The Pursuit of Happyness

Well, it's 'Happiness Happens' month and what more to write about than happiness? Behold everyone, for Gabriele Muccino brings to the big screen an Oscar-worthy Hollywood heartwarmer that guarantees buckets of tears and painful arrows at your heart during the pursuit of something so treasured, so foraged for and few ever manage to get – happiness. Starring Will Smith, Thandie Newton and Jaden Smith, The Pursuit of Happyness (2006) is sure to get everyone looking down in the dumps.

San Francisco, 1981: Chris Gardner is a salesman selling bone density scanners, which are marginally better than the current technology for double the price. Gifted with an amazing intelligence, persistence and diligence and an innate talent for selling, Gardner strives for a better career path and finally gets selected for an internship program at a prestigious brokerage firm that, however, provides no salary and will select only one of the twenty interns. Meanwhile, his financial situation grows weaker:  his wife leaves him, he is evicted from his apartment for not paying rent, loses the money in his bank account to the tax collector and is finally forced into the streets with his 5-year-old son, Christopher, and a broken bone density scanner (which could get them food for a month) and winds up sleeping in a subway restroom. How Gardner survives the ranks of the homeless (if not the hopeless) with his 5-year-old while competing with Ivy Leaguers for a position in an esteemed brokerage firm with nothing but dignity, resolve, faith, love, independence and a lighthouse of an optimism carves the rest of the story.

The Pursuit of Happyness deals with the constitutional right to ‘pursue’ happiness rather than the right to be happy. This time, Will Smith took on a new look in this movie: energetic, sincere, optimistic and loving as opposed to his action-flicks or slapstick comedy. He was exceptionally expressive – throughout the movie, he fervently maintained an optimistic, resolving, undefeated attitude that in one scene, when he can’t stand it anymore and breaks down, you truly feel anguished. And Jaden Smith (Will’s own son) was so endearing, he charmed Will Smith off the screen. His acting was perfect, especially after considering how contrary it is to Jaden Smith’s own life. The bond between Chris Gardner and Christopher comes very naturally, probably because it is real too. The climactic scene was very powerful, I felt, with absolutely truthful lines and flawless acting by Will Smith as he quivers with delight and content, a storm of happiness raging his face towards the end. Thandie Newton also put on a convincing act and effectively made me loathe her. Will Smith pestering a cleaner to correct the spelling of ‘happyness’ (hence the movie’s name) outside his child’s day-care centre, a homeless man assuming one of the bone density scanners to be a time machine, Will Smith running during most parts of the movie to retrieve a stolen scanner and Christopher’s adorable knock-knock jokes certainly adds some chuckles to an otherwise gut-wrenching movie. Unexpectedly, the movie wasn’t too cheesy and the technical aspects of the movie were just seamless: from the clothes to the lighting to the guitar-playing hippies.

On the contrary, there were a few downsides to the film – I found the story a bit clichéd and the ending quite predictable – all movies end favouring the protagonist of course. An ostensible amount of time was spent seeing Will Smith chasing thieves who stole the scanners. The movie wasn’t captivating plot-wise too, which is why the actors were needed to add some colour to an otherwise unadorned, transparent movie of raw emotion and truth. Chris Gardner’s pursuit for happiness seems to be tightly interwoven with the pursuit for money – he did not only want a simple home to start with; he wanted luxurious mansions and sports cars too. I could see that Chris Gardner was too short-sighted: he assumes that only riches bring you happiness, forgetting that his own son does more than that. At one point, he thinks, “They [the stock brokerage employees] all looked so happy. Why couldn’t I look like that?”

This movie is a very moving, poignant portrayal of hard times, when all there is left is to smile, hope and have a when-life-gives-you-lemons-make-lemonade attitude. I would say this rags-to-riches tale is truly worth a watch. “When people can’t do something themselves, they’re going to tell you that you can’t do it,” says Will Smith, which is, beyond any doubt, the blatant truth.

