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.

Tree of Life

Few films can compete with the magnificent ambitions of Terrence Malick’s Tree of Life. It is perhaps the only film in recent memory that spans from the beginning of time to the end of the universe. That it finds the space and breadth to show us an intimate, personal, sometimes scattershot story of three boys growing up in Texas during the 50’s is quite extraordinary.

At once about many things and yet something quite specific, the centerpiece is a story about the O’Brien children and the growing pains of living up to the demands of their strict disciplinary father (a brooding Brad Pitt), authoritative to a fault. Beautiful and elegant with its indelible imagery and full of ideas, my mind found it hard to look away even while my thoughts battled to keep up with the endless montage of seemingly disconnected sequences that represented the many phases of life – birth, growth, love, rebellion, guilt, death. The film is in fact a requiem for the past and its entire synthesis is triggered by a scene early on where Jack (Sean Penn, playing the eldest son as an adult) remembers the day his family learned of the death of his brother.

Tree of Life’s concepts are overarching and it is grand in scale to the point where it seems fallible – something that has always threatened all of Malick’s previous films as well. Having by now perfected his elliptical, perceptive style, heavily reliant on internal monologues that sound like hushed prayers and a non-conventional narrative devoted to exploring the natural surroundings of the story as intimately as the actors that inhabit it, the film furthers this unique approach to unprecedented levels. The segment most likely to confound viewers is one that digresses from a pivotal moment in the storyline, where the family first learns of the demise of the second son, and takes us back, literally, to the formation of the world.

As astonishing in its realization, beauty, and insight as it might be, it is still reasonable to question why a film that largely functions as the memories that form when reminiscing about the past, should go all the way back and show us, in a careful mashup of creationism and evolution, the very beginning of life itself. In retrospect, it adds perspective, telling us about our rightful place in the birth of the violent cosmos, and reaffirming the notion that, in the span of things, we are mere specks. Such ideas may seem obtuse or silly to those not used to Malick’s body of work, largely consisting of equally challenging films that fully utilize the core ingredients of filmmaking – sound, visuals, editing – but to the informed viewer, it adds greater appreciation for the director.

Intimately opening up his own childhood and laying it bare for viewers (many of the things that happen seem to be wrought from the inner workings of a subjective past), Malick’s anecdotal script is rivetingly composed of events that will seem like universal truths to many – the idleness of youth, the discovery that our world is a mysterious, enigmatic and sometimes confusing place. Tree of Life has many achievements, but for the inquisitive mind it’s the encapsulation of all of these feelings into its dense structure that is most striking. Note how the film effortlessly shifts from scenes of dinner table conflicts, where the father near-hits a son for interrupting him, to the unadulterated joy of finding out that he is away on a trip and they are now liberated.

For Malick aficionados it’s worth noting that despite feeling like a culmination of all of the director’s unique motifs, Tree of Life is also the first film in his inimitable repertoire to have scenes set in the present and they are as sterile and cold as anything you’d expect from the point of view of someone who yearns for and respects natural surroundings. Detached from the formal methods of film creation, his work may seem lose, unstructured and brooding to some for all the wrong reasons, but there is no denying it is exquisitely realized and never undisciplined. If nothing, it makes all the effects based, 3D/CGI garbage being released week after week at cineplex’s look meaningless and hollow. Tree of Life not only demands careful viewing, but even more time contemplating about it.

Immortals

If you get tricked into watching Immortals thinking it might offer a retread of the visual thrills from 300 you will soon discover it doesn’t even qualify as a wannabe. The all too familiar settings, abysmal performance and especially murky visuals guarantee a bad time at the movies.

Director Tarsem Singh, who gave us two stellar (and non-CGI heavy) films in the past – The Cell and The Fall – miscalculates in what he describes as an action film using Renaissance paintings. These paintings are actually awful looking backdrops that feel dull and look dreadful. There is no sense of scope or time and the excessive use of digital fakery oscillates between nauseating or overwhelming. The mythology itself is only half interesting anyway where nefarious King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) embarks on a vicious quest to find the Epirus Bow, capable of releasing captured Titans. These Titans are Hyperion’s only means of fighting the new Gods, Olympians, on whom he has waged war, but his plans are thwarted by Theseus (Henry Cavill, to be seen next in the caped garb of Superman), a peasant out to avenge the killing of his mother.

