12 Years a Slave

                     12 Years a Slave

Considering the social and economic importance of slavery in America's history, the scarcity of serious films depicting the daily life of slaves in the Confederate States is significant - especially since the after-effects from this shameful episode still echo through the culture. '12 Years a Slave' is based upon the memoirs of Solomon Northup, who endured a hellish period of enslavement in Louisiana, which is backed up by legal records. it is a biopic about a black man who wound up a slave in Louisiana from 1841 until the law rescued him in 1853.
The story begins with him living with wife and children in upstate New York as a free man and respected member of his community. After being lured to Washington by a couple of con-artists who promised him work, he was subsequently drugged, locked in chains, viciously beaten, stripped of his identity and shipped to New Orleans to be sold into slavery. Over the next twelve years, he was owned by two men who treated him in contrasting ways. The first was a relatively civilized fellow, but the plantation's half-witted manager was threatened by Northup's superior intelligence. Their mutual dislike produced a dangerously volatile situation, and unwilling to lose his investment, Northup's owner re-sold him to a neighbor. This unbalanced individual regarded his slaves as property to be used for pleasure and profit, which caused them to live in perpetual fear that his capricious moods would flare into sadistic lust or rage at any moment.

Steve McQueen is a fearless filmmaker, continuing his streak of unfiltered brutality within human depths. He frames his actors' faces in extreme close-up, the eyes staring into despair, the nostrils fuming in aggression. Naked flesh are shown not because of erotic content, but rather because of desperation and futility. Long takes and wide shots are not uncommon in his films, and here they showcase a plethora of fantastic scenes and performances that work to discomfort the viewer as much as possible. McQueen doesn't just allow the audience to tackle slavery, he guts the audience and leaves them for the consequences. This is an extremely uncomfortable film to watch. Beautifully shot locations are placeholders for unsettling sequences before and after, contemplated by Hans Zimmer's poignant and at times horrifying score. This all works to create a nightmarish time and place where hell walks on Earth.

Central to all of this is the performance of Chiwetel Ejiofor as Solomon. Ejiofor showcases that he is a natural force to be reckoned with in this film, after a decade of mostly supporting characters. He spaces out in despair as the camera lingers onto him for solid minutes, not a word spoken. Another sequence shows him mourning the death of a fellow worker, in which the singing of the surrounding group compels him and shakes him down to tears. These scenes follow earlier ones where he is a classy, free man in the upper states, mingling happily with the crowd and partaking in fanciful music sessions. It is a tour-de-force performance.

One of the most consistent aspects of McQueen's films is the magnificent taste in cinematography and production design. Presumably from his art background, he's great at immersing you into his bleak visual worlds. Working with Sean Bobbit again, the cinematography is reliably enchanting. In true McQueen style, if a character must endure patiently, in this case Solomon hanging from a noose on the tips of his toes, we must endure with them. It's a filmmaking masterclass in just a few short minutes.another one my favorite shot of Solomon's wondering face after a fateful conversation with a sympthetic carpenter Bass, played by Brad Pitt, and we show hope and fear and lossonhis face along witha new realisatiof all that he has endured. here i realise after so many years some one really remember and use Bertold Brekht's technique cinematically.A kind of cinematic incarnation of Brekht. Despite all the little flaws, inconsistencies and off-moments throughout, it's all redeemed in its harrowing final scene. Yes, the jump to his kidnapping feels abrupt and there's no sense of relief to his inevitable freedom, but this is all calculated to mirror the struggle of his experience and we've felt every beat. 12 Years A Slave is a powerful testament to the endurance of the human spirit with its theme of injustice applicable to any point in history that earns the right to be one of the best of the year. After a string of lightweight Best Picture choices from the Academy, this will be a refreshing choice. 

Let us not forget that this is a product packaged for entertainment just as Django Unchained was, or any other film for that matter. It will no doubt go on to win gold and earn a great deal at the box office. Yet great films bring great debate and this is precisely what McQueen offers. Whether it wins awards or not is now irrelevant, what is important is that it now exists. Striking with visceral impact, McQueen's intense, unblinking eye has earned him the reputation of a fetishist, which is unfair. Audiences are being shown these images for their artistic merit. Whereas lesser directors avert their eye and suppress these scenes, McQueen keeps the camera rolling, allowing the images a voice. As expected it is a test of endurance and yet for such an ugly subject it is an aesthetically beautiful, if brutal piece of work, uncompromising, necessary and strangely his most accessible film to date.

