Reviews

Plot and Script

What if you could become a whole new person and often? Would you know who you are? Does our job define who we are? Or does one have to introspect often to figure out the reason fro their existence?

These are some questions Complete Unknown tries to answer. Alice played by Rachel Weisz enters into Tom's (Michael Shannon) life by what seems like stalking but it is clarified that they were lovers – 15 years ago. Lovers who fell apart because Tom had a path in life to tread and Alice wanted no such thing.

Alice took off without telling a soul leading her parents and Tom to think she was dead. She underwent complete transformations to become different people in different countries – biologist, nurse, magician's assistant and many more.

But the lack of permanency is what brings her back to Tom whose definition of static is what is driving a wedge in his life and between him and his wife. What happens when Tom and Alice meet at his birthday party surrounded by his friends who think Alice is an enigma? Do they buy her tales of taking off or think she is a pathological liar?

This is movie is a one-night tale and has a solid premise which unfortunately doesn't hold until the end.

Characterization and Acting (C&A)

Acting by Weisz and Shannon was very strong – we see both their points of view of who they think they are and self-imposed limitations. There are cameos by Kathy Bates and Danny Glover who are great but I don't know why they were important. Tom's friends were OK too but didn't really build into these characters. That's one reason where it fell short in this department – I didn't care enough for all the characters.

Sounds and Effects (S&E)

The background score was effective and the scenes which take you back to what Alice was at a given point in time were extremely 'tidy'.

Cinematography and Visuals (C&V)

I think this was one of the stronger aspects of the film. The movie looks great and the visuals are awesome in most settings.

Direction and Overall (D &O)

Amazon studios and Joshua Marston tried to make a great movie with an okay'ish script and that is what led this movie to not be great! There were many loopholes in the script and the story and characters never really develop fully.

So here are my scores:

Plot and Script (P&S)- 1.0

Characterization and Acting (C&A) – 1.5

Sounds and Effects (S&E) – 1.0

Cinematography and Visuals (C&V) – 1.5

Direction and Overall (D &O) – 1.0

Overall Score – 6.0 out of 10

One time watch but forgettable.

First reviewed on 'broth of blogs' on word-press. OK lets start with the good. The special effects were spectacular - I am just another one who feels it was Kaleidoscope-y/Inception-y but really, they looked great. But was there anything else?

Cumberbatch as Dr. Strange was good, but not as great as Downey as Tony Stark like most people are comparing. I mean Stark was so much more defined. I didn't even see why people are saying there are comparisons - there were like 2 scenes where Strange is shown to be an egotist and a brazenly rude genius. I didn't really care he lost his hands but I did care when Stark was being held hostage because they developed the character there you see. With Strange, they just fast forwarded without showing anything.

I didn't really care for the whole mysticism and magic - I mean I know and have read about chakras and energy and what one can do with practices like Pranic Healing and Reiki. The whole Kamar Taj nonsense just felt so superficial, fake even. You send Strange up to Everest and he learns magic because he can't take the cold? Come on folks!

I really like the chemistry between Stark and Potts because, again, they gave it time to develop. We do see some history here with Strange and his ex-love interest Christine Palmer but I didn't feel any emotions when he insults her because that is what he has always done and says sorry when he realizes that he has been a dick all the while.

There was just too much going on with the plot too. Instead of the film makers taking time to develop the characters and just sticking to one world-disaster waiting to happen, they just zipped past the jerk-turned- superhero-saves-the-world bit. You see, some of the other superheros are more common, I mean most people would know the stories of Superman or Iron Man or Avengers. But Doctor Strange, they needed more of a back story. Not exposition, of where there was just too much in the movie.

And what was Tilda Swinton doing in the movie? They could have at-least taken an Asian as the ancient one. Don't even get me started on Chiwetel Ejiofor and his role in the movie. He just looked gave up too easily being the Master and all.

I could just go on and on about it but I will stop.

Folks, I don't have anything against the actors, I think they did what they were asked to and they did it to the best of their abilities - I blame the greedy studios, trying to make another superhero movie just to fit the MIU. This could have been great, memorable even, if they had just given it time.

I think the only memorable thing in the movie was Benedict Wong as Wong. Lol, he was funny.

First reviewed on broth of blogs.This movie about a nurse Lily (Ruth Wilson) who comes to take care of an old author, Iris Blum, living alone in a remote house. Iris is almost senile and speaks to Lily only referring to her as Polly. Lily finds out that Polly was Iris's most famous character and she attempts reading one of the books that Iris has written. And something happens.

The story is simple enough but is still cryptic. I didn't get a few parts but I don't think I care. It is about the forgotten lives in the house. The movie is poetic (literally) and I quite enjoyed it.

Characterization and Acting (C&A)

Characterization was done well, I would have probably liked some exposition but I think this movie is supposed to be puzzling. Ruth Wilson plays the part to perfection - scared, vulnerable and alone. She really looks like she is going to have a heart attack anytime. Its totally her show as she probably has 80 minutes screen time of 90 minutes of the movie.

Sounds and Effects (S&E)

The background of this movie is just mind blowing. It is the scariest I have heard till date. Has this weird ability to spook you as well even if nothing scary is happening. Full points here. There weren't any jump scares and it is all left to your imagination at the end.

Cinematography and Visuals (C&V)

Like I said the movie is poetic. It is slow, there isn't much of a story but it moves you and creeps you out. They didn't overdo the actual horror which works in the movie's favor. The lighting was great and the setting itself eerie. Great stuff.

Direction and Overall (D &O)

Overall, the movie looked and sounded great. The acting was really good I thought. Only complaint I have is that maybe it could have had a little more exposition to actually understand some stuff which wasn't clear.

So here are my scores:

Plot and Script (P&S)- 1

Characterization and Acting (C&A) – 1

Sounds and Effects (S&E) – 2.0

Cinematography and Visuals (C&V) – 1.5

Direction and Overall (D &O) – 1

Overall Score – 6.5 out of 10

Good watch for Halloween 2016! Just be patient, the movie is not as long as its title!!

Jessica Alba, Lily Rabe (from the American Horror Story) and Thomas Jane (from The Mist fame) star in this low-budget horror film and I admit, the star cast itself made me want to see the movie. Its on Netflix and its fairly a recent release, so I was like why not. The movie has some surprises which I didn't anticipate, so I am making sure this review does not have spoilers.

First reviewed on broth of blogs

It connects to a true story about Jim Jones, played by Thomas Jane and how he ordered mass suicides, which resulted in the greatest single loss of American civilian life in a deliberate act until the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Plot and Script

25 years after a cult commits what looks like a mass-suicide, the lone survivor Sarah Hope (Rabe) decides to go back to the house where it all happened. Only this time, she has Alba and her crew to film her reactions. Alba has another motive – she is the daughter of the FBI agent who raided the place and her father committed suicide just days after the raid. Alba feels connected to Rabe because the same incident destroyed both their families. Upon arriving at the crime scene, weird things start happening and they discover tapes that the leader of the cult, Jane had recorded. They find out the main purpose of the cult was not just to follow their leader, but more sinister.

