which genres it is going for. With subtle films, such equations do not work. If you can not pinpoint the audience reaction on a scene (to the point of putting a fake laugher track if needed) there is probably little for the producers to invest in. I suspect that is how the gulf between the mainstream forms of art and indie arthouse projects is formed. From the pure drama and expressions point of view, movies like Court and The Disciple are brilliant but they fail to garner the required audience appeal. Probably because the audience today does not want the art to confront or question them. They want art to precisely tell them what they should feel at what time and how much. Evocative background music and explosive dialogues are there to nudge the audience's mind exactly in the required direction.

I had read somewhere that art and audience work in tandem. Both need to confront and challenge each other to elevate mutually. The widening gulf between the supposed arthouse (and therefore non-mainstream) and the populist mainstream is a cause of concern.

I hope the success of The Disciple or even the mouth publicity of the film helps narrow down this gap and we are more willing to be tested by films rather than being pacified.

This anthology series is connected together with the theme of isolation, lockdown and covid, yet more than half of the stories do not do justice to this central theme and remain as general short stories. As they are fairly disconnected, it makes sense to look at them separately.

Glitch, directed by Raj & DK and starring Gulshan Devaiah and Saiyami Kher.

This was a strong opening for the movie. As much barren the science fiction space is in Indian cinema, the likes of this and Cargo keep the hope alive. Enjoyed this extrapolation of the persistent long term lock-down. Always liked Raj & DK, since Go Goa Gone. I like the quirky freshness they bring to the industry which otherwise produces pretty formulaic movies.

Apartment, directed by Nikkhil Advani and starring Richa Chadha, Sumeet Vyas, and Ishwak Singh

Not at all related to Covid, but still a tale of isolation, hopelessness and betrayal. Felt as this was made for Richa Chadha alone as she gets to the most screen time and most emotional scenes. She does not disappoint, but still, the story is fairly simplistic, and not believable.

Rat – A – Tat, directed by Tannishtha Chatterjee and starring featuring Rinku Rajguru and Lillete Dubey

Two women having nothing alike, share a house. Both are lonely and upset for vastly different reasons and it is in that loneliness they find an unlikely friendship bridging decades worth of age gap. The house in this story is a character too. Loved almost everything on the set and of course the Mumbai rains. The last semi-classical rendition in the backdrop of rains is worth a memory.

Vishaanu, directed by Avinash Arun and starring Abhishek Banerjee and Geetika Vidya Ohlyan

During the lockdown, a young migrant family is thrown out of their rented house, decide to sneak illegally into a lavish sample flat. It is the same site on which Abhishek Banerjee’s character has worked as a construction worker. This is by far the best and unique setting among the bunch. It gets up close and personal with the lockdown days. The plight of migrant workers comes alive in Abhishek Banerjee’s flawless acting. The ending could have been better, it felt abrupt to me.

Chaand Mubarak, directed by Nitya Mehra and starring Ratna Pathak Shah and Shardul Bharadwaj

Ratna Pathak is a powerhouse. Like the second story made for Swara, this is made for Ratna Pathak. A middle-aged lady coincidently meets a rickshaw driver and develops an affable bond. There are social and religious divides, and their conversational relationship almost reaches levels of friendship. This too isn’t the best choice for the central theme of the movie, but still a decent watch.

Even after over half a century, some wounds are not healed and some conflicts remain brutally harsh. The 1947 partition of India had a disastrous impact on the women of the affected region. Many years later in 2003, this film was filmed in a Pakistani village. It depicted the tragic tale of the 1970 conflict which piled on top of the 1947 massacre.

Khamosh Pani presents a tale of a middle-aged woman and her adolescent son. She has good community relations with neighbours, her son goes to school, has a potential future with a local girl. All seems fine until Zia-ul-Haq starts consolidating power. The free and open culture starts closing in on her. There are no happy endings.

Ayesha has been portrayed beautifully. Her Punjabi speech feels very natural. The beauty is how easy it is for Kirron Kher to blend in with the narrative. It is her story, yet it is not limited to her. The way she becomes another statistic is heart-wrenching.

