Sagnik Nath

SPOLER FREE REVIEW: I can easily say this is one of those films that make you feel lucky you were born in that correct timeline to experience them firsthand on the big screen. I am afraid many audience reviews will trash it because it is certainly not going to appeal to everyone and thus the box office collection might not break even with its rather expensive budget of 35 million dollars (for an A24 movie). However, I think like Blade Runner, which was also a flop upon its release back in 1982, the movie will slowly gain traction with cult followings in the next few years and will probably play to more packed crowd in future midnight screenings. In terms of plot, I would use the same term which IMDB used ti describe it, " Kafkaesque" . You will find yourself asking if this film is based in fantasy or reality or if it is meant to take place in that fine line between the two extremes where dreams and real life merge and commingle. Similar movies which came to mind upon reflection were Brazil(1985), Paprika(2009) and The Truman Show(1997) . Personally, I think it is Ari Aster's best; definitely a huge improvement over the rather tepid and predictable Midsummer (2019) and just surpassing the excellent Hereditary(2018). Joaquin Phoenix deserves a special round of applause for his performance and lends verisimilitude to an otherwise very heightened sense of reality in the events depicted.

A hidden gem on Netflix. It's an effective niche science fiction film. Good performance by Boyd Holbrook as the lead. If you have never seen it, then just start streaming it without reading any plot details online. One thing I liked was the subtext of race relations that actually built towards serving the finale.

(NO SPOILERS) Half of my brain cells were lost in the process of watching this movie. I could have left the theater midway but I made a commitment to track how bad the film becomes as it progresses. In today's age, why do we need Western yellow journalism to taint India's public image as that of being a dark uneducated uncivilized barbaric nation when we have such amazing national films like Roohi to do that job. What a fine example of AtmanirBharat! By contrast, even the intentionally exploitative Hollywood film Temple Of Doom (Recall Mola Ram tearing apart a human heart and shouting "Kali Ma!") seems like a documentary . I have nothing against Bollywood exploiting superstition as a premise (Stree actually being a creative good example of this) but this is literally scratching the bottom of the barrel. There was absolutely no plot, just a lot of pandering to the colonial image of India still being devoured by superstition. The fact that they played the Borat's Kazakhstan village music whenever the characters were running away from the witch further helps cement this assertion. Even then, if they had at least some creative gimmick or dialogue going on, at least it could have made for a non-boring watch. Both Rajkumar and Varun look too old to romance Jahnavi , who looks more fitting as their kid sister rather than an actual love interest. The stereotypical Bihari villager dialogue didn't help much either. I really feel sad that an actor of Rajkumar's calibre has to stoop to appearing in such terrible movies . The special effects were terrible as well. In one shot, you are supposed to see Jahnavi leaning from the railing from a distance and the green screen composition was so bad she appeared to be the exact same size as a building!These type of low budget shots are usually confined to the Indian TV soap operas, not an actual Bollywood feature film these days.

A kaleidoscope of near static images accompanied by ambient music and Tilda Swinton's narration of a science fiction short story make for an immersive experience. However, this might not be everyone's cup of tea. I'd definitely recommend watching this on a projector in the dark and alone since that really helps add to the immersion. This is not a typical film. It'd be more proper to call it an art project with sounds, music and pictures. So, if you are to appreciate it, it'd be more as liking a piece of art at an exhibition than a movie falling into a popular genre like drama or comedy .

I saw this based solely on the recommendation by RedLetterMedia. I will have to admit, while watching it , it didn't look anywhere near bad at all. The cinematography is actually pretty neat. The pacing, the performances, and most specifically Travolta's Anti-performance made the film engaging enough. It was only AFTER I finished it and sat in quiet contemplation that I realized almost NOTHING in the story made sense. I think the only culprit here is the script. The premise was alright and even promising but they really needed to sit down and go through 2-3 more revisions. And yeah, the post production voiceover was so stupid and irritating. But this film is definitely superior to a ton of movies I have seen that nevertheless boast comparatively higher Rotten Tomato ratings. At the very least, it is a fascinating study of how a film can go wrong with a script when all other elements are fine.