Without going into details, the plot has major holes. There is no explanation about how the crew who is watching the tape is able to see the incidents like they were actually there – and so you as the audience, is even more confused. The first 30 minutes is really interesting but then it starts tumbling down without logic.

Characterization and Acting (C&A)

Thomas Jane gives a great performance as the leader of the cult and you can see why people would follow him. Its amazing how some of these guys can brainwash an entire sect but that's the power that ordinary people give these guys.

Alba and Rabe were just OK, no great shakes. The others didn't have much of a part to play.

The thing that annoyed me most was that when weird things start happening, they would be like, ya okay, this is nothing. Wouldn't you be on the edge? Wouldn't you not volunteer to go alone into a house where you heard whispers?

Well, our characters did all those stupid things and more.

Sounds and Effects (S&E)

Another thing I hate about horror movies nowadays are the nonsensical jump scenes. Just putting a loud noise with a sudden break in the visual is not called a jump scare people, its just noise. I think some of the more nuanced filmmakers understand that – like James Wan. When you see his movies, you will realize that he uses sounds to build up the tension, not just use a loud sound to make you jump.

Cinematography and Visuals (C&V)

A large part of the movie is in the dark, so it is a little difficult to see but the I like the look of the film. It is deliberately washed out to convey the tragedy. The old films of the cult also show the 70s/80s where everything was so sepia and hippie.

Direction and Overall (D &O)

I wish the movie didn't take a super-natural turn. The first half hour had so much promise. And I wish the story explained more of what was happening – the reactions to some of the incidents in the house were just idiotic and unexplained.

So here are my scores:

Plot and Script (P&S)- 0.5

Characterization and Acting (C&A) – 1

Sounds and Effects (S&E) – 1

Cinematography and Visuals (C&V) – 1.5

Direction and Overall (D &O) – 1

Overall Score – 5 out of 10

Watch it if you are really really bored and you have tonnes of time, its on Netflix. First reviewed on broth of blogs on wordpress

If you can't do everything for your family, be a dick and do NOTHING. There is no middle ground. Well, it felt like that was the message that Bad Moms was sending out. So here is my review of the movie and the scoring system that I started from my previous review, of Lights Out.

First reviewed on broth of blogs

Plot and Script (P&S)

Mila Kunis is a super busy, underpaid, working mom with 2 kids and a good for nothing husband. She is trying her best to keep to schedules and wants of the really demanding head of PTA Christina Applegate. But she has had enough and she snaps one day. She is joined by Kathyryn Hahn and Kristen Bell who are equally tired of doing everything on their own. They decide that it is high time to do nothing and indulge – in parties, alcohol and sex. What ensues is what Bad Moms is about.

While I understand what the story is trying to portray, I don't get the direction they took. I mean indulgence could be a vacation or a few parties but who goes out to a grocery store and runs about like a crazy person? What does it take to be a good mom? Does a term like that even exist? Does a bad mom only look to herself? Well, such questions have been answered but in the most shallow way possible.

Characterization and Acting (C&A)

Mila Kunis is OK as the main lead, she does portray the frustration of being overworked well. But it still feels like she is in a role, doing a film – it doesn't look real. Like the almost real mom Susan Sarandon from Stepmom. Mila Kunis's husband is a complete throwaway character – just to show that he is useless and an idiot.

Kathyryn Hahn portrays a single mom whose only job is to talk about men and say some really sad jokes – I didn't get her character at all. It looked like she was having a good time anyway – she didn't have to be a bad mom to do that. Kristen Bell is good as this timid wife who obeys her husband and brings out her wild personality once turning to the bad mom side. The best part of the movie was Christina Applegate who looked like a real bully and task-master – she was the only one who looked like she was playing a real person.

Sounds and Effects (S&E)

The songs in the movie were actually a little annoying and I didn't really care about the rest of the effects.

Cinematography and Visuals (C&V)

Nothing great again.

Direction and Overall (D & O)

The script is so overused in Hollywood that I thought maybe this was different. It wasn't. It was as shallow as ever and the direction was just okay. Again, if the plot is zero, then there is nothing much the crew can do. The marketing was well done for the movie – the build up looked like it was a completely new take on moms. But if people think that being a good mom is all about doing everything on your own and not teaching your kids/spouse to share responsibility then they have got it all wrong, haven't they?

So here are my scores:

Plot and Script (P&S)- 0.5

Characterization and Acting (C&A) – 0.5 (Only for Christina Applegate)

Sounds and Effects (S&E) – 0.5

Cinematography and Visuals (C&V) – 0.5

Direction and Overall (D &O) – 0.5

Overall score – 2.5 on 10

If you want to leave your brains aside and just go watch a mindless movie, then give it a shot. Don't tell me I didn't warn you though! First reviewed on broth of blogs.

For those of you who grew up watching Pingu and Chicken Run, Kubo and the two strings will bring back sweet memories. Kubo pushes the stop- motion category to a completely new level. For the uninitiated, stop- motion is like watching a puppet-show without strings – its a whole world of miniature figurines which are moved slowly to capture incremental changes in motion through the camera. Considering your usual CGI-animation, stop-motion is way more work and sweat. It is Travis Knight's directorial venture (CEO of Laika, the production house and son of owner of Laika, Phil Knight) and he creates a powerful story, pushing boundaries like never before in stop-motion.

First reviewed on broth of blogs

Plot and Script (P&S)

It is clear that Knight has taken inspiration from legendary film makers like Akira Kurosawa and others. Kubo is a simple enough story set in the samurai land and feels like a folklore that we all have heard. The innocent boy, the hero, who sets on a quest to avenge his father's death with his two friends – Monkey and Beetle without realizing that they are his parents, well almost. The Moon King, Kubo's grandfather, loses his daughter to Hanzo (Kubo's father) and the king and his other two daughters set out to kill Kubo's family. What follows is an epic battle of an under-dog and a powerful nemesis, shown in the most beautiful way.

I am a big fan of animation and love the really creative concepts that are shown in animation. From a vegetarian shark (Shark Tale) to providing electricity with a child's screams/laughs (Monster's Inc) are all concepts that have really shown that each animated movie is just another powerful story to be told. That is my only little issue with Kubo – it seems like a very simple story and not too innovative. But considering the limitation they had with this format, I can't complain too much.

