Sol

Well, this could have been more intelligent, but it remains an average tale. It getting 5 Oscar nominations kind of proved the point it made. The satire landed well. It is well written and well-acted, but for a Oscar film, I expected more.

This is a life story of Monk, a talented but not-so-popular black writer. He wants to be recognised as a writer and not a black writer. For some reason, all his works fail to rise above the African-American tag. Out of frustration he writers a 'black' novel under a pen name which becomes famous overnight.

We see the struggle Monk faces, we also see the situations where he has to cash in the cheque even if he disdains the way he has earned it.

The first half is entertaining and speedy. But the second half drags a bit. The talented and quick-witted writing slowly loses its grip. The ending also feels a bit escapist. It tries to go above and beyond by deliberately avoiding exposition, but that did not land very well with me. I long for well-written screenplays, this could be it, but did not reach that mark.

I suppose, I might need one more watch to appreciate this, but let me know what you liked best about this if you have seen it and liked it.

There are a lot of things about Vincent Van Gogh's life I did not know about. He started painting at the age of 27 and left this world at 37. This means he painted for 10 years only. Only one of his paintings was sold in his lifetime, and today he is considered as one of the best painters of all time.

From wiki, One year after Vincent van Gogh's suicide, postman Joseph Roulin asks his son Armand to deliver Van Gogh's last letter to his brother, Theo. Roulin finds the death suspicious, as merely weeks earlier Van Gogh claimed through letters that his mood was calm and normal. Armand reluctantly agrees and heads for Paris.

Each of the film's 65,000 frames is an oil painting on canvas, created using the same techniques as Van Gogh by a team of 125 artists drawn from around the globe. This is a feat in its own right, but even without this, the movie worked well for me as an independent story. There is a lot of charm in the painter's works but the movie goes beyond that and tries to understand the painter. The movie tries to read between the lines in the circumstances of his death.

The paintings are surreal. The painters needed real world actors to portray characters and that has come to life exceptionally well. I could see Saoirse Ronan in these painted frames.

There is a lot to unpack in this and although the protagonist is reluctant at the start, he gets pulled into the situation and towards the end, he takes it as his mission to uncover the truth. This journey comes out very well.

I was in Amsterdam many years ago for one day. I could not fit the Van Gogh museum in that day, but if I ever go back, it will now be one place I surely want to visit.

It is always a pleasure to see a cinematographer turned director. Avinash Arun did this well in Killa and repeated that even better in Three of Us.

Shailaja is diagnosed with dementia which is in its early stages. Before she loses her memories, she wants to go back to her childhood village in Konkan, Maharashtra. There she meets with her childhood sweetheart.

The plot is this much. But that allows for a nuanced execution. The screenplay can take its time. The camera can stay on and steady for longer durations. Avinash has thanked Chaitanya Tamhane at the start. The meditative use of a steady camera reminded me of Chaitanya's films Court and The Disciple.

While the movie says three of us, there is a fourth very important cast member, Konkan. It is exquisitely shot on all occasions. There is a moment where an old man gives directions to the couple, and his purpose is fulfilled, but still, there is a passing shot of him sitting reading a newspaper with the backdrop of early morning shuttered down shops. Moments like this highlight how it is a cinematographer's film.

I think with the vast changes happening in landscapes of cities and villages alike, such movies capture and seal the essence of the times for future generations to look at and admire. Take the Kolkata of Piku for example. There are scenes when Amitabh is riding a bicycle in the bylanes of the city and those are now immortalised in the film. I wish more and more filmmakers give significant attention to the Mise-en-scène of a film and spend some frames on worldbuilding.

The plot isn't complicated. There are insecurities of the husband, the bafflement of the high school sweetheart. And at the centre of it, it's Shailaja seeking closure before things go out of her memory. There is a philosophical scene where she goes to meet an unnamed woman. This is one of the best highlights of personal fears, closure, holding on to the past, and forgiving yourself. Loved the execution and dialogue of it.

Varun Grover and Shoaib Zulfi Nazeer have done brilliant work with the script. The scene I referenced above and a few lines on the giant wheel hit like a truck. They made me introspective and even made me shout an expletive. The content is especially insightful when the characters open up. Even the chemistry between supporting cast members comes out very well because of this diligent writing.

All the leads are amazing in portrayals of the roles, but I think it was a deliberate choice to cast non-Marathi people to give it a wider appeal beyond being regional cinema. Shefali has portrayed Shailaja amazingly well, and the same goes for Swanand and Jaideep. Some names like Sukanya Kulkarni and Ila Bhate come to mind for the role of Shailaja as well. Again, nothing to take away from Shefali's amazing performance of Shailaja, but there are scenes where she appears somewhat out of place. Her slow loss of memory does not come out prominently barring a few scenes either.

Alokananda Dasgupta's music is good in a way that allows the location details to come in. There is a scene where these three are walking by a temple and a chanting of shloks is going on. This chanting comes in prominently and further cements the location details of the film. The music never overpowers even when the emotions rise.

Overall, it was an amazing experience to watch this film. I am thankful that it is made. I am thankful that Konkan is forever immortalised this way too. Absolutely recommended and my best wishes for all future projects of Avinash Arun.

Elijah Wood picks the most esoteric roles these days. I chose to see the movie for three things. Him, Rose from Two and Half Men and the strange long winding title of the film.

This film is on the boundary of multiple genres. It is comedy, drama and a bit of a thriller. The movie wanted to do a lot and it was successful for me at least. The benefit of being on the boundary is that I could not guess which genre it would pick next and how committed it would be to that genre.

Ruth is a disgruntled nurse. She is just not happy with how carelessly people around her live. One day she comes back from the hospital, she finds her house is broken into and her grandmothers silverware is missing along with her laptop. Police aren't much of a help and so she starts to investigate a bit.

The way it starts and the way it ends are very different. It is a tale of someone fed up with the world, but not like Danny from Beef. She has not reached a point of ending it all, she has a little spark of retaliation left in her and the break-in fans the flames, especially after the Police refuse to take any action.

Elijah Wood is brilliant to watch. A little dreamy, self-absorbed, but not someone with malice. It was a pleasure to see his character traits coming to light bit by bit. He was brilliant at throwing stars as well. ;)

The movie takes in strange trajectory as it moves and I sometimes question the why of it, but in the end, I was never left disappointed.

Interestingly, I saw this on my way to IMDb50 list. This currently features at 26th position on that. I thoroughly enjoyed the first one. It was fresh, quirky and something unexpected in the superhero genre. The second builds upon the set stage but doesn't bring anything truly groundbreaking and ends on a cliffhanger.

