FILM NEW REVIEWS

Snitch

2013-03-16T20:05:00.000+05:00

If you're looking to see Snitch because you can't get enough of Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson's blend of electric charisma and unbridled machismo, you're destined to be sorely disappointed. Helmed by stuntman turned director Ric Roman Waugh, this is decidedly more father-son drama than action film, wasting Johnson's best assets and demanding he bring his acting ability to a new level. It just sets him up to fail.

Based on a true story, Snitch centers on John Matthews (Johnson), a successful business owner with a big house, loving family, bitter ex-wife and an estranged son named Jason (Rafi Gavron). But Matthews is deeply devoted to his boy, even when a stupid decision lands him in jail for drug charges that could earn Jason 10 years in prison. Seeking re-election, US Attorney Joanne Keeghan (Susan Sarandon) refuses to pull strings to get Matthews' son out of jail?unless he can snitch on a bigger dealer. So, Matthews steps into the world of hard drugs, hoping to find enough intel that he can spare his boy conviction.

This drama is earnest in its storytelling, but stumbles in its execution. Johnson is painfully miscast, playing a supposedly powerless everyman who must pose as a tough guy to win the trust of dangerous drug dealers. The costume department diligently attempts to play down Johnson's massive muscles with dress shirts, but it doesn't work. He still looks like a professional bodybuilder, which makes it laughable when he is beaten up with ease by a bunch of teen pushers. Worse yet, there are no fight scenes for Johnson to show his stuff in. There are action sequences?including a pretty intense one involving a high speed chase with loads of gunplay?but never any hand-to-hand combat, which means his trademark brawn is not just hidden, it's wasted.

Instead, Johnson is asked to rely on his acting chops?which let's be honest?is not his strongest skill set. He's a great screen presence; he's not a great actor. Scenes between him and Sarandon are actually hard to watch. The dialogue doesn't help, filled as it is with clunky and on-the-nose lines. But barred from being a badass, Johnson delivers his lines with dead eyes and a flat tone. In response, Sarandon goes into overdrive, chewing scenery to the point where?I admit?she won me over completely. It was bonkers, but at least she was entertaining.

There are also some strange structural issues. Nearly half of the movie is spent on an ex-con gone legit who Matthews bullies into getting him into the drug game. Played by The Walking Dead's Jon Bernthal, the character is compelling but seems a distraction from the main plot line. The question of what would happen to this two-strike offender when Matthews brings in the DEA is ignored for most of the film, which is bizarre considering we meet the guy's entire family and get monologues about his attempts to start over. Similarly strange is Matthew's neglect of how his actions (dealing with deadly drug cartels to save his son from a previous marriage) will impact his new wife and young daughter.

Snitch is a movie that overreaches. Waugh, who co-wrote the script with Justin Haythe (Revolutionary Road), doesn't seem ready for such straightforward drama. Johnson isn't prepared for a role this emotionally demanding, and really he is physically unsuited for the part of an underestimated everyman. There are amusing turns from Sarandon and Barry Pepper?as a DEA agent with the worst facial hair ever constructed?but even with Bernthal's soulful subplot, this drama lacks momentum and weight. The highlight of the film is definitely the final action sequence teased on its poster, where a semi truck careens around a highway, fending off gun-toting baddies. But there's not enough action for this feature to satisfy on that score. All muddled together, this makes for a movie that's sometimes crazy enough to work, but often bland.

Dark Skies

2013-03-16T15:30:00.000+05:00

There are times when I think that the horror genre is a club that?s slowly trying to exclude me because I?m not afraid of children. In the past six months I have reviewed three underwhelming horror movies that used creepy children to spook audiences, but with each one I was left pleading for studios to find another trope to run into the ground. Instead I get Dark Skies, or as I like to call it, ?Number Four.?

Unlike The Posession, Sinister and Mama, at the very least writer/director Scott Stewart?s new film trades demons and spirits for aliens, but doesn?t do much more than put a sci-fi twist on a plot device that has sincerely worn out its welcome. It?s not hard to see what the filmmaker was trying to do with the story; the problem is that it fails in execution.

The film stars Kerri Russell and Josh Hamilton as parents of two kids (Dakota Goyo, Kadan Rockett) who are dealing with the usual suburban family problems when they begin to experience strange events that could be the work of extraterrestrial forces. Of course, it?s the children that have the most direct contact with the otherworldly beings and come to harm as a result. To his credit, Stewart broaches on interesting themes and social conflicts, like innocent parents being suspected of abusing their children, but anything even remotely interesting is dragged down by the languid pace and overuse of clich?s. How many more times do I have to see a stoic youngster draw a crude crayon drawing of their spooky invisible friend?

Dark Skies isn?t a found footage film, but it uses a very similar story structure to the Paranormal Activity films and succeeds in being just as boring. Each night Russell?s character wakes from her sleep, walks around the house and discovers something weird. The next day they deal with the weirdness, call the proper authorities, and try and figure out what?s going wrong while the youngest son acts strange and talks about the Sandman visiting him at night. This pattern is repeated multiple times with each night escalating the situation and therefore the drama between family members. It doesn?t take long to see the structure and it gets old fast.

Slow as it may be, the film shows some flashes of subtlety. While Stewart has a long background in visual effects he keeps them to a minimum here, taking the Jaws approach and understands that sometimes less is more. The film does occasionally take a heavier-handed approach to scares, such as scenes where small birds suicide bomb the family?s home and Russell gets put into a trance and bashes her head against a sliding glass door (which comes across as absurd more than frightening), but sometimes you have to appreciate convention being bent when it?s not being broken.

In the film?s second act the parents go to visit an alien expert played by J.K. Simmons who proceeds to give them a test to see if they are legitimately experiencing extraterrestrial contact. As he reads off the list of strange events and the parents begin to nod and share worried expressions you begin to realize that this was the same list that the writer/director got his hands on before writing the script and used it to structure the film. But while Dark Skies may live up to ?Believer? codes, that doesn?t make it an entertaining time at the cinema.

Escape From Planet Earth

2013-03-16T10:46:00.000+05:00

It?s one thing for a movie to have weaknesses. Even the better films released every year have some flaws, or at least a few areas that could use improvement. The problem with Escape From Planet Earth is that it doesn?t have one single strength to counteract any of those weaknesses. Every single facet of the film is at best, slightly below average and at worst, downright terrible.

The characters are poorly conceived stereotypes that lack depth. The animation is not bad but still below recent standards set by DreamWorks and Pixar. The jokes are mostly obvious, base level gags that will seem too foolish and immature for any child above the age of four that?s ever been described as ?advanced? or ?accelerated?. The song choices are misguided and occasionally even uncomfortably disconnected from the action. And the plot, well, multiple paragraphs need to be devoted to that lunacy.

The basic premise follows two brothers named Gary Supernova (Rob Corddry) and Scorch Supernova (Brendan Fraser). The former is an inventor and proud employee of the Mission Control Department of planet Baab. The later is an astronaut and arguably, the most famous member of the blue species. Together, they partner to save babies and fight the more malevolent alien races, but after a falling out, Scorch winds up imprisoned on Earth by the evil General Shanker (William Shatner), and it?s up to the normally reserved and office-bound Gary to save the day.

Along the way, Gary meets both aliens and human beings, but more importantly for viewers, he also meets that aforementioned story arc that doesn?t stand up to scrutiny or even a basic level of common sense. Anyone paying attention will be left with dozens of unanswered questions that director Cal Brunker doesn?t even bother attempting to answer. For the hell of it: let me throw out a couple of questions I?m still wondering about.

How is a fired employee able to steal a large spacecraft from a secure facility? Why is General Shanker allowed to make universe-altering decisions without anyone informing the President or anyone else in government? How do so many different aliens from so many different races land next to desolate 7-11s that it?s a running joke? Why does Ricky Gervais? OnStar knockoff sometimes have agency and sometimes behave like he?s powerless to counteract orders? Why? Why? Why? There are no good answers.

You know how great children?s movies work on two different levels in order to entertain both kids and adults? You know how mediocre children?s movies work on one level to entertain kids? Escape From Planet Earth doesn?t work on any level, and even worse, it doesn?t seem bothered by that failure. It?s as if every single person involved thinks children are so stupid that they don?t deserve entertainment with any effort behind it. It?s as if someone thought, ?They?re kids? so, who gives a damn?? In short, kids do. They do give a damn, and there?s a reason why they?ll rewatch The Lion King until they?re blue in the face and immediately forget this waste of time even exists.

As we speak, people involved in this production are currently in court arguing over who should get the profits or lack thereof from this movie. Well, let me save the court some time. No one should profit from this movie. No one. Not one single person. If there is any money left over, which there shouldn?t be, it should be burned because not even a charity should see a piece of this blood money. Everything about this movie sucks. It's so boring and listless that I can?t believe so many talented people were a part of it.

If you?re looking for something to do with your kids this weekend, take them to the park. There?s nothing for you or them to see here except frustration.

Side Effects

2013-03-16T06:56:00.000+05:00

Side Effects is set in New York City, but it barely looks like it. Steven Soderbergh, acting as always as his own cinematographer, makes the city look colder and more modern than ever, putting his characters in front of anonymous glass buildings and generic streets, robbing the city of its character and warmth at every turn. It's a brutally effective choice for what he claims is his final theatrical release, a twisty and surprisingly sexy thriller that, despite its heat, is actually about how cold and disconnected the world can be.