Like nearly every other filmic adaptation of a mythological tale, Immortals feels hokey and is overstuffed with banal conversations devoid of any emotional resonance that only serve to punctuate the transition between fight sequences. Tarsem’s eye for visual innovation (such as the opening scene) is lost in a sea of dimly lit, poorly realized effects. What makes Immortals worse is that as a page out of Greek mythology, it isn’t a very captivating either and the last act, where Gods fight amidst the humans, gives the term deus ex machina a whole new (and quite frankly preposterous) meaning.

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn is a marvelous movie. It perfectly embodies the beauty of Hergé’s unique visuals with modern animation and motion capture technology, all unfurled on screen with producer/director Steven Spielberg’s master story-telling and child-like energy. Combining their creative genius, Spielberg and co-producer Peter Jackson (whose studio Weta Digital is behind the visuals) make the dream of Tintin fans everywhere come true by presenting the much loved character and his adventures in the best possible way. While the movie does become overbearing at times, owing to its manic pace, it revels in the wonders and freedom of animation, uninhibited by the constraints a live-action adaptation would have imposed.

Tintin (voiced by Jamie Bell), a young journalist, and his dog Snowy are cast into an adventure when “The Unicorn”, a model ship he purchases at a market, becomes the object of everyone’s attention. Ivan Sakharine (voiced by Daniel Craig) tries to buy if off Tintin, but when he refuses, it is eventually stolen from his home. As Tintin embarks on a quest to discover the truth about the ship and its secrets, he stumbles into Captain Haddock (voiced by Andy Serkis) who seems to know more about the mystery than he cares to admit or can even remember. Together, they take on Sakharine in the race to unravel the secret of The Unicorn.

The movie, though it is titled “The Secret of the Unicorn”, is an amalgam of three books: The Crab with the Golden Claws, The Secret of the Unicorn, and Red Rackham’s Treasure. The credited scriptwriters do an excellent job of providing the necessary character introductions while retaining the best bits from the books. In doing so, however, the storyline strays from how the events unfold in each of those three three books. Yet, fans will have little to complain about considering the narrative and pacing are a compliment to Hergé himself. While recent adaptations such as 300 and Sin City have been lauded for how faithful they have been in the transition from comic-book panels to the cinema screens, The Adventures of Tintin takes the next evolutionary step, buoyed by the boundless talents of one of the best directors working in the medium today. Undoubtedly, the biggest reason that Tintin works is the visuals. Weta Digital presents us with a world that walks a fine line between realistec and animated. The texture and backgrounds of this world are photorealistic, while the characters seem like living, breathing 3D counterparts of Hergé’s comic book creations.

It does not take long to be completely taken in by the movie’s love of exuberance. Tintin shares its dynamic sense of fun with Spielberg’s first Indiana Jones movie Raiders of the Lost Ark. References to his past movies, most prominently Jaws, and Spielberg’s recurring motifs only serves to make the entire movie experience all the more enjoyable. Even so, the breakneck pacing catches up and the last action set-piece seems a bit over the top. In other instances, the floating camera (that’s Peter Jackson there) is too quick, causing an uneasiness associated with the use of 3D technology. Though the movie is not perfect, its snags are far and few. The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn is ample proof of how much fun nearly two hours in the cinema can be.

Is it fair to support a film only because it is different? Another Earth is cut from the same cloth as what is commonly labelled the art house film or as known to the cinematically savvy, independent cinema. It is contemplative and quite, thoughtful and intriguing, very low budget but above all, never unoriginal, which is reason enough to insist on viewing it.

To be fair, the film, about a great loss, a cautious romance and an ironic opportunity at redemption, is good because it constantly feeds you with ideas. Co-writer Brit Marling, who performs double duty playing the lead role of Rhoda, deserves heaps of praise for handling her character’s delicate situation convincingly. As a college student, Rhoda is imprisoned for causing the accidental death of two people in a family during a night of drunk driving after being distracted by the sight of another Earth in the sky. Once released after her 4 year prison term is up, she tries to face John (William Mapother), the only surviving member of the family from the accident.  John never learned of her identify because she was a minor at the time and he now lives in perpetual mourning, but Rhoda’s guilt prevents her from revealing who she really is and their continuous encounters eventually lead to a relationship. The backdrop of this is an effort by scientists to initiate contact and possibly plan a trip to the nearby planet, now dubbed Earth 2, which piques the interest of both Rhoda and John for different reasons.