Miles is reminiscing about his interactions with the spider-verse and specifically Gwen. He is going through the motions of friendly-neighbourhood crime fighting, and then the portals of the spider verse are open again to reveal how deep, ah.. convoluted the spider webs go. A new villain appears on the spot.

I enjoyed the development of this new villain. He tears the fabric of space-time and becomes a major antagonist but from the way his arc developed was great to watch.

While I liked the fast-paced action, it did not feel fresh enough this time around. Probably the first instalment where I was not expecting how bedazzling the whole thing could be. For the second I was expecting something newer, which was naturally harder to get. That is the problem with franchises. Invariably, it feels like they are milking it. Reminds me of James Cameron's second Avatar It looked brilliant, but there was nothing particularly new in it, not the story, nor the characters.

With this frenzied animation, there is always something happening on some corner of the screen. The movie makers take days or probably months to perfect the frames which pass in front of our eyes in under a second. This is an unfair advantage, in the sense that you can not truly give justice to the overwhelming amount of changes happening in the frame. Compare that with something like The Banshees of Inisherin (2022) where each shot has a maximum of two characters and each of them takes enough time to bring you with them. The clever trickery of speed is hence just that, a trick. It does not let you linger as something or the other is constantly thrown in front of you.

It is still a speedy, energetic and enjoyable watch. Don't expect the usual scales of an IMDb50 then you'd be fine.

A movie is made by filmmakers but received by the audience. So when we think of its appeal should the audience take it upon themselves to be well-versed with the context and background or does the onus lie on to the filmmaker to treat the subject matter in a way to provide the audience, at least in the parts where the movie is officially released, enough context to enjoy it as the filmmaker would have ideally wanted?

That question continued to trouble me as I walked out of the theater watching the latest by Quentin Tarantino. When I saw the trailer, I was not moved. I was almost sure to give it a pass. However, as I found myself in the theatre on a weekend, I continued to wonder about the film as it progressed. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood or short OUaTiH for this post, is another alternate history movie, but that does not become clear until you do a little reading before entering the theaters. In my case, I had to keep reading about Sharon Tate to understand the context to give some semblance to what I saw for close to 3 hours.

A supremely large initial part of the movie is an ode to late 60s Hollywood. The sets, costumes, genres and the music. A lot of classic rock and roll. Which works well for a few minutes, but eventually leads nowhere. I respect a long winding slow pace. One of my favourite movies, Drive, is slow at times. However, it is made up of amazing camera work, vibrant colours, and a beautiful soundtrack. None of that can be said about OUaTiH. Probably, that can be attributed to attention to detail or the bad screen quality of the theatre I was in, but I was not impressed with the finesse of the shots.

Acting remains the only soothing element. All the veterans are just flawless on screen. You remember Brad Pitt's relaxed Cliff, Leo’s sentimental and insecure Rick and Margot’s Sharon is a beautiful portrayal. One of the scenes where Leo’s holding Julia Butters has worked perfectly if you think just about the acting. That brings us to Al Pacino, I am not sure what he was doing in that role.

If you glanced through the Wikipedia page of this movie, the casting section is crowded with cross-links and references. The movie had to pack so much content and so many references, that it had no room left for the learning curve. That and for that reason alone it fell flat for me.

It does have a Tarantino-styled action towards the very end. That coupled with the reading of the background on Wikipedia offers a little solace that QT has not lost it yet. Coming back to the question I started with, I believe bringing the audience into the context should be part of the package for a movie and that is where the movie did not work for me. It is quite possible, that it is aimed at the American audience and does not bother with every other place on the planet, but that would reflect on the reaction of the audience across the globe.

We sometimes end up defending the movies which demand a certain awareness from the audience. With the global markets, putting that responsibility on the audience across the globe is something I do not agree with. Movies with Racial tensions, or the Holocaust, will have different reception across different regions of the planet. As a filmmaker, it is a great opportunity to introduce a learning curve in the package to help most members of the audience, appreciate the film.

QT did an alternate history before. As much as the subject matter of Inglourious Basterds was well known across the globe, the same of OUaTiH wasn’t, and I wish that could have been handled better.

There is charm in old movies and charisma in old actors. After seeing Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life, I wonder why such movies don't get made more often. From expressions to delivery, both James Stewart and Donna Reed are an absolute pleasure to watch.

George Bailey has given up his dreams of seeing the world to take over his father's business. There is always one opportunity to step out of the town, even if briefly, but is always foiled by some or the other event that he puts before his wishes. Mary, on the other hand, has always loved George and has always been happy around him in the town they were born and brought up. It is the story of how he stands up for the town and how generously townspeople reciprocate. It is a Christmas movie and boy! it's a happy, wholesome one.

Such movies are comfort food. The hero is passionate and good, the heroine is beautiful, smart and supportive. The villain doesn't have a redemption arc but his plans are foiled at the end. All the supporting cast ends up helping the hero at a crucial juncture. All this fills you with a warm cozy feeling.

It also made me introspective. I started thinking about the impact I have on the world around me and is the net sum positive. There is a point in the movie where George's guardian angel shows him a world without him ever being present and he realises, that even if his aspirations of world travel haven't been met, there is a strong positive influence he has had on this world. Upon that realisation when comes back to the real world, the sense of gratitude fills him. He stands strong to fight whichever battle he needs to.

That sense of gratitude is an immensely positive force. It remained with me for a long time. I started thinking positively too. It could be the nature of the film, being all Christmas-y, but I cherished that warmth while it lasted, and it lasted long.

It was a pleasure to watch a black and white film after a long time. Those high-contrast frames made the emotions more potent for me.

Recommended.

This was another one on my IMDb top 50 filling-the-gaps journey. 9 more to go.

The trailer was intriguing and I saw it being praised a lot during award season so gave this one a try. I was struggling a bit while deciphering the message and had to check a few YouTube videos. Then when I saw it in context, even the most troubling acts started to make sense.

It's an allegory about depression.

Pádraic and Colm are friends. If not lifelong, considering the age gap, they are still close for quite many years. All of a sudden Colm, the elder one, decides that he has nothing to do with Pádraic any longer. He stops being friends with Pádraic completely. When Pádraic insists on knowing the reason, Colm threatens to cut off his own fingers one after the other each time Pádraic initiates a conversation with him.