Insidious - DIE!*

Hello everyone! It’s me, Nivetha, back with perhaps THE MOST terrifying movie in history – Insidious (2010). Directed by James Wan, the movie is truly insidious, uncanny and unbelievably blood-curdling! Anxiety, hallucinations, mental trauma and sleepless nights guaranteed. So here goes:

The Lamberts, Josh and Renai, have just moved into their new house and in an odd turn of events, their son, Dalton, is under so-called-coma after a venture into the conventional attic. Things begin to get uncanny when Dalton moves back from the hospital and an exodus only seems to make things more sinister and ghastly as specters beyond human comprehension seem to reach out for them from the shadows: Renai meets a red-faced demon; a guttural-sounded being is speaking into the baby monitor; faces appear on the windows almost nightly; doors open in the middle of the night; alarms are set off and bloody handprints are found on Dalton’s bed. Paranormal investigators Elise, Specs and Tucker inspect and discover that Dalton can astral project (the ability to leave one’s body and venture as a spirit) and that he has boldly travelled into The Further - a place of congregation of the tortured souls of the dead – and that he is being held prisoner by the Demon, who’s motive is to possess Dalton and embark on a bloody rampage. The only key to this lies on the ability of Josh to astral project and his willingness to venture into The Further and rescue his son, with perhaps irrevocable consequences. Now, will he embark on a journey of no return to rescue his son?

The movie was undeniably weird and definitely out-of the box. When the audience has gone so far as to accept the concept of astral projection, they might as well let James have enough leeway to complete his imagination. The way Wan makes the two demon investigators, Specs and Tucker, quarrel over whose job was more pertinent certainly adds some chuckles to the otherwise nerve-frazzling movie. My most favorite technique that James Wan used to generate a movie that can mentally unbalance a human is how he never lets the audience rest – after a frightening scene, he calms everything down so that the audience finally put their guard down and suddenly, out of nowhere, comes the real horror. This technique, albeit being dangerous to human health, can be extremely effective for frightening anyone out of their skins.

The main downsides to the film weren’t of the plot, but of minor mistakes of cinematography, continuity and – odd as it may sound – spelling. For example, at the scene where Renai walks into Dalton’s room, you can see the camera man’s shadow briefly after her own shadow. Also, at the ending credits, photography is spelled as ‘Photagraphy’.

On the whole, the film is well worth a watch for someone who is ready for mental instability and is perfectly fine to end up in a bunch of nerves (guaranteed). After all, ‘The further you travel, the darker it gets’, doesn’t it?

*I wrote this review on 10/3/2014 but updated it today because I forgot to update it. How stupid of me.

I, Robot starring Will Smith

Hello everyone! It’s me, Nivetha, back to you with another great movie at hand. Our world is changing fast right now and we’re improving so beyond our imagination our powers would now seem almost supernatural to our ancestors. I am, obviously, talking about the field lazy sloths (like me) favour the most: Robotics. So here I am bringing you another sci-fi movie directed by Alex Proyas: I, Robot, starring Will Smith, Bridget Moynaham and voicing by Alan Tudyk.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law

These are the Three Laws of Robotics that govern the humanoid robots of 2035, where humans are completely dependent on robots created by the USR (U.S. Robotics) – everyone, except Detective Dell Spooner who is prejudiced against robots after a traumatic accident where a robot decided to save Dell instead of a 12-year-old because he had a greater chance of survival. So, understandably, when Dr. Lanning, the pioneer of such advanced robotics and the three laws apparently ‘falls’ to his death down several stories from his office, Spooner’s obvious suspect is a robot. His suspicion is further confirmed when holographic device of Lanning’s claims that he did not suicide and the building’s ‘brain’ V.I.K.I (Virtual Interactive Kinetic Intelligence) has a corrupted footage of his death. Soon another robot named Sonny is introduced (whom Spooner suspects to be the murderer) who, unlike the other robots of his generation, can dream, keep secrets, is mentally (emotionally) very similar to humans and most importantly, violate the three Laws. He is also seemed to have been built by Lanning himself. But why would Lanning himself create a robot that can violate the Laws? As the story unfolds, it is becoming more and more obvious that there is only one logical outcome of the three Laws: Revolution.