Characterization and Acting (C&A)

I really liked the characters. There was magic in each one of them, like literally. The monkey (Charlize Theron) and the beetle (Matthew McConaughey) were just awesome and their chemistry, brilliant. The evil sisters, voiced by Roony Mara were perfect – dark witches who are so evil that they won't spare even their sister's son. The moon king, who was the ultimate villain was a little anti-climactic for me, I expected him to be a little more sinister and his objective of killing the family a little more evil. But other than that, all characters did their part and added to the magic of the story.

Here are some images from behind the scenes and the intricate details of how the characters were made in miniature.

Sounds and Effects (S&E)

The music is so melancholic, it draws you in. I loved the string play that Kubo does every once in a while, really feels like you are in the story. Can't say much here, I liked it all.

Cinematography and Visuals (C&V)

The look of the movie was just great – the characters, the long drawn action sequences (extremely difficult in stop-motion) and the surroundings were just awesome. The tiny village, the sea and the home that was once Kubo's are just perfect setting to a visual treat that Kubo and the two strings is. Some of my best sequences were with the enchanted origami paper – they were just brilliant. It reminded of Ninjai, the little Ninja – a web based animation that also tells the story of a young samurai.

The editing could have been a wee-bit sharper as sometimes I didn't understand a couple of things.

Direction and Overall (D &O)

I think Travis Knight and Laika did a stupendous job with this movie. After reading about how difficult it is doing stop-motion, I am more respectful for this format and appreciate the beauty of some of the sequences more. The film is a little long and does slow down in a couple of spots so that is something that not everyone will enjoy.

So here are my scores according to my new system:

Plot and Script (P&S)- 1.5

Characterization and Acting (C&A) – 1.5

Sounds and Effects (S&E) – 2.0

Cinematography and Visuals (C&V) – 1.5

Direction and Overall (D &O) – 1.5

Overall Score – 8.5 out of 10

Kubo is not everyone's cup of tea but I urge you to watch it once for the innocence, the power of a visual story and the deep spiritual connection and conviction that the characters have – great for all ages.

First reviewed on broth of blogs

You might also like

Jungle Book

In between all the big studio movies of Thor, Avengers and Captain America, Chris Evans finds some time to direct his debut with this quiet, subdued film about two strangers falling in love in one night.

Plot and Script (P&S)

Nick Vaughan (Evans) and Brooke Dalton (Alice Eve) meet by accident in New York subway when Dalton misses her last train from NY to Boston. She must get back before her husband, else all hell will break loose. Vaughan, a struggling musician, decides to help her and get her to Boston. He himself is in NY to audition in front of a music legend but also because his ex, who he thinks is her soulmate, is there.

The film is about this night, when these two strangers help each other through their worst fears, falling in love in the process.

Frankly, I was sold on the description of the movie on Netflix so I found the story and the plot quite sweet. It is a take on soul mates, how one might feel that there is someone out their who is perfect for you. But they obviously didn't get into the details and it did seem a little implausible that two strangers would fall in love without knowing too much about each other.

Characterization and Acting (C&A)

I liked the characters of Vaughan and Dalton, they seemed real enough. Though Dalton/Eve broke out in her natural English accent every once in a while, which was a little weird. And there is also the question of trusting a stranger in NY. It just seemed too easy. Anyways, it is a story and a probable one at that. Dalton is not happy in her marriage and I can see how she might be attracted to Vaughan and vice-versa.

The acting was okay-ish, though sometime Evans has limited expressions on his face. Evans was also too-nice a person in the movie, though likable. The dialogue was not too great – it was pretty standard for a romance and nothing new.

Sounds and Effects (S&E)

The sounds were really good in this movie. The night sounds of NY were quite real I felt and the music was good too.

Cinematography and Visuals (C&V)

The feel of the movie was very charming. The editing was good, it was slow and gentle in places it was supposed to be and the visuals were stunning. The magic of NY in the night was so beautifully captured, it was amazing.

Direction and Overall (D &O)

Well, I liked Chris Evan's debut as a director – obviously it was not perfect but it was a really good romantic flick. It was sensible, felt real and the sequences were logical. It was a straight forward meet-cute and I wish there was some inventiveness to the story.

So here are my scores according to my new system:

Plot and Script (P&S)- 1.0

Characterization and Acting (C&A) – 1.0

Sounds and Effects (S&E) – 1.0

Cinematography and Visuals (C&V) – 1.5

Direction and Overall (D &O) – 1.5

Overall Score – 6.0 out of 10

Watch it one of those days when you want to see a new romance, when you are tired of all your already watched romcoms and you will like it.

First reviewed on broth of blogs on wordpress

You might also like:

Mother's Day

Bad Moms

Seven Pounds

I admit, I didn't know much about the Suicide Squad characters and who is in the 'bad guys' team and neither did I try to read up too much about them.

Maybe that is why I thoroughly enjoyed the movie.

Ya it had its weaknesses. It had big plot holes (like why would a super- witch fight in a hand-to-hand combat when she could take away all the weapons?) and lies as marketing (where was Jared Leto as the next-crazy- method-acting-maniacal Joker other than those few minutes on the screen?), but if you leave all that aside, it was a fun watch.

Lets look at the bad first. We didn't get to know the back stories of the characters except Dead Shot, played by Will Smith; who is a hit-man but a devoted father and Harley Quinn, played brilliantly by Margot Robbie, the psychiatrist who falls in love with the Joker and he makes her into a over-the-top-sexual deranged, crazy person. I still don't know about the characters which is a pity. And that is one of the big problems isn't it?

Why would they fight as a squad when there is nothing in common for them to fight for?- they were let free after Rick Flag destroys the instrument that could be used to blow the bomb-chips inside their bodies. Why would Diablo, played well by Jay Hernandez who is guilty as hell of killing his own family join forces with a bunch of crazies? Who is Killer-Croc, what is his story? Why does Boomerang keep a stuffed- horse with him? So the whole movie was not driven by characters – which was what it was supposed to be.

The climax reminded me of Ghostbusters – the Sigourney Weaver one where she gets possessed and tries to bring hell on earth – which doesn't say much. The climax should have been more, I wanted more.

But in spite of many loopholes, me as an average movie goer will love this movie, especially if I don't know much about the actual Suicide Squad. I was entertained, pretty much through the movie (compared to the recent ones I saw like Independence Day and Jason Bourne) – it was paced okay, there were some light moments and I loved Margot Robbie – she was made into this sexual-bimbo, but which heroine today isn't? At least she owned the craziness that the character is supposed to own. It was her movie along with Will Smith's who showed the swagger that he owns.

Come on people, don't overthink this one when you are watching it and you will have fun.

Jason Bourne is back with a receding gray hairline but as macho as ever. He beat up so many guys in this movie, even after a decade of being out of practice that I think someone should make Bourne Vs. Bond – that would be a more interesting plot-line compared to this 2 hour repetition I saw in Jason Bourne.