This awful clause made the suspension of disbelief very hard, but I pressed on and am thankful for it. While as an audience member, it is hard to come to terms with such a morbid turn of events, upon deeper thinking it does not sound so far-fetched. There is no clear statement about depression or loneliness, yet the uneasiness remains thick in the atmosphere throughout the proclamation of the amputation.

The movie was filmed on Achill Island. Situated off the west coast of Ireland. In many frames, aerial or otherwise, this island looks spellbinding. The fields, sea and the subtle fog indicating the perfect weather are all part of the setting. Yet, the characters are not happy. The primary characters except Pádraic have some or the other form of longing. Pádraic is leisurely comfortable in his way of life. He thinks little and expects even less. Colm's friendship, his sister and his pet donkey are enough to call a life for him. He does not think beyond. Those who read and are intelligent grow restless in the slow speed of life.

In one of the YouTube videos I saw, Mrs McCormick was labelled as the personification of depression and how she must be faced and not be run away from. While the movie never says anything about depression, when looking through that lens the extent to which Colm goes is understandable. The video claims that the reason why Colm forces himself away from Pádraic is to force his friend to do something for himself, probably leave the island for good and explore other opportunities. It's worth watching the movie to see if that happens or not, but that was the closest explanation to his proclamation that I could find.

I wonder if making rational sense is a faculty that remains with someone who is suffering from serious depression. Colm is an older guy and his prime years are behind him, so when he sees the only thing tethering younger Pádraic to the island is his friendship, at least from his side, he decides to end things. Colm, considering his aloof nature, does not explain any of this clearly, which makes Pádraic edgier as the movie progresses.

I loved the acting of all three leads. Colin Farrell is phenomenal. I have seen him in multiple films and seen a variation. The last I saw him was The Penguin in Batman. From that to this earnest simpleton is a great range of performances. Brendon Gleeson and Kerry Condon are good too. I liked how steadfast and yet emotional Kerry portrays Siobhán.

It is a meditative drama, which starts slow like the pace on the island, after the strange pact is uttered, the movie goes emotionally topsy-turvy but remains fairly meditative throughout.

Despite being [[Zoya Akhtar]]'s movie, I had not seen this to date. It is moving very well. The amount of A-list actors in this is mind-boggling. All of them are doing cameos. I like how much weight she has in the industry to ask people to do so. She is talented too, and that is the driving factor.

The struggle of someone who wants to make it in Bollywood is real. The actor comes first here, then the script and then the director. Which means getting someone new in the industry is very hard. You find the same old faces doing hero roles for many many years.

[[Farhan Akhtar]] is playing the role of a next-door struggler, and he is surprisingly good at it. Considering he comes from the fraternity, I thought it would be hard for him to relate to an outsider, but he is doing good. [[Konkona Sen Sharma]] has a very down-to-earth vibe, so she is carrying her part effortlessly.

The movie starts well with the struggles of the outsiders and I felt it is slowly going deeper into the art of filmmaking and at least would offer some sneak peek into how the industry works. But I was disappointed. The movie slowly goes to the boy meets girl and love triangle way. The industry became a backdrop and I hated it. At the end of it, while I was invested somewhat in the story of Vikram and Sona, I came out empty-handed with an unfulfilled desire to know more about the fraternity's inner ways of working.

Shankar Ehsan Loy's music is good in parts. The songs worked for me and they are very successful. Even to this day, I can hear the songs from this movie. The background score is off-putting though. At many important junctures of the film, the background music came almost to the foreground, felt out of context or emotion and completely distracted me from the subject matter.

As an attempt to do something different, the film is worth watching. However, if you have any expectations to come out knowing a thing or two about the industry then you will be disappointed.

I am thankful that I saw this meditative drama from Alfonso Cuaron. This movie is a storytelling masterclass. Long wide shots, tracking and panning camera, artful use of the black and white, it has it all.

The movie follows a story of Cleo, one of the two house helps of a rich family in Mexico during the 1970s. That's it. The slice of life movie doesn't have a lot of over the top dramatic moments, but just by direction and acting it held my attention throughout.

The opening shot is a full minute close up of floor tiles and water flows in after the opening credits end, then after a few seconds you see a airplane in a reflection of the water. By this moment I was sure that it would be the slow moving perfect drama that I have started enjoying recently.

A lot of weight is carried by the actors in films like these. The long takes and wide shots mean a lot can go wrong in the frame. So when I came to know after that the central character of Cleo is not a trained actor, rather a primary school teacher in rural Mexico, I was amazed. Alfonso managed to bring in the authenticity just by casting someone out of the fraternity. He was looking for the face of Cleo for about an year.

Alfonso mentored Chaitanya Tamhane, the director of Court and The Disciple, both I enjoyed immensely. This sort of movies are like classic novels. The characters are fully fleshed out. It takes time to invest in them but when I did, the payoff was good.

It's one of those movies where I ended up watching the entire end credits too.

It is finally over. Better Call Saul, the spinoff series happening in the breaking bad universe can hardly go anywhere near the greatness of breaking bad, probably because it is about everything and everyone else but the titular character Saul Goodman.

As the final episode came to an end, only two things remained in my mind. The brilliant camerawork and camera placements throughout this entire series, and the phenomenal portrayal of Kim Wexler by Rhea Seahorn. Nothing else will leave a lasting positive impact.

BCS tells the backstory of Saul Goodman, the flamboyant and charismatic lawyer from the breaking bad universe. It happens mostly in the 6-years before the events of Breaking Bad, which thankfully meant, they could not spin the yarn beyond 6 seasons. It starts well, largely thanks to the commanding presence of Michael McKean playing Chuck McGill. After the events of season 3, he does not return and the show goes all over the place. Parallel storylines spin up which, while being true to the breaking bad universe regarding drugs and cartels, are hardly related to Saul at that point; people take decisions out of character, and the show just goes downhill from there. The creators forcefully merge the two stories with a surprising shocking incident which keeps a sour taste till the very end of the series.

It was unfortunate that I lost touch with Saul. I was rooting for him in the early seasons. It was not easy to stand toe to toe against the towering personality of Chuck. So I let many of the slippin' Jimmy acts slide and continued to root for him. Saul's image from the Breaking Bad universe was always of a person who could bend the law and use it to his advantage. It was brilliant to watch him on screen. As soon as he started breaking the law directly, it started hitting the foundations of the character. After the Irene scam, he was a lost cause for me. I stopped caring about him entirely.

Some characters are outright bad. Yet, they have some code of their own. Till the very end of the show, I didn't understand Jimmy/Saul. It's my shortcoming or the creators were unsure about him too. Probably why the show veers deep into the cartel storyline, which at that point at least, is not strongly linked to Saul's arc.

