Men in Black III

A decade away from the movie scene has given the Men In Black series a chance at a fresher, newer perspective. Taking its cue from Shrek Forever After, MIB 3 takes on a tired concept (time travel in this case) if only to acknowledge the failure of its dull sequel and take us back to a different era allowing us to view the franchise from an unsullied angle. The result is a film that returns to its roots and gives audiences the chance to relive much of what they first enjoyed – a smart, sci-fi, buddy comedy that embraces everything weird and wonderful about the unknown universe.

In his first cinematic role in nearly 4 years, Will Smith’s Agent J is the usual charming, witty wiseass we expect him to be. Still teamed up with the laconic Agent K (wrinkly Tommy Lee Jones) he is no closer to cracking his older partners deadpan demeanour but their relationship issues take a back seat when a nemesis from Kay’s past, Boris the animal, turns up to exact revenge for having been imprisoned on the moon 40 years ago. His elaborate plan takes him back in the past, to the day he was caught, and sets ripples in the present, where K no longer exists and a different reality results. J has to then literally time jump (off the Empire State building no less) and fix the past for normalcy to return in the present.

Directly Barry Sonnenfeld seems to find his groove once again with the zany and icky shenanigans that put him on the map with the original. Using plenty of the wide angle camera work that gave him fame as the Coen’s favourite lenser, the resulting imagery should work wonders for those who decide to pay extra and catch the film on 3D (converted). Boris the animal is also a return to the series villains being screwball and menacing in equal measure (remember Vincent D’Onofrio?) and Rick Baker’s excellent makeup effects are both incredible and revolting. The big surprise is how well Josh Brolin impersonates Jones in the role of a younger K – which should not be a surprise considering Brolin’s recent, impressive body of work as a bonafide actor, most notably in W. So chameleon-like is his performance that you forget it’s him and actually completely believe it’s just a younger version of Tommy Lee Jones that you’re seeing.

The films primary achievement and a true signal of its return to form though are the scenes set in the past. Not only is Josh Brolin a deadringer for Tommy Lee’s K during his youth, but the hip musical vibes of the late 60’s/early 70’s allow for plenty of playfulness to ensue with a particularly hilarious segment devoted to Andy Warhol. If that isn’t enough, everything very neatly ties into another epochal scientific moment from that time period and ends on a moment of curiously satisfying emotionality that provides not only closure to the film but the series as a whole. If that doesn’t make you forgive all the wrongs that the sequel did and embrace this film as one of the years better movie franchise offerings the only thing that might work on you is a neuralizer.

The Cabin in the Woods

Once in a while, a movie comes along that changes the fabric of a genre completely. The Cabin in the Woods is that movie for the horror genre. After watching it, the experience of horror movies will just not be the same, no matter what country the movie is from or what language it is in. The Cabin in the Woods achieves something singularly iconic that is perhaps applicable only within the horror genre. However, to fully appreciate the movie, it is essential to be familiar with the genre and yet view it without being prior aware of how it accomplishes what it does.

Briefly, The Cabin in the Woods follows a group of five friends who arrive at an isolated cabin to spend the weekend. Their intent is to stay away from technology and contact, surrounded by wilderness and enjoy the weekend away. As may be guessed, things don’t necessarily go as planned. Soon, the boys and girls are struggling to survive the horror that unleashes upon them.

As generic as the plot may sound, the genius of the film’s makers is to take the familiar and do something extraordinary with it. Exploring some of the well-known clichés of the genre, but not being obnoxiously self-aware of them in-movie (like the Scream sequels), the writers pay homage to the best while setting the bar extremely high for film-makers who aspire to make genuinely good horror movies. Expertly crafted and lovingly presented, the passion of writer Joss Whedon and writer-director Drew Goddard is evident right from the onset. The witty dialog exchanges and setup of familiar scenarios mixed with the unexpected sets the tone of the movie early on. Even so, little hint is given of the grand finale when, quite fervently, all hell breaks loose.