The film, written by Soderbergh's frequent collaborator Scott Z. Burns, is being sold as a tense drama about evil pharmaceutical companies and the beautiful young woman Emily (Rooney Mara) who becomes their victim, but that's barely the beginning of it. To talk about much about how Catherine Zeta-Jones, playing Emily's former psychiatrist Dr. Siebert, fits into the story would be spoiling too much. It even hard to talk about Channing Tatum, who plays Emily's white collar criminal husband newly released from jail, and whose gentle goodness Soderbergh once again brings out beautifully, but with sinister results.

Hopefully it's not unfair to reveal that Jude Law, not Mara, is the true star of the film, playing the psychiatrist she turns to when she falls into depression after her husband's return. He prescribes her the drug Ablixa for what seem like the right reasons, but it's not hard to see the factors that might lead him astray-- fancy lunch meetings with drug reps, offers of cash from pharmaceutical companies who want his seal of approval, and a wife (Vinessa Shaw) and kid who need his support. When the Ablixa causes some tragic, uh, side effects for Emily, Law's Dr. Banks seems like a well-meaning guy blindsided by a bad drug? but, again, like those shiny corporate surfaces on New York City skyscrapers, what's beneath it is a whole lot more complicated.

After stellar supporting work in Anna Karenina and Soderbergh's own Contagion, Law slips marvelously into the main role here, a would-be hero of his own story who is also, clearly, unraveling. He's well-matched by Mara, whose implacable stillness makes her seem quiet and enigmatic, until it's too late to recognize what was actually happening. The story that surrounds the two of them is more of a mixed bag. It is satisfying to watch Soderbergh tighten the screw on the audience, leading us in one direction then dropping us off a cliff, sliding in new character motivations and backstory at finely tuned moments. But where the story goes isn't necessarily as satisfying as where you thought it would, and though the film still leaves room for some pretty scathing commentary on the pharmaceutical industry, it's ultimately more about the tingling thrills than a larger social purpose. It didn't have to be Traffic, but it could have used a bit more heft to fill in the gaps.

If Soderbergh is indeed retiring, this will be his swan song in the movie theaters, and a not entirely inappropriate one-- the crisp digital cinematography, fine performances and air of cynicism about the modern world are perfectly Soderberghian. But it's more of a clean shot down the middle than one of Soderbergh's wild curveballs, like The Informant! or Magic Mike, that make him great. In the end it might be the upcoming HBO film Behind the Candelabra, a Liberace biopic, that is the best way to Soderbergh fans to say goodbye to this iconoclastic, irreplaceable filmmaker.

Identity Thief

2013-03-16T02:31:00.000+05:00

Shitting in a sink is a tough act to follow.

Melissa McCarthy may have logged hours on Gilmore Girls and Mike & Molly, but her star broached the stratosphere the moment she soiled a posh, cream-white dressing room in Paul Feig?s irreverent Bridesmaids. That scene-stealing performance earned McCarthy two chances this year to convince audiences she?s capable of carrying oneleg of a harmless buddy comedy (the next being Feig's The Heat). So far, though, the gifted comedian?s only being asked to recycle the obnoxious, uncouth and inappropriate persona that she already milked for laughs.

If you weren?t paying attention to the credits, Identity Thief could be mistaken for the latest Todd Phillips comedy. Whether that?s an endorsement or a warning depends on your tastes.

McCarthy plays Diana, an unseemly Floridian con artist who ? in the opening scene ? dupes her mark into sharing his vital statistics (name, date of birth, credit card number) over the phone. That would be Sandy Bigelow Patterson (Jason Bateman) a mild-mannered Denver accountant with a gorgeous wife (Amanda Peet), two precocious kids, and a selfish boss (Jon Favreau) who is screwing him at every turn.

Sandy?s thrown a lifeline by an entrepreneurial colleague (John Cho) starting his own company. Better salary. A vice president?s title. It all sounds too good to be true. Unfortunately, before Sandy can move in to the corner office, he?s told that his credit scores are in the toilet and he?s wanted in the Sunshine State for skipping a mandatory court date. His identity has been stolen.

Proper authorities would attempt to assist Patterson at this point. But because Identity Thief was plotted by Craig Mazin ? whose screenwriting credits include two Scary Movie sequels, two Hangover sequels and Superhero Movie -- we instead plunge headlong into the improbable and flail around in search of broad comedy.

Sandy convinces his employers to give him one week to lure Diana back to Denver. He cooks up an elaborate sting operation that will trick the diminutive crook into confessing her crimes. Apparently flying from Florida isn?t an option (because a deceptive identity thief like Diana supposedly doesn?t have false credentials that will get her on an airplane), so Mazin and director Seth Gordon do their best impersonation of Due Date, putting polar opposites behind the wheel for a series of ludicrous, violent and demeaning pit stops.

McCarthy and Bateman riff on variations of the established snob-and-slob personalities. Twenty years ago, this vehicle would have been shaped around Chris Farley and David Spade. The pair does find ways to make the inevitable odd-couple clich? click, though. Thief works best when its leads can dance around whatever silly situation Mazin hands them, be it a motel tryst with an amorous cowboy (Modern Family?s Eric Stonestreet) or the film?s purest blast of guilt-free comedy involving Bateman and a six-foot-long snake.

For whatever reason, though, Thief keeps slowing down to introduce new characters through subplots that ultimately add little to the mix. Comedy might be the only genre that can be done in by too much plot. Do we really need Genesis Rodriguez and hip-hop artist T.I. as gangsters looking to kill Diana because she scammed them with bogus credit cards? No. They answer to Paolo (the great Jonathan Banks), a Godfather-type mob boss who pulls strings from his prison cell in a series of scenes that likely beefed up a subplot that landed on the cutting room floor. Speaking of, that?s where Gordon should have left Robert Patrick?s contributions as Skiptracer, a bounty hunter also assigned to capturing Diana. Remove any ? or all ? of these characters from the mix and you?re left with a blessedly shorter version of basically the same movie.

Identity Thief isn?t odious. It?s just predictable. Lazy comedies cast the overweight McCarthy as the bullish deadbeat and the conservative Bateman as the buttoned-down bean counter. Gordon could have helped his film establish its own identity by having his talented leads switch characters. Make Bateman ditch his uptight comedic crutch to play a low-life criminal dirt bag. Gamble on McCarthy as the respectable female executive who?s victimized by a con. The gifted comedian has to start playing against type in big-screen comedies if she wants to be remembered as anything other than that heavy-set woman who crapped herself in a Kristen Wiig comedy.

Safe Haven

2013-03-15T21:53:00.000+05:00

Nicholas Sparks has become such a massive force in American romantic films that it only takes a few signifiers to recognize his work. A beach setting, with marshes in the background glinting with sunlight. A couple, almost always white, either in casual resort wear or bathing suits, embracing. There's always something dark looming, be it a secret from the past or a tragedy the characters don't see coming, but the glowing smiles of the lovers overcome it-- these are movies painstakingly engineered to bring its fragile audience just to the brink of raw emotions before planting them back in the pastel-colored, soft and generous Sparksian world.

Safe Haven, the latest film to roll off the Sparks assembly line, follows every one of those instructions to the letter, though he fiddles with the formula enough here that longtime fans might be wooed. The darkness in Safe Haven comes not from some looming future tragedy but from the past, as Katie (Julianne Hough) tries to start a new life in Southport, North Carolina while her abusive husband Kevin (David Lyons) tracks her from Boston. The parallel narrative structure is unusual for a Sparks film, as we watch Katie flirt and fall for local shopkeeper Alex (Josh Duhamel, 16 years older than Hough but who's counting?) while Kevin, a detective, hunts her like a bloodhound.

The contrasting styles of a stalker thriller and a fluffy romance could lend Safe Haven some interesting wrinkles, but director Lasse Hallstrom has no idea how to play out that tension, offering pointless misdirection about Kevin's real identity and revealing clues about how he'll hunt Katie down well after the audience has noticed them. He's more comfortable with the brighter romantic scenes, thanks to experience on the likes of Dear John and Salmon Fishing in the Yemen. The North Carolina locations are sumptuous as ever, and Alex's two moppets (Noah Lomax and Mimi Kirkland) are actually cute, at least when not saddled with dialogue. Hough and Duhamel have no chemistry whatsoever, and their characters are bland and featureless as a bowl of grits, but you paid money to see them romance each other in bathing suits, and they dutifully comply.

Even though it's essentially the same as every coastal Southern town depicted in a Sparks novel, Southport and its easy way of life is surprisingly alluring, and credit to production designer Kara Lindstrom for the effectively weathered general store that Alex owns, and Katie's bungalow in the woods that's the kind of place we'd all run away to, abusive husband or not. Safe Haven's February release is obviously timed for Valentine's Day, but it works as a mental summer vacation as well-- when you get bored of watching Katie and Alex gaze at each other or the convoluted plot that keeps them apart, you can admire their summer clothes and the coastal greenery and start counting down the days until your own beach vacation.

Until, that is, the film's climax, which includes one twist you definitely saw coming-- that abusive husband wasn't going to stay away forever, now was he?-- and one you might not have, a twist so gutsy it will probably be all anyone talks about after. As it turns out, you can complain all you want about Nicholas Sparks's conflict-free stories, but when conflict is introduced it totally ruins the gauzy vacation vibe. Safe Haven doesn't have a whole lot to offer, with a plot so familiar and stars so uninterested in each other, and its resolution only undermines what it's truly best at being-- a cheap North Carolina vacation.