After Chuck moves out of the series, it largely remained as a fan service. I know Gus Fring, Hector Salamanca and Mike Ehrmantraut from Breaking Bad. They were amazing and fans loved them. A large part of BCS is about these guys because the creators are unsure about what to do with Saul.

The only exception is Ignacio (Nacho) Varga. His arc is fabulous. He is a man of conscience. I felt his pain, I feel for him. His arc is a real tragedy of initial bad choices leading to life completely out of his control. Michael Mando does a tremendous job. His monologue near the end gave me goosebumps, and that was one of the highest points of the series for me. It's the arc they have done well and so they did not have to resort to flimsy chance encounters or surprises to add shock value. It simmers steadily until it reaches the boiling point and ends with him taking back control.

Chuck McGill, Kim Wexler, and Nacho are the heroes of Better Call Saul. While others waltzed onto the stage with their breaking bad clout, these guys made a place for themselves in my mind and that is what I take away from the show.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs
This took me by surprise. The jovial singing tunes along with casual homicide with no one batting an eye was something I could have never imagined. In the few minutes that it lasts, it does have a fair share of twists and turns and brilliant camera work. That bar scene I still fondly remember after seeing other stories.

Near Algodones
The few minutes that James Franco's character experiences, most don't experience in a lifetime. He tries to rob a bank but is punished for an entirely different reason. The last expression on his face of wistful nonchalance is pure gold. By the second story you know they are all about the wild west and build anticipation.

Meal Ticket
It's just heart-wrenching what is happening to good art and artists. Harry Melling's oratory skills are as brilliant as the ill his fate is. This segment has Liam Neeson, and while he leaves a lasting impression with his brooding charisma and tall frame, Harry's artist remained strong in my mind even after all the stories were told.

All gold ticket
This was a good one and fits well in the overall collection, but the weakest of them according to me.

The Gal Who Got Rattled
Zoe Kazan's Alice was beautiful. Vulnerable yet confident. Standing her ground. It was a longer segment, probably to slowly let her character develop. The first scene of the suppertime discussions portrays her as a very timid person, not going beyond what her brother commands. They are migrating from one part of the country to the other and this journey brings something unexpected. Easily one of the best stories of the lot.

The Mortal Remains
Pretty much rides on the acting and delivery prowess of the cast, this is interesting but isn't the best.

Overall, all the tales keep a solid connection with the wild west. For someone not from the USA, and not well-versed in Western movies, this acted as a gateway movie. From bank heists to Comanche raids, the movie brings about many stereotypical elements of the era. It also does this beautifully on screen. Instead of the rustic muddy air of usual Westerns, this is bright and high-definition. I like Coen Brother's camerawork, it's worth watching for that alone. When it is Coen brothers, it is already a class apart, but among other Coen brothers' works, this wouldn't rank too high.

The past can not be changed, any attempt you make to change it ends up shaping it exactly what it was. This science fiction trope isn't new today. In 1995, it must have been exhilarating. Terry Gilliam's Twelve Monkeys is the tale of time travel and the pandemic both. Having survived one just now, the protagonist's attempts hit home.

Bruce Willis is in some sort an underground prison. No one can survive above the surface due to a deadly pathogen which has almost wiped out the human race. The scientists have the technology to send someone back to find the cause of this pandemic and course correct this.

Despite the common tropes, the movie is enjoyable. You see how things are shaping up and how the pieces fit perfectly. It would have been interesting if James's backstory would have been revealed and tied to the actions of the past. There are quite a few unanswered questions and then an unnecessary cliffhanger at the end like the spinning totem of [[Inception]] makes the movie stay a bit longer in your mind.

Brad Pitt shines in his role as Jefferey. He had gone through special training to slip into the role. The ticks and mannerisms were tactfully acted out. Loved his part. After the end though I got a lot of Fight Club vibes from the character. It came in 1999, so I wonder about the mental state Brad Pitt must be to have done these roles.

Bruce was an established action star by then, So accepting this role was a bit odd. There is little action for him. He is hardly the saviour in the end and his character John Cole suffers through a lot without having much agency to control/change their fate. That's a very non-action hero-like image. I am not sure who I would have cast in the role if not for him.

In 2023, the movie is still an entertaining watch for the story and performances.

From the film poster to performances, and from cinematography to characters, the film is brilliant. Then there is Paul Dano. He is just a pleasure to watch. Okja left a lasting impact on me as a moviegoer.

An American MNC starts a 10-year project to develop a perfect pig. They have given the piglets to farmers all over the world and created a competition out of this. The winning animal they can mass produce and rake in profits. Your usual capitalist nightmare. One such pig is Okja from Korea. She is being raised by a mountain-dwelling farmer and his granddaughter Mija. Naturally Mija and Okja and close to each other. 10 years pass and it's time to examine and surrender the pigs back to the company. It is officially still their property. But not without a fight.

It is not a creature feature. Okja has very little to do in the film. The film is about Mija, the capitalist corporate suits i.e. Tilda Swinton and the Animal Liberation Front or the ALF i.e. Paul Dano. The ALF are very serious about non-violent ways. And even assault and kidnapping are very graciously executed. That is the moment Bong Joon-ho gets hold of you and then never lets go till the very end.

The movie starts a bit slow to establish the relationship between Mija and Okja and even goes on to show how Okja is an intelligent animal. With that much establishment, you would expect a bit more from the pig, but that does not come. Agreed that there is so much else happening that you don't miss it very much until after the movie is finished.

Darius Khondji's camera work is really good. From a mountain village and jungles to urban glass structures, his camera accentuates all the details. It tugs at your heartstrings towards the very end. The end is realistic, and not entirely tragic, but it keeps you thinking about the world. You keep imagining if any other non-idealistic utopian ending was even possible. When you are thinking about this, the story takes us back to Korea and the sombre mood intensifies with Darius's camera. No words are spoken for a long time which gives you time to process and recover.

This genre-bending tale is worth watching for many reasons. It has a friendship between a girl and a super-pig, and it also has themes of capitalism, industrialisation and veganism.

This is from the IMDB top 250 list. A French movie about an average man without caregiving credentials ends up taking the best care of a quadriplegic aristocrat. They develop a friendship over time. It is a wholesome experience to watch both these men become best friends. This being inspired by true events adds a smile at the end.