Director Mike Cahill, who worked with Marling on the script, uses cinéma vérité’s documentary feel to let the film remain natural looking and detached, and while this may be a turn off for some, it augments the script’s mysterious nature. While the performances aren’t always even and Cahill’s direction is sometimes clunky, some of the heavy handed metaphoric motifs – Rhoda feeling alienated on this Earth and wanting to leave it for instance – only makes it more apparent that this is the work of first time filmmakers and therefore forgiveable.

To call the film science fiction is misleading. While it has the elements of the genre, it is never encapsulated by it and remains, on the surface at least, a relationship drama. The film is at its strongest when it is suggesting things to us. Could there be life on this other planet? What if we found out it was exactly identical to our own, right down to having the very same people? If that second question seems intriguing, then know that the film goes places with it, especially during the absorbing third act and also with its metaphysical ending, and because of this succeeds in lingering in your memory with probing thoughts and countless uncertainties. In its own introspective way, Another Earth is moving and delicate and only underscores that as human beings, we are life’s greatest wonder.

Shawn Levy, director of Real Steel, makes an admirable transition from comedy to mainstream-drama. I say mainstream-drama because, even though the movie is set in the near future, it isn’t really much of a Sci-Fi. This future world features fighting robots, but the focus of the movie is on a father-son relationship. Despite the familiarity of many of the scenes, Levy makes it work mainly due to the charismatic lead actor that Hugh Jackman is and the novelty of the backdrop that the story is set against.

Adapted from Richard Matheson’s short story Steel, the movie follows Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman), a reckless man who seldom gives much thought to his instinctive decisions. Once a promising boxer when human fights were still legal, he now lives out of a trailer, trying to make a living out of robot-boxing. When saddled with his long estranged son (Dakota Goyo) for a summer, father and son team up to put together a robot, Atom, which the 11-year old reckons can take them to the championship.

Although Shawn Levy is more known for his inane comedies (Pink Panther and Night at the Museum among others), he proved himself more competent with 2010’s Date Night. With Real Steel, he breaks further away from his comfort zone and enhances his resume. As a staple offering of the genre, Real Steel suffers from a simplified plot and contrived scenes that are clearly meant to please the crowds. Even so, the movie has heart. It is easy to root for the underdog Atom, though its wins come across as too convenient if given some thought. The robot-boxing sequences though are a spectacle. These robots are mercifully realized as burly and heavy metal machines, not light-weight acrobatic marvels; this makes the fights exciting. When Atom steps into the ring for the final fight, it has dents (bruises?) on its body.

Real Steel, though, also suffers from being predictable and mediocre in many parts. Shawn Levy limits his motive. He does not try to be too ambitious, instead settling for being safe. He sets the movie away from big cities, evoking a decidedly small-town appeal. Yet, even with the robots, his movie’s biggest draw is its leading man, Hugh Jackman. His Kenton grows from careless to caring, and Jackman makes him believable and identifiable – when cocky or vulnerable. Despite not setting any new precedents or being too memorable, Real Steel proves to be a good time at the cinema. Without slowing down too often for the dramatic parts, the movie engages for most of its 127 minute run-time. While it may be an enjoyable yet forgettable movie, Real Steel hints at better work from Shawn Levy in the near future.

That old adage about how a film is not ‘what it’s about but how it’s about it’ is very true of Drive. Watching it evokes a familiar feeling, but it’s also unorthodox in many ways, especially in its visual stylization. Director Nicolas Winding Refn does wonders with the minimalist script and turns the film into one of the most hypnotic cinema experiences of the year.

The story seems conventional but bear with me. A man known only as the Driver (Ryan Gosling, in a performance of understated brilliance) works part time as a stunt car racer for Hollywood B movies when he’s not fixing cars at a garage. He also secretly moonlights as the getaway guy for criminals, being the wheels of the crime. When he gets involved with his neighbour Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her son, whose husband is about to return from prison and needs help keeping out of trouble with the mobs, things get complicated and very, very violent.

