kaustubh241997 Reviews

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

The movie that we deserved but never got.

[8/10 · 29 June 2016]

It has been nearly 3 months since the official release of BVS:DOJ . A movie that many people including me were excited to the brim. All the hoardings all the trailers telling one thing "The son of krypton VS The bat of Gotham". It built itself up very well. While many of the trailers like to give away too much to get people overly excited by losing its credibility,the final theatrical trailer stood back on its legs and fought its battle well , until the critics slammed it back to the grave superman was sent to by the end of the movie. I am one of the many people who loved man of steel. I have always looked up to superman as a character beyond what has been perceived by directors and previous iterations. What intrigues me about this superman is the realism , the approach to a current scenario. What man o steel did was show what would happen if gods and demons lived amongst us.

With all hopes lost about Bruce Wayne coming in and joining the roster ( way too soon i believed ) I was a bit shook. I watched BvS in the theatre when it first came out in a screening packed with people. With all the excitement inside , I really failed to realise how shallow the movie actually was until I stepped out of the theatre. Do not get me wrong. I enjoyed BvS , but it wasn't satisfying,it was an expectation that was dead on arrival.

Now with all that was set up and all the possible depth i felt with a movie , I knew that this one like every other Snyder movie will get its own directors cut. The first two acts felt like having way too many disjointed scenes and cuts it was evident that the studio had their hands in the editing process which is why i felt it was best to review the ultimate edition and not the theatrical release. But let me tell you off the bat , that the R rating for this edition is plainly for a few swears and a little bit of a blood and partial nudity , don't expect anything really gritty out of the action scenes. What really this edition of the movie did was fix the butchered story , and configure the first two acts and make it phenomenal. These are for me a few highlights that really made the,movie a 6 pointer to a 8 pointer.

1) The metropolis destruction scene at start has a few new touches to them , including a scene where a lady brings a few stranded children through the rubble while being surrounded by all the chaos. It mainly shows the kind of person that really resides inside Bruce Wayne as he pushes a girl back in line.

2) When i watched it in theatre i had absolutely no clue as to what happened in the Africa scene. I didn't know why superman was there , i didn't know that the photographer was jimmy Olson , there were way too many cuts and explosions around the scene that didn't make sense. But what really did happen was an intense military / espionage like build-up to an epic entry of superman as he stops the official army from bombing a civilian filled area. It makes sense. It shows the aftermath first hand.

3) With a lot of back-story to cover up , what this movie had to do primarily is not just build up the characters as they are but the city and the people living in it too. There are some really masterfully subtle scenes captured in this version of the movie where the movie is trying to depict the kind of society that exists between these sister states. The football matches , the hints and notes about the crime in Gotham ,etc. really push out the two cities as a character that are worthy to be credited at the end of the movie.

4) I don't know who thought it would be a good idea to cut an entire world and character building segment off a movie. There is quite literally a 10-15 minute overall segment of Clark Kent going around Gotham investigating and learning about the bat vigilante. This aspect really explains why superman would want to go against the bat himself.

5) A few prison segments that showed the corruption and deception in Gotham city.

6) The lady who had come forward to testify against superman also had a major and significant role to make absolute sense out of the capitol bombing scene. The deleted Lois lane investigation scene makes her previously inconsequential arc relevant and surprisingly intriguing. And it also explained why superman couldn't stop the bomb from being detonated.

7) For all the people who thought the movie didn't show superman the way he was meant to be , there is a scene in this movie after the bombing where he rescues a woman and leaves him with the paramedics , though small it made a difference to the way this character was lit. In fact superman is even more fleshed out than batman is unlike the theatrical release and explains that weird and absolutely oblivious mountain trekking scene. It almost had me in tears. It humanises an alien.

On an overall this fixed almost all the potholes and story bits that stood out like a sore thumb. While the ultimate edition actually fixes everything , one thing I was certain about is the fact that nothing could change the final act. it's an unfixable pretty looking mess. This movie had lacked motivation , courage and the strength of a consistent and even stronger script which I felt this ultimate edition addressed to very well. And i just hope JusticeLeague is filled with the goods of this directors cut and not the lifeless soul of the original.

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)

Proof Of Concept

[9/10 · 29 December 2015]

Well 30 years have passed since the last, "GOOD" star wars movie, and with the current fashion of going back to a franchise that was meant to end a long time ago (more star puns coming) here comes episode 7 , the 7th entry to this franchise that seems to be having a mixed opinion amongst it's viewers. Before starting up with this review let me be really clear about the fact , that the force is strong with this one , and we are back in to the good ol' Star wars. This movie is definitely not the best star wars movie made, but it isn't a movie worth slashes of 1 and 2 ratings either. And in this review I will explain and justify my opinion with absolutely no spoilers.

1)Story :- It is apparent and absolutely obvious , that most of the concerns that people have with this movie , is the fact that this is a re-hash or re-telling of episode 5 – a new hope. While that is probably a good way to explain the story, I believe that force awakens has a plot that rises way above that assumption. Now the first 10 minutes of this movie might feel extremely and creepily similar to a new hope with a lot of recurring events , but a whole new setting and a whole new motivation for both new and returning characters make this movie a surprisingly different story telling experience , with obviously lot of notable flaws. One of the biggest concerns I have with this movie is the now obvious presence of a yet another death star. But on my second viewing it is pretty much apparent that a new death star like object was a necessary plot device used by JJ Abrams to actually bind the team to fight against an actual threat to the galaxy. Not just that , the story being written by a fan and not the creationist , opens varied opportunities to add elements to the plot that not just benefit the viewer on an artistic level , but makes the world feel more burst out with familiar details and focused lore building ideas. The story does a fantastic job in slowly carrying in the new cast to hold the franchise for it's future releases , and is a great and exciting start to the now post Lucas trilogy , and feels like this movie was made and tailored perfectly for a new generation of star wars fans.