After becoming a quadriplegic, Philippe is looking for someone to care for him full-time. He is having interviews in his swanky mansion and no one is fitting the image he has in his mind. Driss enters this interview just to get the welfare paycheck by showing he is making attempts at jobs. He is not best suited based on the qualifications, rather, he is diametrically opposite of the kind of experience and maturity required for such a job.

As it happens, Philippe decides to give him a chance. His staff is sceptical about this decision, but they support Driss in all possible ways. Friendship comes naturally as that is the subject of the film.

A black person caring for a white rich man may raise some eyebrows in the Western world, but not coming from that background, it did not have much effect on me. The movie appeared too polished and too happy to evoke stronger emotions. I admired the integrity and simplicity of Driss. I also enjoyed François Cluzet's portrayal of Philippe. Philippe opens up slowly. Carrying these characters is tough because these are like normal human beings around us.

The movie is brilliantly shot. Wide angles and aerial shots are all there. This adds to the appeal. But under that veneer, there is no significant character development to deserve an 8.5+ rating. You see the impact Driss has on Philippe, but not much the other way around. (I am not talking about money, that initial awe wears off). I wished for more backstories. Both of them share some background about themselves, but it's just plain narration in a single scene which did not have a strong anchor for me.

It is a feel-good movie. If you are feeling down and are looking for a pick-me-up movie along with a bowl of ice cream, this one will do the trick.

It's a pleasure to watch Keanu Reeves doing action movies. There is no excessive machoism, but rather a reluctant expert at work who just doesn't want to headshot scores of people every minute, but has to just to survive.

This is the fourth chapter in the John Wick series. It ends here. There could be spin-offs as suggested by the post-credit scenes, but if Keanu isn't in it, it's not John Wick. By the fourth instalment, it is clear that the series has taken a toll on him. The guy is 58 years old. I wonder how Donnie Yen looks so young, he is a year older than Keanu. Except for the main antagonist, Bill Skarsgard, everyone is quite old. It's really impressive how they are carrying it on in one of the most physically demanding roles.

The stylistic action is brilliant. It's better than many of its contemporaries but John Wick is usually compared with its previous instalments. First still ranks the best in terms of delivery. Slowly the world-building added multiple layers and flair to it.

Bill Skarsgard (and I first thought it to be Cameron Monaghan) plays Marquis de Gramont, a mind-numbingly rich person given free hand by the high table to stop the menace that is John Wick. His sickening display of wealth has its moments. Ian McShane's long walk in a painting room was my favourite.

The action progressively gets over the top, the Arc de Triomphe car (fight/chase?) scene was one of the best executions of elaborate action sequences I have seen to date. It is long but not tiring. Considering Keanu has done 90% of the stunt himself, there is respect added to this as well. The last bit with the staircase tires us as the audience as well (some have compared it with the Greek tale of Sisyphus).

Their ages and Keanu doing all the stunts and fights could be the reason that I thought the pace of the action was a little slow. We are used to seeing much faster action but barring Donnie Yen's sequences (seriously, how does he do it), the other scenes felt slightly slowed down. They could have filmed it a bit slowly and then sped it up and we would not have noticed.

Keanu is a pleasure to watch. He is not great with acting, but there is some charisma in his somewhat tired and somewhat confused look throughout his films. He is the reason why the series was this successful. Not sure about the future of the franchise with everyone praising this last instalment. We might just see spin-offs as the fictional world is all ready to set stories in.

I think they should let him rest. He has earned it.

P.S. RIP Lance Reddick. You will be missed. The Wire and Fringe, I have always enjoyed his portrayals. It is tragically poetic how his character also dies in this last John Wick like he was for the entertainment industry and his life and career ended there.

What a beautiful-looking film this is. Resplendent with colour and culture both. This came as a suggestion after watching [[Hero (2002)]]. Xiaoding Zhao's cinematography made the countryside look fabulous. The colours just came alive in all the seasons.

It is a martial art romance film. On those grounds also, the movie holds up. A rebellion is underway. The House of Flying Daggers poses a threat to the Tang Dynasty. A young blind woman is captured who is likely the daughter of the leader of the rebellion. So one of the general's men breaks her free in the hope that she will lead them to the hideout of the rebellion. They journey together for 3 days and slowly start to care for each other. It's worth watching how the story unfolds from there.

There are several action sequences. It was welcoming to see that even the cannon fodder class of soldiers are shown as really good fighters. The sequences are choreographed well. There are a few physics-defying scenes, but they don't leave a store taste in your mouth. In the early part of the film, there is a curious game of echoes. That was a fresh concept which I loved.

Western action movies usually follow a muted greyish colour palette. Even the beautiful ones like [[Nicolas Winding Refn]]'s [[Drive (2011)]] or [[Edgar Wright]]'s [[Baby Driver (2017)]] characteristically feel American. In such times, it is a pleasure to watch a vivid colour palette with a wide gamut. This was China's official entry to the Academy Awards and I think I see why.

The execution is a bit slow. Especially during the emotional scenes, the actors have too long shots to continue emoting to a point where even a well-established actor would struggle. That could be why the movie never reached the finalists at the Oscars.

I enjoyed Hero, and I enjoyed this one too.

There are so many stories to tell which don't require big budgets. A good story and a good actor are really good enough. Movies like Vadh are a testament to this.

Sanjay Mishra and Neena Gupta are an elderly couple living in a north Indian city. They have taken a loan from a loan shark to send their son to the USA. The son no longer cares about his parents and the loan shark no longer wants to wait. He is a thoroughly bad man. There is no grey shade there. It is well established to justify why it's not a mere killing, but it's a Vadh, a Hindi term for righteous assassination.

The movie then moves on to make sure that Sanjay Mishra covers this all up with a little help from luck. The story is compelling and with genius actors at the helm, becomes believable.

More often than not, the elderly or general victims in a Hindi movie are shown as weak and at the mercy of their oppressors. Vadh turns it on its head. The transformation of Sanjay Mishra from a simple god-fearing law-abiding citizen to one who could go ahead with the ultimate act is worth watching. It gets better as he decides to cover this up with cold blood.

Neena Gupta is a brilliant supporting actor. She is god-fearing and stays the same for the most part, but then there are times when she stands by her husband.

Overall, it is worth a watch.

I am a big fan of dramas with a clash of personalities without broad black-and-white strokes. Noah Baumbach's Marriage Story is a painful tale of two people separating. It is a clash of personalities without right or wrong. It is about compatibility.

A stage director and an actress struggle through a gruelling, coast-to-coast divorce that pushes them to their extremes. Charlie loves New York, he can't think of life without it. Nicole is a bit more laid back, and more spontaneous. Their professions give weight to their mercurial personalities.