Even with all the fun and love The Cabin in the Woods has with the genre, Whedon and Goddard’s movie is neither brainless, nor shallow. The critical statements it makes about the exploitative nature of the genre as well as the audience of the genre’s movies are a part of the combination punch that the movie provides. Combined with the clever writing, the movie has an excellent repeat value, especially for those looking to revel in the details the movie is crammed with. This also means that the movie is mainly targeted to the ardent horror-fan, who recognizes the homages and clichés. Therefore some may find the movie quite bizarre.

The Cabin in the Woods provides for passionate discussions as an after-movie experience, as well as enough reference material to become the topic of discussion after watching other horror movies, past or future. The movie is likely to become a part of pop-culture, and with its iconic-yet-generic name, it is not a movie that will be forgotten anytime soon.

Roughly four years and five prequel films later, we finally see the Avengers assembled. Executed onscreen with a wordsmith’s precision for writing and a big budget director’s skillful handling of incredibly epic action, it is every bit as spectacular, goofy and fun as the graphic novels and comics I grew up on. This is the real deal.

Thanks to Marvel’s shrewd marketing and self-referential movie tie-in’s, the characters in this film need no introduction, even for those who may have never picked up a comic book. For others keeping up, the studio/comic book company had been preparing us for this team’s build up, starting with 2008’s Iron Man. But while you might have known this film was coming, no one could have expected it to deliver the way that it actually does. Picking up the story strands of disparate superheroes that we’ve met and seen before, the films explosive, extended opening sets the tone for what follows – scene after scene of expertly written dialogue combined with striking action that actually moves the story along.

All of the characters in the team are given their due screen time – from bigwigs such as Hulk, Thor, Captain American and Iron Man, to even the lesser known heroes Black Widow and Hawkeye – the balanced portrayal brings a sense of intimacy and cohesion between the team. You genuinely get the feeling that this isn’t just an exercise in filling us in; every setting is carefully tuned to serve a specific purpose, from reintroductions (Mark Ruffalo, the only new actor to join the set, playing Bruce Banner with the right dose of timidity and genius) to classic comic book confrontation – Iron Man vs. Thor, Thor vs. Hulk, Hulk vs. everyone else. Like a dysfunctional, volatile family that simply can’t contain its member’s egos, every time these heroes get together the results are incendiary. To this already engaging mix is added Loki, as prime nemesis and evil intergalactic foe, who channels his Machiavellian nature to cause confusion, in-fighting and an end of the world scenario that results in an eye popping finale that keeps topping itself with every skirmish, making previous films in the series look like board games in comparison.

None of this would work the way it does if there wasn’t something or someone holding it together. That pivotal person happens to be Joss Whedon, a bona fide Marvel comic book writer, who like his fellow TV contemporary J.J. Abrams, only recently branched out into films. Whedon had first flirted with science fiction in his short lived, now cut-classic television show Firefly and its eventual filmic adaptation Serenity. We knew he could write well and direct adequately enough to be a candidate, if not the top choice, to helm a film featuring a superhero team battling it out. What he does here with his modest directorial (though not writing) experience then is nothing short of extraordinary. He completely breaks loose and puts together quite possibly the most balanced sci-fi, fantasy, super hero action drama to date.

True to the demands of tent-pole summer films, the scenes of unified attacks over New York look electrifying, even iconic (wait till the Hulk goes absolutely, truly berserk, taking on fighter jets, aliens even fellow heroes). These sequences are neither nonsensical wall-to-wall action porn ala Michael Bay’s ridiculous Transformers series, nor shallow and silly as say, Fantastic Four. Avengers manages to be just the perfect blend of action, humour and character driven quirkiness to leave you utterly engaged. It does things with scenes I never thought possible in a film made out of a comic book series. Even in the thick of battle, numerous times, something utterly out of place happens; it is sometimes funny, often times thrilling, but always in tune with how your mind thinks it should be, especially if you’re a superhero geek and have actually read or seen any of Whedon’s work.

I had forgotten that big budget summer movies could do this to you. Event films had gone from being big and entertaining to being loud, obnoxious and nauseating. Whedon brings back the joy of seeing and experiencing the big, the audacious, the truly outwardly in films again. This is a superhero film yes, but it is also the very definition of a well balanced, well executed action spectacle that remains universally enjoyable by even those who might think they are not the target audience for it. I thought I wasn’t either – Whedon just proved me wrong.