Usually, the movie ends with the fate of the central character. In Silent Waters, the director Sabiha Sumar still continues few more scenes depicting if anything really changed. This last bit leaves a lasting impression, further emphasising the title of the movie.

This is a Punjabi film, but thanks to a long exposure with Bollywood, I found absolutely no issues understanding the dialogues. At times I was stumbled, but the subtitles helped then. By 2003 standards the cinematography leaves more to be desired. It is the same year when Bollywood was churning out Kal Ho Na Ho and the likes. But considering this is filmed locally in a village in Pakistan, that rustic look feels natural too.

Silent Waters makes you thoroughly uncomfortable if you are closer to this tale, for others, it still holds quite the punch.

A story that is slightly confused about what it wants to be. It is not completely a self-actualisation story like Queen, neither it is a family drama like Kapoor and Sons. It stays somewhere in the middle which leaves a lukewarm feeling at the end.

There is an untimely death of a newly married guy Astik sends his whole family into a chaotic spiral. From arranging for the last rites of the dead person to worrying about the future, there are multiple problems for the family. Sandhya, the newlywed wife of Astik, does not yet know how to process the event. In the 13 days of rituals after the death, she learns much more about her husband than what she managed when he was alive.

The movie spends a lot of time on Sandhya. It focuses on how she has pangs of hunger but feels no sadness. She is confused with her own reaction. She even tries to arouse some feelings by blaming her husband’s ex-girlfriend, but there is not a lot of movement to her ark until the last few scenes. The movie also spends time in the family dynamics, without really explaining the undercurrents in detail. I felt that I was thrust into the middle of a book and I needed to find enough semblance to care about the characters. Without the proper build-up, it just becomes hard.

Rafey Mahmood’s camerawork is extremely polished bordering on saturation. The tear visible on Sandhya’s cheek from a shot taken one floor below, or the play of sunlight in the rooms, these details feel heavy-handed. Some of the frames, especially the Ganga river scenes are beautifully shot. The mastery of the craft shows as it comes from Netflix, but that mastery supersedes the authenticity of the content.

The acting performances are good. I still remember the voice modulation of Ashutosh Rana in a couple of scenes. Actors from Bandish Bandits make an appearance here. It is welcoming to see them in feature films. While Raghubir Yadav and Ashutosh Rana handle the matured performance, kudos to Sheeba Chaddha for standing shoulder to shoulder with them. Meghna Malik’s character is unnecessary and her talent is wasted. Which leaves us with Sanya Malhotra. All the praise to her for always being open to diverse roles, but in this movie, her acting does not stay with you. Probably that is the fault of the director Umesh Bist, but her ark just does not lead anywhere substantially. That shows in her acting too.

This is the first album from Arjit Singh as a music composer. Although just after watching the movie I don’t recall a lot of songs, I remember being mildly pleased with the music. I especially liked Phire Faqueera for the obvious tribute to ARR. Others sounded similar to each other but liked Thodese Kam Ajnabee too.

Overall, it is a good watch for the polish in cinematography, but if you want to watch a self-worth enlightenment story I would rather recommend Queen and for a family drama, I would recommend Ramprasad ki Tehrvi (That’s on my watchlist too, but the reviews and trailer suggest it would be worth more than this one).

Ace in the Hole, a film from 1951, painted a slightly exaggerated picture of a world where efforts went into making an event into a story with higher traction, long reach and as much possible limelight as it can. In 2021 with the advent of the virality of news, things have not changed a lot. Vultures, vultures everywhere.

In Albuquerque, there is a cave-in. A man was in there in search of ancient Indian artefacts and is now stuck under the ruble. The protagonist Chuck Tatum is a disgraced news reporter in search of a breaking story to make it back in the big leagues. He sees an opportunity in this 'event' and decides to turn it into a human interest story.