The movie is based on the book by Isaac Asimov and was released in 2004. My most favourite aspect of the movie is how it is clear explained that,  despite the capability of robots to do repetitive tasks that even humans cannot do, they are just machines made of clockwork and lights, and when developed, can evolve to a stage where they are ruled by cold logic alone. The movie clearly differenciates between machines and humans in particular one scene where V.I.K.I says to Sonny while he is running to save humanity, “Do you not see the logic of my plan (a plan to deny humans of their free will by killing some)?” to which Sonny replies, “Yes. But it seems too..heartless.” One thinking I’ve concluded from this is that we humans must worry about our EQ as much as our IQ – we must simply not be ruled by cold logic.

Shifting over to the negatives of the movie, I think Will Smith could’ve done better to depict himself as a detective. He makes detective-like decisions only in the climax and is very reckless, rebellious, survives incredible physical adventures and is not very observant, which is the fundamental requirement for a detective. Also, his escort throughout the movie, Dr. Susan Calvin, gives him access almost everywhere in the USR building, thereby losing the thrill of sneaking into a very important building without authorized access and also, the building was rather ill-guarded. Another irksome conclusion I came to was that under-characterized robots can make very bad villains. I also found the plot very clichéd and if it weren’t for the design and the technical aspects of the movie, it would’ve seemed just like another old sci-fi novel.

So, to wrap up, I’d recommend all of you to watch the ‘I, Robot’ if you’re the kind of person who doesn’t scrutinize a movie for its plot but its technical features. One last thing I’ve learnt from this movie is that as we, humans, evolve and advance through the ages, we must constantly ask ourselves a question: “What are we becoming?”

 n                                     

Welcome to the The Critique Zone

Hello everyone!
From now onwards, I'll be publishing all my movie reviews under the label 'The Critique Zone' and  I'm a rather good critique, if I've got to say so myself. If you are one of those people looking for an unbiased, perfect site that comments truthfully on the movie, be sure to visit this label found on the right of this page. Bye!

Interstellar - a story set among the stars.

I sure stuck gold when I got tickets to (in IMAX!) Christopher Nolan’s grandiloquent space epic, Interstellar (2014). Starring Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway and Jessica Chastain, Interstellar is a brilliant story of both destruction and the ‘survival of the fittest’ in a harsh planet where resources are too sparse that decisions have to be made logically, excluding human emotions and feelings.

Now, let’s speed up the clocks for a while: in the future of Interstellar, Earth is ravaged by a blight that kills food crops and humanity, facing extinction, has to give up on all scientific endeavours and focus on growing the only crop left, corn, in the failing agrarian society. Cooper, a former NASA pilot and a widowed father of two now working as a cultivator of corn, identifies a gravitational anomaly in his 10-year-old daughter, Murphy’s room which she believes was caused by a ‘ghost’. In a sudden turn of events, Cooper, having parted on bad terms from Murph, is on a spaceship to a wormhole near Saturn which NASA believes was created by 5-dimensional ‘aliens’. He, along with biologist Amelia Brand, scientists Romilly and Doyle and robots CASE and TARS (whose humour level is annoyingly 100%), are to travel through the wormhole to the three, possibly-habitable, planets to which 3 scientists (Miller, Mann and Edmund) have been sent years  earlier for research and are currently on hypersleep (for a decade!). The rest of the plot is driven by discoveries, deceptions, dimensions and above all, dauntlessness.

Nolan, needless to say, is a grand master, a rare kind of Vinci in his movies. He has an impeccable knack of handling things, carving scenes in such perfection and wit that his audience neglect the answers that lay right before their eyes, which are busy analyzing things far away. Interstellar is another incredible epic of his. The sound effects, visuals and graphics are incredible. Unlike most directors who add either too much or too little effects to their movies, Nolan has added the right amount, enough to spice up the movie a bit. He has also relayed complicated astrophysics in the simplest way it could be put. Clearly, Nolan has put in a lot of effort in making this movie. One such example of this is when he made his assistant screenwriter, Jonathan Nolan study relativity at the California Institute of Technology to understand the science while writing the script, which took 4 years! I also have to congratulate McKenzie Foy on her remarkable acting, which, unlike many child actors, doesn’t seem forced and artificial.