There’s a new IMAX screen in Dubai, at Meydan in Nad Al Sheba.

I had a chance to experience it at its “soft opening” recently. The invite was for the 45 minute, made-for-IMAX movie The Young Black Stallion at the new IMAX theatre and to learn more about the venue.

The screen itself, befitting the brand, was gigantic. The dimensions were 29 meters by 22 meters (which is equivalent to 95 feet by 72 feet). That’s huge! To give it a sense of scale, the new IMAX screen is approximately 1.5 times the size of the Vox MAX (Extreme) screen at Mirdiff City Centre, and approximately 1.3 times the size of the IMAX screen at Grand Ibn Batuta. Put another way, imagine placing approximately 29 units of 42″ flat screens next to each other and another 29 units of 42″ flat screens on top of each other just to replicate the width & height of this new IMAX screen, which is the same as watching a spread of a whopping 840 flat screen 42″ TVs for the surface area this new IMAX screen covers! Simply put, it is HUMONGOUS.

The screening I attended though failed to unleash the full potential of the theater, as The Young Black Stallion featured atrocious performances and little else. This movie was released nine years ago, is dated and shows. It wasn’t up to mark to what we, as audiences, have been used to recently in terms of audio visual potential. To better judge the projection and sound quality, I would have preferred to watch a better or more recent shot-for-IMAX production. Despite this shortcoming, what was evident was the sheer size of the screen, and how much of our peripheral vision it managed to occupy. A few minutes into the film, I removed my prescription glasses, because they hindered what the naked eye could observe uninhibited. The movie projected at full-screen is a sight to behold, and come official opening, it is likely to be a venue that must be experienced for movies with *big* production values (The upcoming The Dark Knight Rises, perhaps?). While there were imperfections with the film’s reel with what looked like specs of dirt or blemishes that would often appear in lighter areas, I am guessing this had more to do with the age of the film’s reel rather than the quality of the screen or projection. Further experiences at the venue will probably help verify this.

The theater itself had 16 or so rows and I was seated on the 11th row from the top, close to the horizontal center. While this gave a good view of the entire screen, I had to crane my neck upwards to take stock of the magnitude of its height. Ideally, I would rather choose to sit anywhere between rows 7 to 9 for a more comfortable vantage point though I cannot yet say how the viewing experience would be from the higher rows. The key difference in the seating arrangement between IMAX Ibn Batuta and the IMAX at Meydan was the distance from screen-to-seat. Unlike Ibn Batuta, where the seats seem uncomfortably close to the screen, the seat-to-screen distance at Meydan was better and hence more comfortably viewable. This helped, especially since it did not require turning my head side-to-side as frequently, unless there was some action towards the edge of the screen that required my viewing attention. The entrance to the theater was from the sides, from a step below the lowest row. The seats flipped upwards when not occupied, probably to compensate for the limited leg room between two rows. The seats were adequately comfortable with drink holders between each seat.

The lobby and reception areas of the theater had not been completed yet, but that is expected since the theater does not open to the general public until Eid-ul-Fitr of this year, i.e., 3rd week of August. The theatre has its own dedicated entrance at the Meydan complex, ahead of the main entrance to the hotel. A basement level with plenty of parking was also ready. Visitors who park at the basement can take escalators or an elevator to the 3rd floor, where the theater is located.

At present, the complex is home to just this one IMAX screen. There may be plans to add regular screens, but those have not yet been finalized. Emphasis though was given to the fact that the Meydan complex would eventually be a family destination with sufficient activity areas for kids and adults.

Since this summer’s The Dark Knight Rises is partially shot on IMAX (approx. 50 minutes of it), and scheduled for release on 20th July in the U.S.A., it is highly likely that the movie’s release may be delayed in U.A.E. (and the Middle East) due to Ramadan for an eventual Eid release. If so, expect Meydan to take the opportunity for a grand opening tie-in event. I anticipate being in line with many others to watch Batman on the biggest screen in the Middle East.

Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen has enough tenacity for you to want her to win the menacingly titled sport of Hunger Games. The film though falls short of its lofty ambitions, though it does surprisingly well in setting up the premise and allowing us to get to know its leading lady by slowly and gradually letting the plot advance.