SPOILER FREE REVIEW: 2/10 No...just no. This film has to be one of the most pathetic ripoffs of 3 Idiots that nevertheless fails to inherit any of the charm or grandeur of the original. The first sore thumb, among many, was the casting choice for the lead roles. I found the supporting cast adequate, but both Sushant Singh and Shraddha Kapoor were TERRIBLE picks for the lead. Sushant gave a somewhat tolerable performance as a college student but the moment he put on the terrible aged makeup to play his older self, I would brace myself for a lot of lifeless bland acting. I think this man was way out of his league for such a role. He is more fit as a teenage heartthrob with the dance moves and pecks rather than playing any character/role that requires some dramatic depth. But a more terrible offender of bad and even cringe-worthy acting was Shradhha Kapoor. Whenever she attempted to shed tears on screen, I would have to painfully restrain myself from bursting out into laughter. She was just so bad. And now, let's move onto the plot. Ideally, a good plot would have compensated for any of the bad acting to some degree. But sadly, the plot here felt an ever bigger joke than the dubious casting choices. The writer thought it was probably an excellent idea to mash 3 Idiots with Student Of The Year. And this does not pay off at all. Here's the main problem: The film tries to correlate a young boy's frustrations of not getting a good college admission rank with the frustrations of his father and friends when they tried to win a college sports competition to reclaim their hostel's glory on campus. There is an immediate disconnect between these two types of frustrations. The boy is genuinely worried about his future career and education, things we can all agree are paramount to establishing security in life. But his parents in their youth are worrying over a mere sports competition??? How can they be both the same. If I lost the latter, maybe I would be severely heartbroken but I know that would not leave an impact on my life's security. I find it even more ironic that the director of the film is an IIT alumnus and yet he stupendously fails in portraying this frustration today's youth face in trying to establish themselves in an over competitive third world nation. So , starting from the second act, the film completely devolves into Student of The Year territory without any tether to the actual struggles of college and academic life in India. If you really want to watch a film to stoke your nostalgia of college life, either go rewatch 3 idiots or simply go to Youtube and watch the excellent satire TVF Honest Campus Placements.

SPOLIER FREE REVIEW: 8/10 I don't know the fuss over this movie being so divisive among reviewers. Of course this movie is more of a fictionalized account of the days leading up to ISRO's MOM launch than a semi autobiographical narrative. So what? So many movies around the world come and go with the "based on/inspired by the events" tag that stray far from reality yet no one bats an eye then. This movie is just OK, you can bring your parents or colleagues or spouse and you are guaranteed to have a pleasant time with any of them as company. Akshay does a fine job in the lead role with Vidya giving a commendable supporting act. The rest of the cast are passable. The movie thankfully has not many cringe-worthy moments. The few that were put in more as a quota fulfillment for a standard masala Bollywood film do not stick out like a sore thumb. A lot of people seemed to complain that there was not much emphasis given on the exact science of the Mars mission . Clearly, this movie aims more for that vicarious experience of joy and happiness at having achieved the mission rather than the exact train of intellectual thought that went into solving the obstacles faced. Finally, there was a commentary by an official reviewer as to how this movie was pandering to nationalism and religious appeasement at the same time.I got neither of those vibes from the movie. Regarding nationalism, I felt the referenced attribute was more about cherishing the underdog tale ( a financially stunted ISRO against space giants like the US and Russia) rather than any political right wing remark. And the religious appeasement angle was anything but left wing. If anything, that subplot was meant to reconcile the different faiths in a diverse nation and pray mutually for the success of the Mars mission. So,overall I am impressed and will recommend this movie

SPOILER FREE REVIEW : 7/10 I have always looked up to Tarantino as one of the last bastions of true original cinema that still gets a worldwide commercial release. After he is gone, the whole world might be overrun only with an endless slew of sequels, prequels and reboots. So I was really looking forward to this film and hoped to get a good dose of that familiar sense of awe at stepping into a theater . Now the film is overall good and deserves a recommendation from me but it left me wanting something more. The narrative definitely strays away from the familiar 3 act structure. So there was not much of a central conflict or goal set up in the beginning that would keep you invested throughout the whole film in one singular story. Instead, the film is more of a collage of scenes happening in parallel with the different characters. Filming with a an ensemble cast is right and all but there should still be a central conflict that keeps you tuned in. However, Tarantino chose to supplant such a centralized form of storytelling with a lot of cool shots of fancy vintage cars thriving in the highway alongside a rather impressive reconstruction of 1960's Hollywood. Initially, I was quite OK with this but later on towards the second act , I was getting a bit bored since I was wondering , what was the point of these scenes ??It's only towards the third act that Tarantino brings back his trademark style of batshit insanity but I wish there was a more effective build up to it. All the actors are fine I guess. Brad Bitt looked great for his age. Leo was doing a more subdued form of physical humor as seen in Wolf of Wall Street. Margot Robbie played Margot Robbie doing an OK impression of Sharon Tate. And Dakota Fanning had a bit role as opposed to a large one. Overall, yes it's a good film but I wish Tarantino could have delivered something better.