The film follows three teenage high school friends who one night discover a crack in the ground and a mysterious figure underneath it upon further exploration, which ends up giving all three of them telekinesis powers. At first, they all begin to test their powers by playing pranks on unsuspecting people and discovering their potential. But all the fun and games come to a stop when they begin to realize that one of them may be slowly using it for a far sinister purpose.

Lurking around in mysterious caves = superpowers.

Newcomer filmmaker Josh Trank helms the film based on an original script by Max Landis, and it’s especially notable not only because this doesn’t feel like a first-time effort at all but also that it’s extremely rare that Hollywood makes a superhero movie not based off an existing property. Sure, it does have a few inspirations mainly from ‘Akira’ and hints of ‘Cloverfield’ but the plot itself is largely original. But the first thing you’ll notice is how fleshed out it is as a screenplay. The characters are well developed for the most part especially the character of Alex who’s shown as a bullied young man from the outset. You can just see from the first scene with his daddy issues and abuse that he’s the kind of guy who will just flip out one fine day and wreak havoc. What if a guy like that gets superpowers? It’s an intriguing question and the progression of events beautifully show the state of mind of the character constantly changing and his ideologies evolving into something dangerous. All this has to be chalked up to surprisingly deep character development with not only the characters learning something and changing by the end of the film but there’s also a message here. A superhero movie like this could easily have been a mindless entertainer filled with CGI and action but the filmmakers decided to tell a genuine story instead and it pays off in droves.

Found footage is usually seen as a gimmicky way to tell a story and there are movies that go to great lengths make sure that the film looks authentic from the camera filming it. ‘Chronicle’, however, doesn’t go that far and this actually works in its favor. On one hand, there is not one moment in the movie that breaks the illusion that the scenes are being filmed by some sort of recording device and applause to the filmmakers for really keeping to that promise and putting in that extra effort. At the same time, it doesn’t remain constricted to the format and has fun with it by taking some creative liberties. Instead of the frantic shaky filming for the most part, the director opts for some very inventive ways of making the film more traditional in filming style by coming up with a near-genius way to do so – the main character of the movie is fond of filming things and once he gets superpowers, he decides to levitate the camera around him to film the events of the film. This leads to some excellent memorable sequences including the flying sequence which is not only breathtaking to watch because the camera is hovering around them, but also very fresh and unique in what it tries to achieve. The long one-cut conversation scenes are riveting to watch because of the way they are filmed and add a lot more drama to the scenes. The finale in particular is fascinating because even though destruction is taking place, the movie tries to stretch limits of believability by having some sort of camera filming whatever happens – whether it’s an iPad or a security camera or a handicam. It’s sometimes ridiculous to think who would have collected all of that footage together but it’s a fun way to tell the story for sure.

When an angsty bullied teen gets superpowers, sh*t happens.

Speaking of the finale, the entire movie builds up to quite a powerful finale to say the least. I’m not going to spoil anything here, but the last 20 minutes of the film are not only impactful but are enough to satisfy most action fans and remind you a lot of ‘Carrie’ and ‘Cloverfield’ at times (which is a good thing). Though the film works with a rather modest budget, this is the portion of the movie that looks as good as any other big budget summer movie in terms of spectacle. Some may have hoped for it to go a little further than it does in terms of destruction, but I think it stops just short of being overblown. Even the effects in this part are very believable and realistic, but sadly that can’t be said to some of the effects earlier in the film. There’s something about even the simplest ball-juggling effects and levitation effects that don’t ring true probably because the budget constraints and the found-footage style don’t exactly gel together here. Some more polish to the film in this section would have been better. Another thing that the film lacks is that it underuses the character of Steve who had an interesting backstory to him but is a character that was eventually set aside in favor of the main characters. Acting is a strong suit of the film, though. Every single actor of the movie gives a very strong performance and particular mention goes to Dane DeHaan who gives a terrifying, evil but sometimes tragic performance of a young man descending into darkness.

But ‘Chronicle’ is definitely a must-watch for anyone looking for a smart and effective action thriller that’s also unique and manages to excite you despite dozens of lame found-footage movies that have been hitting shelves lately. Found-footage is not dead, it’s only the filmmakers’ imagination that fails to come alive. And ‘Chronicle’ is an example of a super-powered film that surprises.

Rating – 8 out of 10.

Jean Dujardin plays George Valentin, a silent film star at the peak of his success. He is as charming as his mustache is thin. However, he is unfortunate to find himself working in a time when talking films are on the rise, and he is finding himself to be increasingly irrelevant in a time where sound films are all the rage and nobody watches silent films anymore. With his downfall comes the rise of Peppy Miller (played by Berenice Bejo), a friend of George Valentin and a former extra in his films who has become a star in her own right with the rise of talkies.

The first thing you would notice are the similarities with the film ‘Singing in the Rain’, which deals with same topic of Hollywood’s transition from silent cinema to talkies. Yet, while ‘Singing in the Rain’ was a comedy, ‘The Artist’ is a melodrama, and goes to great lengths to show the plight of fallen film star George Valentin.