Frankenstein

                           Frankenstein

"Frankenstein" is set in 1793, after Victor Frankenstein dies while going after the very monster of his creation who killed Mrs. Frankenstein in a fit of passionate rage. 

So, the story starts not long after the end of the Frankenstein book by Mary Shelley at the end of the 18th century. While burying his creator, Frankenstein, he find himself attacked by "evil" demons (who look like men, but with demonic faces sometimes) and rescued by, of all things, "good" gargoyles (who look human except when they're CGI gargoyles). The creature is brought to the gargoyle leader and quickly given a name, Adam. He's made an offer to join them in a secret war against the demons over humanity's fate. He declines and lives the next 200 years alone (would have been nice to see, but glossed over in a few minutes), defending against demons. Cue modern day, where his presence is revealed once more to the demons who are trying to bring back life to dead bodies for their own purposes.

So, instead of the overbooked vampires and werewolves, we have demons against gargoyles, plus Frankenstein's creature thrown in to act as wild card. I found that refreshing. However, the demons looked and acted like standard evil vampires, except when you saw their red eyes or their faces reverting to demonic. Except for their sophisticated leader, they were quite underwhelming and even boring from lack of personality. The gargoyles fared a little better, switching from medieval-looking, grey-tunic-wearing human warriors to big, winged stone gargoyles like you see on some old churches. The Frankenstein monster's (Adam Eckhart) unique state of being an invincible being without a soul makes him target for the Demons and their leader Naberius, who plans to conquer the world with more reanimated demonic humans. On the other hand, the demons' nemeses, the Gargoyles, under their Queen Leonore (Miranda Otto), aim to foil this diabolical plan of world domination by protecting Frankenstein's monster, whom she has baptized with the name Adam, and Frankenstein's journal where he wrote the reanimation process in great detail. 

200 years later, in the present time, Naberius, in his human form Charles Wessex (Bill Nighy), employs renowned human electro-physiologist Dr. Terra Ward (Yvonne Strahovski), to assist him in carrying out his nefarious scheme.

So this graphic novel turned film is another one of those fantasies where good creatures battle with evil creatures who are out to control the world. This novel's author Kevin Grevioux also writes the script of this one. You can expect similarities with "Underworld" which was also by Grevioux. Grevioux himself appears as the burly head of security in the film

Aaron Eckhart and his characteristic strong cleft chin makes a good stoic Adam. He did not have to express a whole lot of emotion except angst and rage. He does not really look like the grotesque monster as how Robert de Niro was made up to look in Kenneth Branagh's "Frankenstein" film based on Mary Shelley's book. Eckhart's "monster" is just a very buff guy with long scars over his face and body.
 Kevin Grevioux's screenplay, adapted from his graphic novel of the same title, marches forward in workmanlike fashion. Plot 'twists' can be seen coming from miles away - see the sassy blonde scientist (Yvonne Strahovski) directed to investigate Adam's origins grow increasingly fascinated with her science project! There are precious few shades of complexity to be found in the film, the characters never really breaking free of their archetypes - beyond the fact that the good guys morph into huge, stony, winged gargoyles that aren't particularly pleasing to the eye. Fiery explosions and bone-crunching battles abound, but they never amount to very much in emotional terms.
However, the somber, tormented portrayal by Aaron Eckhart (mostly with his face and eyes) made him an interesting anti-hero. The action itself was peculiar. There were cool set pieces where tons of demons fought gargoyles around a very impressive-looking Gothic church. It had an epic feel to it, it was quite exciting, but you seemed distanced from the action because it cut things fast and the camera often pulled back. Also, there was a particular vibe as the numerous, weak demons were mostly slaughtered by the fewer, powerful flying gargoyles. It was usually one blow, one kill. On the other hand, you had one-on-one fights involving Adam that were very good for the most part. There were still quick cuts, but it wasn't abusive, sometimes lingering a bit on an angle, making for more involving and easier-to-follow battles. The musical soundtrack was better than expected with epic-sounding classical music and dramatic choruses.

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit

            Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit
                 
               The Russians are back with brand new moscow !