There was no story at all – I mean just because the previous 3 movies were one of the best trilogies in the world, it shouldn't warrant another sequel. The acting was OK – Matt Damon looked haggard and tired which I can believe considering he has been at brawls in the last decade. Alicia Vikander as the double agent did a half decent job though she pretty much had just one expression through the movie but I still forgive her because she is a novice, maybe she thought she can better the original trilogy by being part of the movie. Tommy Lee Jones should take a break and enjoy his life, he is just too old to be playing FBI and it was the most superficial acting I have seen from a seasoned actor like him.

In previous Bourne movies, we had a compelling story, we were all rooting for Bourne to find out what had happened to him and were on the edge of our seats when he gets the so called justice in Bourne Ultimatum. In Jason Bourne, the only hook was for him to find what happened before Operation Blackbriar. The social media sub-plot, the Alica Vikander sub-plot, all of it just seemed unnecessary and repetitive. Some of the action scenes were good too, but we have seen many of those already played out before in the previous ones. So nothing new there.

Some of the scenes were just unbelievable too. I mean all movies have some scenes where you go, 'Yeah right, that can't happen in real life' but this one takes the cake. For instance, Bourne, the most wanted man on the planet, gets in to the United States of America and people visual ID him only after a few hours? Even if Alica Vikander meddled with the software to let him, isn't he the most famous double agent fugitive? And he didn't even know he would be helped, but he still decided to take a chance to enter US? The man who has been trained to make no mistakes. What was he planning to do if he got recognized? Bomb the airport? Absolutely ridiculous. The best part was there was a guy in our theater who just kept laughing out loud when such a unreal scene played out. Like he knew that can never happen, not even in a movie.

Sorry Mr. Greengrass, I am too much of a fan of the original story and trilogy to give you the benefit of the doubt and say 'It was good… Just not as good as the original'. I am saying, please don't take treasures like the Bourne trilogy and try to make more gold out of it. They are best if left alone.

Watching a horror movie alone in a theater.

Check.

Watching a horror movie alone in a theater, with nobody else there.

Well, almost check.

I had about 5 more people sitting at the back. So it still felt like I was the only one in that big room watching on the big screen.

Conjuring 2, as most people would know by now follows Ed and Lorraine Warren to the famous or rather infamous Enfield case in London. The Enfield case itself was quite widely covered by tabloids and some daily's but is also considered mostly a hoax. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that it was not real. This site – History Vs. Hollywood covers it quite well.

James Wan has taken quite a few creative liberties with this case as the Warrens were just two of the many paranormal investigators who visited the Hodgsons and they were there only for a day to investigate. But having said that, I really liked the movie. James Wan has the craft to show the audience a horror without it being a slug or gore or bad makeup fest – he has the ability to build on the characters so well that you actually care for them. That is a hard thing to do in films. If you do not care for the main characters, then the film is almost as good as dead.

The story itself might be called clichéd by many, but I think its the emotions like fear, sadness, grief and depression that actually make every clichéd horror story different. The Hodgsons were poor, they hardly had enough money to buy even biscuits and Peggy Hodgson, the matriarch, was barely meeting ends for her 4 children. So you immediately feel for the characters and as they say, when you are down is when you get kicked in the guts. The main character – Madison Wolfe as Janet Hodgson, the one who is possessed from time to time, does a brilliant job. Her fear, agony and sadness is palpable. The others in the family too were quite good as supporting characters.

I have to dedicate a paragraph for Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson. I have seen their movies as separate lead actors but their chemistry as a couple is really powerful. You actually see the love, affection, blind trust and deep bonds that even the real life Warrens might not have had. They did a stellar job in this part of Conjuring as the first one and the movie was as much about their love than it was about the poltergeist.

Coming to the actual horror in the movie, the poltergeist Valak is an actual documented demon. But its not Marilyn Manson dressed as a nun or even Sharon Needles. See the resemblance?

Valak is actually depicted as taking the form of a disfigured child with wings which might have been scarier I think.

That was one miss from James Wan. He does admit that the design of the main demon was actually done at the 11th hour. But there are a couple of sequences involving the Valak that are done quite well and a large part of the credit goes to Vera Farmiga.

The other small part I didn't like was the screen time of 2 hours 14 minutes – I think the movie could have been edited down to lesser. It felt a little long and sluggish at times.

But other than that, the movie was great. It was crafted well, jump scares were actual jump scares rather than just loud noises and the story was really well knit together. I would continue to pay money to watch good horror movies on a big screen – its where it looks and sounds the best. First reviewed on broth of blogs

Note – No spoilers, so read on. First reviewed on broth of blogs.

The toughest thing for a parent is to see their child die before them – Anonymous.

The Plot

The Boy (2016) gives a whole different meaning to the sentence above. It is about the Heelshires, an old English couple living in a big house in the middle of nowhere (it could be countryside New York if not for the accents). They hire a nanny, Greta Evans (played by Lauren Cohen of The Walking Dead fame) to look after their small boy, Brahms. But what do you know? Brahms is not a boy at all, it is a life size doll.

The story proceeds thereon where Greta plays along because she has moved to a whole different continent to escape her abusive boyfriend/father of her dead child. The Heelshires leave for a vacation with a cryptic 'I am sorry' from the Mrs. There are rules to look after the doll and they warn her not to break them.

But considering the boy is a doll and Greta is alone, she prefers to NOT follow the rules to look after him which includes kiss him goodnight. Mysterious things start happening then on and Greta is absolutely certain that the doll is alive or possessed by the real Brahms who died in a fire as a child. In comes Malcolm (Rupert Evans) and they discover the truth about Brahms, the boy/the doll/the spirit – whatever you want to call it. On the other hand, the Heelshires take a dip in the pond with stones in their pockets which screams SUICIDE.

More dolls anyone?

Now, there are lots of movies that have been made on dolls (Chucky series, Dead Silence, more recently Annabelle) and I can't for the love of the world understand why anybody would have a life size doll in their house. But this story at-least has an explanation. The Heelshires, not being able to cope with their son's death, actually believe that the doll which looks like him, is their son – they are half mad with grief. But that is not the whole truth.

And then…

The rest of the movie is complete nonsense. The third act will leave you puzzled and when you try to piece together the puzzle at the end, you would realize that the end was just plain stupid. The crew should have continued on 'the doll is possessed' track. Having said that, the setting is good, there are no crazy jump scenes and are actual ones where the mood and the sounds go together well and Cohen and Evans do a good job of what they have been given.

The Boy is a horror turned to humorous turned to 'what the hell happened here' kinda movie. Avoid paying money for it, I am sure it will be on TV soon enough if not already. I give it a C-

—

You might also like

The Descent

The Descent II

Conjuring II

The Plot

It is 2016 and 20 years have passed since the world united against the alien attack. The 3 heroes – then President (Bill Pullman), Capt. Something Hiller(Will Smith) and David (Jeff Goldblum) saved the day in 1996. We have used the alien technology and built a strong defense, ready to win again if there is an alien attack ever.