The Master

2013-03-15T17:21:00.000+05:00

In his last and possibly best film, There Will Be Blood, Paul Thomas Anderson dove headlong into a character who is a very specific, very important American archetype. Daniel Plainview, who was almost an instant icon, was the American Dream embodied and curdled, a salesman and sociopath who shaped the wilderness of the country in his own image. In his new film The Master, Philip Seymour Hoffman plays a uniquely American character not unlike Daniel Plainview, a man who chooses to shape people rather than nature. But the film's focus is divided between Hoffman's cult leader Lancaster Dodd and Joaquin Phoenix's Freddie Quell, a drifter who falls under Dodd's spell. It gives the film a range of themes and some powerhouse scenes between the two, but also muddles its focus; The Master is beautiful and thought-provoking, but also frustratingly inaccessible and opaque about its meaning.

In a way that's always always been Anderson's style-- who can claim they know the deal with those frogs at the end of Magnolia?-- but The Master is a film about ideas that's also oddly disconnected from them, exploring the nascent cult Lancaster Dodd has founded without ever giving real meaning to his teachings. Hoffman plays Dodd as a fiery but uniquely entertaining man, holding his followers and the audience in rapt attention through vague speeches about achieving higher awareness and the existence of past lives. He is calm when prodding his followers to new "revelations" but quick to anger in the face of skeptics, ebullient on his daughter's wedding day but cold the next. He's mercurial but giving and endlessly confident, which is what makes him such a great leader-- and such a fascinating figure to follow and never quite understand throughout the film.

But he's nothing compared to Freddie, the film's untamable and menacing heart, a man cut loose from the all-or-nothing morals of World War II into a country that doesn't have room for him. We meet him first on a Navy beach outpost where he takes every joke too far and does insane things like drink rocket fuel; after the war he's left taking portraits at a posh department store, and who can be surprised when that blows up in his face. Like any good American origin myth, Freddie's meeting with Dodd happens entirely by accident, hopping on board a gleaming party boat that's sailing away beneath the Golden Gate Bridge. After a intense kind of psychotherapy called "processing" and some straight talk with Dodd's wife Peggy (Amy Adams), Freddie is brought into Dodd's confidence-- and the insular, unblinking world of The Cause-- before he or we quite understand how it happened.

Despite all the talk of Dodd being a thinly veiled take on L. Ron Hubbard, nothing in The Master reflects that heavily on the real world, and for all the ways we see Freddie and Dodd straining against the confines of post-war American life, their story isn't presented in the mythic tones you might expect. The best parts of The Master are when it condenses down into tinderbox scenes between Freddie and Lancaster, the two of them probing and defying each other, sometimes exploding-- as in an unforgettable scene in a prison cell-- or gazing at each other with the kind of sadness and affection you might expect from lovers. Freddie is not like the devoted, thoughtful followers Dodd has already amassed-- he's like a feral animal, with poor impulse control and disturbing sexual obsessions, and that challenge to overcome his base nature fits neatly into Dodd's rambling teachings about connecting to a higher self.

Shot in rich, detailed 70 mm that adds unexpected depth and clarity to even the simplest scenes, The Master is gorgeous in its careful construction, but also a little distant and hard to grasp. A second viewing seems practically a requirement, like many of Anderson's films, and it's a little painful to write this review now, knowing I haven't yet gotten the whole picture. Based around undeniably great performances, impeccable design and Anderson's unnerving confidence behind the camera, The Master is unforgettable, but like the mercurial men at its center, the harder you try to read into it, the more it slips away into the distance.

Beautiful Creatures

2013-03-15T14:20:00.000+05:00

Your Twilight alarm may be screaming at first glimpse of Beautiful Creatures, a supernatural romance between two teenagers-- one human, one immortal-- who long to be together, and express that longing in a lot of gorgeous natural locations while scored to modern pop music. And while the world of Beautiful Creatures is no less absurd than Twilight, filled with witches called "casters" and curses from the Civil War and an all-knowing Viola Davis, it possesses a crucial self-awareness to actually allow you to get in on the fun. It's not always easy to follow the rules of this new supernatural world, but by not getting caught up in the details and exploring the giggly thrill of teen romance, Beautiful Creatures is way more fun than your Twilight-weary soul might imagine.

It starts, surprisingly enough, with the two attractive young leads, both of whom commit to the high emotions of romance without forgetting that they're supposed to be, y'know, enjoying each others' company. Alden Ehrenreich slaps on a syrupy Southern accent to play Ethan Wate, a sweet-natured kid itching to escape his South Carolina hometown, but also stuck caring for his dad following his mother's death. He's drawn immediately to the new girl in town, Lena (Alice Englert), who's staying with her uncle Macon Ravenwood (Jeremy Irons) in a run-down old mansion that everyone thinks is haunted (the connection between Macon and To Kill a Mockingbird's Boo Radley is stated early, one of many hints that Beautiful Creatures is smarter than it looks). Ethan pursues Lena not with smoldering glances but an easy smile and a willingness to look silly, and the imperious Lena eventually softens-- but not before revealing the family secrets that could keep them apart.

You see, Lena is a caster-- the terms for witch used in Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl's novels-- and on her approaching 16th birthday she will be "claimed" for either the dark or light side. In the chaotic group of supporting characters we see both the light side (Margo Martindale in an insane wig, mainly) and the dark (Emmy Rossum's vampy Cousin Ridley), and Lena's own dark caster mother Seraphine comes to town, possesses the body of the local Moral Majority snoop (Emma Thompson) and tries to meddle in Lena's life enough to make her dark transition a guarantee. On top of all that, there's also a curse left over from the Civil War that guarantees that Lena's love for a mortal will make her dark forever. Being 16 ain't easy, y'all.

When Thompson first appears as the schoolmarmish yokel she seems wildly out of place, but when she transforms into Seraphine with one delicious monologue delivered to Irons, she lights a rocket under the movie and delivers its purpose. Yes, all the Southern accents in this movie are awful. Yes, it's impossible to keep track of which caster is meddling with Lena in which way. Yes, there are moments where we peek into Lena's magical world and something completely nonsensical-- like a man with his entire body painted like clouds-- is presented as if we should understand it. But even when Beautiful Creatures is nonsense, it is stylish, captivating, gloriously enjoyable nonsense, with all of its performers well aware of what they're given. Director Richard LaGravanese, seemingly grateful to have assembled this kind of cast, lets his actors cut loose, but all are smart enough not to turn it into a joke. You'll find yourself believing in it all despite yourself; like the Civil War re-enactments featured in the final action scene, it all looks insane on the surface, but has a mighty power to suck you in.

Englert, with her moody eyes and powerful charisma, is an obvious star in the making, but Ehrenreich matches her not in sex appeal, but boy-next-door relatability-- the two of them alone are worth a sequel to dip back into this loony-tunes world. As a South Carolinian I think I finally understand what it's been like for Louisianans to watch True Blood all these years, seeing their culture transformed into something howling and maybe even offensive. I also can't wait to see it happen again.

Oz The Great And Powerful

2013-03-15T10:44:00.000+05:00

In a world of sequels, reboots, remakes, re-adaptations and re-imaginings, prequels have become one of Hollywood?s hardest nuts to crack. There have been far fewer successes than notorious missteps, from George Lucas? second Star Wars trilogy to X-Men Origins: Wolverine. In directing Oz The Great and Powerful, Sam Raimi was facing an uphill battle working to live up to the legacy of Victor Fleming?s classic The Wizard of Oz, but by embracing what was great about the old film while introducing plenty of new to the world, he has succeeded.

The legacy of both Disney and Oz both could have found a way to stifle Raimi?s style, but Oz The Great and Powerful is undeniably a Raimi film. The director brings all of his little flourishes that he?s had since The Evil Dead to the new blockbuster - most notably the quick-zooms that distinguish scenes of chaos ? and he?s also even able to play around with some scarier elements. The film is never any more frightening than The Wizard of Oz is, but between dragon-winged baboons, intense witches and a scene involving some freaky plant monsters, the movie will raise your pulse at times.

And credit to Raimi for actually building Oz for his actors to interact in instead of a bunch of green screens. Not only does it give the film a surreal quality, convincing the audience of its otherworldliness, it?s also a boon to the 3D cinematography, which succeeds in not making the characters look like cardboard cutouts against a matte painting. But where the CGI does come in its fantastic, particularly in the design and integration of the China Girl, who looks impressively photorealistic.

As an origin story for The Wizard of Oz, this film cleverly balances its own story while also embracing the elements that made the original great to begin with. Raimi includes many nods to Fleming?s movie, including the sepia-toned 4:3 aspect ratio opening that turns to color and widescreen in the Land of Oz, and the fact that both stories have a group of unlikely heroes joining together to go on a great adventure, but keeps the story surprising and clever enough for it all to play as loving homage. The troupe that the movie pulls together - which includes Oz (James Franco), the con-man/magician/presumed wizard destined to save the land from the wicked witch; Finley (Zach Braff), a flying monkey who owes a life-debt to Oz; and the aforementioned China Girl (Joey King), a sassy young porcelain doll who Oz rescues ? has wonderful chemistry and conflicting personalities, while the three witches Glinda, Evanora and Theodora (Michelle Williams, Rachel Weisz, and Mila Kunis) all get interesting new backstories that add surprising depth to previously underdeveloped characters.

Fun as Franco is in the eponymous role, it?s surprisingly his CGI co-stars that wind up stealing the show. As Finley, Braff has the benefit of getting the lion?s share of the funniest one-liners and quips, but the actor deserves the credit for his great timing and simply having the perfect voice for the part. King, meanwhile, brings the ideal level of pluck and cute humor to the China Girl without ever being cloying or reducing the character to being a stereotype.