I am reminded of an event back in 2006 in India where a young kid fell in the borewell tube. This was a big news opportunity of that time. There was a live coverage and all. It was definitely a human interest story. I still remember that coverage now in 2021 which goes on to say how widely it was covered. The events and the coverage depicted in the film are all too plausible, but the exaggeration of the later part feels like cinematic liberty. If you take this as metaphorical hype then it would be permissible. Interestingly, the criticism when it released showed how the perversion of journalistic practices was a bit too much to handle for critics of 1951. Many channels today have surpassed the selfish and greedy levels depicted in the film.

Lorraine Minosa's arc adds a bit more drama which is not really needed. She is a strong character. Keeping her in love with her husband would have added a much-needed weight on the other side of Chuck Tatum. That would have balanced the film's power dynamic. As it stands right now, Chuck Tatum steamrolls everything. Kirk Douglas has given a powerful high octane performance. His delivery is sharp and packs a punch. Probably for the message director is going for, this one-sided aggression works better.

I also loved the writing in the film. I have rarely seen minimum words with maximum impact as the dialogues from Ace in the Hole delivered with gusto.

"Human interest. You pick up the paper, you read about 84 men or 284, or a million men, like in a Chinese famine. You read it, but it doesn't stay with you. One man's different, you want to know all about him. That's human interest."

Although the context is vastly different, this feels like a precursor to the Joker's quote from The Dark Knight.

I have not seen a lot of old films, but after seeing this, I think the craft was much more hard-hitting during those days. We have all the tech/CGI wizardry and polish now, but characters like Chuck Tatum or even like the Jacob Q. Boot linger over long after the credits roll.

I was going through a list of the 100 greatest American films by culture magazine, and this features 100th on it, and also features 385th on Empire magazine's top 500. Accolades well deserved. Recommended.

For a worldwide release, the movie failed to set enough context. For release in the Indian subcontinent, this can be considered a positive step towards matured animation films. Arjun: The Warrior Prince has something for everyone.

Coming from India, I fall under the second category. Even before I started the film, I was sceptical regarding how much Mahabharata can anyone fit in a mere 96-minute runtime. Unfortunately, these fears realised as I finished the film. The movie takes certain important incidents from the life of the Arjun and weaves a tale keeping the titular character front and centre. For a tale of Arjun, it gives due importance to his feats and does not spend a lot of time covering a lot of optional syllabus. This makes the narrative somewhat disjoint and with a lack of introduction to many other characters, it becomes somewhat confusing to the worldwide audience.

The movie is worth a watch to provide encouragement and incentive for the Indian animation industry to produce some serious animation and not stay comfortable in the Chhota Bheem territory. I don't remember exactly when I was introduced to Batman the Animated Series, but it was fairly early in my childhood. There were a few more during the Cartoon Network era. From Centurians to Swat Kats, I have many fond memories of enjoying these. In those days we were producing great content (remember Captain Vyom) but we were limited by technology. The animations from Arjun remind us that we have the calibre and means to produce amazing animation content. I think we lack enough incentive. Correct me if I am wrong but I am not aware of a lot of options for kids who move up from the age of Chhota Bheem. Arjun, with its sprawling Hastinapura or the dramatic Draupadi Swayamwara, opens up a palette that we have not sampled from a lot.

Arjun still leaves a lot to be desired with its faster plot pacing and disjoint incidents narrative style, but it still is worth your time. Especially lookout for the two scenes I mentioned above. This was not recommended by anyone I know, I stumbled upon a random YouTube video beseeching the audience to give it a try and so I did. So here I am doing the same, go give that a try and let me know what you think.

A convincing watch even when the ending is a bit far-fetched. A lot of movies are unbelievably polished these days. It is just hard to believe the story is real. This is where movies like Drishyam 2 make the movies believable again.

I have not seen the original Malayalam film. I had seen the Hindi adaptation starring Ajay Devgan. Barring a few minor details, jumping on the Malayalam for the second one had no issues. The movie begins a few years after the first one. The incident has left a lasting impact on the family. The patriarch of the family, Georgekutti has managed to cautiously move past and build a career in the film business. He owns a theatre now. His wife Rani and children are still very much shaken from the events. The case is not closed. A new IG opens the investigation with some new leads.