‘The Artist’ is not so much a modern take on silent films as it is a full-fledged silent film in its own right. The film follows closely the storytelling elements, stylistic features, tropes and even the aspect ratio of silent films. It confines itself to all the limitations of the medium, yet revels in its style, and seizes the opportunity to throw in some delicious self-references and meta humor. The film doesn’t tell its story in the same manner we are used to, neither does it have the same characterization present in modern films. The film’s story and characters are unique to its form, told in a stylized manner that is radically different than the more ‘realistic’ color films. Michel Hazanavicius has wisely chosen to employ as little intertitles as possible, telling the story almost entirely through the actions and expressions of its actors, Dujardin and Bejo.

Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo both do a wonderful job, driving the story of the film with grace and charm, but it is Dujardin who stands, mostly because of his larger screen time and as the central character of the film. He certainly would’ve made a perfect silent star, not only because he can look like one, but because the he manages to be as expressive a silent film demands, conveying the emotions and trials of his character without speaking a single word of dialogue.

‘The Artist’ is a lovely homage to silent films, and manages to stay incredibly faithful to its medium. As a silent film made almost a century after silent films stopped being made, It is a chance to experience film when it was a different medium and witness acting and storytelling methods that would seem quite foreign to the average modern viewer.

Quote –
George Valentin (referring to sound films) “If that’s the future, you can have it”

Trivia: The destruction of George Valentin’s career as talkies came to prominence is a very real issue that faced many silent film stars, most notably John Gilbert.

The film follows a group of oil-rig workers after their plane crashes into the remote Alaskan wilderness, led by Ottoway (Liam Neeson). As the survivors cater to their wounds and struggle to survive with a lack of food and supplies, they realize that there’s a far greater threat out in the open – vicious wolves in the territory that see humans as hostile invaders and are looking to pick them off one by one.

If you thought the plane crash from 'Lost' was terrifying, wait till you see this one.

Let me get something out there straight up. The trailers for ‘The Grey’ are misleading, but totally understandable why that is. From the trailers, ‘The Grey’ looks like a manly action movie where Liam Neeson is channeling his bad-ass character from ‘Taken’ but this time has wolves as opponents. The money-shot shows a now-iconic shot Neeson having bottle shards on his gloves and charging towards a wolf ready to punch its face. If this kind of marketing brings in a large audience to see the film, I think it’s justified. Because ‘The Grey’ is not an action movie but a deep drama that’s realistic and grounded in the struggles of survival.

You would be surprised to know how much of a human element the script actually contains, which actually is the highlight of the film. As soon as the film begins, we are introduced to Neeson’s character in a way that none of his most recent action movies have introduced him as – a depressed soul who’s on the verge of committing suicide with constant flashbacks to a tragic past involving his wife. These beautifully-filmed flashbacks appear throughout the film and humanize the character in the sense that he still hasn’t gotten over his past. And this particular angle has a lot to do with how the events of the film unfold and that’s the kind of character-driven approach that makes the film shine. Many scenes involve characters sitting around a bonfire and talking about life and death and the discussions are surprisingly thought-provoking and bring up a philosophical agenda of the film – how one deals with rising adversity. There’s a deeper theme here which would be a spoiler if mentioned, but suffice to say that ‘The Grey’ is a thinking man’s action film and it’s extremely surprising to see such depth in a film that could have easily been a throw-away action thriller.

Suspense is another thing that the film does really well, with the dangerous situations in the film escalating more and more. The wolves in the film are big bad creatures that aren’t just mindless attackers – they calculate their moves and strategically attack human beings when they’re at their weakest or alone. There’s an alpha male wolf that leads the pack with the other ones following, and this kind of thing makes the power play between the humans and the wolves interesting to watch. Almost every scene of the wolves attacking is engrossing and extremely suspenseful to watch with gritty camera moves and an unflinching R-rated portrayal of the attack. While there is much less action in the film than the trailer would have suggested, these attack sequences will make it your money’s worth thanks to the impact that they have. But as the film gets darker in content in the third act, it really does shine as characters not only begin to face an animal opponent but their inner fears as well as the perils of nature itself. There is a particular scene in the finale involving water that is not only hard-hitting but a surprisingly bleak and effective scene in a film of this sort. As for the ending itself, prepare to be surprised and though many casual audiences may not like the route it takes, it actually solidifies the theme of the movie brilliantly and takes it to Oscar-level in terms of quality.

Harsh terrain plus hungry wolves leads to a very suspenseful film.

Director Joe Carnahan is most known for his work on films like ‘Smokin Aces’ and ‘The A-Team’ which are a lot of fun but ultimately popcorn action movies but he really surprises with how adeptly he handles this film. The direction is gritty and rough and the cinematography in particular is highly polished. It’s probably one of the most beautiful looking films of its kinds that I’ve seen and it’s Alaskan setting especially lends to that. The plane crash sequence might just be the best plane crash sequence ever filmed, because of the restrained approach it takes and shows you the events unfolding from the point of view of one character rather than spectacle. It makes it grounded and extremely terrifying to watch. Character development is a mixed bag. For some characters, it’s surprisingly fleshed out and you actually begin to care about what happens to them thanks to the different outlooks the film gives them. But there are a few characters that come and go and never really make an impression on you as they should have. Pacing is an issue at times and the first act has some dull spots, but these are things that ultimately do not affect the quality of the movie so much thanks to the impact that it has on the viewer.