Unlike 2011?s The Thing, Hannibal Rising or Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd, Oz The Great and Powerful is the rare prequel that fans will want to rewatch back to back with the original classic, not only finding the places where the stories sync up, but also just enjoying the story of it all. It?s an entertaining family movie, a true Sam Raimi film, and a fun return to a merry old land.

Stoker

2013-03-15T07:09:00.000+05:00

The best way to watch Stoker, the new film from director Park Chan-wook, is as if you have the senses of its lead character. India Stoker, played by the brilliant Mia Wasikowska, has a special gift where she can hear and see things imperceptible to the rest of us, seeing the world for all of its smallest details and elements. Watching the movie, audiences should completely absorb themselves in it, pushing back reality to focus on every line, every cut, every pan and every sound. It?s the only way to properly view something this magnificent.

Mixing elements of the modern day, the Victorian gothic era and the mid-20th century, Stoker is a stunning mix of coming of age tale and horror/thriller that begins on India?s 18th birthday ? the day her father (Dermot Mulroney) is killed in a terrible car accident. But it isn?t until the funeral that she discovers she won?t be alone in her giant house with her unbalanced mother, Evie (Nicole Kidman). It is there that she first learns of her mysterious Uncle Charlie (Matthew Goode), family she has never knew existed. From there, Park and screenwriter Wentworth Miller weave a captivating and phenomenal tale of mystery and terror, as sexual and psychological tension constantly rises between the mother, daughter and uncle and India?s fascination with her estranged relative unravels not only his past, but also her future.

Every frame in Stoker feels like it was crafted with satin-gloved fingertips and a pair of tweezers held by a filmmaker in complete control. Park makes regular use of long, flowing shots that take the audience around the palatial Stoker estate, lending the film not only a feeling of elegance, but a creepy, underlying voyeurism. ?The sound design is otherworldly, as we occasionally dip into India?s perceptions and listen to the world the way she hears it, from the light breathing and shallow gulps during a quiet family dinner to the shatter of a gunshot and gurgling blood. The film creates an opulent, wonderful landscape of senses that lures you in and snaps like a bear trap when the dark undertones become extreme overtones.

Leading the cast and lending a stoic, mesmerizing quality to India, Wasikowska is a stand-out in a cast replete with awesome performances. The young actress creates an impressive balance for the character, accentuating her great strength (like when she strikes back at bullies tormenting her at school) while also making her vulnerable (particularly when in the presence of Uncle Charlie). Goode?s take on the film?s mysterious antagonist is frighteningly reminiscent of Anthony Perkins? Norman Bates in Psycho, while Kidman?s turn is blessed with subtlety that makes Evie?s instability all the more engaging. When the three gather in one room you can palpably feel the emotions between all the characters and it?s immediately clear you?re watching something special.

You won?t find any jump scares in Stoker. Nor will you find any demonically-possessed children, CGI beasts, or half-assed twist endings. The movie forgoes any stunts and tropes and instead generates genuine terror from flawless filmmaking, a collection of outstanding performances and a story of bubbling monstrosity and bad blood. If this is what Park Chan-wook can bring to the American film world, then hopefully he will stay for a very long time.

The Last Exorcism Part II

2013-03-15T03:05:00.000+05:00

New Orleans is a really spooky place. It?s a strange mix of buttoned up Christianity, hidden superstitions and nighttime sin. It has its own pace, its own bilingual history and its own demons. In many ways, it?s the perfect setting for a horror movie interested in creepy and off-putting visuals and/ or backstories involving slavery, vampires and old mansions that have fallen into disrepair.

At times, The Last Exorcism really seems to understand the potential in its location. It cuts to creepers in Mardi Gras masks and disturbing painted street performers. It even throws in some voodoo-like rituals, but none of it is enough to save a flat exorcism story arc that few of us asked for and even fewer will enjoy.

Even casual horror fans have probably seen at least one young woman?s body twisted, contorted and raised into the air. If not, they?ve at least seen one member of a weird cult or religious organization get called out of the bullpen to try his home spun remedies on a protagonist slowly losing his or her mind. That?s why exorcism movies have to be about the characters now, as as characters go, The Last Exorcism is short on good ones.

After the de-possession story of the first The Last Exorcism, Nell Sweetzer (Ashley Bell) is discovered in the woods and brought to live in a group home for troubled young girls. After repeatedly being told the demon who possessed her, Abalam, isn?t real, she starts to make a real life for herself. There's a potential boyfriend (Spencer Treat Clark) to awkwardly go to the zoo with, a gaggle of girlfriends to talk about it with, and a job as a maid in a local hotel, but alas, we all know that bliss can?t last in an exorcism movie. Abalam reappears in various forms to sometimes torture her, sometimes woo her and consistently confuse the hell out of any viewers with common sense.

There?s a difference between a genre movie not answering every possible question a viewer might have and a horror movie straight up not making sense, and The Last Exorcism 2 is on the wrong side of that unforgiving line. We?re told Abalam is powerless without Nell; yet, he?s apparently capable of inhabiting people?s bodies and committing a boatload of felonies with only a marginal bit of effort. Sometimes we?re given evidence to believe certain characters and certain behaviors are figments of people?s imaginations, and sometimes we?re given evidence to believe certain characters and certain behaviors are actually happening. It?s a big jumbled, needlessly complicated mess.

The Last Exorcism worked because it made clever use of a skeptic, got a great performance from its lead actress and offered just enough genuine scares. The Last Exorcism 2 gets that same great performance from Bell, but beyond that, it doesn?t offer much more than confusion and the occasional New Orleans shoutout. Unlike its predecessor, this one isn?t destined for good word of mouth, and if we?re in luck, it won?t be destined for another sequel either.

Jack The Giant Slayer

2013-03-14T22:40:00.001+05:00

The beanstalk has been eliminated from the title of this version of Jack and the adventure that happens when he brings home magic beans, and we have to wait a hell of a long time to see it. When padding out a children's fairy tale to become an epic, CGI-heavy film, you've got to add some story in there somehow, and in its opening act Jack slides painfully from animated recreation of the giant legends to meet-cute between our hero and heroine to the political instability of a kingdom that doesn't exist.

Even when the beanstalk erupts, and Jack (dewy and engaging Nicholas Hoult) joins a rescue party to rescue the pretty princess (Eleanor Tomlinson) who's trapped atop it, director Bryan Singer can't quite wrap his arms around this wily revisionist fairy tale. Only when those titular giants emerge, miraculous creations of motion-capture and imagination, do Jack the movie and Jack the person seem to find their purpose, spinning a children's film with surprising violence and even more goofy humor, a fairly standard-issue fantasy with just enough sparks of wit that show someone cared enough to make it better.

That's not necessarily what I'd hoped for from Singer, who's spent the the four years since the muddled release of his terrific film Valkyrie working on this and overseeing the X-Men universe. Though Jack works with some excellent moments of tension-- like when Jack and his princess love are on the verge of being cooked into a giant pie-- it's not nearly the high wire expertise Singer has shown in the past, and the grinding mechanics of the script credited to four different people keeps the film leaden for far too long. A movie that gets good only after 45 minutes is a tough sit, but Jack only manages to become OK-- a hard sell both to the kids it's aimed at and the parents who might know Singer is capable of better.

Jack isn't as chaotic as Clash of the Titans and not nearly as self-serious as John Carter, which at least puts it ahead of some of its fellow early-spring fantasy competition. And its bright spots are often remarkable, like the swashbuckling Errol Flynn-style performance from Ewan MacGregor as the head of the rescue party, or Stanley Tucci as the princess's sniveling intended, with his own secret plans for how to rule the kingdom. When the rescue party begins the men-- of course they're all men-- are an unruly gaggle of about a dozen, and only after about half of them literally fall off the beanstalk is it possible to figure out group dynamics (Eddie Marsan is in there somewhere, but has a hard time breaking out of the pack). And though it's hard to to sense the love connection between Jack and Princess Isabelle that sends him clambering up that beanstalk, once they're reunited they have a nice thing going on. It's a shame the adventuresome princess barely gets to be a part of the actual action, but with so much else going on in the plot, it's almost a relief to have one less story to deal with.

The giants, and especially a motion-capture Bill Nighy as the leader Fallon, are a mighty impressive CGI creation, covered in all kinds of weird warts and growths and, on one of them at least, a second head. Shooting much of the film outdoors allows the giants to feel even more authentic, though parents might find that realism a bit too intense for kids. In an effort to balance that intensity Jack is crammed with silly humor, leaving it in an odd middle-ground between straight-up family adventure and a more familiar fantasy cribbed from Lord of the Rings. It's a strange hybrid, and not entirely a successful one, but hey, at least it's trying something different.

This Means War

2012-02-16T11:32:00.001+05:00

Release Date: 02/17/2012
Rating: R
Runtime: 98 min
Genre: Comedy, Action , Romance
Director: McG
Cast: Reese Witherspoon, Chris Pine, Tom Hardy, Chelsea Handler

Storyline

Two top CIA operatives wage an epic battle against one another after they discover they are dating the same woman.