Prior to 2011, nobody would have pegged Kenneth Branagh as the director who would bring Jack Ryan back to life.  But how would a director better known for filming scenes in Shakespearean productions fare with a huge budget and chase sequences? Well Then, 'Thor' happened - Branagh's entry in Marvel's superhero canon turned out to be an oddly effective blend of brains and brawn, and earned him his stripes as a blockbuster director. It's no doubt the reason why another major Hollywood studio was willing to take a chance on him helming a potentially enormously lucrative franchise reboot.

Taking full advantage of contemporary geopolitical realities, writers Adam Cozard and David Koepp make the effort to detail Ryan's formative years before his employment by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). In an extended prologue therefore, Ryan is an undergrad at LSE when the Twin Towers were hit in 2001 and subsequently a United States Marine stationed in Afghanistan just two years later who is badly injured when the helicopter he was in was hit by terrorists. It is also with the latter that Ryan meets then-US Navy Commander William Harper (Kevin Costner), who recruits him for the CIA on account of his brilliant analytical mind and stations him in the heart of Wall Street.Jack Ryan (Chris Pine), as the film quickly establishes, is a hero in every sense of the word. A decorated war veteran with impeccable academic credentials. For years, Jack does his day job and slips his handler important nuggets of financial data. Just as his fiancée Cathy (Keira Knightley) starts to fret about the fraying state of their relationship, Jack uncovers a massive financial conspiracy engineered by Viktor Cherevin (Kenneth Branagh), a shady, off-the-books Russian operative who intends to kick off a double-barrelled terrorism attack on America.It's packed with dense detail and references to current geopolitics and financial mucking-about.

It was good to see Kevin Costner back on screen in a substantial role again. He was older of course, but still looking good. His character Harper may feel like any other mentor role in other espionage films, but Costner played him very well.The villain of the film Viktor Cherevin though was another matter altogether. Kenneth Branagh creates a strong antagonist with his subtly sinister portrayal of the Russian businessman with terrorism, economic and otherwise, on his mind. He completely transformed into his role very convincingly, with no trace of British-ness or can we say 'hemlet' ?

But this particular Jack Ryan did not feel like this was going to be the same man in the other older films where we knew the character Jack Ryan first, like "Hunt for Red October" (played by Alec Baldwin), "Patriot Games" and "Clear and Present Danger" (played by Harrison Ford) or even "Sum of All Fears" (played by Ben Affleck). This film only has the character Jack Ryan, but in a story not written by the books' author Tom Clancy at all.
Scrape away the fancy smartphones, cutting-edge technology and fancy security systems (which still aren't enough to stop a barely-trained agent when he's tossed unexpectedly into the field), and what you're left with is a film with a solidly old-fashioned heart, its core narrative plucked out of the icy tension of the Cold War and forged with the same easy mistrust of the Soviet Union that informed many a thriller of past. Shadow Recruit feels like a throwback to a more unreservedly glorious time, none more so in its wholly cynicism-free final scene - a moment so purely patriotic that it feels distressingly outdated.This film had an oddly generic feel like we have seen this story in some form before. Even if this was set several years post-9/11, it had that dated Cold War (a la classic James Bond) feel especially when the action shifted to Moscow. The camera work was excellent especially for the gunfights and car chases. That sequence of firm infiltration was very astutely edited with much tension, impossible as that could have been in real life. though, despite those gripes, "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit" is still a very exciting action-packed thriller worth wathcing !

'American Hustle'

                       'American Hustle'

       

                                  Blast from Past

After long time a good hollywood movie is hitting indian screeens.where you get golden globe award winner actresses and class apart direction.Set in New Jersey, American Hustle follows con man Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) along with his partner and lover Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams-Golden globe award winner performance) who get caught in one of their schemes by FBI agent Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper). However, instead of imprisonment, DiMaso convinces the two to pull off their biggest heist yet on political operator Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner). Rosenfield agrees, while also trying to keep his eccentric wife Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence-Golden globe award winner performance) under control and unable to blow their cover.