The acting is spot-on here and Liam Neeson gives an amazing performance not only in terms of physicality but how much emotional range he shows in the role. The film was actually shot under extremely harsh conditions and that really got out some nuanced performances from the actors. If this wasn’t a genre movie, I would honestly have expected some Oscar buzz for the actor especially for the brilliant yet restrained moments in the last few minutes of the film. But alas, that’s highly unlikely to happen. The rest of the actors are gritty and well-cast, making the events of the film all the more realistic which is extremely important for a film like this.

‘The Grey’ is a must-see survival thriller with enough depth to warrant a cinematic viewing. It’s a movie that could have been a generic man vs. beast thriller, but aspires to be much more and completely delivers on that front. While some action fans looking for more of Liam Neeson punching wolves might be a bit disappointed, people who like something more from their action movies are bound to be more than delighted with the quality present here.

Who could forget the baritone of Amitabh Bachchan? The larger than life performance, the fiery dialogues, the maut ke saat appaintment? It takes a little of bit courage, then, to attempt to remake a classic that is still very much alive in the minds and hearts of the Indian movie-goer. But take a bow Karan Malhotra, because the new Agneepath not only stays true to the formula, but interprets it in new ways, and executives it with such panache and finesse, it, I dare say, to many extents, matches up to the original.

It works because it is not “Karan Johar’s Agneepath”, or directed by a manic, self-entitled douche. It does away with many needless characters (Mithun’s grating character was certainly not missed), needless subplots, and a needless want to recreate many of the popular sequences. Malhotra knows his and his cast’s limitations, and instead spins around a new tale that while does not deviate from the main revenge arch, brings new perspective to the characters, and the story.

The film does play out like a basic Hindi masala movie, complete with unnecessary songs to break the perfectly flowing track (having Katrina Kaif shaking her hips only helps a little). The film starts with Vijay as a kid, who pretty much acts out the ‘angry (really) young man’ part of his character, getting into brawls, and believing that what is his should rightfully belong to him. He is, of course, the son of Dinanath Chauhan, Mandwa’s only teacher and probably the only one educated enough to understand the ploy of Kancha Cheena, a spiteful, merciless creature, who storms into the tiny village with faux promises of industrial growth and jobs. Chauhan starts a protest, warning the villagers against lending their lands to Cheena, an act that ultimately costs his life. In typical Hindi movie flair, Vijay promises revenge and joins Rauf Lala (Rishi Kapoor), a crimelord in Mumbai who runs a drug racket and indulges in flesh trade. It is only 15 years later (of course!) that he finally gets a chance to avenge his father death’s, and thus begins an avalanche of bloodshed, deception and iconic one liners.

Vijay, played by the remarkable Hrithik Roshan, is a stark departure from the one portrayed by Mukul Anand. Gone is the broken English, unabashed personality (and baritone, unfortunately), the new Vijay prefers silence over dialogue, and carries a volcano that erupts to only destroy everything in his path. He is not loyal, not even to his “aba” Rauf Lala. His sole purpose of existence is Kancha Cheena, and he will stop at nothing to eradicate his – even if it costs the love of his mother that he so yearns for. Roshan performs the role with superb control, and to some extent can thank Malhotra for not forcing him to fill Big B’s rather large shoes – he does not even come close.  Like in Jodha Akbar, Roshan flourishes with an author backed role, and we so wish he concentrates his efforts on only those than accepting roles that any tom, dick and harry can do – he is much, much better than that.

But the performance that gives the film its edge is of Sanjay Dutt’s, whose menace and evilness as Kancha Cheena is just terrifying to watch. His character is defined early on when Dutt breaks a piece of glass only because it showed a reflection of his self – an ugly forming monster that almost seems like Malhotra’s interpretation of Voldermort. Dutt brings back his best of the Kalnayak-ness back, and owns every piece of reel that he is featured on with his enigmatic, gigantic personality.

Dutt is only matched by Rishi Kapoor, whose performance as Rauf Lala only shows what the actor is capable off, even after all these years of playing over-weight chocolate lover boy roles. His pitch is impeccable, and rises much above than what his role was to undertake, a stepping stone for Vijay to reach the collars of Kancha.

The film rarely falters, at least as much as a masala movie like this is allowed to be. The only serious complain would be its unnecessary length, which could have been trimmed out by chopping the average musicals, and probably the entire role Vijay’s barely explored love angle with Kaali. Priyanka Chopra doesn’t have much to do except smile brilliantly and gasp innocently and shed a few tears here and there – a role that just breaks the mood of the entire movie.

Karan Malhotra’s debut is riveting. More of a homage – a salute – than a complete remake, the modern Agneepath is a marvelously executed project that works despite the age old, ludicrous plot line.  Go to the theaters not with an agenda to compare every shot to the original, but to enjoy an old story packaged in a shiny, tastefully done package. Malhotra has our respects, and also for not ruining the iconic series of dialogues which is extremely cleverly implemented into the movie. Just watch it.