2)Casting and Characters :- Now bringing in the old cast and crew into the story was a bold and perfect choice , as we know exactly how a star wars movie devoid of the original cast strength faired amongst the audience. While the performances of the returning cast is superb as usual , what really caught my eye was the new team. Daisy Ridley as Rey , John Boyega as Finn and Adam Driver as Kylo Ren and also my favorite Poe played by Oscar Isaac were all brilliant with the character that they portrayed on screen. The 1000 word limit and the presence of some serious spoilers really restrict me from over explaining these characters , but I am sure that every viewer would love the way these new characters take up and share screen space during the entire runtime of this movie. Now moving on to the returning cast , the only 2 people that really stood out was Han Solo and Chewbacca. These 2 people were not just phoned into the script for some nostalgic run but actually stood by the new generation to take them around the world of star wars and show them the galaxy far far away. Han Solo acts as the bridge between the old and new generation and is Han Solo at his best. Not to worry though , this is not the case of Crystal Skull. Lupita was good with the role that was given to her too acting as Maz Kanata. And finally do not expect much from Captain Phasma or Supreme Leader Snoke as these are characters that were just introduced into the plot and hopefully will be used responsibly in the future movies. While many of the side characters did not receive justifiable screen time , it is to rightfully experience and develop the characters of the new generation that will potentially lead the franchise for the next 2 movies of this trilogy. On a whole , both the returning and the new cast gel well to provide an all good performance to make us feel like we are back home.

3)Direction:- What I was extremely scared about when I heard JJ Abrams was the director of this movie was that he might Abrafy this movie with quick cuts , shaky cams and lens flare. But the first 10 minutes of this movie provided me with some much needed re- assurance. JJ Abrams directs some beautiful set-pieces, and this movie does not lack that. There are plenty of wide shots with the sky and other subtle elementary backgrounds with the proper clean and practical colour and light choices that ultimately grounds the movie to reality unlike the CGI garbage in the prequels. Also, the use of practical effects makes this movie much more real and obviously sings the song of return thus making this movie closer and closer to the masterpieces that the original movies were. A lot of modifications done by JJ Abrams to the script runs in combination with his direction and idea of the next generation of this franchise , whose take is absolutely appreciated. His direction and his keen liking of the franchise as a fan makes this movie a fan made passion project that every fan would love.

Ultimately , this is a movie that is better than the trash prequels and goes way above the CGI overkill to live close with the original trilogy.

Creed (II) (2015)

We Got One Rock

[9/10 · 28 December 2015]

Just like it's counterpart, even this 7th installment to the franchise has proved the fact that the true story of the universe has just begun. Creed just like the original movie of the series has a strict focus on the characters, their struggles and eventual triumph, with only a role switch with the son of "The Apollo Creed " . This is one of the only few movies I loved watching this year, and I am pretty much thankful I did. In this review I shall justify the reason as to why this movie has received a rating as high as a 9/10.

1)Story :- The basic story is backed by a pretty good script and an engaging narrative that puts Adonis Johnson / Creed , son of Apollo creed in the centre of the fight this time. But unlike his father's story , this man is forced to battle his unfulfilled passion for fighting , unjustified emotions that cross him and a blockade that brands him as a man born from someone else's legacy. The story technically puts Adonis on the radar, while the people around believe him to be a man whose fame comes by his father's legacy. This is a story of how a man, with a will to create a mark in history for himself, steps into the ring, not only fighting the fight , but battling his priorities. The story sometimes is vague reminder of the first rocky, but the distinctive performances from both actors see to it that this movie rises beyond those insignificant questions.

2)Casting And Characters:- The casting and characterization of this cast is what makes this movie splendid. Though the script is more or less that of a generic boxing movie seen a million times before , it is the distinctive performances by the lead Michael B Jordan and Sylvester Stallone. This is one of those movies that solely concentrates it's screen time on only those characters that require screen space to ideologically progress the story. While the movie consists of other members like Bianca the love interest and Mary Creed , Adonis's mother , all these plot devices are only meant to build the tension during the final fight and are completely disposable , since they add little to nothing to the actual plot to be significant . But what is evident is that director Ryan Coogler, has done is absolute best to pull the best out of every cast member who was a part of this movie. But when all is done and said, I cannot be absolutely fair while I express my love for the man who started it all , and the man who almost overshadowed Creed's performance in this movie , The Rocky Balboa a.k.a Sylvester Stallone. This man has proved the fact with this movie that he is not just the broody, rough and tough man who does action movies but is an actor who has the potential to ACT. That's right, Sylvester Stallone after a million fails has proved that he is no more expendable. His performance swelled my eyes with tears and without spoiling anything, Ryan Coogler's decision to modify the characters life in the way he did so , was not just best for the plot , but best for the ultimately produced definitive performances too.

3)Direction :- When directing a movie for a franchise that has spanned for many generations it is a risky move for us audience when we witness a new chapter. The movie could either be a project made as a nostalgic cash grab or a passion project that respects it's previous entries but becomes different and distinct at the same time. And just like the Creed in the movie, Ryan Coogler has proved that this movie is not just made as a product of Rocky's legacy but a project that has the ability to stand on one's own foot to essentially act as a reinvigoration of what Rocky was originally imagined to be. Coogler has managed to build a completely new atmosphere for this franchise that gives a sense of difference and change but at the same time , affixes us to the city of Philadelphia that we have known and loved since the original Rocky with the perfectly cued original soundtracks that assures us that we are actually connected to the world we always loved. It is evident that the style of direction that Coogler used for this movie is something completely different from the previous Rocky movies. This one goes in the line of other dark boxing movies such as Warrior where colours of the world around are dumbed down to create this dark and gloomy environment and everything in the frame of perspective is saturated with detail to create an exact and realistic picture of the sport of boxing in the best way possible . What I was let down by , slightly , was Coogler's quick jump takes and cut-shots during the final fight , that actually put me out of the intensity that the shot had to have. Overall, Coogler's direction is brilliant in many ways and it was his vision that was desperately needed to create , progress and continue the now 6 movie franchise. If you have already watched the movie, the final scene of Rocky climbing the stairs followed by a focus shot of the city from the height explains exactly why I praise his direction so much.