 
American Hustle is set in the late 1970's - early 1980's, revolving around the ABSCAM scandal, where FBI agents and con artists would join together to take down politics for illegal cash.The overall direction of the plot is constrained by the fact that the movie is loosely based on the ABSCAM sting of the late 70s. However, if you remember the news from that time, it was a very controversial operation. Even many members of the law enforcement community believed that the FBI crossed the line into entrapment. As a result, it is very natural that this movie about con-men helping the FBI con public officials into taking bribes has a wonderfully calculated unevenness. The line between good guy and bad guy is a lot less clear than the line between legal and illegal.The casting and acting is brilliant. You couldn't really picture anybody else playing the characters that have been casted. Each actor gets their own chance to shine in the spotlight, and nobody is left out. Jennifer Lawrence blows everybody away once again - she really is a rising star in the industry with her performance as Rosalyn Rosenfeld.Every scene she was in carried so many emotions, and you'd couldn't tell if she was going to explode at any point (a'la the bathroom scene with Sydney). The things her character gets herself into in this film, even while she's still at home, are just out right slap your knee hilarious, especially the argument scenes.

Under the fabulous direction of David O.Russell, American Hustle looks and feels like a 70s con/mob film through and through. Everything from the set pieces, the costumes, and even the soundtrack completely brings you out of the present and thrown into the world being portrayed on screen. The story itself doesn't exactly bring anything new to the table as far as con artist sub genre, but everything else about it sets apart from any other film you'll see this year. We are given a group of characters that each have their own story to tell in the way they are presented to us.it's just as much a tale about relationships and what people are really like. The story of Irving's relationship with his family and Sydney plays out so well, and you feel things for them as their relationship changes, and when Cooper's character enters their unique workforce.Something that hasn't been seen for a while in Movie-Land, 'American Hustle' is a unique film that gets in the audience up close and personal with every main character they see.'American Hustle'. A amazingly entertaining and engaging experience. A successful juxtaposition of art and entertainment. A wonderfully acted and directed film.David O. Russell, the director who brought you Silver Linings Playbook and The Fighter, American Hustle is most probably Russell's best movie he's ever put together.

The Legend of Hercules

                        The Legend of Hercules


                                             where latest CGI fails to do justice to classic 

The film stars Kellan Lutz as the mythical hero Hercules and depicts the story of this brave Grecian warrior. This is a story of love, lust and bravery where a beautiful Grecian queen succumbs to the advances of Zeus, god of sky and thunder, to bear his demigod son Hercules. He is half-man and half god, blessed with super human strength, whose fate is to overthrow a repressive and tyrant ruler who is also his step-father. He has taken birth to bring peace to a land which suffers only hardship. But unfortunately, Prince Hercules knows nothing of his real identity or his predetermined destiny which is to depose of his step father – the king. In his growing up years, Hercules is shown as an ordinary boy with footloose ways and desperately seeking the love of a fair maiden named Hebe. Hebe is the Princess of Crete and engaged to be married to Hercules's own brother. In spite of knowing that his brother is set to marry her, he pursues her. This angers the king who was looking for an excuse to banish him from his kingdom. Hercules is betrayed by his stepfather who exiles him and sells him to slavery to punish him for his forbidden love. It is when he is in exile that Hercules learns the truth about himself-about his powers and about his purpose and the lover boy changes into a warrior man. It is a time to choose whether to flee with Hebe or stay and use his immense powers to fulfill his mission of fighting his way back to his rightful kingdom by overthrowing the king and become the true hero of his time.

Legend of Hercules is one of two Hercules movies in 2014, the other one is set for release in July starring Dwayne Johnson and Directed by Brett Ratner. And, after seeing this movie, I'm really looking forward to the Brett Ratner version, and that's saying something.

The most dominant elements were from "300". This film in fact looked like a sequel of "300" because of the similar style of computer graphics used for the sweeping scenery, the crowds, the fights.Renny Harlin has really just lost his touch of great movies. Back in the 80's and 90's he had some great movies like Cliffhanger, Nightmare on Elm Street 4, Long Kiss Goodnight and Die Hard 2. We also pick up similarities with "Troy" especially with regards to the battle scenes. The jumping attack move made classic by Brad Pitt's Achilles was multiplied so many times over in frequency and variation. We will also get reminded of deadly accurate archery skills of Orlando Bloom's Prince Paris.

About halfway into the film, we will remember "Ben Hur" as Hercules becomes a slave and was made to row an ocean-going sailing vessel in rough waters. Then it becomes "Spartacus" as Hercules becomes an arena fighter for people's entertainment and gambling.