Hunger Games is based on a book targeted at young adults and the film adaptation, by extension, though it tries not to, has both the desire to please this demographic and franchise-building on its agenda. Set in a future world where food is scarce, we are introduced to the concept of Districts (there are 12 in total) from each of which a young boy and girl are annually chosen (as ‘tributes’) to take part in the titular games in a lethal fight where only one survives. When Katniss’ sister is chosen in the draw (they are from the coalmining District 12), Katniss volunteers herself as a tribute instead and is taken, along with Peeta, the male tribute, to prepare them for the games and try to win sponsors who can help them survive by making generous donations when needed (i.e. potential plot contrivances).

The films first half is a neat combo of sports film – Woody Harrelson as their drunk mentor, Lenny Kravitz as their stylist and a barely recognizable Elizabeth Banks as their escort – and mock reality TV. But the cracks soon start to show once we are let in on a romantic subplot which panders to its faithful legion of fans and, once the games have begun, to a blunt, ineffective match. A lot of scenes feel like they are inserted to fill in those unfamiliar with the source – at one point Stanny Tucci’s character, the host of the reality TV show that airs the preparations and the eventual games, actually starts a sentence with “for those of you who don’t know…”.

In actuality, the premise of the film is supposed to be both shocking and ugly but the film never makes this apparent. It is nothing like the brutal Japanese film Battle Royale for example, because its viciousness is severely diluted by its PG-13 rating. Even in the thick of battle, Katniss’ survival is helped by innumerable script or plot coincidences (the rules are changed for example or deaths are purely accidental or mostly off-screen) and the finale is both anti climatic and a letdown. None of this is likely to harm the film’s success; its target audience will ensure this, putting the odds greatly in its favour.

We Bought a Zoo

If you really think about it, We Bought a Zoo and The Descendents are essentially the same film. They both deal with the subject of death, specifically husbands who deal with their wives passing away. Both films also prominently feature children that are thrown into the mix and an affluent family that has to come to terms with this fact and learn not only how to move on, but to live at peace with themselves.

Even if you ignore the obvious Ocean’s 11 connection (where Clooney and Damon co-starred), the films are helmed by directors acclaimed primarily for their writings (Cameron Crowe and Alexander Payne). But underneath and in their approach, the two films are different. While both of them have issues in the way they portray the situations that the protagonists find themselves in, Crowe at least has the good sense to make the situation less cynical and more humane. As a grieving father who has to take on the upkeep of a wildlife reserve that just happens to be in the backyard of the house he purchases, Damon is much too genteel in his depiction (the film is nothing like The Mosquito Cost for example) but he remains one of those rare actors working today who remains watchable in anything he does and here he is no different.

We bought a Zoo is ultimately a better film because it redeems itself with a real sense of adventure (not some quasi, half-baked trip to find the ex-lover of a comatose wife) and also because, it is simply more pleasant when viewed as a family drama. It has no qualms about what it is supposed to be and in between moments of modest reminiscing of the past, flirting with a possible love interest (Scarlett Johansson) and some whimsical moments with animals (which doesn’t entirely go with the films otherwise balanced tone), the film keeps you watching, interested and most of all, connected with what’s happening to these people. While both films are far from perfect, pandering to either script conveniences or Hollywood cliché’s when needed, Zoo at least peppers itself with a fantastic folk soundtrack and tender moments. While it doesn’t rank with Crowe’s best work (Jerry McGuire or Almost Famous) it’s not exactly Doctor Dolittle either.

Take one bad-ass actor. Throw him in the middle of nowhere. Pit him against a pack of wolves. Sounds like the perfect ingredients for a juicy genre film. The Grey is that film, and it is not. Liam Neeson plays the bad-ass who, along with colleagues posted in Alaska, crash lands into a snowy landscape with no hope of rescue. They soon realize that, by their very presence, they have threatened the territory of a pack of wolves, and so begins the survival game.