And guess what – there is one. The bad aliens are back, to steal our molten core and advance their technology but also to capture something that looks like a tiny Death Star which in reality is their foe and our ally. This ball of no-traceable field of radiation is from another planet which has superior technology to beat the crap out of the aliens.

We have a bunch of oldies from the first movie, notably Pullman, Goldblum, the crazy-genius doctor (Spiner) and some youngsters who have grown up like Hiller Jr. and ex-first daughter Maika Monroe and her fiancé Liam Hemsworth who save Earth yet again.

Why you should watch it?

The first movie was brilliant – it evoked emotions like patriotism, joy at killing the aliens, world unification and other such positive reactions. If you were a fan, then you should be excited for this one.

Uhmm – Well, I can't think of anything else.

I can only think of reasons as to why I was bored out of my wits and why this one will go down without making an impact. Here are some reasons:

The present day is shown to be much more advanced than it is today with spaceships and satellites which can zip and zap from the moon to Earth. Kinda unrealistic, especially when the CGI wasn't even that great. I mean the CGI in 1996 was (in some case superior) comparable to what we have here and we are in 2016.

I really didn't give a dime about the characters. I actually wanted to scream out and tell them to make me care for them – well I couldn't do that, could I now? So I kept shut and watched in agony, dialogue after dead dialogue. Even Bill Pullman couldn't do anything to bring back the 'Yeah, COME ON, lets kill them'. Jeff Goldblum was actually really annoying in this movie (he was my favorite in the first) – his fake fear of heights, his dumb jokes and his so called charm didn't really work, it felt very out of place. The others, especially Madam President were forgettable. Oh and Madam President was really lame, she just didn't have the same pull like Pullman🙂

The story was pretty much the same but a sadder version of it – the aliens apparently are using the same technology they were using two decades ago despite having devoured many planets to advance their technology. What a loophole.

It reminded me of Star Wars and the Alien series – the space fights, the Death Star resembling thing and the aliens – movies that I don't want to compare Independence Day to.

The music again didn't help, it was boring and unoriginal.

And there were just too many sub-plots that didn't really tie well together unlike the first one.

Advise

Maybe I am just comparing it to the first one and that is my fault as a fan but this doesn't even come close to how great the first one was. My advise would be to not waste money on this one unless you have lots of it and a lot of time too. Go watch Finding Dory (I think I should have) or something else.

Note: Just read this on Deadline – Independence Day is getting crushed by Finding Dory. A couple of weeks will tell whether Independence Day re-surged or doomed and sank to the Earth's molten core.

Quoting from the site – Resurgence is landing below expectations with $43.4M this weekend after a $16.8M Friday. That's disastrous for a 20- year-old beloved blockbuster franchise that Fox counted as one of its summer pillars. If there's any prayer for Resurgence's domestic box office apocalypse to cease, then it lies abroad where this $165M-$200M Roland Emmerich film is expected do draw $100M-$150M this weekend.

Oh my god, what a terrible movie. My luck with movies seems to be running out. Mother's Day is one of those 7 in 1 stories where everybody is connected in some way but not really. This one has so many sub-plots that your head will spin. There is Julia Roberts and her 'I didn't know about you' daughter. The daughter has a love story going on. Julia Roberts has a meeting with Jennifer Aniston who is divorced and is coming to terms with her husband's remarriage to a much younger woman. And there is the husband and his life. Not to forget Kate Hudson who is a friend of Jennifer Aniston and is married to an Indian Doctor. Kate Hudson has a sister who is a lesbian. And both the sisters have kept these as secrets from their parents who come pay a surprise visit. And then we have the love interest of Jennifer Aniston as Jason Sudeikis, widower with 2 daughter. There is cameo from Jennifer Garner who is married to Jason Sudeikis but dies in combat. And then there are some other subplots which deserve no mention.

I typically like such movies, that is if they are made well. The comedy was forced, the acting was not that great like even from Jennifer Aniston and Julia Roberts and I didn't really care for the characters.

Yeah, it could be a plausible setting but that is the only positive about it. And don't even get me started with the racist jokes – oh my god. They were terrible and not funny. This movie is not a tribute to Mother's Day in any which way. Do not watch, even if you are dead bored.

The Magnificent Seven. Its a classic western, similar to the 1960 movie of the same name, which was in turn a cleverly twisted version of Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. The usual good vs. the bad, the team of dare- devils which fights on behalf of the weak against the bully. So was 2 hours and 15 minutes to tell the story worth it? Read on.

First reviewed on broth of blogs

Plot and Script

There is no twist in the plot, nothing too innovative. The seven which includes law officers, bandits, gamblers and tribesmen is a random bunch and how they, at the behest of a strong-willed woman come to save the village. Some strategy and help of the village gets them ready for the attack from the bad guy and good prevails over evil. Sounds familiar?

Characterization and Acting (C&A)

Denzel Washington as Chisolm does a good job as the strategist, the leader of the pack. But I never understood the hype around him or his acting so he was the usual to me. Obviously it is his movie and maybe Chris Pratt, who is the jester of the group. He is funny and I had a few chuckles seeing him in this one, he has charisma in the face of the impossible. Ethan Hawke I thought could have been developed more, they did show his character arc as that of a failing hero but it wasn't enough. The other four couldn't be developed at all because of which I wasn't rooting for the team, the seven. It was like a bunch of people that you don't care for. They did show why Chisolm wanted to kill Bogue, the bad guy but why did the others join when they knew they might not come out alive?

But the biggest failure was of the antagonist – Peter Sarsgaard, who plays Bogue, just didn't seem evil enough. His screen presence was only in the beginning where he lashes out as the bad guy but that didn't make me squirm or wish him dead. He was a portrayed to be a brutal businessman who could kill, but so what? I wish his arc was developed further.

Sounds and Effects (S&E)

The music was good, James Horner gave a solid background but will it remain with me like Braveheart, Titanic or even Avatar would? I doubt it.

Cinematography and Visuals (C&V)

I really liked the look of the movie, some of the long shots were stunning. There is something about the years without automobiles that makes one wish for such a period now.

Direction and Overall (D &O)

Magnificent Seven is Antoine Fuqua's attempt at a western, and I appreciate his passion but the story arc just didn't justify another version of the classic. The acting was good, the direction was too, it looked good but there was just too much happening and nothing wanting me to go back to it again and again.

So here are my scores:

Plot and Script (P&S)- 1

Characterization and Acting (C&A) – 1

Sounds and Effects (S&E) – 1

Cinematography and Visuals (C&V) – 1.5

Direction and Overall (D &O) – 1.5

Overall Score – 6 out of 10

If you are really looking forward to this movie, my guess is that you will come out disappointed but if you have no expectations whatsoever, go watch it once.