The movie is believable. Although it lacks the intelligent twist which made the first film famous, it still brings a clever end to the story. The ending makes Georgekutti no less than Batman. Given enough time, batman can beat anyone, so can Georgekutty.

The locations and characters are all simple middle-class people. With the obsession of Bollywood with glamour, zero-figures, six-packs, this family of four is much more natural, like your next-door neighbours. This realism is the highlight of the film.

Overall, it is a good watch. As I said earlier, the ending may not be very organic but still, the movie worked for me as a complete package.

Full marks for trying something new. AK vs AK is easily a striking example of bringing something fresh to Hindi cinema. There is not a lot of meta movies in Bollywood, so seeing this hopefully breaks the aura surrounding the actors of the film industry.

AK vs AK is a work of fiction. Anurag Kashyap kidnaps Anil Kapoor's daughter Sonam Kapoor and gives him a little over one night to solve where she is held captive. The scenes are filmed in the real-life houses of both the leads with the wall breaking between the reel and real-life. It makes some observations about stardom and its effects on personal lives if you are willing to look at the film at that level.

Conceptually, the film worked for me. I had not seen this blending of real-life and reel life, Even the PR team made the promotion spill into real life with a Twitter war between the two actors. More than the success of the film, or the gimmick, I would admire if these experiments break down the walls between actors and regular humans. Anil Kapoor's acting is enough to convince us that.

While I do not agree with plot points like Anil has to dance for the audience, I get how the fame robs you off of any semblance of private life. It is as if you are selling your personal life and that cost is huge. Even though this film had no agenda of particularly highlighting this, I hope people take the cue and enjoy the stories and characters more than idolising the actors for performing them.

Taking the gimmick aside, this works as a decent thriller too. I remember watching Aamir starring Rajeev Khandelwal. That was a brilliant film. Anil Kapoor could have been a famous industrialist or a cricketer and the film would have worked the same way. A famous guy finds out his daughter is missing is an okay plot for a thriller. To hold up the gimmick of reel vs real-life the last twist was absolutely necessary. There were no rational ways to come out of the convoluted narrative. Having said that, the film could have explored the real vs reel angle in a different genre making it more insightful than a thriller. It feels like a lost opportunity here.

Anil Kapoor is brilliant. The whole film stays to the point just because Anil, at his age, still has the hold on the audience and is fit enough to perform long takes which take him through the bylanes of Mumbai, railways bridges and all sorts of places. He really gets to showcase a range of emotions and he makes the most of it. Anurag Kashyap is gets shadowed by Anil in almost all the scenes. Anurag however, does manage to portray an unhinged side of his personality.

The long takes and shaky cam shots bring out the urgency and tension of a thriller, but I have never been a fan of shaky cams so cinematographically the film while being skilful, was not very enjoyable for me.

Overall, the film is a must-watch. Not because it is a masterpiece, but it deserves your attention and some words of encouragement to motivate the fraternity to experiment. We as an audience need to show that we want something fresh and new. Slow-motion flying cars and bodies are a passé now.

"If it was never new, and it never gets old, then it's a folk song."
Llewyn says that twice in the whole film. once at the start and then towards the very end. Between these two occurrences, we have had a journey, or was that just one another day?

Inside Llewyn Davis is a polarising film by the Coen brothers. Their usual fanbase did not expect this. It goes away from their usual work. Inside Llewyn Davis is a story of a struggling folk singer. He is living in times that are probably lost, yet he is clinging to his passion. Does that bring him a lot of happiness? Hardly so. He is in love with the struggle itself.

Succinctly acted and brilliantly filmed, this left a lasting impression on me. Llewyn has the voice and the presence, but he is practising a craft that has fallen on the sidelines of culture and is slowly being forgotten. His puritanical love of the form is not enough. He does not wish to change with times. He had a partner, who committed suicide. He is not out of that shock. He has not processed it yet.