Chris Farraday (Mark Wahlberg) has worked past a life of crime into a legitimate business after having a wife (Kate Beckinsale). But after his brother-in-law, Andy (Caleb Landry Jones), messes up a drug deal job, he finds ruthless drug dealer Tim Briggs (Giovanni Ribisi) threatening him for his life and family until he pays the debt back. Chris decides to assemble a team and go back to doing what he does best – running contraband of drugs one last time in order to pay off Andy’s best and protect his family but he realizes that the doing this on a cargo ship to Panama is a road filled with obstacles and danger.

Mark Wahlberg in a safe role. Perhaps too safe.

The film is a remake of a 2010 film from Iceland, which is strange because the plot is straight up Hollywood. It’s a mix of ‘Gone in 60 Seconds’ with Mark Wahlberg’s own ‘The Italian Job’ and some of ‘Ocean’s 11’ in there with an added urban touch. And here’s the biggest problem with the film – it never feels fresh enough and suffers from that because almost every single twist is either predictable because you’ve seen plots go that way many times before or have been already spoiled in the trailer. The truly unpredictable twists and turns happen towards the end of the movie but in reality, they actually end up hurting the film by convoluting the plot and coming off as entirely unnecessary considering the film that preceded them. There are double crosses and reveals that come out of the blue as if just for the sake of giving the story more meat but they never feel organic and you stop caring after a while. The plot is where the film is hurt the most clearly.

But if you adjust your expectations, ‘Contraband’ delivers as a watchable B-movie with enough thrills to keep you entertained especially if you’re a Mark Wahlberg fan. There’s an entire heist storyline that takes up the middle of the movie and stands as the best part of the film by far. The heist is not original in the least bit, but there’s enough suspense and obstacles that keep you on the edge of your seat in a few scenes. The pacing is much slower than most peoples of this kind and the film constantly cuts away to scenes outside the heist itself which sort of kills the momentum at times, but the heist sequences are strong enough to hook you. Watching Wahlberg and gang trying to hide stashes of illegal money in a cargo ship and how the captain is a constant threat is fun to watch and thankfully makes the bulk of the film. There’s not much action to speak of aside from a shootout armed robbery sequence which is actually pretty well executed as well. But the film never establishes itself as a full on heist movie and dabbles with being a crime drama at the same time and the result isn’t as consistent with both those combined.

Giovanni Ribsi is a menacing villain in this generic B-movie thriller.

Mark Wahlberg has already proved that he’s a great actor in the right project but somehow ‘Contraband’ is the kind of movie he’s past already. It’s an extremely safe role and a safer movie and all the actor does is sleepwalk through it since it’s something he’s done time and time again. He’s definitely effective as the lead character and carries the film through, but one would expect him to take on more challenging roles than this. Giovanni Ribsi plays a very threatening villain and gives a strong performance as a ruthless mob boss who can do anything to get his money. Ben Foster is an underrated actor and though he doesn’t have that big of a role through the bulk of the movie, he shines in the third act and gives a intense performance. Kate Beckinsale has the perfunctory ‘wife in peril’ role here but does the job well and has some emotional scenes to boot.

‘Contraband’ is a watchable B-movie which is not unlike what Mark Wahlberg has done many times before, but fans of those urban thrillers will enjoy this one as well. It works from a generic plot and has quite a few flaws which never let it reach greatness or even be a memorable heist film, but something tells me that was never the intention here in the first place.

The film follows young Sean Anderson (Josh Hutcherson) from the first film who receives a distress call from co-ordinates of an island that does not exist. Piecing it together with his stepfather (Dwayne Johnson), he discovers the existence of a mythical mysterious island described in the works of Jules Verne that may be real. Teaming up with a helicopter pilot (Luis Guzman) and his beautiful daughter (Vanessa Hudgens), they venture onto the mysterious island filled with dangerous creatures and adventures that far exceed anything they had ever imagined.

The film compensates for a hokey script with grand adventure and eye candy.

While the original was a hit, it was actually heralded as a decent fantastical adventure with great visuals to boot. While the strength of a charming Brendan Fraser carried the film through its dull moments, the actor refused to be a part of the sequel and the studio went with the next best alternative ‘action star who does kids movies’ guy – Dwayne Johnson. And while he isn’t as effective as Fraser was, he definitely brings a lot of self-aware fun to the table.

Anyone looking for a sound plot here is bound to be disappointed, but anyone looking for an extremely throwaway one will be surprised too. That’s because the screenplay uses a surprising number of neat tricks to incorporate some famous literary work into its plot including the works of Jules Verne but also Gulliver’s Travels and such. They didn’t need to, but smartly adding them all into a whole plot leads to some fun moments. Does it all make sense? Absolutely not. In fact, in the first 5 minutes we are treated to possibly the most moronic and ridiculously simplified ‘putting pieces of the puzzle together’ sequences that kick start the plot. But does it matter? It doesn’t, because it’s never a movie that prides itself on being completely logical. It’s all in the spectacle.