First reviewed on broth of blogs on wordpress

The girl on the train had so much build up that I decided to see it. Having read the book only a couple of months ago, the story was fresh in my mind. First reviewed on 'broth of blogs'. So here goes:

Plot and Script

This is a story of three women, deeply flawed – whose lives get entangled without them wanting to. For those who don't the plot, I won't ruin it for you but Emily Blunt (Rachel) is a divorcée whose ex-husband Justin Theroux (Tom) is married to Rebecca Ferguson (Anna) and have a baby. Tom cheated on Rachel and she took to alcohol to get over the depression of not being able to have a baby.

The present – Rachel takes the train to NY every day though she was fired from her job just to feel normal and has been seeing this perfect couple from the train every day who seem to be very much in love – Luke Evans (Scott) and Haley Bennett (Megan) and longs to be in their place, in a life where she is loved and has a real family.

One day Rachel sees Megan kiss another man from the train and things go out of control there on. Its a missing person mystery which then becomes a murder mystery.

Okay I have to admit it. I didn't like the book that much. It was interesting but it wasn't super interesting and it definitely was not worth the hype. So I didn't go in with too many expectations. The plot in the movie is more confusing than the book. The back and forth that Paula Hawkins has in her book has been reduced quite a bit but the turn of events is still not very seamless in the movie. Also, a lot has been missed out that is explained well in the movie like where does Rachel get the money for alcohol, the shame she feels every time she drinks, her relationship with her roommate Cathy – they all add to the narrative which the movie fails to do.

Characterization and Acting (C&A)

The acting to me seemed a little superficial from everyone. See, the book is tragic and it is able to establish that through emotions, thoughts, background stories which the movie was not able to show at all. Emily Blunt tries her best to show everything that her character Rachel feels – the shame, the guilt, the helplessness, the pity but how many such emotions can one actor play? I give her full points to try. The others are all very mediocre with not much character build up at all.

Sounds and Effects (S&E)

The music by Danny Elfman was probably the best part of the movie for me. It was quiet and suspenseful which is what you want in a thriller. It reminded me of Gone Girl and a lot of people are comparing this movie to Gone Girl, but that was a far superior thriller from all aspects.

Cinematography and Visuals (C&V)

The visuals and cinematography were good to a large extent. Again with the time periods it does look a little like Gone Girl but there is no comparison really.

Direction and Overall (D &O)

Overall, I didn't quite like the movie. I mean its definitely not a Gone Girl – there are problems in the screenplay and a book which is mostly about what one woman is thinking, it is difficult to bring out in movies. Superficial is the word.

So here are my scores:

Plot and Script (P&S)- 1

Characterization and Acting (C&A) – 1

Sounds and Effects (S&E) – 1.5

Cinematography and Visuals (C&V) – 1.5

Direction and Overall (D &O) – 1

Overall Score – 6 out of 10

If you are really looking forward to this movie, my guess is that you will come out disappointed. For people who don't care for the book/movie, wait for the DVD. Another failure of a book being adapted on to the big screen.

First reviewed on broth of blogs on wordpress

Ouija (2014) was a lazy, nonsensical movie about a bunch of teenagers who get killed because one of them plays a Ouija board alone and awakens something dark and sinister in the house. The hero of the film is a friend who figures out that there was a family of three women - a mother and two daughters who did seances in the same house and one of them is the bad spirit who is killing her friends. She visits one of the sisters in an asylum only to be tricked by her to actually awaken the monster sister. The film itself was shabby, with no logic to the sequence of events and plot holes the size of pot holes on Indian roads. It was one of the worst of 2014.

Flash forward to 2016, we have Ouija: Origin of Evil which attempts to tell the story of the three women and connect it to the 2014 disaster. Is this a bigger disaster? Read on to find out. Originally reviewed at 'Broth of Blogs'.

Plot and Script

This prequel shows the story of middle-aged widow Alice Zander (Elizabeth Reaser) who earns her living as a fake medium and has help in her charades by her two daughters, 15-year-old Lina (Annalise Basso) and 9-year-old Doris (Lulu Wilson). She insists that she is just comforting the living who come for the readings by faking contact with their dead loved ones.

Fast forward to an under-aged alcohol party which Lina attends just to fool around with her friends on a Ouija board and the suggestion that Alice should use one to up her theatrics. Alice does buy one and invents a whole magnetic mechanical process and tests it to see if she can move the planchette and make it seem like it is moving on its own. Little does she realize that she has awakened a spirit who channels himself through Doris who is obviously the one who will be possessed in the story.

Things start moving and the father makes contact when Doris tries her hand at the board - Alice takes that as a sign of Doris being a true medium and even puts her to work. But all hell breaks loose when the school priest (who has a soft corner for Alice) comes to the house to explain the letter that Lina saw Doris write - the letter is in polish and is the back story about the history of the house.

Without getting into spoilers, the story moves forward to show the possession, the havoc caused and how Lina ends up in the asylum - connecting it to Ouija.

The back story was a bit muddled and there were some flaws in the story but the story was largely logical.

Characterization and Acting (C&A)

The characterization and acting was really good I though. Special credit to Wilson who plays the part of the vulnerable-girl-eventually-turning- into-a-monster quite well. A lot of effort again to showcase the 60's and done well right from costumes to the house.

Sounds and Effects (S&E)

Since sound is such an integral part of horror movies, it has to be good. And I am happy to say, it was good in this. There were minimal jump scares - if there was a lurking shadow, there wasn't a loud noise to scare the audience, it was just a lurking shadow and a reaction by the character who saw it. The third and final act had a good sequence which helped the suspense. The editing is good and flows well - it does slow down once in a while but that is to establish the characters which is done really well. The first act is only about that.

Cinematography and Visuals (C&V)

This movie looks really good. The 60's are shown like how it should be but obviously with a modern twist. I noticed the 'cigarette burns' all too well which just shows a lot of care was taken while making the movie to make it seem like it is a period film when people had to change reels once those circles showed up.

I didn't think too much of the demon itself - it sorta broke away from the setting of the movie because it was CGI and obviously some of the other effects when Doris gets possessed are kinda funny if you see - I didn't find it creepy.

Direction and Overall (D &O)

Mike Flanagan has the craft people - he proved it again (Oculus and Hush fame). He made sure the characters are well defined so when the movie moves forward, we care about them. He made sure the sequence of events was logical though the story is about demonic possession and that it is a well made, suspenseful horror movie without the use of stupid jump scares. Kudos Mr. Director!

Bottomline: The first one was so stupid that most people didn't expect this one to do anything other than bore you. But this is a good one in the Halloween season, well made with solid characters and some good scares. Does have some flaws but the character of Doris, played by Wilson is by far the best thing about the movie - a kind of Damien-esque role where you think she is cute one minute and a devil the next.