On a whole it was an absolutely unexpected journey filled with the excitement, vigor and energy that every Rocky movie had. If you are a person who would step in a theatre or watch this movie just for the fights, let me warn you right away and tell you that you will be disappointed. This movie is a directorial and character driven drama whose ultimate underline of boxing gives the much needed progressive element for the plot. And is definitely one of the best movies of 2015.

Spectre (I) (2015)

Licence To Kill

[6/10 · 21 November 2015]

The now working Sam Mendes line of 007 British spy movies prove that it's not just the womanizing charmer that holds the movie up to it's standards , but it's a combination of various subtleties that gives us , the viewers the pleasure of watching this assassin with a license to kill do what he is best at. Now like other reviews on metacritic giving the movie a 60 and on is something I am really sad to see because this movie is nowhere close to the lash it is receiving from a few of the critics. At worst , this is a fun blockbuster which has improved and built a lot on Skyfall's foundation , but at the same time leaving a trail of missed opportunity by the end of the 2 hour 30 minute runtime .

1)Story: - Well unfortunately, this movie came a moths after "Mission Impossible : Rouge Nation " which led me into a déjà –vu feel while watching it. The plot of the movie has mainly 3 sub-plots revolving around each other. While movies like Golden-Eye and Casino-Royale have done handled multiple sub-plots perfectly, it felt like the story chose to highlight more of the unnecessary details. Some might shrug and ignore my said problem, but unfortunately this mistake puts a heavy toll on the actors and their characters being represented on screen. There was this feeling I had, more than once during the viewing where all sub plots felt like they were converging , but they ultimately fell apart. The movie though having pretty good pacing, felt like the ending was rushed and edited to make sure the already 2 and half hour long movie does not go longer. Ultimately, the plot here is creepily similar to Rouge Nation, and other spy movies making it more generic than usual , which is extremely disappointing considering the detour the franchise took from it's comfort zone to make skyfall, the purely narrative based opera. Also unlike other movies this does not deny the existence of the previous entries in the franchise.

2)Casting and performances :- Being extremely honest about my opinion here, this movie has a superb casting choice , with Daniel Craig reprising his role as 007 , bond girl Lea , Monica Balluci , Ralph Fiennes , Dave Bustista , and my most anticipated cast member of this project Christoph Waltz. Ever since the cast had been announced I have been really excited to see Landa from Inglorious Basterds take up the super evil villain in this movie. Now do not confuse my statement about casting choice with their work in the movie. As stated previously about the plot , the characters fall really short of their expectations making it feel like it is a real waste of talent. The plot does not make good use of the characters as most of them feel disposable. While Daniel Craig and Lea hold up with their best performances, they stand to leave an impact as they are put on screen for the entire run time. While the movie's main villain Christoph Waltz literally feels like a tacked on character put into the movie as an afterthought holding up less than quarter of the movie. What made Skyfall a great movie was the psychological warfare between Bond and Silva , and also Javier Bardem's impeccable performance , which is something Sam Mendes didn't comprehend well while writing the script for this movie. Fortunately, unlike the other movies where Bond runs the single man show, this one provides slightly more screen time to the other mi6 agents like m and q. But on an overall the cast has been ultimately struck by the poor plot and the highly flawed script.

3)Direction: - All the bad experiences I had with this movie have been successfully overshadowed by the direction department. All the way from the brilliantly directed first action scene, to the end , this movie holds up as one of the most beautifully directed and superbly shot James Bond movies till date. While many people had problems with the grey overtone of Skyfall , this movie has taken quite a departure by giving a yellow , tanned look and feel to it. The movie is beauty in every frame. Wide shots look splendid, close ups have really good focus , most importantly , the lighting. The lighting Sam Mendes has gone with adds much depth to the frame shot and presented thus making the cinematography just out of the world. One of the notable scenes in the movie is when you see Christoph Waltz the first time. The yellow overtone of the lighting behind him gave me creepy chills. Sam Mendes has not left a single hole in his job as a director and used the best and maximum of the production money to provide a visceral action movie experience. All action scenes were beautifully choreographed and executed. I was absolutely sold on the design choices Sam Mendes made while filming this.

On an overall , the presence of masterful direction and a brilliant cast makes it much more sad for me to say this movie didn't deliver on all the levels and hype it built. The in-coherent plot and non cohesive plot devices made it much harder to stay in tune with what was happening. Not like this will affect my liking for this movie in any way but the huge similarities this movie shares with Rouge Nation made the story cliché at many times. Ultimately though this movie was underdeveloped and misused it's cast , Sam Mendes's mastery behind the camera , the movies location , cinematography ad superb action makes this a brilliant time pass movie for all movie goers. But a big question this movie raises is do Bond movies need to be story driven like Skyfall , action oriented as Spectre or can there exist a movie with both in the future ?

Brothers (I) (2009)

Can i live again ?

[9/10 · 29 August 2015]

Backtracking my IMDb profile is likely to lead you to reviews that are well structured and written with the critical analysis of a few days. This review however is something that I am typing nearly shivering , moments after watching this progressive direction and impeccable performance. Now this is an unconventional review , but bear with me as I will clearly explain why this is an under-rated gem you must watch right away if you didn't.