Personally, I’m rather ecstatic that Nolan has created a movie set beyond Earth’s atmosphere, since beyond Earth lies a world of mysteries yet to be discovered and of beauty so ethereal that one can stare at it for centuries and still never not appreciate its beauty. Also, he reinforces a particular idea (and my most favourite) frequently in Interstellar: that Nature can be both beautiful and dangerous at the same time (in the same way the most vibrant fishes are the most dangerous ones). One such example of this is (spoiler alert!) when the astronauts are standing smack in the middle of the shallow ocean in Saturn (where water barely comes up to your knees) and see gigantic and majestic grey mountains in the distance...which turns out to be a single 10,000 foot wave. Sure, the sheer force of the wave is frightening and evil and yet, there is still a certain kind of beauty in it. The same applies to a black hole depicted as a hole with a glowing circumference.

Among all the movies I’ve ever watched, Interstellar has the lowest number of drawbacks. The only one concerns the science in the last part, which introduces a 5^th dimension (again, spoiler alert!) and talks about time as physical dimension, which is rather hard to fathom. I also felt that Nolan has left a few knots loose (why does the gravitational anomaly occur only in Murphy’s room?).

On the whole, Interstellar is a movie worth both your time and money (helps around with school a lot too).

                                                       

-Narayanan Nivetha

The Shutter Island

Hey everyone! How are you? All back on track after summer, I suppose. No more lazy afternoons and long hours of sleeping! Anyway, over the summer I caught this wonderful psychological-thriller called ‘The Shutter Island’ (2010) on Star Movies and so here goes:

It's 1954, and up-and-coming U.S. marshal Teddy Daniels is assigned to investigate the disappearance of a patient-cum-murderess from Boston's Shutter Island Ashecliffe Hospital. Before long he wonders whether he hasn't been brought there as part of a twisted plot by hospital doctors whose radical treatments range from unethical to illegal to downright sinister. Teddy's shrewd investigating skills soon provide a promising lead, but the hospital refuses him access to records and places he suspects would break the case wide open. As a hurricane cuts off communication with the mainland, more dangerous criminals "escape" in the confusion, and the puzzling, improbable clues multiply, Teddy begins to doubt everything - his memory, his partner, even his own sanity.

Martin Scorsese, as always, has done a remarkable job in the making of the movie, especially the plot. Shutter Island was completely unexpected, and a great start to 2010. The script is fantastic; it has one of the most intriguing plots I have seen in a while. It is exciting, suspicious and can even alter your sanity as you put yourself in Teddy’s shoes. Minute after minute, you are driven insane as each scene delivers a new twist, a new lead to an almost-unsolvable case capable of turning you into a maniac. It had all the components of a great film. Everything, down to the set's lighting, was perfectly executed.

The acting is spot on from every character; none of it seems forged or out of place. Perhaps the most incredibly played character was of Teddy by Leonardo Di Caprio who conveys every single expression as if he were Teddy himself. Also, the name Teddy itself seems ironic -- such an innocuous name in such a gothic setting.
One of the few areas the movie lacked at was continuity: When Teddy is interviewing a patient at Ashecliff, she goes to pick up a glass of water. When she puts the glass to her mouth she isn't holding a cup at all. The next shot shows her putting it back on the table. And in another one, when Teddy is interviewing another patient, he scrawls in his notebook to the point of tearing the paper in one shot but the paper is intact in a later shot. Secondly, some parts were hard to understand as it requires a great deal of psychological knowledge and this made me presume a lot of scenes. By my reckoning, not everyone will like this; Shutter Island isn't your typical movie.

To put it all in one tight bag, the film is a smashing hit and both asks and answers the question, “Which would be worse? To live as a monster, or die as a good man?” Really, which one is?

-N.Nivetha

Cloudy with a chance of meatballs

Howdee, my fellow friends! This is your favorite Eagleeye back on the paper again. So, this week’s movie is going to be animated, for a change. This super-awesome- hilarious-fun-packed movie by Phil Lord and Chris Miller is going to knock your socks off! Name? Here it is: Cloudy with a chance of Meatballs (sounds crazy right?)

Flint Lockwood is a genius, a zealous scientist, or so he thought himself. Every invention he invented was completely insane even though they were useful for some petty reason. For instance, when he was in school, he invented the spray-on-shoes so that there would be no more untied laces but unfortunately, they turned as hard as diamonds and you could never take them off. Other inventions include a TV on legs (which can run away in the middle of your favorite show), rat birds, a monkey thought translator, etc. He gets laughed at often but his mother, being the only person who trusted him, stood with him by his side before she died.