And one aspect that the film undeniably delivers on is family oriented spectacle and adventure. Holding a surprisingly robust imagination, we are treated to some very colorful and grand set pieces and visuals that serve the story pretty well. The filmmakers definitely wanted to one-up the original in scale, and we get giant lizards and bees, the lost city of Atlantis, erupting volcanoes and even Captain Nemo’s underwater submarine. It’s the one thing the film does surprisingly well which is actually feeling like an epic adventure akin to a summer blockbuster. It’s all over the top and not realistic in the least bit, but teens as well as well as quite a few adults will have fun watching these grandiose set pieces unfold.

That said, the screenplay is pretty hokey at times and has enough dull moments to sometimes kill the momentum. As mentioned already, the film tries to pack in a lot of literary elements into the film but manages to build a cohesive storyline out of them. How the story progresses from one obstacle to the next feels episodic and doesn’t ring true for the most part. The second half has dull spots where nothing much happens other than people sitting around at camp, and that gives away to more of the ham-fisted dialogue that plagues the first half too. There is some melodrama and the romantic angle only hurts the film towards the end. Some people might be irked by the level of broad comedy here, but I actually thought it elevated the film despite a few flat jokes.

Did I mention eye candy?

While most 3D films nowadays are thoroughly disappointing, ‘Journey 2′ actually has some very effective use of 3D. The first film was praised for its 3D close to two years before ‘Avatar’ was even released, and the sequel one-ups the mantra. The visuals are eye-popping and it’s filled with depth and enough 3D moments that things will be coming right at you quite a lot, sometimes even in a self-aware way as seen in the berry sequence. If you’re going to go see the film, you’ve got to see it in 3D for maximum entertainment and it definitely helps sell some of those big moments in the script.

Dwayne Johnson definitely brings a level of charm to the film with him being completely self-aware that he’s in a childrens adventure, which leads to some hilarious moments like the ‘peck pop of love’ scenes but other times it leads a very hammy performance during serious dialogue scenes. He’s clearly not the best actor and those scenes end up highlighting that, but props to the guy for energising the film which is why he was cast. Josh Hutcherson is a likable hero albeit lacking emotional range, and he does a good job despite looking at times as if he’s wishing he was in the new Spider-man instead (he almost got that role). Luiz Guzman is the comic relief here and though he’s overused at times, he does a great job to lighten up the movie. Vanessa Hudgens is pretty to look at and is pretty much the only reason she’s here, since she lacks screen presence and any motive for her character to be here. The fact that all her shots are medium shots framed from the chest and above should tell you a lot about her casting choice. Michael Caine is having fun here but adds some authenticity to the film.

If you’re looking for a pretty adventure for the whole family, you could do a whole lot worse than this. It’s not nearly close to being a great film but delivers on its promise of spectacle especially in 3D. It’s probably as good as a movie as ridiculously titled ‘Journey 2: The Mysterious Island’ can be.

Solid and consistent action is a reason to see the film.

The film follows Selene (Kate Beckinsale) returning as the vampire assassin. Awakened after 12 years, she realizes that the world as she knew it as been changed as humans have become aware of vampires and lycans and have moved forward to eradicate them completely. As she traverses a different world looking for Michael who has gone missing, she realizes that the lycans aren’t completely extinct as they were thought to be and an even larger threat looms the world in the form of a mysterious young girl who might just be the youngest hybrid that’s being hunted down.

Right off the bat, the first thing you want to know is that the movie is brisk. And by that I mean it’s barely eighty minutes long and is over before you know it. It’s basically like a junk-food version of an action movie – disposable but satisfying that you wouldn’t particularly remember much of after it’s over. But the film manages to use its fleeting runtime to its advantage by ramping up the pace and hardly having a dull moment before a fight breaks out once again. The action quotient here is probably the highest in the entire franchise, thanks to the addition of 3D which ensured that the filmmakers would want you to enjoy 3D as much as possible. But unlike the awful ‘Priest’ which was also short but was utterly unsatisfying, ‘Underworld Awakening’ manages to meet expectations of the franchise.

The story here is somewhat of a departure from the franchise since it takes a more sci-fi futuristic route than the plain old ‘vampires vs. lycans’ angle that the previous movies dealt with. Don’t get me wrong – that’s exactly what the film is at its core but the humans are actually a plot element this time around as well which makes it interesting. It borrows quite a bit from ‘District 9’ at the beginning and also reminded me of the mediocre vampire movie from last year ‘Daybreakers’ but overall the story felt fresher than the previous installments especially due to the little girl angle that they managed to add in. But don’t me fooled – it still feels like an Underworld movie thanks to some ludicrous plot twists that don’t really make much sense but you don’t really mind them. But once again, the characters take the short end of the stick here as there’s zero attempt to develop any character with the exception of Selene herself who gets some dramatic scenes in the middle of the movie. The rest of the characters just serve the purpose of moving the plot forward or take part in action scenes and that’s exactly what happens. My only beef is the ending scenes of the movie which looked like they were going to resolve an important plot point of the film but instead just slap a cliffhanger on top with some voiceover narration that promises you that the next film will answer it. I doubt that.