A lot of people have equated this to the depiction of depression and how Llewyn is unwittingly struggling to come out of the pit which is hard for him to even perceive. Oscar Isaac, who portrays Llewyn, won a well-deserving Gloden Globe for his portrayal of the trapped, tragic titular character. Carey Mulligan has a smaller role but she is at her vulnerable best. I just like her too much. (please go watch Drive)

The cinematography is by Bruno Delbonnel. He has worked before on Amelie, Darkest Hour and even a Harry Potter film. All praise to him for keeping these different movies different. I remember pausing the scenes filmed in The Gaslight Cafe (a real place which operated from 1958 to 1971, notable as a venue for folk music) for the beautiful frames Bruno captures. Tell me what you feel about the lingering smokey haze that almost always exists in all the frames. The passage of time through a long road journey or the passing train stations convey a lot more meaning than anything overtly said.

I have always loved The Eagles so the folk song genre was not new for me. For a movie about the folk singer, the movie takes its music very seriously. Oscar has performed many of the songs himself. Hang Me, Oh Hang Me, Fare Thee Well, and The Death of Queen Jane are especially memorable. As I am typing this, I am listening to the movie soundtrack on repeat. Especially all Oscar's songs embody that melancholy fighting spirit Llewyn holds dear and seldom lets go.

Apart from a personal story, it also talks about the need for patronage artists need in their career. All forms of arts or sports rely heavily on the audiences' backing and support. It also raises an important question regarding should artists go commercial in search of popularity and validation or stay true to their personal dedication towards the form and nature of their craft and refuse to budge even when all support is lost? There are no easy answers to this dilemma.

Inside Llewyn Davis is an experience. It is worth a watch for Oscar's acting, Bruno's cinematography and Dave Van Ronk's enchanting music. The Coen brothers have created a lovely piece of art that will stay relevant for long.

I lost my body keeps you engaged with its beautiful visuals and enchanting music. It leaves a lasting impression on your mind, but the story has no hand in it.

Animations for adults are less frequent. At least when you compare with the overall film industry, the visual medium of animations take a very small share of it. Movies like Spirited Away being magnificent in their own light, still are close to the children's tale genre. With a strangely unique concept of I Lost My Body, the director Jérémy Clapin could have done much better but lost the chance this time.

In an unusual concept where a hand severed from its body suddenly becomes independently sentient and tries to find its owner. Despite the macabre expressions this arouses, the story is far from any gory detail that your mind just imagined. It is a tale of grief, romance, and journey, all three woven together with the help of flashbacks and a brilliant soundtrack.

The sequences where the hand 'sees' things from its own vantage point are very well presented. That attention to detail is thoughtful. Rarely we assume some other perspective to look at the routine, mundane parts of life. A strangely different perspective offers an interesting experience. When coupled with the introspective music from Dan Levy, the movie feels like a still-life painting in many frames.

This thoroughly unique concept brings its own shortcomings. There is absolutely no way to convincingly end it. There is no culmination where this magical realism would feel at home. That is exactly where the movie falters. The treatment of sorrow and grief, although welcoming to be seen in an animation feature for grown-ups, feels superficial and incomplete. The ending left a sense of abruptness in my mind.

Despite its lacklustre handling of the story, the movie remains memorable for trying something new. At ~80 mins, this will definitely not be a waste of your time. Its music will stay with you for a while longer as you reminisce over the visuals.

Exquisite and wholesome. Some works of art just help you relax a bit and take life slowly. 84 Charing Cross Road, is one such breezy real-life tale which effortlessly hints you to slow down and listen, for the world may offer serendipity just around the corner.

84 Charing Cross Road is a 1987 British-American drama film directed by David Jones. The screenplay by Hugh Whitemore is based on a play by James Roose-Evans, which itself was an adaptation of the 1970 epistolary memoir of the same name by Helene Hanff, a compilation of letters between herself and Frank Doel dating from 1949 to 1968. This is a non-fiction book, which turned into a drama and then into a feature film. I believe it must have bloomed as it progressed through the various media channels.