Divorces without children are painful, but when you have children it is a very different battle altogether. You want to separate but want to preserve the sanctity of the other person for the sake of the child. You end up fabricating stories but then always try to keep them in check to understand the lasting impression you are living in your kid's mind.

Like other Noah Baumbach films, there is a lot of dialogue here. The characters are animated and have a lot to tell. If you enjoy movie writing, then this is a movie you will enjoy. Neither of the leads nor their lawyers like to say things with few words. A lot is said, a lot is meant.

Both Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson have given magnificent performances. They both are willing to maintain dignity until things get murkier slowly but steadily. There is a scene where Adam is staying in a small room in LA, and Johansson comes to visit. The heart-to-heart conversation here is the highlight of the film.

A slow-burn drama slowly reaching crescendo is what the movie is. If you like that sort of wordy movie, this is for you.

Beautiful hand-drawn animations, British and Irish accents, a story of two young girls' friendship with a dash of folklore and magic. What's not to like?

Wolflwalkers tells a story of a young wannabe hunter willing to take on her father's occupation as passion to eradicate the wolves from the jungle. But little does she know that the tales of people who can take a wolf form by night are true and she is going to cross paths with one such girl.

Young kids have an amazing ability to correct their worldview in light of new evidence and compassion. God knows by what time we lose that ability and become rigid adults. With the same passion as she wanted to hunt the wolves, she wants to save them later and that transformation of her character is a journey worth watching.

It is a story of Robyn, who updates her worldview, but that is true about Mebh too. The younger, and also more feral among to two, Mebh takes time to trust Robyn, but even then her affinity towards her pack is beyond everything else.

The story comes from Irish folklore and the voice actors keep the story rooted in the soil. This is actually a third and final installment of Irish folklore stories by director Tomm Moore. Moore's previous films include The Secret of Kells (2009) and Song of the Sea (2014). I will check out the other two some time.

The hand-drawn animations reminded me of Spirited Away (2001), a Studio Ghibli classic, and even the childhood classics like Samurai Jack. It is different from a Hollywood animations and brings in a mood well suited for a children's art book.

Recommended.

I had not seen the original Top Gun from 1986, and when maverick came out 36 years after, I watched both of them back to back. The new one has the stunts, but the first one was a better movie for me.

This write-up considers both movies together.

Tom Cruise plays Maverick, a reckless but extremely skilled fighter pilot in both films. In the first film, he has a companion, Goose. In the second one, we have Goose's son to tie it to the previous film.

The first one was the story of Maverick, as much as it was of the elite fighter pilot school, Top Gun. Maverick was cocky, but at one point in the film, he becomes vulnerable, has doubts about his abilities, and seeks advice. All signs show the hero's journey, we don't see anything of that in the new one. That is largely due to the plot differences.

Top Gun: Maverick has a clear mission at the end of the movie. The entire focus of the film is inching slowly towards that culmination. This leaves very less for actual character development and their interplay. It is a thoroughly plot-driven movie. Whereas the older top gun was more balanced. The love interest made sense, the protagonist was someone you rooted for. In the later movie, we are mostly caring about the goal, which is a plot device for the stunts to shine.

There is no doubt that Top Gun Maverick wins hands down in the action and stunts department. Due to 36 years of advancements in filmmaking, the later top gun is way too polished and has better handling of set pieces and execution. Although the latter one has finesse, it feels artificial as the contrived mission that they have to fly at the end. The older Top Gun was still a brilliant feat in the eighties and its action felt more spirited among the two.

Being a character-driven film, the older Top Gun has a much more believable romantic arc. The same can not be said about the latter. Frankly, the omission of the entire arc with Jennifer Connelly would have made the script much tighter and a through-and-through plot-driven action film. This shows in the runtime too. the older one was 1hr 49mins, a good 30+ mins less than the new one. Yet it managed to deliver a much-rounded story.

This comparison does not mean I am panning the new one. Both these films are worth watching and are still better than average. I am just more biased towards the older.

I had not seen the original Top Gun from 1986, and when maverick came out 36 years after, I watched both of them back to back. The new one has the stunts, but the first one was a better movie for me.

This write-up considers both movies together.

Tom Cruise plays Maverick, a reckless but extremely skilled fighter pilot in both films. In the first film, he has a companion, Goose. In the second one, we have Goose's son to tie it to the previous film.

The first one was the story of Maverick, as much as it was of the elite fighter pilot school, Top Gun. Maverick was cocky, but at one point in the film, he becomes vulnerable, has doubts about his abilities, and seeks advice. All signs show the hero's journey, we don't see anything of that in the new one. That is largely due to the plot differences.

Top Gun: Maverick has a clear mission at the end of the movie. The entire focus of the film is inching slowly towards that culmination. This leaves very less for actual character development and their interplay. It is a thoroughly plot-driven movie. Whereas the older top gun was more balanced. The love interest made sense, the protagonist was someone you rooted for. In the later movie, we are mostly caring about the goal, which is a plot device for the stunts to shine.

There is no doubt that Top Gun Maverick wins hands down in the action and stunts department. Due to 36 years of advancements in filmmaking, the later top gun is way too polished and has better handling of set pieces and execution. Although the latter one has finesse, it feels artificial as the contrived mission that they have to fly at the end. The older Top Gun was still a brilliant feat in the eighties and its action felt more spirited among the two.

Being a character-driven film, the older Top Gun has a much more believable romantic arc. The same can not be said about the latter. Frankly, the omission of the entire arc with Jennifer Connelly would have made the script much tighter and a through-and-through plot-driven action film. This shows in the runtime too. the older one was 1hr 49mins, a good 30+ mins less than the new one. Yet it managed to deliver a much-rounded story.

This comparison does not mean I am panning the new one. Both these films are worth watching and are still better than average. I am just more biased towards the older.

I did the other way around. I should have seen Marriage Story after this. Both are Noah Baumbach's works and have his style, but the Marriage Story is better. They both are worth recommending if you like good character drama where people talk a lot.

Harold is an artist who is no longer at the peak of his career. He has two sons and a daughter. Danny, the eldest one, has artistic inclinations, and is a good musician, but growing up, drugs got the best of him and now he is no longer pursuing the art. Matthew is the second son who is more financially successful and has a stable career. Jean is the third wheel in the narrative but she also has a stable job. There are other characters but these are the most important ones.