First thing of the bat let me start by saying that this movie is not something that will be known for it's story. Being a re-make it has it's own flaws , in fact the almost perfect 10 score is nowhere placed for it's story as it is probably a generic war hero story of a scarred marine we have watched a million times. In fact this movie is more of Tom Hank's Cast away that shows more of Tom Hanks after coming back home.

You might have noticed that my review started with me stating that I was moved by Impeccable performance and not performances. The cast is just superb , all the way from Jake to the small girls who portrayed the traumatised and puzzled kids. But one man who rose from the potentially overshadowing cast is Toby Maguire. Let me assure you , that this is probably his best performance of his career. Coming hot out of a comic book character , Toby has proved himself to be a character that can physically and mentally morph himself to produce magic on screen. The entire movie is his transformation , it is him breaking down , it is him trying to fix a part of himself that can never be undone. The last 30 minutes of this movie is a testament to my belief in Toby. And the last 10 minutes of the movie is probably where he will force you to nearly break down. I almost did , and that hasn't happened in a very long time.

But what is performance without a boss behind the camera. Jim Sheridan might be the one known for his work in other titles like " In America " and " The Boxer " , but he has done a brilliant job in making this movie not just a drama but an atmospheric thriller. Without spoiling much , there is a scene towards the end that has an intense buildup , for 5 minutes that leads to a brilliant pay off. The camera has quick , nimble switches , some characters focused , some made to hide themselves , to symbolize hidden emotions. Every minute detail of this movie , all the way from substantial lighting to tonal shifts , Jim has done a beautiful job at creating a fractured and wounded universe , which in conjunction with the acting resonates to give a message , strong and sharp.

Looking at the cast of the movie it's hard to believe how Nightcrawler's Jake , Black Swan's Portman , and the right stuff's Sam had nearly little but equally important roles to play where the sleeper hero Toby just manages to steal the show and knock it off the park.

You might just think " I am high of my popcorn " but this my genuine expression. There hasn't been a movie this intriguing in a very long time that has pursued me to open my laptop right away and write this extra ling review.

It's been 6 years since this movie has been out and this is my second viewing. So let this review be a reminder that the movie stood good then , now and will grow on you to be much better, as time passes by.

Hot Pursuit (2015)

Pursuit of Garbage

[2/10 · 6 May 2015]

This stance of abomination has no right or reason to exist in our universe for any reasonable reason. This is example of a bland, generic, linear unfunny, cheap humor pass that tries it's best to attract you with its respectable cast. There is no reason and absolutely nothing here that should compel you to watch this movie even if someone to watch it tortures you. In fact this movie is a torture during its runtime, a fully functional torture.

In this review I will detail and explain exactly why this movie is functionally broken with it's fundamentals and convince you to stay away from this garbage for good.

1) Story: - So there is this generic mob guy who dies and leaves his trophy wife for good. And there is this generic cop who comes into the picture to take this trophy wife throughout the desert nation of Texas fighting some more mobs and brain-dead stupid humans throughout their journey. That is it. That is all that this stupid movie cares to give away from its plot. There are no twists and turns, there are no plot hijacks just this above plot dinging around the cast, as they traverse through this garbage story. The screenplay is incoherent; one shot of the movie is not connected to the next. One plot point once brought up is forgotten after a few minutes of its introduction. There is not knowing how to write a script, and there is hiring a 5 year old to do one, and I guess this movie has none. I have watched movies like hot tub time machine 2, which has better, improvised plot than this pile of stinking sung.

2) Casting: - I usually talk about the casting and how the actors represent the characters on screen with respect to the characters that the director and the scriptwriter sculpt during his job. But this movie didn't make me bother about the existence of itself thus keeping me uninterested about the characters themselves. As I stated previously you have a generic cop played by " Oscar NOMINATED" Reese Witherspoon, generic mob wife played by Sofia Vergara and a generic detective played by Mathew Del Negro thus summing up this casting choice as a cluster of mess led by an Oscar nominee. Let me compare this to hot tub time machine 2, that movie was bad too, but I still cared and related to the characters because of their chemistry and charm. There is none here; there is zero relationship between any people here in this movie.

3) Direction: - Let me not get started with this, only thing that could be a great title for this movie is " From the director of Step Up and all other bad movies since then, comes another bad movie ". The direction is pathetic; amateur at it's best. There was rarely a moment when I cared what was happening on the screen in front of me. The movie lacks the charm, which I guess would have lifted the marks of this movie from the hell it's currently placed in.

On whole this a stupid movie that didn't make me laughs, not even once. Jokes were poor and on note references. It felt as if this movie was made to make sure that the Actors and the crew have a great road trip enjoy themselves, laugh at themselves and their below par jokes and make a movie out of it, to cash in all the expenses they bared. I request you readers not to watch this movie, even if you are forced; it's better to stay away from. You will be wasting your time and money, which you can use to pre-order and wild or hell go and watch a movie like ex machine, that is worth your time, patience and money because towards halfway of this movie, this garbage will get on your nerves, real bad.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

A bowl of overcooked,convoluted,entertaining mess

[6/10 · 6 May 2015]

Right off the bat I can say one thing without any hesitation. I enjoyed watching this movie. It was supposed to be linear summer blockbuster flick meant to cash in on the now highly maximized marvel fan base. Joss Whedon to be honest was at his best while making this movie. I have watched this movie twice. My first viewing as a normal 3d movie and my second in IMAX, thus my review is pretty much an in depth analysis about the movie and a lot of it's aspects that grew on me, in the bad way. Throughout this review, my statements might sound a bit nit picky but these aspects really pushed me out of the overall experience of the movie as a whole.