This came to me through recommendation list on Judy Dench and yet, she is just supporting actress in this one. The real chemistry is between Anne Bancroft as Helene Hanff and Anthony Hopkins as Frank Doel. Anne Bancroft vividly portrays Helene with wit and childlike freshness. Anthony Hopkins presents a well-mannered British guy throughout the film. As they get comfortable with letters, the chemistry and ease of communication improve and that shows in both of the performances. Judy Dench was nominated for BAFTA for a supporting role. Although she has less screen time, she still leaves a mark as the wife of Frank.

When a humorous script-reader in her New York apartment sees an ad in the Saturday Review of Literature for a bookstore in London that does mail order, she begins a very special correspondence and friendship with Frank Doel, the bookseller who works at Marks & Co., 84 Charing Cross Road.

This is a masterclass on how the passage of time is depicted on screen. The correspondence lasts for almost 20 years. Both Helene and Frank continue to live their lives in expected ways. Frank’s children grow up, Helene’s career gradually takes off from a simple script reader to an accomplished author. In this journey of life, the conversation between these two friends strengthens as true platonic care and affection for each other.

Throughout this journey of time, the central theme always remains the classics, hard to find, out of print books. If you are a bibliophile, this movie is for you. And if you are antiquarian, then probably don’t waste time reading further and go watch this. The book references, passages offer a solace very few things can. Literature and old books being the landscape, it has reflected well in the writing. The quips and occasional sarcasm of Helene leave you smirking throughout the narrative.

This leisurely paced drama is something we all need. Probably worth revisiting multiple times when the breakneck pace of the current life invariably bogs us down. Art like this tells us to slow down and cherish the experiences.

I am somewhat conflicted as the movie ended. I am a fan of Shoojit Sircar, and this movie has all the visual elements which make me like his work (he is the creative producer for this), but it also lacked the finesse to handle a complicated subject like sexual assault in 2016.

Three girls willingly go enjoy dinner and drinks with some male acquaintances. The guys presume a lot more than they should which results in Minal (Taapasee Pannu) hitting one of them on the forehead with a bottle. This is set up in the first few minutes of the film. Then the movie ventures into the court proceedings and slowly the narrative becomes progressively flimsier and a bit louder.

Unfortunately, Shoojit's inputs probably were limited at how to shoot Amitabh Bacchan still shots. I still remember the visuals from Piku where Amitabh is holding the Sitar and the camera moves around or when he is in all the Kolkata streets, it was superb. Those moments are there, but sadly, the movie is could not be about that. There is much serious tone to the film.

Aniruddha Roy Chowdhury builds the initial scenes magnificently. The terror of what-if comes out brilliantly in every action of all the three girls. They know what has happened and there is fear that it is going to catch up to them. This looming threat is suspensefully crafted. The fear is in the unknown. From those early scenes, I had higher hopes from the film. When the court proceedings started, the film started becoming superficial and loud. It also goes on moralising beyond the facts of the case. In 2016, we expect much more mature handling of such sensitive subjects. Watching this in 2020, I remember Taapasee's other movie, Thappad. That had such thoughtful handling of a conflict. Having seen that before, when I watched Pink, I wasn't very happy. The build-up had a lot to offer but the potential remained unrealised.

Amitabh is his usual imposing self. He presents a tired, retired lawyer with ease. Piyush Mishra cycles between being an obnoxious over-the-top lawyer, which might remind you of Tareekh pe Tareekh, to a well-executed presentation of a stereotypical mentality of a many in the society. I also felt that even his character could have been elevated a bit more as a worthy adversary to Amitabh's, which does not happen. To cap it all, Angad Bedi is forced to almost recite a A Few Good Men or Shaurya style tirade towards the end, which did not help much.

Overall, the film is still worth a watch for the early scenes and the creative inputs of Shoojir Sircar.