This is a very character-driven story. The proud, retired father can not easily digest that his best days are past him. Matthew has a more pragmatic or practical view of how his parents should handle their finances. Danny wants to be closer to his father.

With these dysfunctional adults together, the story just flows. At the outset, there is no goal that the movie is building towards, but that makes it a more natural and slice-of-life kind of experience.

There is a scene where Danny and his daughter Eliza play a piece on the piano. Moments like this can not exist in films purely focussing on the destinations.

There is not a lot happening on a big scale, but for the Meyerowitzs, the changes coming their way are life-changing. This is handled beautifully and at the end of the experience, you are happy to have seen a good comedy drama. This reminded me of the older Basu Chatterjee films. This film has more aggression and less romance than say, Baton Baton Mein, but feels like the slice-of-life nature thread still runs in both of them.

Recommended for a casual watch.

Madaari is worth watching for Irrfan Khan. Now that he is not among us, such movies remind us of his ability time and again. He had much less to work with as the plot and other characters don't measure up. We had seen Wednesday in 2008. 8 years after, you would expect something much more but the film fails to deliver.

The home minister's son is kidnapped and the whole system goes on war footing to find him. The primary driver here is the home mister. The value of the post. It is not because the home minister has a lot of power so he can command every three-letter agency to solve this, but it raises the question that in a sovereign nation like India if the home minister's son is not safe, can others keep respect for the institutions?

Nachiket (Jimmy Shergill) raises this question which had the power to create a detour in the theme of the movie. It could have become bigger than the cop drama that it eventually becomes. There are some time reversals which try to jumpstart the interest in the film but since there is very little suspense for many parts of the film, it only works for a moment.

It is impressive that we don't have a love angle here. This keeps the focus on the story. Like Akshay Kumar's recent films, we don't go on a boring long flashback where he first meets a girl. That's welcoming.

Overall, recommended if you are nostalgic and want to see Irrfan Khan again, not otherwise.

When Martin Scorsese talked about Marvel movies not being cinema, The Irishman had just come out. He was probably saying, go watch what I have just made. If Marvel is the new age capitalistic fast food, The Irishman is the traditional slow-cooked family recipe. There is a time and place for both.

The Irishman is an ode to the cinema of yesteryear starring veterans who have left a majestic impact on the industry. It is about the people and the choices they have to make. It does have an air of Goodfellas, although the crew mentioned in an interview that they are unlike each other. However, they are strikingly similar in their use of voiceover narration, nonlinear storytelling, and a focus on the psychological and emotional lives of the characters.

I like a movie when it provides a breathing space to mull over the proceedings on screen. Wide-angle shots, regularities like cars on the highway, phone receivers being kept back or steady cameras waiting for characters to exit the frame are all welcome. I usually don't like when as an audience I am stupefied by a relentless onslaught of action, or comedy or any genre for that matter. (that's maybe why I don't like shaky cams for more than a few mins). The Irishman ticks all these boxes.

The buildup counts. The one regret Frank shares towards the very end of the movie conveys remorse to you. The movie takes time to establish the strong leads in such a way, that you see how these characters are on a collision course. This inevitability is slow but unyielding. Once you experience this, you realize Scorsese's lamentations about Marvel films. It is exactly the same when your mom sees you eating a McDonald's burger and shakes her head in disapproval. After crossing a certain age (which may be different for each one of us) she knows that her kid would appreciate the distinction between fast food and good food.

The performances are top-notch. It is a characters' movie. The plot is there but it is not an objective-driven narrative. The drama is based on well-known historical events. So there isn't a lot of suspense here but the stalwarts like Al Pacino, Robert De Nero and Joe Pesci carry their parts with absolute ease.

Special credit to those who made these guys age-appropriate. This tale covers a timespan across decades and de-ageing and ageing these guys was a work of art in itself. Overall production values are quite good.
Rodrigo Prieto's camerawork brought the older times to life. Robbie Robertson's music was memorable too.

The Irishman is not without its flaws though. In 2023, a 3.5 hours movie is really pushing it. Despite acknowledging that it is an ode to the craft of filmmaking as Scorsese sees it, at times it hits some lull moments. Some backstories could have been edited out in a better way.

I have stopped consuming the Marvel cherry sodas for while a now. I do enjoy it every once in and while but not as much as I enjoyed The Irishman. Definitely recommended.

Animations provide such a brilliant vehicle for storytelling. It's untethered by the limitations of reality. You see Studio Ghibli's works and you'd realize how even adult themes can also work in the form if presented well.

This is my second Studio Ghibli movie, the first being Spirited Away (2001). In a sense, you may think that in 1997, Miyazaki was already writing on the themes of Avatar, the 2009 film.

It's 14th-century Japan. The spirits are real and so is humankind's greed. There is a power struggle between the forest spirit and the lady of the iron town. Our protagonist, exiled from his clan, is engulfed in this power struggle unwittingly.

There is violence so this is not a kid's movie. Miyazaki goes to one of the oldest power struggles. It is in a way a struggle between eastern and western thought. Enterprises and profiteering vs communal living and harmony. Unfortunately, greed has survived and we no longer see the spirits among us. Call it magical realism if you may, but Miyazaki's spirits are relatable. You fall for their simplicity and crave to wind the clocks back to the 14th century. It is perplexing that almost everyone would feel for the forest spirits without realizing or conveniently ignoring that they represent the iron town. The incessant march of capitalism will ruin us all.

In a way this an old story. It was probably old even in 1997. Still, in 2023, it had a lot to offer. When you conduct an experiment and plot data points on a graph, there are some which are outliers. Sometimes your experiment execution is wrong and sometimes the points are wrong. Movies like these are the outliers on our entertainment spectrum. They tell you which direction is right. Depending on how far away your graph is from them, you know how much of a correction you still need to do.

When your director is also the writer (Rahi Anil Barve), you have a cohesive vision of the project. You add a brilliant DOP (Pankaj Kumar) and you have a brilliant experience like Tumbbad.

This was forever on my list, and now finally have seen it, I instantly regret not watching it on a big screen when it was released.

Tumbbad is a story-driven experience. In the mysterious town of Tumbbad, where it always rains, there is an old mansion (vada). It holds a terrifying secret that very few are aware of and it has to do with all the gold in this world. Saying anything else would be risking spoilers.

This was a long journey for the team which started from even finding a producer who could back this director's vision without forcing changes citing Indian audience preferences. The rain scenes of Tumbbad alone took 4 monsoons of on-location shoots. Then there were iterations of the main antagonist too which overall needed 2+ years of post-production alone.