1) Casting and Characterisation: - I have absolutely no problem with the returning avenger crew. They were fantastic back in 2012; they are equally fantastic and dynamic now. The first party scene in the movie shows the relationship and chemistry amongst the old returning crew and highlighting the brilliant work done by the casting crew previously. Talking about new comers, James Spader was spectacular. Ever since the first time I viewed him in the Office and Blackhat, I knew he was perfect for the role o this menacing baddie . With what was given to him by script and what he executed, he was generally flawless. But the incoherent plot script and rushed narrative didn't flush out his character to the fullest throwing down the brilliant opportunity to make him a very memorable villain, which I will be explaining later in depth in this review. Also Quicksikver is not as good as the days of future past iteration.

2) Story, Screenplay and Plot: - This is the basic reason why my rating for this movie is as low as 6/10. Everything wrong and bitter about this movie lies with the unnecessarily over convoluted, incoherent and unexplained plot that drove me crazy on the first viewing.

i) How and why did tony start making his suits again after the end of iron man 3? ii) What was the compelling reason why Ultron became that menacing? iii) Why and how did the relationship between Natasha and Bruce crop up?

It just feels as if the whole movie was just rushed to the audience as if Disney is sitting back in their office and saying, " They will pay us and watch it anyways ". Seriously! The love story between Bruce and Natasha for that matter is so underdeveloped and cooked. I didn't see any chemistry between them in previous movies, at least not something that could bring up this love story into light. The biggest point of the movie, the reason why this movie was made, Ultron was just scrapped completely and misused by Joss. Ultron quite literally comes in the beginning of the movie, gives a vague reason, turns ultra menacing, builds more of his kind and plans a world destruction scheme all with absolutely no character development. It's shameful to see this happen especially with someone as good as James Spader in the shoes. Hulk and Thor were also left back, especially Hulk put into the stupid mess of a love story I didn't give two damns about. It is really frustrating to see such missed opportunities here. The whole movie is one bowl of ambitious but overcooked plot that Joss Whedon thought it would be okay to put some more darkness and gritty plot actions to make this movie something really dark and aggressive. Thus on a whole not as good as the first one.

3) Direction: - I need to give a shout out to Whedon though for putting his best efforts to bring in the crew again into the screen to make this a compelling movie. The charm of seeing these heroes assemble was gone with the first one, and Joss Whedon has done a brilliant job fulfilling a tough task to make these characters feel relevant again as a crew. The action is superb. I loved every moment of action in the movie; in fact Joss was clever to add in an explosive scene every time you say " WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT? " about the plot to keep to attracted to the movie. The first battle with Ultron was a bit over the top I felt, but nonetheless kept me at the edge of the seat. I still don't understand how many of the heroes don't exactly get hurt or injured towards the end. Kudos again to Joss who even under Disney's pressure didn't back away from showing causalities and death in this movie unlike the first one where every citizen was conveniently alive. And the hulk buster fight, if that was the only thing in the movie I would give this a 10. On a whole, yes great director, no for a screenwriter or script writer for that matter.

On an overall, the movie is a mess. I don't go into a theater to see explosions every 2 or 3 minutes and feel satisfied with that. I am disappointed about the fact that though this movie could not live up to the first one, the crew did an awful job at including the thrilling charm and vibe of the first movie's villain and his motives into this iteration. The first avengers showed Loki at every step doing his job, explaining his motives giving him enough screen time and making him the lovable dirt bag we wanted but this movie has less than half of what the movie needs to offer. , Or at least half of what it's previous movie offered. It is a fun movie, and must be watched in theater, but let me warn you, if you are a big avengers fan, like I am, this movie will grow on you, in a bad sense.

American Sniper (2014)

American Sniper ? More like ' Big budget shoot fest '

[6/10 · 24 March 2015]

Well this movie put me into one hell of a roller coaster ride not because it was good at all times but because there were lots of downs in the plot , more than i had expected from a Clint Eastwood movie. First thing off the bat , this movie was shot with realism in mind , this by far is one the most realistic ground to earth biopic military cinema I have watched in a long time. The protagonist isn't hailed too much , he is put into the right stance , in the right situation with the right depth. The use of a steady camera for an action movie like this something that is really good looking at how action movie nowadays have evolved ( ahem end of watch ). What really pisses me off in this movie is the plot and character progression , and in this review i guess i would be pointing out more of the negatives than the positives because this movie has managed to leave a sour taste in my mouth.

1) Casting :- Perfect ! I cannot imagine anyone else who could get into the shoes of the most lethal sniper. He acted well with the script which was provided but felt a bit too dragged on and forced when it came to him acting with his co-star Elsie Robertson who are supposed to be in a relationship. The chemistry felt a bit too pushed and crammed according to me especially when the plot wants to force on the points of family problems in the lives of the seals and marines. Elsie Robertson did a good job too , portraying the life of a woman who lives every minute in a cloud of fear , of becoming a widow. Emotions are seen to hit throughout the charts but as stated previously the overall chemistry amongst them didn't catch out very well which is disappointing looking at how capable the cast and the crew are with their immense talents.

2) Direction :- It's Clint Eastwood , the movie is filled with his vibe and energy and his passion for direction is clearly seen here. Irrespective of his age , his hands and mind behind the camera still work brilliantly sever since Unforgiven. The camera shots between and during action scenes fit perfectly into the tense moments. But it is funny how the intense scene from the trailer was the first scene of the movie. As far as the action goes , Clint Nailed it. The sounds were top notch , every sniper with a silencer sounded like a silenced weapon every time Bradley scoped at his target there was a rush of Adrenaline. But in his path of making a realistic military movie Clint failed miserably at depicting the personal like of Kyle. Either he was concentrated on the war aspects or just too lazy , the core of the film was just left out which is a huge backlash.