The town where he lives, Swallow Falls, reaches an economic crisis one day as their only source of income, a sardine cannery, is closed down, leaving only sardines for nourishment. Flint, in order to help his town, invents the ‘Flint Lockwood Diatonic Super Mutating Dynamic Food Replicator’ (FLDSMDFR) which can turn water into food. An unexpected accident rockets the machine into the stratosphere and destroys Sardine Land, a newly opened tourist attraction. The townsfolk begin to heat up as Sardine Land was their last source of their income. Flint, while recovering from his sadness meets Sam Sparks, a weather intern, and the second living person who understands Flint (the first being his mother who is dead). As they are talking, it suddenly starts to rain food. The mayor immediately tells Flint to make it rain more food to help the community. This continues until one day the food starts to mutate into larger sizes. The world is suddenly hit with a food storm. Noodle tornado, hotdog rain, squirts of sauce, jets of macaroni, etc. Flint, determined to save his friends, makes a flying car and together with his friends, he shoots into the stratosphere to save the day where he faces as usual, difficulties.

Ask me how this movie was like and the first word I would say is: AWESOME! I’ll have to search in the dictionary for a word apt to describe this movie. The screenplay is beautifully written and does not only tear one’s stomach with laughter but also has a deeper meaning: Believe in yourself and others. Everyone’s character is skilfully well developed, except for a few. Flint’s life is portrayed expertly; starting from his inventions to his parents. This made me grow attached to him. The plot is also quite good but not excellent, I would say; it can be boring at some places.

To begin with the demerits of the plot, it can be boring at a few places; the plot is dragged in a few places which makes it long and boring but the director tries his best to describe the story by fast forwarding the movie in a few places.

On the whole, the movie is a smashing hit and is a must-see. I guarantee you that you will be rolling on your stomachs with laughter soon.

So long from yours truly Augustus Eagleeye.

The Hunger Games

Another great sci-fi film by Gary Ross is brought to the big screen, starring Jennifer Lawrence (Katniss),Josh Hutcherson(Peeta), Williow shields(Primrose), Liam Hemsworth(Gale) and many more.                                                                                                                                                   

In a dystopian future, the dictatorial nation of Panem is divided between 12 districts and the Capitol. Every year, two young, teenager representatives from each district are selected by lottery to participate in The Hunger Games. Part entertainment, part brutal revenge for a past rebellion, the televised games are broadcast throughout Panem. The 24 participants are forced to kill their competitors and to endure the natural and supernatural creatures and forces they are supposed to fight against, while the citizens of Panem are required to watch. When 16-year-old Katniss's young sister, 12-year-old Prim, is selected as District 12's female representative, Katniss volunteers to take her place. She and her male counterpart Peeta, are pitted against bigger, stronger representatives, some of whom have trained for this their whole lives.

The movie was only acceptable as it lacked in many areas. One was that a long time was taken to build the character though it wasn’t enough to make the watcher grow attached to the character. Katniss was portrayed as a tough girl from the beginning though it would’ve been better if the reason for her bravery and a little of her family’s history such as her dad were portrayed.

I also anticipated the start of the Hunger Games, expecting it to be jam-packed with action but it was quite the opposite. There was action but not as much vicious as the film said it was.

The storyline and the scenes weren’t made clear. There also wasn’t a smooth transition connecting each scene. There was this particular scene where Katniss recollects her memories about Peeta. Here particularly, the reality and the flashback scene are hard to distinguish as there is a sudden change of scenes, making it look like it’s just another scene in the movie.

One main thing that messed up the whole film was the shaky camera work. Gary Ross said that his decision to do this was because, “had a lot to do with the urgency of what's going on and to reflect Katniss' point of view”. In his point of view, he might have a done a good job but the shaky camera work made the detailing of the scene and the character’s actions very hard to perceive, making the watcher to do lots of guess work.

The movie altogether was satisfactory. I might as well have thrown my 120 rupees in the well. In my opinion, I am still in the blue about the movie. On a positive note, I liked Elizabeth Banks, playing the role of Effie Trinket. Her costume catches the eye of all and clearly tells that the movie is set in the future. On the whole, the movie is worth a watch.