Watching Kate Beckinsale in leather tights kicking butt never hurts.

The action is pretty solid this time around and for non-fans of the franchise, it’s the only reason to watch the film in cinemas. As I mentioned earlier, scenes regarding the story have been reduced and more time is given to fight and chase scenes and while none of them are ground-breaking, they’re actually consistently entertaining and well-staged despite being modestly budgeted. ‘Underworld’ is a franchise that may be an event picture but actually gets made for a surprisingly modest budget when compared to other action franchises. Hence there is no epic scale to be expected here, but what we do get entertains. A highlight is the finale towards the end which takes place in a parking lot but has enough thrills to stand out. There’s a lot more CGI here compared to the previous movies but it works in its favour. The 3D is what’s being sold here the most and even though it isn’t as great as the trailers would like you to believe, some scenes use it very well and is probably the way to go if you want to see the film at the cinemas.

Kate Beckinsale is obviously the star of the show here and does a suitably effective job with her character which suits her perfectly. She’s physical in her role but also shows some acting chops in a few scenes that give her character some emotional depth that any other actress might not have been able to give it (read: Mila Jovovich in ‘Resident Evil’). But other than her, the film obviously suffers from lack of excellent actors like Bill Nighy and Michael Sheen that graced previous films. The actors that appear here are serviceable but never really end up being memorable or are well-written enough for you to care. One particularly bizarre move of the movie is to have a creepy actor like Wes Bentley in the film but ends up completely wasting his potential in a role that lasts less than a minute.

‘Underworld Awakening’ is a better than expected installment of the franchise that may not be as attractive to non-fans, but ends up being a very watchable action movie thanks to high-octane thrills that don’t overstay their welcome. And in the month of January, that’s something that doesn’t really happen that often.

Rating – 6/10

You will not care if any of these die terrible deaths.

The film follows two young American entrepreneurs (Emily Hirsch, Max Minghella) who visit Moscow for a botched business deal and bump into two young American tourists (Rachael Taylor, Olivia Thirby) in a club for a fun night. But suddenly the lights go out and they realize that Moscow is being attacked by invisible aliens that comprise of a lethal force of energy which gives them the power to obliterate humans into dust without being seen. Stranded in a foreign city, the group struggles to survive and figure out the enemy while trying to find a way to reach back home.

While most alien invasion movies look trite and derivative right from the outset, ‘The Darkest Hour’ actually has two very unique hooks going in its favor. The first one is the aliens themselves – never has an alien invasion movie had aliens that cannot be seen. While it sound stupid when you first hear of it, it actually leads to some inventive death scenes. Since the aliens are made up of energy, the death involves the victims to just obliterate into dust rather than dying the traditional death. It’s definitely a new spin on the genre and spices things up. The second is the fact that the film is set in Moscow, while most invasion movies are set in the US or more popular countries like Britain. The Moscow setting also ends up making the film feel unique. Sadly, that’s the end of anything new that the movie has to offer.

There’s a very limp and rote screenplay at the root here that doesn’t even try to make anything more than a generic action thriller that never really feels different from the tons of movies that came before it. We start off with a brisk introduction to the characters just before the aliens attack and while their attack is intriguing to watch at first, the novelty of the new type of aliens wears off by the end of the first act. And that’s where the film fails to offer anything else. It follows the same formula of every other survival thriller before it with a gang of survivors trying to find some safety. It’s taken from much better films like ‘28 Days Later’, ‘I am Legend’ and the likes. Think any movie of the sub-genre and ‘The Darkest Hour’ doesn’t do anything much different. In fact, the screenplay here is much stupider. The very first thing that the characters decide to do in the wake of a deadly alien attack that wiped out Moscow is head halfway across the city in full view all the way to … the American Embassy. Didn’t the first ten seconds of them venturing outdoors and seeing the entire city almost razed down hint them that the Embassy wouldn’t be vulnerable to such an attack? Add to the fact that there is no aim to the plot here other than them walking around before they have to suddenly evade some aliens, before they start walking again. Soon enough, a very superficial objective arrives in terms of a submarine which makes absolutely no sense at all if you think about it. There are points where the characters are perfectly safe with people much more skilled than them, but insist that they cannot stay because this is not their home. Because of course, patriotism is the perfect reason to abandon safety and walk right into streets infested with invisible aliens determined to hunt you down.

The coolest thing about the movie is death scenes like this, but even they get repetitive.

Add to that the fact that the characters are unlikable and you never care about them at any point. The script takes zero initiative to give the characters any sort of personality or gives us a reason to care about them. They all sound the same and frankly are a bunch of hollow douchebags that aren’t particularly the sharpest minds. So when some character deaths happen and the film expects you to get affected, the maximum that you do is look at how cool the death scene was rather than the fact that a character just died. Even the dialogue is corny to say the least, with examples like this: ‘The team work makes the dream work’. Also, the film doesn’t have a proper ending and it ends on the characters figuring out how to defeat the aliens rather than us actually seeing them do so. They never bother to tell you why the aliens attacked or what they really are. Because of course, that’s all unimportant in the wake of how cool they look. Plus, the final scenes are definitely a set up for a sequel that is never going to be made.