3) Story ( Plot ) :- OK this is where everything in the movie falls apart. I am glad about the fact that Clint stayed true to the source material given to him , in fact the plot is pretty much linear and one dimensional. The story was crying of depth which the script writer Jason Hall just left out in the blue. Following are some of the problems that i faced while and after watching the movie

i) Plot Progression :- The movie had a total runtime of 120-130 minutes but wasted it's time on unnecessary aspects like Kyle's cowboy passion and stuff. Instead that time could have been utilized at developing more about Kyle's childhood , his relationship with his brother.

ii) Character Progression :- Bradley meets a girl , they hang out , he goes to war and his wife calls him telling she is pregnant . That is quite seriously how the scenes progressed. There was little to no explanation and absolutely no hints of relationship and chemistry , the pregnancy and the relationship was just forced to focus more on the war aspects.

iii) Fault in marketing :- The movie was sold to us as an intense sniper action movie with a runtime packed with tense set pieces and heart pounding moments. Let me clarify something . It is nothing like how i described it above. This movie should have been called American Shooter or American Gunman because the movie shows Kyle Sniping for the first 30-35 minutes and last 10 minutes of the movie which is kind of sad especially when the actual sniping in American Sniper is only quarter of the total runtime. Lethal shooter yes , sniper , maybe , but the movie has shown me only a few scenes proving the point, and that opening intense scene in the trailer , that's the only intense sniper scene in the whole movie.

I rated this movie an 8 on my first viewing but as I keep thinking about it , the movie keeps going down and down with it's score , the ending , please , the ending was incoherent , loosely left , i get the point that the ending was the way it was described in the source material , but as a part of the movie , the way it was shown , was complete misstep.

On a whole this movie is a good time if you are going in for a 2 hour action flick with little to no character development. This movie is something really perfect if you were bored one day , and watched it when you had absolutely nothing to do , after watching hangover part 2 again. The plot is jumbled , though linear was convoluted by the director , the relationships are messy , but overall for the production money put into this , I would say it's a good action movie , not a very good standalone.

Fury (2014)

Looses a bit of the furious steam

[7/10 · 20 February 2015]

Hollywood is abundant with war epics coming from skilled directors who put a classic edge to the genre , and creating a classic that would be memorable for years to come. Fury from start is an ambitious project , a movie directed ground up to visualize the clear and dense darkness in the lives of people during the war and worlds that collide in the gruesome battle for victory.

Now , when we talk about war movies one of the most prominent ones include Veteran Director Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket , which i feel is a brilliant war epic, does 2 things with perfection.

a) Give a gripping edge of the seat narrative b) And Build characters with a context and depth making you to root and care about them , even though they are a bit rude , and out of place with their characterization sometimes.

And what fury fails to do , is an error very significant , leaving a hole of void characterization. In this review I will breakdown and analyze the movie explaining the good and bad aspects of the movie and justifying my rating of 7.

1 ) Story :- David Ayer's previous projects such as fast and furious and end of watch , are good movies not known for its story , but it's character events and directional set pieces , with end of watch known for its different style of direction. It is surprising to see how David has evolved in his filmmaking career ,now venturing into a story , scripted , binding narrative driven experience. To be honest , Fury has the best story and a background atmosphere as compared to any of David's previous projects , and it is a good thing to see David Ayer working hard in favoring a strong storyline backbone , over shaky cams and out of context screenplay. The story of Fury revolves around a Sherman tank named Fury ,carried a hostile and deadly crew whose leader is Wardaddy, played excellently by Brad Pitt. Wardaddy commands his subordinates to take the tank and move into the enemy territory to destroy as many Nazi's as possible in the Eastern front. The story might look blunt on a first glance , but the rich narrative experience can grip you throughout the movie no questions asked. The story is beautifully crafted , but David is a good illusionist giving an existential presence of rich deeper flesh to a more on linear experience.

2 ) Casting and Performance :- Casting for this movie is spot on. With a wide array of characters in line starting from a man numb with battles Don Wardaddy played by Brad Pitt,Binkowski played by Jim Parrack , all of them resonate the essential elements of expressions and emotions of men tired with endless grinding battles. Michael Pena rides along David Ayer once again since end of watch doing his character justice to both the source material and the character itself. The standout cast member for me is Shia LaBeouf.Shia in the movie gives a stellar performance overthrowing even Brad Pitts acting throughout the runtime. Shia pin this movie plays the role of Bible Swan , with emotions throughout the spectrum exhibited by him. Shia easily shadows all of his previous mediocre performances from the transformers or even the unsuccessful Indiana Jones movie. One thing to be said , is that if Shia continues to give performances like this , then he would surely be an actor to be looked forward to for his future presentations. One of the biggest flaws in this movie though is the execution of chemistry between the characters. The ideal character model for each character keeps alternating and fluctuating , thus not giving you time to analyze and root for a person when the movie forces you to feel sad for something. Also there are many scenes in the movie that contradicts the moral code for these people on screen , but the characters never regret their decision. These minor hiccups bring the well narrated movie on a speed breaker as towards the end of the movie you would be puzzled to understand and create a character sketch of any living soul who was present on screen.

3 ) Direction:- David Ayer knows exactly how to take an intense scene and grind his cast to give a magnificent outburst to flesh out a gripping and ' edge of the seat ' experience. The movie can be divided into parts.

a) Character development structures b) The actual war scenarios

What David Ayer does effortlessly is the brilliantly choreographed action sequence. There are parts in the movie where I actually felt I was in the tank in the middle of the war , and a feeling of Claustrophobic environment easily steps in for any person viewing this film. The camera is used with a neat steady cam motion capturing every aspect of a dark gory battle , making this war epic virtually gritty and standing true and perfect to its cinematic ' R 'rating. What David fails to do is fail to make the characters grow on us. Throughout the entire movie,I did not bother to care about any of the characters as much as the director wanted me to. There were intense scenes in this movie where i had no reason or incentive to care about the safety of the characters lives. Each character with their dynamic personalities don't exactly shake well with the narrative of the story thereby acting as a bump in this smooth war drama.