As a film experience, Drive relies heavily on its low-key mood and deliberate pacing, a hallmark of its director, to carry it through these introductions and setups. It almost seems eerie in the silence of those early scenes. The opening heist for example is nearly wordless and Gosling’s man for hire is also a man of very few words. These aspects works strongly in the films favour. When later we see him taking charge of situations going out of control, the intensity he displays has a white-knuckle edginess about it. There is a scene where he threatens a woman who may have double crossed him with nothing but his gloved, clenched fists and you see the conviction in his eyes. This is not someone you would want to mess with, especially if both of you were behind the steering wheel.

A lot of what makes Drive work, and it works extremely well, relies on its execution and technique. Low lying camera work, extreme close-ups, cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel’s choice of lighting (look closely at the radiance shifts in the brilliant elevator scene which turn that moment into a crazed dream), but above all, Refn’s inventive direction lift the film from its generic pulp setting and turn it into art house fare. Even the choice of synthesized songs on its soundtrack give it a distinct, cool retro feel and Drive is equally a homage to the violent exploitation films of the 70’s as it is to film noir.

If the romance at the centre of the film, from which extends the main thrust of the protagonist, feels clunky, it is because it probably has no basis in reality and in observing this we realize that the film isn’t as realistic as it is fantastic. The Driver’s need to help Irene and his misplaced idea of heroism puts him in the same league as perhaps Travis Bickle. The old school machismo that he demonstrates however is rare in today’s film world and he is surrounded by terrific supporting characters, both good and bad, who make LA seem raw and unpretentious. When it unloads in its last act, Drive is horrifically brutal and precise. The film is neither for the faint of heart nor for those who are looking for something conventional. If you venture into it knowing this, your viewership will be aptly rewarded.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

A decade long series comes to an end with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, a grand finale of emotions and explosions as the real and reel worlds witness the final face-off between arch-enemies Harry Potter and Voldemort. As Deathly Hallows: Part 1 suggested, director David Yates pulls out all the stops, giving the audience everything they had hoped for from this franchise climax, and even making up for much that many of the previous movies lacked. Amidst the magnitude of the setting and the action that takes place, Yates never loses focus of the emotional core of the plot, doing justice to the many characters that populate its wizarding world.

Dark Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) has acquired the Elder Wand, the most powerful magic wand there is, intending to use it to kill his one and only opponent, Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), the boy who survived. Harry Potter, with friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson), continues his quest to seek out and destroy the remaining horcruxes, magical objects that contain fragments of Voldemort’s soul, intending to reduce his power and render him vulnerable. The two enemies will eventually battle to death at the one place that nurtured them and gave them power: Hogwarts, the final battleground of good vs evil.

Much like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1, Part 2 starts on an ominous note, this time picking up exactly from where we last saw the characters. The film continues with the final leg of the journey of the lead trio, maintaining subdued colors and frequent close-ups of the main characters to exude the morose outlook the wizarding world faces. Even so, Yates does a perfect balance of emotional involvement and large-scale action sequences. As expected, the movie is a spectacle of special effects and locations, owing to the last feat the lead trio have to perform before the final battle. Raiding an underground vault of Gringotts, the wizarding world’s bank and the resistance at Hogwarts castle are the two major set-pieces of this movie, both accomplished with as much visual splendor as the scenes required and that which modern CGI technology can achieve. The elaborate score adds to the visuals to truly make this last installment as epic as should be.

In their infinite wisdom and greed, the studio and creative behind the movie had decided to split the last book into two movies. Whatever the motive, the decision proved itself in the result: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Parts 1 & 2 combine to do justice to the source material as well as prove to be the best movies of the franchise. David Yates, in his fourth consecutive outing with the series, has finally made a movie that is equally deserving of the accolades that the books have generally received. The revelations and references littered through-out Deathly Hallows: Part 1 which made the movie cryptic for non-followers bear fruit in this movie, mainly to explain the many past events as well as provide closure to numerous sub-plots, primary of which is of Alan Rickman’s Professor Snape. The explanation for his motivations acts as an emotional crescendo, again proving the dexterity of Yates.

For now, this is the final part of the Harry Potter world, with no more movies scheduled. Unfortunately, the series has not much to look back to, with most of the movies being rush-jobs to get through the labyrinth plot of the individual books by directors who were clueless about where the many characters and sub-plots end up, physically and emotionally. Yet, Harry Potter and his friends will be remembered fondly down the decades, owing to this fantastic two-piece finale.