Review

In This Means War – a stylish action/rom-com hybrid from director McG – Tom Hardy (The Dark Knight Rises) and Chris Pine (Star Trek) star as CIA operatives whose close friendship is strained by the fires of romantic rivalry. Best pals FDR (Pine) and Tuck (Hardy) are equally accomplished at the spy game, but their fortunes diverge dramatically in the dating realm: FDR (so nicknamed for his obvious resemblance to our 32nd president) is a smooth-talking player with an endless string of conquests, while Tuck is a straight-laced introvert whose love life has stalled since his divorce. Enter Lauren (Reese Witherspoon), a pretty, plucky consumer-products evaluator who piques both their interests in separate, unrelated encounters. Tuck meets her via an online-dating site, FDR at a video-rental store. (That Lauren is tech-savvy enough to date online but still rents movies in video stores is either a testament to her fascinating mix of contradictions, or more likely an example of lazy screenwriting.)

When Tuck and FDR realize they’re pursuing the same girl, it sparks their respective competitive natures, and they decide to make a friendly game of it. But what begins as a good-natured rivalry swiftly devolves into romantic bloodsport, with both men using the vast array of espionage tools at their disposal – from digital surveillance to poison darts – to gain an edge in the battle for Lauren’s affections. If her constitutional rights happen to be violated repeatedly in the process, then so be it.

Lauren, for her part, remains oblivious to the clandestine machinations of her dueling suitors, and happily basks in the sudden attention from two gorgeous men. Herein we find the Reese Witherspoon Dilemma: While certainly desirable, Lauren is far from the irresistible Helen of Troy type that would inspire the likes of Tuck and FDR to risk their friendship, their careers, and potential incarceration for. At several points in This Means War, I found myself wondering if there were no other peppy blondes in Los Angeles (where the film is primarily set) for these men to pursue. Then again, this is a film that wishes us to believe that Tom Hardy would have trouble finding a date, so perhaps plausibility is not its strong point.

When Lauren needs advice, she looks to her boozy, foul-mouthed best friend, Trish (Chelsea Handler). Essentially an extension of Handler’s talk-show persona – an acquired taste if there ever was one – Trish’s dialogue consists almost exclusively of filthy one-liners, delivered in rapid-fire succession. Handler does have some choice lines – indeed, they’re practically the centerpiece of This Means War’s ad campaign – but the film derives the bulk of its humor from the outrageous lengths Tuck and FDR go to sabotage each others’ efforts, a raucous game of spy-versus-spy that carries the film long after Handler’s shtick has grown stale.

Business occasionally intrudes upon matters in the guise of Heinrich (Til Schweiger), a Teutonic arms dealer bent on revenge for the death of his brother. The subplot is largely an afterthought, existing primarily as a means to provide third-act fireworks – and to allow McGenius an outlet for his ADD-inspired aesthetic proclivities. The film’s action scenes are edited in such a manic, quick-cut fashion that they become almost laughably incoherent. In fairness to McG, he does stage a rather marvelous sequence in the middle of the film, in which Tuck and FDR surreptitiously skulk about Lauren's apartment, unaware of each other's presence, carefully avoiding detection by Lauren, who grooves absentmindedly to Montel Jordan's "This Is How We Do It." The whole scene unfolds in one continuous take – or is at least craftily constructed to appear as such – captured by one very agile steadicam operator.

Whatever his flaws as a director, McG is at least smart enough to know how much a witty script and appealing leads can compensate for a film’s structural and logical deficiencies. He proved as much with Charlie’s Angels, a film that enjoys a permanent spot on many a critic’s Guilty Pleasures list, and does so again with This Means War. The film coasts on the chemistry of its three co-stars, and only runs into trouble when the time comes to resolve its romantic competition, which, by the end, has driven its male protagonists to engage in all manner of underhanded and duplicitous activities. This Means War being a commercial film – and likely an expensive one at that – Witherspoon's heroine is mandated to make a choice, and McG all but sidesteps the whole thorny matter of Tuck and FDR’s unwavering dishonesty, not to mention their craven disregard for her privacy. (They regularly eavesdrop on her activities.) For all their obvious charms, the truth is that neither deserves Lauren – or anything other than a lengthy jail sentence, for that matter.

The Vow (2012)

2012-02-11T23:23:00.001+05:00

Release Date: 02/10/2012
Rating: PG13
Runtime: 1 hr 44 mins
Genre: Drama,Romance
Director: Michael Sucsy
Cast: Rachel McAdams, Channing Tatum, Sam Neill, Jessica Lange

Storyline
A car accident puts Paige (McAdams) in a coma, and when she wakes up with severe memory loss, her husband Leo (Tatum) works to win her heart again.

Review

The romantic drama The Vow is not adapted from a Nicholas Sparks novel, though I doubt its producers would be offended if you’d assumed otherwise. In fact, I suspect they’re banking on it. The film’s stars, Rachel McAdams and Channing Tatum, are both recognized veterans of the Sparks subgenre – she gave us the indelible (for better or worse) Notebook, while he starred in the somewhat less successful Dear John. Moreover, its premise, pitting love against the insidious after-effects of brain trauma, may be inspired by a true story, but its one-two punch of tragedy and sentiment is straight out of Sparks’ tear-jerking playbook.

It’s all there in The Vow’s opening montage, which first introduces Leo (Tatum) and Paige (McAdams), two desperately smitten bohemian-artist types (she’s a sculptor; he’s a musician/studio owner), and then rudely separates them, all in one slick, heartbreaking sequence. There’s the meet-cute at the DMV, the whirlwind courtship, the quirky marriage proposal, the kitschy guerrilla wedding (replete with vows scrawled on restaurant menus), and, finally, the brutal car accident, glimpsed in agonizing slow-motion, that leaves poor Paige in a coma.

When Paige awakens in the hospital, Leo is aghast to discover his wife doesn’t recognize him. While her girl-next-door beauty emerged from the crash remarkably intact, it seems her brain did not fare so well, suffering injuries that effectively wiped out her memory of the preceding five years – a span comprising the entirety of her relationship with Leo. Her mind’s clock rewound a half-decade, Paige assumes the identity of Paige from five years prior, like a rebooted computer whose owner neglected to backup the hard drive in a timely manner.

It soon becomes achingly apparent that the Paige from five years prior was markedly different from the Paige we met in the opening credits: a superficial sorority girl, on track for a law degree, averse to city-dwelling, partial to blueberry mojitos, cowed by her domineering father (Sam Neill), and engaged to a corporate douche (Scott Speedman). Upon emerging from her slumber, she finds the remnants from her old life all-too-eager to re-assimilate their lost lamb into the Bourgeois Borg, even if she does have one of those icky tattoos.

In danger of losing the love of his life to her former one, a heartbroken Leo resolves to win back Paige, even if it means starting from scratch and wooing her all over again. Aligned against him are the grim realities of brain damage as well as Paige’s family and former fiancé, whose cult-like efforts at re-education seem ever-creepier the more I contemplate them. (There are unintentional echoes of Total Recall in Paige’s arc, which I suppose would make Leo her Kuato.)

Cultishness and Total Recall allusions notwithstanding, The Vow flirts with a more unsettling notion, one seemingly at odds with the romantic drama mission, implying that what we know as love is simply the product of our memories, tenuous and transient, and not the profound, transcendent bond that Hallmark promised.

Fear not: The Vow is by no means a dense metaphysical treatise. Director Michael Sucsy (Grey Gardens) and is far more concerned with heart-tugging than thought-provoking. To that end, he steers admirably clear of grand epiphanies and other moments of high melodrama, preferring instead to apportion the sap relatively evenly throughout the story. The strategy is less manipulative but also less impactful. The script, from Abby Kohn, Marc Silverstein, and Jason Katims, can’t maintain the energy of its opening act, and apart from its brain damage twist, is a tediously familiar romantic-drama slog. I found myself secretly rooting for some old-fashioned emotional overkill, if only to alleviate the boredom.

The two leads, for their part, form a charming pair. McAdams is as endearing as ever, working well within her comfort zone, and equally likable Tatum bears his character’s anguish ably, even if he’ll never be credible as a bohemian-artist type. Their easy, appealing chemistry might be enough to satisfy the Sparks-philes, but it’s not enough to sustain the film.

Gali Gali Chor Hai movie review

2012-02-11T14:08:00.001+05:00

Gali Gali Chor Hai February 3, 2012 11:48:02 AM IST
updated February 4, 2012 01:52:30 PM IST
By Martin D'Souza, Glamsham Editorial
For a movie that slots itself as comedy/drama, GALI GALI CHOR HAI leaves a sobering impact. In fact, it has you tottering out of the auditorium after having driven home its point with such finesse that it makes you wonder how Rumi Jaffery managed this Houdini act!
'Houdini act' because it's a subject so real and so close to home that it has never been addressed with such intelligence. True, there have been movies on politics and politicians and the corrupt system; but the way the 'system' is looked into in a holistic way, through the life of just one common man, is indeed an eye-opener. I'm sure, R K Laxman would be proud of this achievement. After decades, some other artist has managed to portray the 'Common Man' that really excites, incites and has you thinking.

CHECK OUT: Mugdha- No bikini show in GALI GALI CHOR HAI
The story is simple. It could happen to you. Bharat (Akshaye Khanna) is a quintessential character, you would find in your neighbourhood. It could be you. He is married; works in a bank as a cashier and his only crime is that he refuses a room in his large house for a local politician to set up his temporary office during election time. The setting is in Madhya Pradesh. Bharat is part of a play where he longs to play Ram, but portrays Hanuman. The local politician's brother enacts Ram, thanks to his lineage, even though he is a bad actor. The genesis of Bharat's problem can be traced from here.
Before you know it, in front of your eyes, Bharat is implicated in a problem so trivial that it actually shocks you as to how he could be sucked into the vortex of the corrupt system so incredulously convincingly by a cop (Anu Kapoor, brilliant) who obviously has been let loose on the unsuspecting man.