Director Joe Carnahan, after the stinker A-Team (2010), comes back roaring with a movie that is much more than what the trailers indicate. This is a survival-thriller with subtext. It is not fast-paced nor exploitative. Instead, it is paced rather leisurely (for its genre), and takes its time to explore Neeson’s character’s psychological state. This is a man who starts as someone ready to die, but through the movie, he becomes a man ready to face death — there is a difference and we see that difference. Much like the plane crash scene that triggers the main-plot of the movie, what the movie shows us is not glorified for the audience, neither is it made a spectacle for the visual power it could carry. Instead the movie, and key scenes, are played out for their effect, much of which is based on the audience’s understanding of what’s going on. In doing so, the director shows great restraint, as well as a level of patience hardly seen in present-day mainstream filmmakers.

The Grey is not flawless; far from it. While the first & third act are excellent, it falters in its second act. A few deaths do seem forced, the director/script succumbing to the genre conventions, and these are dealt with in a by-the-numbers way, with little creativity about it. But, even for its flaws, this is Carnahan’s return to form. If riding on the name of Liam Neeson in the lead-role for publicity and marketing The Grey as a genre movie brings the audience into the cinema, to bring such evolved movies to the general populace, so be it. And with a kick-ass ending like that, it is difficult to not be awed by it.

War Horse
Steven Spielberg | USA | 2011
146 min

War Horse is the kind of quaint, old fashioned film that they don’t make anymore. It advocates the virtues of hard work and having faith in the goodness of humanity. Despite being set during the First World War, and having a title that references it as well, it is not as much about the war as it is about the companionship between an animal and its owner transcending all adversity.

Spielberg, a master of staging battle scenes, outdoes himself here, with spectacular scenes of horse mounted attacks and fierce sword fights, but the episodic structure of the tale results in a sprawling narrative that spans many years, numerous locations and half a dozen characters, never letting the film be about the war itself. In this way, the film almost becomes a series of vignette’s, like Cold Mountain, with the journey of Joey, the titular horse, becoming the connecting thread that ultimately leads us back to where it began. It also shares a lot in common with Spielberg’s very own Empire of the Sun in the way it has mainly British protagonists, is set during a great war and is from the point of view of a child (or as it is here, a young man) coming to terms with the effect of the war on the self while trying to survive.

The films setting lets Spielberg’s tender optimism take over. What starts of as a simple story of a family man on a farm trying to plough his field with the help of his son and his newly bought horse (this is essentially the films first and better half) gives way to a heartwarming, intermittently funny, genuinely uplifting tale of survival through bloodshed, suffering and the chaos of the battlefield. The film’s best scene though takes place during its last act and has Spielberg experiment with dark humour, where an English soldier indulges in conversation with his German counterpart in the no man’s land between their trenches. Such moments break the ice for viewers who expect a shallow, banal treatment from a director often mocked for his naivety and child like view of the world. Spielberg’s long time collaborators also perform to their usual high standards of technical perfection, but composer John William’s swelling, sweeping score is a standout. None of them however upstage their director, who lets viewers feast on some of the most gorgeously shot scenes of the year in a film that is as remarkable as it is pure and honest.

Sherlock

If the commercialism, crudity and the generally botched up characters in Hollywood’s latest Sherlock Holmes movies is putting you off, look no further than 2010′s 3-episode BBC series, aptly titled Sherlock. In an astute mix of the original stories and new writing, the series takes liberties but adheres to the main characters’ details making them easily identifiable and even respectable. Made with the elegance required of its lead character, the series exudes the crew’s love for the character, and the actors’ understanding of theirs. With Season 2 ready for broadcast on 1st Jan 2012 (just 3 episodes again), this is as good a time as any to indulge in this well-made series if you have not watched it already.

Sherlock is set in present day London. Dr John Watson is introduced to Sherlock Holmes, a self-styled Consulting Detective who an officer turns to when he is stuck on a case. Since both were looking for room-mates, Holmes & Watson move into 221N Baker Street together. Dr Watson’s qualification and past experience as an Army Doctor come handy for Sherlock Holmes, who uses heightened observation and deduction skills to identify clues and solve crimes. Together, the duo works to solve cases, establish a reputation with the British police and develop a bond of friendship. But Holmes’ isn’t aware that, matching his skill and fascination with mysteries, he’ll eventually have to face-off with a person who will become his arch-enemy – Moriarty.