This Iranian film is a masterclass on how to hold up the tensions without employing anything unreal or far-fetched. About Elly started slow, settled me in and then turned on the knobs of stress slowly but continuously.

Three 30-something couples and two singles go out on a vacation. It is just an ordinary long weekend beach outing. Elly is one of the singles in the group. She is a teacher who joins this group of her acquaintances to watch their kids. But is it a pretext? Things get a lot murkier at about 40 mins in and from that moment on, it does not let you settle even for a bit.

This is a brilliant example of storytelling. There is no larger than life event here. It is a drama through and through. With his camera and support of brilliant acting by all, Asghar Farhadi held my interest till the very last frame. He tells how easy it is to judge someone even when the moral conflicts don't allow you to take clear sides.

I particularly enjoyed the camera handling. It is not a fly on the wall kind of spectator. The camera made me feel like one of the group members. I could feel happiness as the trip started as if I was with them as they entered the beach house. I felt like a silent member when friction started rising and personalities started clashing. There is a sea rescue scene in which the camera, as if a person helping the rescue party, goes in the water. The tensions are thick and palpable. The changing centre of attention in long continuous shots is one of a kind. Also, the usage of depth in many frames adds such a lived-in feel to the composition that it further enforces the feeling of you being there as a member of the group. There is a YouTube video about the blocking and staging in About Elly, which explains this far better.

Loved the acting of Golshifteh Farahani. From the very mischievous initial personality to a serious and self-blaming hurt character, the journey is portrayed brilliantly. I loved the work of each of the cast members. From tiny little details of limping, wiping away water from the foreheads, all the actions are natural, which adds to the camera handling giving a very realistic notion.

The sound of the sea is present in almost all the scenes in the beach house and that modulation, keep the tensions rising and falling like waves. It has its own YouTube video explaining this handling of sound.

Overall the movie gets a clear recommendation from me. It is well worth your time.

Did you enjoy The Matrix? What if I tell you there was another movie which came right about the same time, and it tackles similar themes altogether differently? If that rouses your curiosity then Dark City is for you.

A man wakes up without knowing his past and does not understand the time and place he has just gained consciousness and is a murder suspect. This is pretty much a nice boilerplate but as the story unfolds the rabbit hole goes much deeper. The science-fiction elements come in quite early as we are introduced to a species called the Strangers and their aim to understand humans.

The cast is well done. The protagonist, Rufus Sewell was unknown to me and I almost mistook him for Ray Liotta. Not being very well known works in his favour in this story as his narrative of just another man caught in something he doesn't understand becomes much more believable. Unfortunately, he is not the best in the acting department though. That title goes to William Hurt or Jennifer Connelly. I have always liked her and even in this film, she looks stunning as usual.

Although as I said above, the concept is fairly similar to The Matrix which released one year after, the motives are quite different. The Matrix talks about the war between the man and machine, whereas Dark City tackles a much sinister philosophical curveball.

"Or are we, in fact, more than the sum of our memories?"

This is going to last with me for some time. We see the manipulation of memories throughout the movie. It is an attempt to see what makes us human. As the doctor puts it, "It is our capacity of individuality". That is why a farmer's son can be a soldier, a carpenter's daughter can be a musician. As a concept, this could be expanded upon in drama too. For a science-fiction setting, the movie made the best use of these lines. But there could be a lot of more to unravel here and a good director could fashion any genre out of this. These lines were a highlight for me in the film.

Considering the 90's, the CGI towards the end leaves you wanting for more, and that we know was possible just a year later, but at 27M this falls under a modest budget film. The ending sequence could have been cut short a bit considering the budget, but that does not dilute the overall impact of the film.

With all the exposition and a conclusive ending, this doesn't fall in the mindfuck category, but still, it keeps a few lingering thought behind as the credits roll. Recommended.

Special Correspondents is a breezy light-hearted comedy. Two people are supposed to go to a war-torn country, but they can't make it. So they sit in an apartment in new-york to create an illusion that they are where they should be. What could go wrong?