It appears that the cops have caught a robber who has robbed a table fan from Bharat's home. Bharat is not aware of any such fan. But after a veiled threat from the cop he is convinced to go to the local police station where the game begins to retrieve his fan. How Rumi exploits the plot, weaving in the accompaniment that goes along with any case that lands in the small court is what frustrates you as a viewer. You feel for Bharat as he helplessly moves around not knowing what has hit him as he starts bribing his way through the system.
Then begins the quest to get rid of the 'unlucky' fan.
Akshaye is first rate in portraying the angst of someone who is perplexed as to the way the system functions. He transfers his anxiety to the viewer who is as helpless. That is the mark of a genius. Shriya Saran as his wife has a small but meaningful role. Murli Sharma who plays local MLA Manku Tripathi and the guy who plays his brother don't have much of a role. But just the minimum time they have on screen is enough to have a maximum impact. Who says you need several scenes and a meaty role to leave your mark as an actor?
CHECK OUT: Can GALI GALI CHOR HAI spring a surprise?
The final scene and the dialogue by Bharat, 'Yeh system ke gaal pe tamacha hai' is what really has you reeling. He does get to play Ram after all, using all the strength of a Hanuman!
The Bomb Blast angle notwithstanding (not convincing, it could have been interwoven more smartly or could have been done away with), GALLI GALLI CHOR HAIN is indeed an eye-opener. Positioned cleverly around election time, it should encourage those who never leave their homes to exercise their franchise.
Don't mistake the name Bharat for the main protagonist. India can have many more Anna Hazares who can stand up against the system.
The five star rating is for the concept and the intelligent way it has been executed, without going over-the-top. It is also for the director's chutzpah. Methinks it should be made tax free.
This movie is Timely, Topical and Terrific!
Rating - 5/5

View the original article here

Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu

2012-02-11T14:07:00.003+05:00

Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu February 10, 2012 12:30:48 PM IST
updated February 10, 2012 03:11:11 PM IST
By Martin D'Souza, Glamsham Editorial
This clearly is an Imran Khan show. Sedate and subdued, he goes about bringing Rahul (his character) to life. Overburdened by the expectations from his parents (Boman Irani and Ratna Pathak-Shah) to excel in what they decide is best for him, Rahul loses his identity and lives to please them. He opens his mouth, but is never able to voice his opinion. He is an architect in a big firm in Las Vegas. Sin city obviously is going to lure you to do things you would never have imagined. So what if you never rebel. There is always that side wanting to explode at the slightest provocation.
That provocation comes in the form of Kareena Kapoor (Riana Braganza) a hair-stylist who is nursing another broken relationship. Their chance meeting at a Mall, followed by a visit to the shrink in the same vicinity puts them in an odd spot. Before you know it, both are 'punch drunk' and wake up as a married couple the next morning. Neither has any clue of what happened. Britney Spears did that too, a few years ago and got the marriage annulled.
CHECK OUT: Imran's wife Avantika does cameo in EK MAIN AUR EKK TU
Rahul and Riana too want this mistake annulled. How this 'drunken error' weaves into a larger plot is what EK MAIN AUR EKK TU is all about. Shakun Batra does not give one the impression that this is his maiden venture as a director. The editing is sharp, the plot pushy enough to drive the movie the full length and the screenplay appropriate. For most part, the movie gives one a Hollywood feel, since Las Vegas is the action spot. The smart narration before, between and at the end, enhances the entire movie. Actually, it's another character of the movie.
Of late, Imran has been typecast with roles he has been associated with. Take the case of MERE BROTHER KI DULHAN and his debut film JAANE TU... YA JAANE NA... The characters, body language, dialogue delivery are almost similar. In EMAET, he goes three steps further. He sheds his image and clothes himself in the character. As for me, I got a Hugh Grant feel from his performance.

The same cannot be said of Kareena Kapoor. She is a fine actor but somewhere she has failed to shake off the image of Geet from JAB WE MET. You encounter Geet even here. For an actor to excel, he or she has to start afresh with every role. Having said that, it can be argued in her favour, that Riana is indeed a happy-go-lucky character who only sees the brighter side of life. Her family too, embodies the spirit she exudes. But then, you expect more from a Kareena, na?!.
For all the talk of their age difference, Imran and Kareena do make a good couple. The script helps too with her being shown two years older. However, the film does tend to get monotonous with the focus being on just the two. Batra tries to rope in a few more characters as the plot moves to India with Riana's parents and her extended family. Here, Batra falters as he portrays her family more like Parsis than Catholics. The scene at St Xavier's School where Riana takes Rahul on a tour too is a mistake because we all know that only boys study here. Talking about her best friend Amu, too, trivializes the scene a bit. We all know who she is referring to.
CHECK OUT: Kareena is unaffected by her stardom
The Auntyji track is peppy and ups the tempo and the end is actually the beginning. Full marks to Batra for being different.
At least you go back thinking about what could have been.
EMAET had the potential of being an even better film. The three stars are for the excellent treatment and Imran's performance.
Rating : 3/5

Ghost

2012-02-11T14:07:00.001+05:00

Kumaar, A.M. Turaz and Sandeep Nath Shiney Ahuja, Sayali Bhagat, Tej Sapru, Deepraj Rana, Julia Bliss and Gulshan Rana January 13, 2012 03:37:37 PM IST
By Martin D'Souza, Glamsham Editorial
Do not mistake this for the remake of the Patick Swayze-Demi Moore starrer with the same name. This one is far removed from the brilliance of that 1990 flick.
This GHOST is a nuisance. The directors needs to learn the ABC of scripting before venturing into a horror story. What he does know is to keep the lighting low and make scary background sounds. Apart from that he just scratches the surface. Whoever coined the saying, 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing', must surely have had this director in mind.
Picture this: There's a lady who is rushed to the hospital with third degree burns. Her saree is intact! Get a load of this too: Just when the investigation into the killings in the City Hospital is reaching its peak with the investigating officer (Shiney) stumbling on some important facts, he answers a call from Dr Suhani (Sayali) to dance in a night club. There are many such flaws in this film that leaves the viewer enough time to catch a quick nap and wake up at the opportune time to hear another background score that tries hard to scare.

For the record, a few killings at the City Hospital is baffling the authorities. All the victims have their heart pulled out and face disfigured. In walks Shiney, the investigating officer. Sayali is a doctor who has just joined this hospital and in her second meeting is singing songs with the investigating officer. It also appears that Shiney is suffering from retrograde amnesia, meaning he has forgotten a certain phase of his life. No prizes for guessing that it has some link to the happenings.
At least, the Ramsay brothers, whose name is synonymous with horror films, had a set formula which made sense. This one is comical in its approach.
Rating - 1/5

View the original article here

Valentines Night

2012-02-11T14:06:00.003+05:00

Valentine's Night Movie Review February 10, 2012 12:40:33 PM IST
updated February 10, 2012 03:22:08 PM IST
By Martin D'Souza, Glamsham Editorial
VALENTINE'S NIGHT is a story about three girls and two boys who have just broken up on Valentine's Day and meet up on the 'Lonely Hearts' page on Facebook. One of the girls plans a night out together. They call it Valentine's Night! As the night progresses, three more join the trip. These three (two girls and a boy) and partners of three from the five. Confusing? Not really. The idea was novel, but executing it into-a full-fledged movie is another story altogether.
Hence, I guess, there are two directors-Krishan and Badal. Both show promise in patches and that's about as far you can go with this plot, which is convoluted. After about 20 minutes of trying to keep pace with the action, you give up. The actors make a fine mess of whatever is given to them further complicating the goings-on.
The film is flawed right from the planning stage. There are plots within a plot and the directors do not know how to handle the back stories. Everything is just thrown in, like an inexperienced cook would do to a dish hoping it would taste good.

Payal Rohatgi is the only known name that drives this film, unfortunately she too is not convinced about what she is doing on screen. Apart from shedding copious tears and displaying legs (shoddy dress designing), she has nothing left to do.
I must say that this is a brave attempt but the makers could have done well to rope in a few experts to whet the script before taking the final plunge. After all, you are taking the product to the masses and a little sensibility is what is required.
The one star is for the belief the directors had in themselves. After all it is better to have tried and failed than not to have tried at all!
Mark Zuckerberg will certainly not be flattered with the reference to Facebook that this film constantly makes! 'Facebook ne humko bacha liya,' say the protagonists at the end.
But who will save this movie?
Ratings : 1/5