The series stars Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes and Martin Freeman as Dr John Watson. In casting these two actors, the production succeeds in realizing most of what it achieves. Cumberbatch plays the detective as a young and arrogant genius – his youth easily accentuating his arrogance. His lean figure, height and deep voice lend to the personality splendidly, making him an attractive figure, yet one easy for other characters to dislike for his ability to overshadow them. Dr Watson, though mildly annoyed by this at times, admires this about Holmes. As the soft-spoken, passive character playing second fiddle to the lead, Freeman plays the everyman – a character that the audience will identify with. Though his character is not as charismatic as the detective’s, Freeman’s performance is at par to that of Cumberbatch, perfectly balancing the multiple requirements of bringing normalcy and humor to the narrative.

By having the series set in the present day, the production gives the characters and stories the fresh feel that was much needed. It also gives the writers a shot at being creative, something they take full advantage of. The episodes are, therefore, as loyal to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s original stories as they are defiant. Stories are adapted from the classics, so “A Study In Scarlett” becomes “A Study in Pink”, while the other two episodes are a combination of a few of the original stories. Tailored for the present day with vigor, the episodes are full of energy and efficiency, matching Sherlock Holmes’ mind-process. Holmes uses text messages and the internet while Dr Watson is a blogger! Even the magnifying glass used by Sherlock Holmes is a modern contraption, while what he does for the traditional pipe-smoking is to be seen. Going by modern day behavior, the characters even address each other by their first names: John instead of Dr Watson; and Sherlock instead of Holmes (hence the title of the Series).

The biggest advantage to the series, making it one of the most accessible good TV series is its limited 3-episode season, each episode running for 90 minutes. This gives the episodes enough time to invest in the mystery, focus on Holmes’ detective work as well as character development. The stories are neither half-baked, nor do they span multiple episodes with cliff-hangers making the series’ format simply perfect. For those not native to the English language and/or English accent, I highly recommend watching the episodes with subtitles – the pace of Sherlock Holmes’ thought process reflects in his lines, and you may not want to miss the details.

Moneyball is a sports movie that’s less about the sports and more about what goes on behind the scenes. A cinematic cousin to Jerry McGuire, it endeavours to explore the commercial and business side of competitive gaming with sensitivity and insight that makes it appealing for anyone, not just sports fan.

Based on a true story and set during the waning years of the Oakland Athletics’ nearly a decade ago, the film deals with a pivotal moment in the history of the sport when the team were able to turn their less than stellar performance into a record setting winning streak after adopting a novel, unorthodox technique of player selection that betted against the established rules of the game. Made in the same vein as last year’s The Social Network (both films share the talents of excellent scriptwriter Alan Sorkin) it features Brad Pitt’s second showcase performance this year (the other, in case you missed the hoopla, was Tree of Life). Pitt imbues  Billy Beane, the Oakland A’s General Manager, with the wisdom of experience on the pitch and the grace that comes with age. At times looking weary and forlorn but shifting into phases of self confidence and poise, his determination and his own past drive his decision to hire Peter Brand (Jonah Hill, stupendously good) a Yale Economics graduate to be his assistant and use number crunching, and not intuition, to put together a winning time against the odds.

Dealing with concepts common in statistical analysis, the behind the scenes look at the world of baseball is fresh and unfamiliar to the genre of sport films. To be fair, sports is just the context here, providing the framework to explore a classic, text book example of the challenges of change management put to practice – Beane has to deal with going against traditional concepts, fighting negativity and the fear of transformation. Despite all the time spent in locker rooms and tobacco spitting offices, director Bennett Miller manages to capture the unbearable sense of anticipation in the games that are played (seen or heard mostly off-screen or as aftermaths, we rarely see any match in its entirety) by way of Beane’s insistence on not being present at any of the games, but still keeping tabs on what’s happening by way or radio or text messages. The fresh execution of the subject is aided by the script, credited to both Sorkin and Steve Zaillian, who make the film topical, serious and witty in a way that only experts could. Few films can get you excited about a subject you don’t care about or even completely understand. Moneyball does just that and this is perhaps its greatest achievement.