Both Rickey Gervais and Eric Bana are in their characters. The script does not demand a lot and for veteran actors like them, this was a walk in the park. This is both written and directed by Gervais. I came to know about this fact after the movie finished, and then in comparison, I wondered how the movie could have been. Gervais as a good comic sense and that writing felt much too simplistic for his standards.

There is nothing much thought-provoking about it. This has been one of the constant complaints about the film. I do understand that the potential is somewhat squandered, but I don't get why everything has to make a point or be hard-hitting. Does media have to make a statement or stand for something always? There can be flicks which just come and go, and make you smile while they last.

Is this a must-watch? hardly so. But if you are watching it, will it be entertaining? At least it was for me. We need simple humour without any other meaning to be derived sometimes.

This was easily one of the grittiest mystery/thriller movies I have seen. This was also my first Korean movie so I am not sure if this would act as my initiation. It was fast and kept me on the edge of my seat.

A drunk businessman is abducted and held captive for 15 years. There is no explanation given. After his psychological torment, he is released one day just like that. This businessman, hardly be able to call him that considering a 15-year torturous solitude, is confused and livid. He just wants to find the person who did this to him and take revenge. As the movie progresses we see a larger picture and then it is not easy to take sides any longer.

On a story level, this is twisted as any. The audience is also equally clueless about the happenings and when the truth comes to light, we are left aghast by the meticulousness and single track determinism.

Being an action movie, the one-to-one brawls pack a solid punch. Especially, the hallway fight which is taken as a single shot in 2003. That is around 17 years before 1917 or John Wick. This fight is so iconic, that a lot of later works have paid homages to it, (remember, Marvel's Daredevil lobby fight).

Since this was my first Korean film, all the cast and crew were new for me. I thought all the three leads were memorable. Choi Min-sik's confused angst, Yoo Ji-tae's cold-blooded, calculative demeanour keeping his revulsion at bay and Kang Hye-jung's adorable freshness were a treat to watch.

A lot has been already said about Oldboy and there are quite good YouTube videos dissecting the craft behind this film. All that attention and praise is well deserved. Recommended.

For someone who is not the least bit aware of recent US history and about Jesse James, this movie still leaves a strong impression. It is patient, slow burn and is exquisitely shot in slow deliberate frames.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is a mouthful title. It tells a story of an American outlaw, Jesse Woodson James. This guy was responsible for many train and bank robberies and looking at his wiki page, the public had a soft spot for him, as they considered him a real-life embodiment of Robin Hood. After most of Jesse's gang was depleted, he only relied on the Ford brothers, who later conspired and killed Jesse James. This is not a spoiler and being an adaptation, it is already a well-known fact.

The movie stands out for his slow and deliberate pacing as if depicting a quiet laid back life of US small towns back in the day. From the train robberies to old creaky houses, the camera moves purposefully through each frame. The long shots of the sun through the window, the open farmlands, the snow-covered landscapes are hauntingly beautiful.

Apart from the beautiful frames, the slow pace works like a slow psychological burn, it feels like the fuse that inches towards the ending which is not a surprise. We know towards the end, that the uncomfortable silences, the paranoia of mistrust surrounds the leads like a thick impenetrable fog. I could feel the increasing pressure it puts on till the last second. Many times, the movies I have seen fail to rightly capture the intense stress before an important moment, this movie captures it quite well.

Bradd Pitt is comfortably relaxed on screen as always. His is rattled only a few times, which feels out of character for him at times, but as a portrayal of Jesse James, he is wonderful. Casey Affleck is splendid in his depiction of unsure but cocky Robert Ford. The cowardice with which he is attributed to shows in his unstable mannerisms. He is torn between emotions. His journey from buoyant wannabe member to a government operative felt convincing.

For someone not from the United States, the accent was hard to understand at times, but subtitles helped.

It was a recommendation under a well-shot film, and it delivers on those grounds. Recommended.