On a whole , Fury is a well directed,well narrated well casted,characterized mess that is a good drama war movie that is way too ambitious for its current state. It might not be referred to or called a war epic , but David Ayer has done a perfect job is visualizing world war 2.

Fifty Shades of Grey (2015)

0 shades of entertainment

[4/10 · 19 February 2015]

So , first things first , i was not going to watch this movie. I had no plans at all. People told me that the book had some pathetic writing ( understandable since it's a twilight fan fiction ) and i didn't bother much about the movie too. But it was close to the release date when a lot people around me were super excited about the movie and couldn't stop about how good this movie was going to be , which is when i changed my mind , and boy , it was a really bad decision.

First of , this is an ambitious project with little to no context trying to build up a story arc and cash in some money from the fans of the book and i guess the only thing that helps the movie stand on it's feet is Dakota playing the lead as Anastasia Steele who is a student of literature trying to get a few stories and roundabouts of famous personalities. There are specific reasons why the movie has got a very bad rating from me and I will also explain why it has received any rating at all .

1 ) Story :- Now the movie's plot is kiddish and mediocre. If you thought Jupiter Ascending was a linear plot wait till you get a load of this. The story revolves around a literature student Anastasia Steele who gets a golden opportunity to interview a millionaire business tycoon Christian Grey, all because her friend ( who was supposed to do the interview ) fell sick, such convenience. So the plot continued , giving exposition on it's way , spelling out Christian's life piece by piece , telling us about his character which gradually evolves into a rude and self obsessed sex addict who wants to play a dominant role during his sex play. The movie is a perfect " how to make cliché " book. The plot is extremely linear as it progresses and i must say the director had the courage to give a stupid cliffhanger at the end of the movie teasing a potential sequel in the near future. And as you watch the movie you can easily draw the similarities between this story and that of twilight. Nearly every character in this universe can be associated with the Twilight one. Christian with Edward , Anastasia with Bella and there are lot of parts in the movie which seem like it's completely ripped off from twilight. ( which is a bad thing )

2 )Casting and Characters :- Casting in this movie is bad , downright stupid. The only character i guess who stands out in the whole movie is Anastasia ,who is played brilliantly by Dakota. Dakota's acting is perfect and she does her best to portray herself as a dynamics et piece in this rather dumb plot. It can be clearly witnessed how Dakota's performance though good didn't flesh out well as the character she was playing was shallow and had absolutely no proper introduction, depth of realization or even a subtle back-story or motive. On the other hand is the man of the movie Christian Grey played by Jamie Dornan, who manages to single handedly bring Dakota's performance down to the ground. Let me be serious about this fact here. This movie is about relationships , and if you expect any kind of chemistry between them you would be surprised to see none here. Christian tries to be dominant and acts the way the script tells him to making him look like he is forced to act out the actions he does. His character is more of a burden for a viewer over the already burdened plot. There is absolutely no connection between the two characters and the couple didn't resonate their vibe perfectly the way the audience would have expected. On a whole Dakota yes, others , hell no.

3 ) Direction :- To be frank I had absolutely no clue about the director of this movie Sam Taylor Johnson. I haven't watched any of her previous projects nor have I heard of her works. And for the very first viewing of her film , I can say with complete assurance that she has her own artistic angle to her direction making nearly every shot as vibrant as possible. Every single scene of this movie ( though named fifty shades of Grey ) was vibrant in every aspect. Colours were overflowing on the screen with lighting captured perfectly with a subtle touch of minimized lens flares. Sam Taylor has the ability and talent I can say to create beautifully shot moments in a movie but can fail terribly to create an atmosphere suitable for the characters to evolve and grow with the plot. One of the best examples of other talented but snubbed directors i can give is Steven Shainberg who directed the movie secretary. It had more or less the same plot as this but the direction allowed the characters to grow on the audience making them understand and feel for them.

On a whole Fifty Shades Of Grey is nowhere close to the hype it was building up. The story is mediocre and cliché in many levels with blunt protagonist Christian Grey, and a relationship that feels forced with no context from both ends. There are only 3 reasons according to me why one should watch this movie.

a ) Dakota's performance

b) Recognition of the director Sam Taylor Johnson who has the ability and talent subdued by this movie

c ) Some sleep

Jupiter Ascending (2015)

Nothing more than a CGI overkill

[5/10 · 17 February 2015]

Well , it's been a fairly long time since a Wachowski movie has popped up in the theater and ever since matrix , one thing that I ( not just me I guess ) build my expectation for their movie is to either top the matrix or at least be a decent reloaded movie. Jupiter Ascending made me feel the same thing again. When i paid my buck to watch this movie one thing i was really sure about was the fact that I will be a bare witness of 2 hours , non-stop , CGi action with explosions and 'AWW' moments striking me from the screen , and for that aspect ,I congratulate the Wachowski's for a stellar show of Computer generated set pieces that overthrow and put the visual shows of movies like man of steel and transformers to shame.

One thing that Matrix did right was to build an eerie , mind-bending story that not just grips us to the narrative but puts our brains into a varied dimension o0f thoughts , asking questions , piecing clues , questioning the very existence of experimental reality .I have absolutely no idea as to why the Wachowski's have failed to deliver that since that moment. Jupiter Ascending as a package is a disaster in many levels and in this review i will breakdown the movie and highlight it's glaring problems and specifically justifying my rating of 5.