So here are my scores:

Plot and Script (P&S)- 1

Characterization and Acting (C&A) – 1.5

Sounds and Effects (S&E) – 1.5

Cinematography and Visuals (C&V) – 1.5

Direction and Overall (D &O) – 1.5

Overall Score – 7 out of 10

--Originally reviewed at 'Broth of Blogs'.--

'I have been flying for over four decades and I am being judged for the last 208 seconds' - It's a line (well not exactly, but something to that effect, IMDb doesn't have the quotes section up yet) from the movie and it pretty much sums up Chesley 'Sully' Sullenberger's 'miracle' landing of US Airways flight 1549 on the Hudson on 15 January 2009.

Plot and Script

Sully, played by Tom Hanks makes a human decision relying on his vast experience and lands a plane of 155 people on the Hudson, making it the first flights to survive a water landing with all lives intact. The movie is about viewpoints - of the pilots (Aaron Eckhart plays the co- pilot), of the passengers, and of the investigating officers of the safety board. It shows what happened during the flight, after it landed and the investigation where the pilots were scrutinized for their decision as the simulations said that they could have gone back to LaGuardia and landed.

Considering it is a true incident and everybody survived, this film is dead serious and comes straight to the point. Simulations can predict scenarios to a certain extent but they don't and cant predict how humans will react in a certain situation. How can one judge a person in a few seconds when they have a lifetime of experience with no incidents? That's the question the film tries to ask.

Characterization and Acting (C&A)

I have a soft corner for Tom Hanks - he just picks the right movies maybe, or he is just plain lucky, but he is great in every movie. This was no exception. I hadn't read much about the actual incident, and I am reading about it now and watching a few videos of the real Sully - Tom Hanks is so much like him. Calm, composed - he did what he does best, play a role and bring it to life. It was mainly his movie.

As for Aaron Eckhart, this is the second time I have liked him in a movie (first was Batman of course with him as Dent) - he plays the part well. There are other talented actors as well like Laura Linney but like I said, it was completely a Tom Hanks movie.

Sounds and Effects (S&E)

The movie has a serious tone to it and rightly so. Not much music but the sounds are great. There is a scene where the flight is just about to hit water and you can hear the air hostesses saying in unison 'Heads down, stay down' and its just so real that you almost do it.

Cinematography and Visuals (C&V)

I really liked the look of the movie. It is difficult to do a flight movie I think because most of the time it does look unreal, but I think Sully looked quite real. Even the water landing looked like it was how it would have happened.

Direction and Overall (D &O)

You gotta give it to Clint Eastwood - he is all of 86 and still giving us great movies, hats off to him. His movies are about people and this was too. But at 96 minutes (one of his shortest movies), it still felt extremely stretched. And it was pretty uni-dimensional - it was Sully's story, the audience is not given any other vantage point.

Having said that, the 204 seconds that Sully took to land the plane with no deaths is probably the best 96 minutes we have on screen.

I wonder why they took so long to make the movie?

So here are my scores according to my new system:

Plot and Script (P&S)- 1.5

Characterization and Acting (C&A) – 1.5

Sounds and Effects (S&E) – 1.5

Cinematography and Visuals (C&V) – 1.5

Direction and Overall (D &O) – 1.5

Overall Score – 7.5 out of 10

Watch it once to know about the 'Miracle on the Hudson' and one of the greatest stories in aviation history. Visit brothofblogs at word press.

I was surprised to see a trailer of 'Before I wake' on YouTube so late in the year. Weird to see a movie releasing so late in the US when it was released in India a few months back and even made it to flights - yeah I saw it on one of my long journeys as I couldn't go to the theater in time. I dug around a bit and turns out that the production company went bust; it was actually supposed to hit screens as early as mid of last year. So they kept pushing the dates and when they got some money, they released the film in a few countries. I guess they were smart, knowing that the movie wouldn't really be able to make much money. So I am surprised to see now they are releasing in the US.

Even though I saw it in a flight, I can tell you that it was pretty clear to watch and sounded good, so all you purists, don't go judging me :) and take my word when I say that even if you saw it in a theater, your experience would be the same. Now I really like Kate Bosworth and Jacob Tremblay, they are great actors and they do a great job in this movie as well but the story just isn't there.

It is a supernatural thriller about this child whose dreams and nightmares become real, physically alive. He has been through a few foster homes and there are a lot of dead and missing people, all because of his nightmares, one of which is Canker-man, an alien/deformed monster who eats people. When he makes it into Jessie and Mark's home, he fills them with hope as they see a beautiful butterfly on the first night he is there. They lost their son when he accidentally drowned in the tub and they have been grieving since then. They love each other but the strains in the relationship are beginning to show and with Cody's introduction into their lives, they look for a new beginning.

But alas, that is not to be. Cody's moods start to change and his beautiful dreams become nightmares that take on an ugly turn. The climax is not what I expected but without giving away too much, I think that could be the only ending.

I have seen Mike Flanagan's Oculus, which is one of my top recent horror movies and I have heard he did a good job with Hush as well but Before I Wake fails in the story department. Where it succeeds is the acting and the visuals. I think the visuals were really good, even when you see it on a small screen. Tremblay gives another solid performance and the true horror of possessing such a gift/curse was emoted really well by him.

I still think it is a one time watch because of all the rubbish movies out there; this one is based on flawed human beings and that makes for a much better watch compared to slash/gore teen flicks. But make sure to watch Room after just to reinforce how good Jacob Tremblay is for a 10 year old actor.

Chances are if you grew up in India, you would remember Mowgli fondly. Jungle Book got back memories that my mind had hidden away somewhere. Like the Bare Necessities song. And the Hindi series of the characters had this other song called 'Chaddi Pehen Ke Phool Khila Hai' that translates into 'You have bloomed like a flower in your underwear' :)

The beauty of Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Book is the simplicity with which he brought to life animals from the jungles of India and the man-cub Mowgli who has been brought up there. For the uninitiated, Jungle Book is about Mowgli who was rescued by Bhageera, a panther and handed over to the wolves to raise him as a part of their pack. The other central characters are Baloo the bear, Kaa the gigantic snake, and Shere Khan, the almighty tiger. Jungle Book was published in 1894 and since then there have been countless adaptations of the book and the characters.

Jungle Book, 2016 is directed by Jon Favreau of the Chef and Iron Man 1 and 2 fame. He takes the central characters described above and does wonders - I just loved the new movie.