Agneepath

2012-02-11T14:06:00.002+05:00

January 26, 2012 01:08:11 PM IST
updated January 30, 2012 05:28:27 PM IST
By Martin D'Souza, Glamsham Editorial
Before the onset, I would like to make it known that AGNEEPATH, the original, remains one of my best Bollywood films to date. I have seen it umpteen times and every time I see it a new, I enjoy it even more. To me, that was Amitabh Bachchan's finest performance; he dared to experiment and set a benchmark with his dialogue style that ended with an eeh! Vijay Dinanath Chauhan was a complete character coming from Mandwa, a small town on the outskirts of Mumbai. He had 'Maut ke saath apintment.' Vijay Dinanath Chauhan (Hrithik Roshan) in the re-make too, has 'Maut ke saath apintment'. But this will not be known to the first-time viewers of AGNEEPATH.
Karan Johar in a note before the re-make rolls applauds the genius of Amit uncle (Amitabh Bachchan) and the vision of Mukul Anand, the director. Produced by his father, late Yash Johar, this is Karan's tribute to the vision of the three that produced one of the finest films to come out of Bollywood, which unfortunately failed to be coined as a commercial success.
CHECK OUT: AGNEEPATH finally gets its due!
Any comparison to the original now, is inevitable.
Assistant to Karan Johar, Karan Malhotra gets to hold the reins for the first time. He knocks off a few elements from the original, and adds new layers to the new. For instance, Mithun Chakraborty's character, which was central to the plot, has been done away with, while Vijay's mother's role has been cut down, only to be exploited towards the end. Even Vijay's sister's role has been modified while a layer in the form of the character of Rauf Lala (Rishi Kapoor) who trades in the flesh market and drugs has been added. Kanhcha Cheena (Sanjay Dutt) has a father who is the village headman, while Danny Denzongpa in the original was a one-man-show. No song stands out in the AGNEEPATH of old; it's just the brilliance of one man. Chikni Chameli (Katrina Kaif) leaves an indelible mark on this one. The track is not only catchy and peppy, but also sees the Kaif girl dancing like a 'Kat on a hot tin roof!' She sheds all inhibitions jumping into the song with gay abandon. A paisa vasool moment in the film.
The story: Master Dinanath Chauhan is a respected teacher in Mandwa. His popularity threatens the village headman who uses his son, Kancha Cheena to frame him in a crime and then eliminate him in a most brutal fashion. Vijay is just 10-years-old when he sees havoc wreaked in his life. He leaves Mandwa with his pregnant mother for Mumbai and begins his journey of hate, to one day reclaim Mandwa and eliminate Kancha. He uses the power of Rauf Lala, who is the Badshaah of Mumbai, to gain in strength to get closer to his target.

Drawbacks:
- While the late Mukul Anand took pains to etch out Master's character, here Karan Malhotra quickly runs through the process without dwelling into how important Master's existence is to the whole plot. He expects his newer audience to have seen the old film.
- As someone who is into the 'flesh trade' and drug mafia, Rishi Kapoor is a poor choice. Simply because he fails to characterize evil in a way it was meant to be. Pawan Malhotra could have been a good choice.
- The film is 20 minutes too long. A couple of songs could have been done away with. The birthday song for Vijay's sister and the wedding song for Rauf's son.
- Madhavi's role (that of a nurse) though small, left a lasting impression. Priyanka Chopra's role has been very poorly defined leaving no room for the actress to improvise or act.
- Finally, even 15 years later, Kancha is still the same fit old villain. Nothing changes for him, not even his style of dressing. Danny has aged considerably in the original. Dutt's make-over has not been looked into properly. His style of dialogue delivery and his bald pate gives one a 'comical feel'. For a character that is supposed to have you shuddering, it's very weakly scripted. However, he makes up towards the end.
CHECK OUT: AGNEEPATH - A new phase of acting begins for Rishi Kapoor
Highpoints:
- The dinner table scene this time is powerful where Vijay is shown grabbing his thali and devouring his mother's food after 15 years. Touching.
- The entire sequence where Vijay rescues his sister from being sold by Rauf Lala is gripping till the time Shiksha learns who Vijay really is. For 15 years, she never knew she had a brother. And, it is only here, that Rishi manages to go top gear in the evil department.
- The climax more than makes up for the weak beginning. Even though there are a few cinematic liberties that the director takes, you as a viewer want to root out the evil.
- The Chikni Chameli item song which I have already mentioned.
- Hrithik double crossing Rauf Lala is smartly executed. He moves in for his own selfish motives, but is smart enough not to leave a trail. Malhotra handles these moments with the ease of a seasoned pro.
Hrithik conforms himself to the mould set by Amitabh. He sticks to the plot working with vengeance as his crutch. If you blank out Amitabh's performance in the original, Hrithik stands out. He is cool, calculative and not afraid of death. Remember he has Maut ke saath apintment!
Kanika Tiwari who plays Hrithik's sister towers in her brief role. A youngster pitied against seasoned stars like Priyanka and Hrithik, she holds her own in pivot scenes to steal the show.
The entire production is first rate. The songs, especially the Ganapati immersion and the wedding of Rauf Lala's son, are picturised beautifully with well-choreographed dances.
Although it will not have a recall value like the old AGNEEPATH, this surely is a 'must one-time-watch'.
Rating : 4/5

Sadda Adda

2012-02-11T14:04:00.001+05:00

Shamir Tandon, Band of Boys, Ramji Gulati Prashant Pandey, Sandeep Nath, Ramji Gulati, Shamir Tandon, Karan Oberio Karanvir Sharma, Bhaumik Sampat, Rohin Robert, Rohit Arora, Kunal Pant, Parimal Aloke, Shaurya Chauhan and Kahkkashan Aryan January 13, 2012 11:16:52 AM IST
updated January 14, 2012 08:26:57 PM IST
By Martin D'Souza, Glamsham Editorial
SADDA ADDA is a movie with the right intention. You could call it a poor cousin of 3 IDIOTS. That itself should be a big boost to the makers for working on a theme which is positive in its approach to send out an optimistic message of hope. It also has shades of similarity with the 2007 film directed by Manoj Tyagi, MUMBAI SALSA.
The movie is urban in its approach, with roots going back to small towns from where the central characters come from.
It's a story about six bachelors coming together to live in a rented 2BHK apartment. They call their home 'Sadda Adda'. All come from diverse backgrounds with dreams to make it big. While one wants to make it in acting, the others in engineering, and sales and design. There's another who is struggling to find a suitable job.
Their home, as expected, is in a mess, with a detailed daily chart of who will do what during the day. However, there's just one guy, Jogi, who ends up doing most of the work as the others bully him around.

From here, the story takes a predictable turn as to how one of the boys loses his focus, despite being talented. He finally realizes his act of arrogance and corrects it with all humility to regain lost ground.
Another, unable to cope with failure, decides that suicide is the best option.
First time director Muazzam Beg has a completely raw cast at hand and does a decent job extracting some good performances, especially from Karanvir Sharma and the boy who plays Safal, a Bihari. Both these actors should be able to make a mark like Omi Vaidya did in 3 IDIOTS.

CHECK OUT: Shaurya Chauhan- SADDA ADDA is a youngster's film!
The movie should strike the right chord with audience from within the college community and those who have just begun their professional career.
Like I said, it does end with a message of hope. In these stressful, competitive times, it is indeed heartening to be rejuvenated with a message to live your dreams, and not give up. It also subtly tells us that picking yourself up and fighting on is a better bet than suicide.
Rating : 2/5

Staying Alive movie review

2012-02-11T14:03:00.000+05:00

February 1, 2012 01:14:39 PM IST
updated February 2, 2012 06:28:23 PM IST
By Martin D'Souza, Glamsham Editorial

This film may not have many takers (read audience) but whoever watches it will come out enlightened. It falls in the off-beat cinema mold, an area which many producers and directors do not venture into because of the economic factor. However, deep within, most passionate about cinema do want to dabble with topics that will not make the box-office 'jingle all the way', but will certainly satisfy their creative urge. This has been openly voiced by Subhash Ghai when he launched the music album of JOGGER'S PARK in 2003. He said then that he always wanted to do something like this but was afraid of the economics. And now that he had managed the economics, he was game for exploring. Not verbatim, but something to this effect.

STAYING ALIVE is one such film that brings you to the reality of what life really is. Director Anant Mahadevan does not hammer home his point, but very subtly, using mild humour as a backdrop, manages to impress with what he wants to express. You don't always have to shout to make your point; the same impact can be had by speaking out calmly, what you would have otherwise said harshly and rashly. Mahadevan manages exactly that.

This film is based on a true story, that of celebrated Bollywood writer Sujit Sen's experience in a hospital. Sen had suffered a third heart attack and was admitted to a hospital. Next to him was a gangster who had suffered his first. The movie is about how both look at life, from next to death; the bonding of both the wives in the hospital corridor, and the sacrifices they make to keep their marriage alive.

Anant Mahadevan is a journalist who has suffered his third heart attack. As he is being rushed to the hospital in an ambulance, he explains to his wife (Ranjana Sasa) where he has kept all the important financial documents. In the corridor, she meets with another distraught lady (Navni Parihar) whose gangster husband (Saurabh Shukla) has been wheeled into the ICU after his first major heart attack.

From here, the movie moves from the corridor to the ICU to important flashbacks to round off a complete soul-searching journey. While the corridor scenes portray the anxiety the two women go through and their gradual bonding, the scenes in the ICU oscillate from serious to subtle fun, to bonding of another kind.

What works for the movie, considering its theme, is the lighting and the low camera angles that capture the mood of the patients. This I feel is what aids the total product for its absolute appeal. Both Mahadevan and Shukla are first rate in their performances, ably supported by both the ladies, Ranjana and Navni.

Anant Mahadevan has gone slow on histrionics. He just unravels the mystery of a criminal's mind and how it undergoes a sea change wanting to turn a new leaf in his life. But then being a gangster is a 'one way street', the famous dialogue mouthed by Paresh Rawal to Sanjay Dutt in Naam.

Does Saurabh Shukla who plays Shaukat Ali really have a choice? Go watch it.