1) Story :- NONE. Seriously , if you are a person who wants to watch a flick spend 2 hours rejoicing the very pulp of a well crafted narrative , let me warn you right away this movie is not meant for you ! There is little to absolutely no story involved in the making of this movie. The major glaring problem being that the plot is cliché with you telling the poor person sitting next you exactly what would happen in the next scene. Some of the odd plot devices are beyond hilarious and add laughable oddities that rises questions as to the very existence of a planned plot in the movie.

In a jest , there is a girl named Jupiter, who is important to the story (why you ask ? because she is important the plot tells us that's why ! )There is a man Caine Wise, comes to earth gives a vague reason takes Jupiter to an intergalactic battle to claim the rightful . Seriously,you as a movie watcher can add your bits of story and still make it more interesting than it's current state.

2) Casting and Performance :- Casting in this movie is good, not perfect , but good. Jupiter played by Mila Kunis ( who voiced Meg from family guy ) plays the role of Jupiter, her acting though not polished is fairly enjoyable. Channing Tatum is the man of the movie who does his very best to hold up his character trying real hard to make his character look like the " DUDE" , the main guy , the badass and so on , and like is aid does a great job is trying his best to hold the show by himself. The other main guy i can see in the movie is Sean . What the hell !? his acting is at par or slightly better than Bella from twilight ! I am not exactly sure if the source material given to these actors were bad or if the actors weren't a bit interesting in acting for this project but something fell short somewhere and the Wachowski's had to pay for it. Like i said , though the acting was good at best , the characters had no depth , no proper arc defining them or no satisfying conclusion either.

3)Direction :- This is exactly the reason why this movie got a score of 5, the direction and CGI. Though the Wachowski's have failed in the aspect of creating a well defined set of character lists , they have done a splendid job with a visual treat. From the time Jupiter encounters Channing Tatum mah main man , your jaws drop with a sense of ' AWW. Artificial lighting , specific bandwidth of sound spectrum ranging from subtle background tunes to significant explosion noises , the art team and Designers did a splendid job putting every penny of the production cost to use

On a whole I can say that Jupiter Ascending is a guilty pleasure movie with 2 hours of Brilliantly choreographed actions probably making all that's worth of the money you would spend in buying tickets for this movie with little no story to back it up. I would recommend you to watch this movie in the theater for it's glaring visuals but wouldn't say that the experience would be a complete package.

And for the question asked by many people about weather this is the Wachowski's turn back to the Matrix Formula . I say no ! I guess maybe that's for another project of theirs.

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)

the unexpected brilliance of cinema

[9/10 · 17 February 2015]

Birdman , though the name is deceiving is not a triple a superhero movie you would expect crowding the Hollywood cinema in this age and era of movie , but this a movie that i can best describe as an experience. Birdman gets nearly every aspect of a good cinema right and in this review i will breakdown each aspect and giving you all the reasons why you need to watch this movie and also validate the fact as to why i rated this 8 and not a shot 10.

1) Casting and Performances :- One of the best things in the movie is the wonderfully cast roles.The movie hold an exclusive banner with a stigma array of actors ranging from industry veterans like Michael Keaton and Edward Nortan as well as others like Zach ,Emma stone , Naomi watts ,Andrea Riseborough and so on giving a stellar performance with a well clicked sense of humor and comedic timing. Michael Keaton fits the role perfectly with his brief history of being batman in it's previous iterations. Michael Keaton in this movie is named Riggan once popular for his action superhero movie birdman is now off the fame ladder and tries to make himself significant in the industry with a book adapted play shown in Broadway. Both Michael and Edward Norton taking leads of sort display a spectrum of emotions each of them having a unique charismatic peak. On a whole birdman "shouts casting done perfectly " in every frame.

2) Direction :- For people who watched Alejandro's previous movie biutiful starring Javier they are certain about one thing, a visual treat which is pleasureful to our eyes. Alejandro's camera is the first person perspective of a real event grounded in reality with each stance of the movie depicting fear , emotions ,characters even without the need of a solid dialogue delivery. Birdman is shot with some really clever camera and editing tricks to make the movie feel like it's shot in a single go. Lighting is perfectly lit , sounds are realistic , angle of shot is dispensed with utmost beauty. It's a rare trait that not many directors inhibit.

3) Story :- The story as seen from it's surface is simple and mild going through the struggles ,fears , pain , ego and many other emotions of a man trying to redeem himself and become significant in the world, but what really surprises is the ending that according to me is one of the most well thought out endings for a movie. The movie can be broadly divided into 4 acts , the introduction , the practice , the execution and the finale. The introduction begins with the director showing the type of life Riggan played by Michael Keaton lives , the present , his career and his troubled relationships with his daughter and wife. The director does a clean job in marking out the subtleties in their loose characterized bond with Riggan focusing on his Broadway play , his daughter trying to cope with loneliness and her need for drug use. The second act holds place exclusively for Edward Norton .A stellar performance by him ( for the second time in the year after grand Budapest hotel ). Norton lifts the already lifted show playing a character named Mike , an actor who believes he is a person with only a character he plays but no natural character of his own, more like water in a container taking shape of what he is placed in. The third act is where the movie falls short just a bit with the same story , and narrative dragging on with a bit pacing issue. What really stands out in the movie is the final act , the act that depicts ideologies of realization , self consciousness , self control , ego burst and perfection and as stated previously , an ending that truly makes a difference. The story does a brilliant job in touching concepts and showing the life behind the curtains. Story of actors struggling to act ,story of actors trying to stay in characterized control despite their real life emotional breakdown ,a actors striving to be significant , fights with reviewers and so on , a complete drama package.

The reason why i rated this movie 8 is mainly because the movie drags on a bit in the middle and a lot of characters are left out with little to no conclusion.

This is movie that is more of art, it's clearly depicted as Alejandro's playground of thoughts , his ideas , this movie is a painting whose beauty can witnessed more than once.