Aside from that, there are a few decent scenes here and there that are always watchable. The movie is never outright terrible, which certainly shouldn’t be a case for seeing it but that itself is sometimes too much to ask. The hide and seek sequences with the aliens are cool at first but become repetitive as they go on. Emily Hirsch is a good actor who keeps the film afloat even when his character is a stereotype rather than a human being. Some fun supporting characters pop into the film in the second half that keep things interesting, but never enough to compensate for the flaws in the film clearly. The 3-D, even though the film was shot in the format, was pretty disappointing and the movie looked fine without the glasses on. Another thing to note is how sloppy some of the direction is and sometimes the locations and angles look off even though the movie is supposedly shot on location. It has a lot of moments where you feel it’s been done on green-screen.

‘The Darkest Hour’ is another disappointing entry to the alien invasion sub-genre which has now officially tired itself out unless something revolutionary arrives. Only someone starved for some junk-food basic thrills should look this way, but the weak screenplay and story here will probably still have you coming out unsatisfied.

Hoover's relationship with his mother is the highlight of the film.

The film starts off in the early 1900’s and follows John Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his ambition to create a system that would revolutionize the way law enforcement would work forever. His ideas to create a unified database through the use of fingerprinting and forensic analysis led to the founding of the FBI. But Hoover was a mysterious man in private, having a very strong relationship with his mother (Judi Dench) who he lived with until he was forty. The film follows the cases he solved along with his relationships with his assistant (Naomi Watts) and a very strong relationship with newcomer Clyde Tolson (Arnie Hammer).

The character of John Edgar Hoover is certainly a fascinating one and there’s a great story to tell with him about the founding and the early days of the FBI and how one man ended up shaping some of the technology that’s so instrumental in catching criminals today. But on the personal side, he was notorious for being a very controversial figure whose life was mostly shrouded in mystery. And to that effect, the movie definitely justifies its existence but the problem here is that the story isn’t told nearly as effectively as it could have.

Here’s the biggest problem with ‘J. Edgar’ – narrative structure. Instead of being a straight biopic about the man which would have been much more emotionally engaging to the audience, the film takes an odd approach to the narrative. We start off with Edgar in his old age narrating his life to a writer. We suddenly flash back into his narration and are introduced to the film. If only the film would have stopped right there and continued with the story, it would still have been very effective. However, the screenplay does the mis-step of constantly forwarding back to the present J. Edgar and spending way too much time in that storyline than the much more interesting backstory that’s waiting to be told. This totally takes the viewer out of the story and the constant shifting makes the viewer dis-attached. The present sequences of the film are bland and have almost nothing interesting that moves the plot forward which leads to boredom. If only the screenwriter would have decided to tell the story in the traditional manner, it would have led to a much stronger film in the end.

And it is the flashback sequences that make the film as strong as it is. We see Edgar as a determined young man who has a unique idea for forensic analysis and does research on other people’s crime scenes. We see his rise in the police department and how he gets promoted to assistant director thanks to his hard work. But most importantly, we see how clueless he is with females and never really had a real relationship in his life aside from his aging mother who he loved a lot. This emotional aspect of the film is hands-down the strongest element which not only leads to some very emotional and well-written scenes but also concludes with a hard-hitting and powerful scene that’s memorable to say the least. The second most important element is Edgar’s powerful relationship with Clyde Tolson and how Tolson is the only person he can ever trust and forms a strong relationship with him. There are homosexual undertones which could have been a risky affair, but they’re handled subtly and with a lot of class here by screenwriter Dustin Lance Black who previously also wrote ‘Milk’. There’s a pivotal blow-up scene between both of them that stands as one of the most memorable and powerful moments of the film. Another such moment is Edgar’s foolish proposal and the moments that follow. But even then, there are moments where the narrative just skips over and moves to years later and this forms a disconnect for the audience. This story would probably have been better told in a mini-series format and would be more effective that way since there’s clearly a lot to tell despite the overlong runtime of the film.

This awful make-up job is the weakest part of the film.

I’ve already mentioned why the present day segments of the film are weak and narratively awkward, but one of the main reasons those moments do not work is the awful make-up job the film has done. With millions of dollars in budgets, the film has such astoundingly bad make-up on almost all of its characters to make them look old that it completely takes you out of the movie and is extremely jarring at first. Leo gets probably the best of it yet it still looks freakishly amateur and not worthy of a film of this grandeur. In the end, it’s very clear that it’s Leo with some plastic make-up one and fails to convince one bit. But the most horrific one is the make-up on Arnie Hammer to make him look old. There’s a reason it was never revealed in the trailers – it’s extremely bad and almost makes the sequences look like comedy. And even Arnie Hammer is clearly uncomfortabe with it as he hams through those scenes and tries to overract to compensate which leads to some unintentionally hilarious moments. Which is a shame, because that one major scene of him in it was the only decent part of that storyline. I still cannot get my head around how this make-up got approved past the first day.