I am always a big fan of movies where the writer gets the free hand. Here Rahi had this story ready for quite some time. The spooky atmosphere is heavily inspired by the works of Narayan Dharap, a prominent Marathi horror writer with 100+ books under his name. In one of the interviews, Rahi mentioned that the story could be adapted to any other culture/language and it can then transform organically as their own story.

Apart from DOP and screenplay, the movie does a brilliant job in the sound department. Jesper Kyd, the guy behind some Hitman and Assassin's Creed games, provided the very essence of atmospheric soundscape the movie needed. There is a song composed by Ajay Atul, which fades in comparison to the indo-western soundstage Jesper has set up. This is another unique thing about the film where sound is the first citizen and not an afterthought once all the catchy songs are made. Further kudos to the director for sticking to his guts about not compromising by introducing item numbers, or more songs in general (yes, he was asked to do so by some Indian producers)

With many areas of the film being spectacular, it fairs well even with mediocre acting. There aren't any known faces in the film and overall the acting department is shortchanged. The main lead is also the producer of the film.

Tumbbad's worldbuilding deserves praise. The myth is well fortified. I could not find plot holes in it, and also there are discussions about it on quora and Reddit etc. Very few Bollywood films can claim such a feat. The last twist worked very well for me.

Made on a production budget of ₹50 million (US$630,000), the film grossed a total of ₹136 million (US$1.7 million) at the box office, making it a profitable venture. I just hope this results in more Indian producers and directors venturing into genres which are not traditionally mainstream.

And more on-location shoots, please. Quite recently I have enjoyed almost all on-location shot films, Newton, Sherni, Anek and now this.

Avatar the way of water is spectacular and fluffy cotton candy. It gives you a sugar high. The first time of it was memorable too. But you can't substitute it for a meal the second time around.

The way of water has come after 13 years. A lot has changed since then. It was a trendsetter for visual design and effects in 2009. In 2022, the visuals continue to look stunning and do enthral as much as they can, but the long runtime, lack of a compelling story and many of the typical Hollywood tropes suffocated the air out of me by the end of it, even the titanic-esque escape sequence could not save me.

The sky people (humans) were exiled from Pandora at the end of the first movie. But naturally, they return. Along returns an old baddy, Colonel Miles Quaritch. He has been reanimated by the same memories, probably taken at the last restore point. This makes him a skin like Cylons from Battlestar Gallactica. You don't take this path lightly. A technology like this (think Agents from the Matrix) gives whoever holds this tech an immense advantage. It is also a very strong storytelling clutch because the deaths don't mean much then. This choice brings the franchise one level down from the previous film.

The first time is the charm. The novelty wins half the battle. Look at the human species as the invaders, a diametrically opposite viewpoint from the conventional Mars Attacks, War of the Worlds or Independence Day. A paraplegic marine getting to walk again, is one of the strong motivators even if not directly alluded to. A hive mind sort of intelligence shared across the planet in which you can jack in. Jumping in and out of Avatar bodies. All these things were new in 2009. I saw the 2009 trailer again now. Say that movie would have been released today, it would still have been successful. After 190 mins of runtime, the sequel has nothing new to offer in terms of story or worldbuilding and that does not sit well.

We are introduced to a new reef tribe the Metkayina. instead of flying they swim, and often go underwater. Like the spirit tree of souls of the first one, they have the cove. Like Toruk from the first one, we have Tulkun. There are slight variations here and there, but nothing fundamentally new. Jake and Neytiri have a family now, five trusted conventional Hollywood archetypes.

On a plus side, there are a few memorable set pieces. The raid on the train and the final sea battle provide the adrenaline shots needed. Then there is the whole whaling set piece which just tugs at your heartstrings. It is hard to forget that.

Cameron originally planned for it to finish by 2014. But the technology for underwater motion capture wasn't ready. I think they quickly whipped up a sequel storyline way back in 2009-2010 without a lot of thought and kept waiting for the tech to catch up. That resulted in a marvellous-looking end product, which was arduous to film, but it does not leave a lasting impact.

Kate Winslet, like other cast members, had to learn free diving for this film. She managed to hold her breath underwater for 7 mins for one of the scenes. The efforts are all there. It must have been a painstaking journey to make this one of the costliest films ever to be produced. So I don't undermine the efforts but as an uninitiated movie-goer, these efforts don't translate into the high Cameron was expecting. The way ARPANET, a research project, paved the way for the internet as we know it, Cameron's second Avatar film will advance the technology for films with underwater motion capture.

I might be one of the outliers, as the movie seems to be doing quite well across the globe. It is a five-film project so it needs to continue doing good for much more time to stay viable.

The lack of a strong story to power these visual engines will be felt stronger and stronger as the franchise progresses. Just the visuals could carry a film in 2009. In 2022, we have already seen powerhouses in all departments, the likes of Dune in 2021, or even about a decade ago, Interstellar. Without a strong compelling substance of a story, this blue cotton candy may crumble and fall.

Anek would have been a better non-mainstream movie. With Ayushmann Khurrana in the lead role, the movie remains on the fringes of Bollywood and doesn't really venture too far away from it, and that is the drawback.

Ayushmann (Aman, really?) is sent to watch and control the insurgency in North-east India. He, being a hero, pretty much has the carte blanche to control the political turmoil of the region. At least in the initial parts of the film, he is more a hero, less a diplomat. Slowly the chaos gets to him and he kind of goes rogue.

For a protagonist's story arc, it is as straightforward as it could be. However, the movie worked for me for its direction and on-location shoot. The film has been shot in Assam and Meghalaya and most of the cast have been engaged from there as well. That wasn't the only challenge the team faced while filming Anek. The crew had to persuade the locals that the subject of the film was about them and their representation in cinema.

Any on-location shoot brings its own challenges but if done well you have really good films like Amit Masurkar's Sherni. Many scenes from Anek are brilliantly done. Northeast India comes alive from those frames. At times the camera keeps the protagonist aside and takes a bit longer detours into the lives of the locals, and the torture of the civilians. But it appears that Ayushmann's star value keeps the film coming back to him and keeps him at the centre. Then the movie becomes his movie and not a narrative of the region.

Everyone has acted quite well. Kumud Mishra is effortless in the short screen time, but Manoj Pahwa takes the cake. Loitongbam Dorendra leaves a mark as Tiger Sangha as well. Andrea Kevichusa's story could have been a bit more compelling, but it remains in the typical Bollywood depiction of the northeast.

Despite its flaws, Anek still gets a recommendation from me.