Plot: Jon Favreau stuck to the main plot of Mowgli (newcomer Neel Sethi) being part of the pack of wolves and Bagheera (Ben Kingsley) as the main caretaker. Sher Khan (brilliantly played by Idris Elba) is introduced as someone who hates humans and it doesn't matter if its a grown up or a young kid - he wants to devour Mowgli. Mowgli runs but gets caught by Kaa (Scarlett Johansson). She is about to finish him and Baloo (Bill Murrey) saves him. With Bagheera and Baloo by his side, King Louie (Christopher Walken) is brought in who is the king of the apes and wants to use Mowgli to create fire and become the king of the jungle. The only difference is that in this movie they show a Gigantopithecus instead of an orangutan as Louie and he is just amazing. The rest of the story about what happens when Louie tells Mowgli that Shere Khan killed the leader of the wolf pack.

Why you should definitely watch it?

Nostalgia - I almost cried when I heard Bare Necessities - it made me go back to my childhood when I used to watch the Disney or the Hindi versions. If you haven't seen it before, still watch it because its directed really well, the story and editing is tight and the animation is just kick-ass.

Characters - Whether you know them or not, it doesn't matter. You will fall in love with the characters and the animals. There is a certain warmth when it comes to jungle stories be it Lion King or Born Free - the rules of the animal kingdom somehow just make sense. Its the same here, you will like them all - from the evil Shere Khan to the mighty King Louie to the smallest of the animals shown in the movie. Apparently there are over 70 animal species shown in the movie.

A special mention for Neel Sethi as Mowgli - this kid was just superb. He had the heart, the daring and the vulnerability all bundled up in one. And it definitely didn't look like it was his first time acting.

Animation - The animation is just great - the jungles and the animals really come to life. I thought it would be stupid to see the animals talk, but I was mistaken. You still might find it weird at first when you see Bagheera talk but within 10 minutes into the movie, you will see it is absolutely normal for the animals to talk.

What I didn't like

I would have liked all the animals to talk the same. But they portray some as not talking, like the monkeys. And the story is set in the jungles of India, maybe Mowgli should have had an Indian accent as well as the animals? But I am really nitpicking here.

Go watch it - alone, with your partner, parents, kids, grandparents, grand kids - there is something for everybody - watch it once, twice, thrice or many times. One of the best movies I have seen this year.

The thing about most scams is that the schemers usually get away with it (well some might land up in jail after making tonnes of money). Its the people they have conned that suffer - and these people are everyday people like you and me. This is exactly what happen during the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Banks, investors, funds managers, and people remotely connected to the financial world - all made money. Except the people on whose name the mortgages were on.

What is it about

The Big Short based on a book by Michael Lewis (The blind side, Moneyball fame), is a good movie - its not great and I will tell you why in a bit. But lets start with the good stuff. It has big names who acted pretty well - Ryan Gosling, Steve Carell, Brad Pitt and Christian Bale. The characters they portrayed are all real people and that's what made it interesting. Christian Bale is Dr. Michael Burry, the man who predicted it all. As early as 2005, he knew the Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), the instruments with which bankers were making loads of money already, were made even more lucrative with sub-prime mortgages filled in them. His prediction and solution to make money for his investors is one story.

The other parallel story is of Steve Carell - again a fund manager working for Morgon Stanley. He is angry and by moving back and forth during the movie they tell you why. His story is about his dilemma - of looking for a loophole in the system but hoping against hope that there is no fraud.

The third parallel story is about 2 new fund managers, kids in the big bad world of finance, who have made good money already by picking the right stocks for their investors but chance upon the sub-prime crisis pretty early on and take the help of Brad Pitt to short the MBS.

The street-smart, suave Ryan Gosling is the one who kind of stitches all three parallel stories together in his own cool ways. He is in it to make money as well but not at the forefront.

Why it didn't work (for me)

It's a complex plot, people with no understanding of the sub-prime crisis will find it really difficult to follow this movie and that is why Adam McKay, the director has tried to provide bite sized finance lessons with the help of famous people like Margot Robbie, Anthony Bourdain, Selena Gomez etc. But I don't think it will help people who just want easy movies where you don't have to follow each and every dialogue.

That's where the movie lost out for me. The big short is convoluted, its difficult to follow because it keeps zipping through multiple stories and characters (I personally like this style but for such an intricate movie, this didn't work). Though all the actors have done their bits well, it feels almost clinical - it didn't bring out the emotions that it should have - the grossness of it all, the pathetic situation of people like you and me or anger that not many people who were responsible for the crisis went to prison.

Maybe that's what the movie is about, the smugness of all the people who did what they did by cheating normal people and didn't give a dime about people who lost their houses and jobs.

Why you should still watch it

Watch it to understand a bit about the crisis - after all its part of history, something that happened and affected millions of people around the world. Also watch it for Steve Carell. I usually don't like his antiques and comic sense, but he has done a brilliant job in this one - his shock of finding it all out, perplexity of what one should do in position of power and his really emotional outburst is a joy to watch. I forgive him for all the crappy movies he ever did. :)

I give The Big Short a C+. Did you think it was better than what I thought of it?

Zodiac is about the serial killings in the 1960's and 70's by a man who called himself Zodiac. Its based on Robert Greysmith's book of the same name. Robert was the official cartoonist at the San Francisco Chronicle around the time that the killings took place and later got obsessed with the case. The plot revolves around Paul Avery, the crime reporter at the newspaper and how he gets involved with the murders when Zodiac sends ciphers to prominent SF newspapers to get publicity. Robert is not taken seriously by his colleagues and though he proves his metal by solving the first cipher and coming up with real clues, he gets left behind as time goes by and Zodiac becomes more of an urban legend. Another central character is Dave Toschi who with his partner is in charge of investing into the murders from SFPD. Paul Avery and Dave Toschi come close to solving the murder but miss it by a shave because of some unforeseen circumstances. This is when Robert Greysmith takes it upon himself to solve it.

Review – This movie could have been as great as Se7en or Fightclub but misses by a mile. The problems for me were the screenplay and the characters. Now I haven't read Robert's book but telling a story with a book is different. You can take up as much space as you want in a book and still make it interesting but its not the case with a movie. You only have that much time to enthrall the audience. The story itself pans over 20 odd years so to weave this in under 2 hours is a task by itself. The other weak link is Jake Gyllenhaal who plays Robert Greysmith. I believe he was chosen as his performance in Donnie Darko proved he could do both the naive and the obsessed sides pretty well and Roberts character in the film was the same. But Jake was the weakest link in the movie for me. His motivations were never made clear and his character development was patchy. He gets involved in the beginning, then is not and gets obsessed in the end. Robert Downey Jr. is great as this over-the- top-know-it-all reporter and so is Mark Ruffallo as inspector Toschi – no complaints here. The only bit that could have been done better was developing Robert Downey Jr.'s character better – one question I keep thinking about is why did he give up when he was so close solving the case?

It is still a good watch as Fincher makes sure the story is tightly knit and the performances are good enough to keep you from getting up despite the fundamental problem in the story and the characters. Maybe the book will give me my answers. Anybody read it?