Performances are where the movie really shines. Leonardo DiCaprio gives one of the best performances of his career with his excellent portrayal of the reclusive John Edgar Hoover. He’s extremely intense in scenes that require this from him and isn’t afraid of taking risks like he does with a scene at the end of the film. It’s a powerhouse performance that is bound to get him Oscar recongition, although the chances for that would have been stronger in quality. Arnie Hammer also proves that he’s just more than the Winklewoss twins from ‘Social Network’ and gives a suitably strong perfomance here that only escalates as it goes on. Naomi Watts is unfortunately given next to nothing to do after the first quarter of the film but does a good job with what she has. Judi Dench is commanding as the mother as well.

‘J. Edgar’ scores in terms of some very emotional relationship moments and strong performances, which almost compensate for the weak time-shifting narrative that never lets the audience latch on to the characters. It’s a good film that could have been a classic with a few changes.

Josh Hartnett and Woody Harrelson add style to an already slick-looking film.

Bunraku is set in a future where guns have been outlawed and the streets are run by criminals and Nicola (Ron Perlman) and his henchmen. The film follows a mysterious man (Josh Hartnett) who comes to town in search for revenge and a Japanese Samurai Yoshi (Gackt) who has his own agenda in mind. Teaming up with  The Bartender (Woody Harrelson), they fight through the corruption and aim to gang up and kill Nicola and end his corrupt ways that are plaguing the city. And they do this in a highly stylized fashion.

The first thing t0 remember about ‘Bunraku’ is that it definitely brings a unique style into the mix. Firstly, the movie can’t be categorized into any one single genre. It’s a film noir, martial arts, samurai western action film with bits of detective noir and other genres built in. And the style here isn’t a pretentious style that is borrowed from other movies (although slight traces are present). Buranku is the term for a special kind of Japanese puppetry art form where paper cutouts are used to form backgrounds. It’s an intriguing style and the movie is aptly titled and does it full justice. Throughout the film, the backgrounds are stylized as paper cutouts and there’s no effort to make you believe that they’re real since that’s the point in the first place. The color palette is dreamy and neon-styled and so is the set design. The animated cutscenes that transition story points at times are also highly effective in giving the film a unique look. This style is arguably the only major thing going for it and is the main reason why people might take notice of the film. It looks real good and transports you into a whole new world.

But movies like ‘Sin City’ just don’t depend on the allure of their stylistic visuals themselves and actually carry and deep and coherent plot to them, which is what make them timeless classics. Sadly, the same can’t be said about ‘Bunraku’. Let’s just say that without the added advantage of a unique style, the movie wouldn’t even have been released. That’s because the plot sounds pretty interesting on paper but doesn’t sustain the overlong runtime of the movie. It’s a simple revenge plot underneath all the layers and if the movie would’ve been around 90 minutes long, it would’ve been a great film. But alas, the movie runs around 130 minutes which means the simplistic plot goes off into weird and sloppy subplots that don’t matter in the main path of the story. Of course, each of these random subplots are treated as excuses to show off some more action scenes and visuals but no amount of that can change the fact that they are unnecessary additions that bring the pace of the second half down to a grind.

Needless subplots like these muddle the second act.

To make up for it’s lackluster second act, the movie more than delivers on an action-packed finale that gears up in speed and pacing with one goal in mind – kill the bad guys. The progression is great and the actors give it their best with some extremely nifty action sequences that may be wacky sometimes but are very original in setpeices. When was the last time you saw a martial arts fight in a circus? One thing ‘Bunraku’ can be appreciated for is that it never aims to do the standard action scenes again and again. Each time, it wants to differentiate itself from other movies by adding a new element or something that makes every fight look much more compelling. All the way to the end, the movie actually delivers on the promise of thrills it made. It’s a blast to see our two heroes blow through e everything in their path with utmost elegance and the final scenes are handled very well.

Another major plus here is the acting talent the movie managed to nab despite it being an indie production. Josh Hartnett is a godsend in the role of a loner who comes to town wreaking havoc and once again proves that film noir is his excellent forte after great roles in ‘Sin City’ and ‘Lucky Number Slevin’. It’s brooding yet  subtle roles like these that the guy plays best and pigeonholing him as leading man in Hollywood blockbusters doesn’t do him justice. Woody Harrellson is as amazing as usual in the role of a bartender who decides to help out two men on a mission. Japanese star Gackt however failed to impress in his American debut. He’s excellent when he’s fighting without a doubt, but falters when it comes to expressing any kind of emotion or acting chops. A better actor would’ve done the role more justice. Ron Perlman is great as the mysterious woodcutter and gets some pretty meaty dialogue scenes that he pulls off perfectly. Kevin McDonald as a ruthless yet goofy killer and Demi Moore as an escort are also effective.

In the end, ‘Bunraku’ will be remembered more for its visuals than anything else. It’s an ambitious effort that skimps on a coherent plot at times to indulge in its own beautiful world. Style over substance is definitely something that applies to ‘Bunraku’, but the style is so polished and well-done that the lack of substance only hurts the film a little bit.