Rating - 4/5

View the original article here

Safe House (2012)

2012-02-10T19:37:00.002+05:00

Release Date: 10 February 2012 (Pakistan)

Runtime: 115 min
Genres: Action | Crime | Mystery | Thriller

Director: Daniel Espinosa
Writer: David Guggenheim
Stars: Denzel Washington, Ryan Reynolds and Robert Patrick

Storyline

A young CIA agent is tasked with looking after a fugitive in a safe house. But when the safe house is attacked, he finds himself on the run with his charge.
Review

A flat thriller that could use a little danger.
In the last seven years, Denzel Washington has paired with director Tony Scott on four hyperkinetic, ultra-saturated feature films: Man on Fire, Deja Vu, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 and Unstoppable. When he strays from the time-honored action collaboration, you'd think the man would take a break from the format. Not so—as Washington's new film Safe House clearly demonstrates.
Daniel Espinosa, director of the acclaimed Swedish crime drama Snabba Cash, shoots his espionage thriller with Scott-ian flair, complete with rapid camera movement, a palette of eye-scorchingly bright colors and fragmented editing. If Safe House was emotionally compelling, the stylistic approach might make the narrative sizzle—but the script is as simple and familiar as they come: Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds) is a CIA agent with a monotonous gig. He's a safe housekeeper, tasked with maintaining a stronghold in South Africa in case the feds need to stop by for some…interrogating. After a year of begging for field work and keeping the joint tidy, Weston finds himself embroiled in the investigation of Tobin Bell (Denzel Washington), an ex-CIA notorious for selling information on the black market. A group of agents bring Bell in to Weston's safe house for a routine waterboarding, but everything is thrown into chaos when the lockdown is infiltrated by machine-wielding baddies looking to put a bullet in Bell's head. To keep the captor alive, Weston goes on the run with Bell in hand…never knowing exactly why everyone wants the guy dead.
The setup for Safe House provides Washington and Reynolds, two fully capable action stars, to do their thing and to do it well. The two characters have their own defining characteristics that each actor bites off with ferocity: Reynolds' Weston is a man drowning in circumstance, built to kick ass, but still out of his league and just hoping to get back to his gal in one piece. Bell has years of experience boring into the heads of his opponents, and Washington plays him with the necessary charisma and confidence that make even his most despicable characters a treat to watch.
But the duo fight a losing battle in Safe House, contending with the script's meandering action and ambiguous stakes that turn the Bourne-esque thriller into a grueling experience. Much of the movie is an extended chase scene where the object of the bad guys' desire is never identified. It's a mystery!—but the lack of info comes off as confusing. Safe House cuts back and forth between the compelling relationship between Weston and Bell and a war room full of exceptional actors (Vera Farmiga, Brendan Gleeson and Sam Shepherd) given nothing to do but spurt straightforward backstory and typical "there's no time, Mr. ______!" exclamatory statements. Caking it is Espinosa's direction, which lacks any sense of coherent geography. The action is never intense, because you have no idea who is going where and when and why.
Safe House is a competently made movie with enough talent to keep it afloat, but without any definable hook or dramatic emphasis, it plays out like an undercooked version of the Denzel Washington/Tony Scott formula. Which is unfortunate, as four solid ones already exist.

View the original article here
P

Underworld: Awakening

2012-02-08T04:57:00.001+05:00

Release Date: 01/20/2012
Rating: R
Runtime: 1 hr 28 mins
Genre: Horror
Director: Bjorn Stein
Cast: Kate Beckinsale, Stephen Rea, Michael Ealy, Theo Jame

Review
After sitting out most of Underworld: Rise of the Lycans, the 2009 “prequel” to the Underworld saga, Kate Beckinsale returns to her trademark role as the face of the blockbuster action-horror franchise in Underworld: Awakening. The film finds Beckinsale’s vampire heroine, Selene, waking up in a research facility after a dozen years in hibernation, whereupon she discovers that both vampires and lycans, the traditional adversaries of the Underworld universe, are now nearly extinct – “cleansed,” as it were, by us good-old humans – and that her 12-year-old daughter, Eve (India Eisley), is imperiled. It seems that both the dreaded lycans and a mad scientist named Dr. Jacob Lane (poor Stephen Rea) are after the girl, on account of her special DNA.
All of which is meant to provide a serviceable backdrop for a good 85 minutes or so of relentless carnage, orchestrated with relish by the Swedish directing tandem of Mans Marlind and Bjorn Stein and meted out dutifully by Beckinsale. Nine years after she first portrayed Selene, the actress appears as comfortable as ever in her familiar black leather as she carves through waves of monstrous creatures and hapless henchmen, performing the odd acrobatic feat to better position herself for the killing blow. The bloodlust occasionally pauses to allow Beckinsale a moment to emote over lost love or seek a fleeting bond with her offspring, but soon more CGI beasts arrive on hand, and the soulless slaughter hastily recommences. Gorehounds hungry for splatter will delight at the myriad ways Underworld: Awakening finds to depict an exploding skull (in fabulous, brain-bursting IMAX 3D!), but in the end, they’re likely the only ones who’ll leave the theater sated.

View the original article here

Man on a Ledge

2012-02-08T03:32:00.001+05:00

Release Date: 01/27/2012
Rating: PG13
Runtime: Not Yet Available
Genre: Drama, Thriller
Director: Asger Leth
Cast: Sam Worthington, Jamie Bell, Ed Harris, Edward Burns

Review
In the cinematic desert that is the January-February movie-release schedule, one gains a greater appreciation for mere competence. And that’s precisely what you’ll get with Man on a Ledge, a mid-budget thriller with modest aspirations and genuine popcorn appeal. Sam Worthington (Avatar, Clash of the Titans) stars as Nick Cassidy, a former New York City cop wrongly convicted for the theft of a prized diamond. After exhausting all judicial avenues for exoneration, he takes the unusual and seemingly desperate next step of planting himself on a ledge outside the penthouse of midtown’s Roosevelt Hotel and threatening to jump. An NYPD psychologist (Elizabeth Banks) is summoned to talk him down, unaware that Nick harbors an ulterior motive. From his perch above midtown, he is secretly orchestrating a scheme to take revenge against the corrupt corporate chieftain (Ed Harris) who engineered his demise and prove his innocence once and for all.
Director Asger Leth, making his U.S. feature-film debut with Man on a Ledge, keeps the pace brisk and never allows the tone to stray into self-seriousness, which is crucial for a movie whose premise is so devoutly ridiculous. The script, from Pablo F. Fenjves, provides enough feints and twists to keep us engaged. Jamie Bell and Genesis Rodriguez aren’t the most believable of couples, but there’s a screwball charm to their comic routine as amateur thieves charged with aiding Nick’s scheme. (Leth can’t resist inserting an entirely superfluous – but nonetheless greatly appreciated – scene of the criminally gorgeous Rodriguez stripping down to a thong in the middle of a heist.) Worthington makes for a likable populist protagonist, even if his Australian accent betrays him on copious occasions, and Harris’ disturbingly emaciated frame lends an added menace to his devious plutocrat villain.

View the original article here

Red Tails

2012-02-08T02:11:00.000+05:00

A drawn out history lesson that nose-dives from beginning to end.

While Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan helped define the style of a modern day war film, it was his HBO mini-series Band of Brothers that truly captured the World War II experience. The multi-part saga dealt with every nook and cranny of the US military's involvement in the war, from large scale battles to intimate character details. The new movie Red Tails, developed and produced by Spielberg's Indiana Jones collaborator and Star Wars mastermind George Lucas, attempts to cover the same ground for the sprawling tale of the Tuskegee Airmen—albeit in a two hour, compressed form. The result is a messy handling of a powerful story of heroism. The good intentions make it on to the screen...but the drama never gets off the runway.

Red Tails assembles a talented cast of young actors to portray the brave men of the 332nd Fighter Group, a faction of the Tuskegee Airmen. The ensemble is reduced to a jumble of simplistic, one-note characterizations: Easy (Nate Parker), the do-gooder with a dark past; Lightning (David Oyelowo), the suave rebel who never listens to orders; Junior (Tristan Wilds), the fresh-faced newbie ready for a good fight; and the rest, a nameless group of underwritten yes men all with just enough backstory to make you interested, but never satisfied. Thankfully, with the little material they have to work with, the gentlemen excel. Rapper-turned-actor Ne-Yo is a standout as the quick-witted Smokey, overshadowing vets Terrence Howard and Cuba Gooding, Jr. (who spends most of the movie chomping on a corn cob pipe and grinning).

With the plethora of characters comes too many plot threads, and Red Tails stuffs its runtime with everything from epic flyboy dog fights, romantic interludes (Lightning finds himself infatuated with a local Italian woman), office politics, alcoholism and even a POW camp escape. If there was a true lead character, the movie may have succeeded in stringing the events together in a coherent narrative, but instead, Red Tails is choppy and uneven. The aerial battles, for all their CG special effects nastiness, are incredibly exhilarating, but when the movie's not tackling the intensity of a battle (which it does often), it comes to a near halt. That mostly comes down to history standing in the way—the crux of the story focuses on how segregation caused the military's higher ups to avoid utilizing the Red Tails in true battle. Meaning there's a lot of talk on how the team should be fighting, as opposed to actually doing it.

Director Anthony Hemingway tries to do this important historical milestone justice, but the execution flies too low, even under made-for-TV movie standards. Red Tails is a dull history lesson occasionally spruced up with Lucas' eye for action. The charisma of the the main set of actors goes a long way in keeping the film tolerable, but they can't fill the gaping hole where the emotional hook belongs. This is a movie about heroes, yet not once are the filmmakers able to pull off a moment that feels remotely brave. Which is unfortunate—as it's a story of the utmost importance.

View the original article here