Later on, we will be reminded of "Samson and Delilah" when Hercules was being whipped while chained to two pillars. At that moment there will be a scene of mocking and divine communication reminiscent of the crucifixion scene 
from any film about Jesus like "The Passion of the Christ".

It figures that since Hercules' travels are bizarrely bereft of mythological monstrosities, the focus instead turns to the utilization of 3D. The opening scene features countless arrows arching straight into viewers' eyes, while most of the trekking and battling involves admirable depth of field use – whether it's realized in cinematographic framing of environments or acrobatic dueling in an arena. Many of these moments are perhaps too crisp and clean, paralleling the glowing white teeth, hairless bodies, and flawless makeup of glamorized ancient Greece. Although combat frequently resembles mixed martial arts instead of the traditional skirmishes of "Ben-Hur" or "Spartacus" (this film wants to be "300" more than "Gladiator"), Hercules momentarily takes on the role of Robin Hood, and the politically correct world of filmmaking demands that one of the six undefeated gladiatorial champions of Greece is a woman, "The Legend of Hercules" is a production that can be thoroughly enjoyed until the very end – even if it's forgotten mere minutes after that.the only thing worth remembering is costume which is done by indian Sonu Mishra. in major holywood film this is worth mentioning achivement long after Bhanu Athaiya got oscar for "Gandhi". 

Carrie

                                        'Carrie'
                       
                                          Modern and tame version of original classic !





In the remake of the original Brian De Palma film, and based off of the novel by Stephen King, Carrie tells the story of young Carrie White (Chloe Grace Moretz) who goes through life being tormented by classmates and teachers. The only person she feels close to is her religion- obsessed mother Margaret (Julianne Moore). After a cruel joke, one of the popular girls, Sue Snell (Gabriella Wilde) decides to provide an act of kindness to Carrie by allowing her boyfriend to ask her to prom. But along the way, Carrie starts to develop telekinetic abilities that could bring disastrous results if she's pushed too far.

The performances were very decent all around. Julianne Moore's performance as Margaret White was very satisfying, and quite chilling. Chloe Grace Moretz's portrayed Carrie's shy well, but lacked in her fulfilling the awkward and misfit side of Carrie. This is one aspect of this movie that lacks in comparison to the original - Carrie should not be displayed as attractive and shy. Rather, she should be portrayed as a loner, socially awkward,and timid.

Is it a more faithful adaptation of its original source; the 1974 novel penned by Stephen King ? It's not. No, Screen Gems and MGM's 2013 revamp of 'Carrie' is more akin to that of the 1976 film, which featured numerous changes from the book - all of which are still present The 1976 film slowly builds Carrie's powers so when it comes to it, the prom destruction is a complete shock. But here? Oh, no. It was more like watching Matilda than Carrie. Levitating books, humans... you name it. By the time it gets to prom, the extent of her powers are no longer a surprise and it all comes off as rather tame actually.it is also interesting to note that in 1999 director katt shea already made "The Rage: Carrie 2", which couldn't equal the quality established by its predecessor.
Yes, it impossible not to compare any remake to its original version, especially when the original is considered a classic. It is sad that with these days' shortage of originality, even a seemingly talented director such as Kimberly Peirce, succumbs to the commercial appeal of movie-making in the sole interest of monetary gain resulting in watered-down quality.As for the effects, unfortunately this remake is filled with a lot of CGI. Does it ruin the film? No. But it does take away a lot of the effect.

Overall, this wasn't a terrible film, but cannot even remotely compare to the original. Those that haven't seen the first film might very well enjoy it, but for those who have, you most likely will leave the theater disappointed.

Grudge Match

Grudge Match: Rocky ride on aging bulls

The draw of the film, of course, is to see Jake 'Raging Bull' LaMotta and Rocky Balboa duke it out in the ring. De Niro knows it, Stallone knows it, we know it. Both men gamely play off and send up the iconic characters they played decades ago, cheekily winking at - or desecrating, depending on your point of view - their respective cinematic legacies. Actually, it would all be somewhat thrilling if the script weren't so predictable and sluggish.

The story focuses on a rivalry between two boxers who fought each other a couple of times 30 years ago, winning one fight a piece. Naturally, that situation calls for a "rubber match" to decide the true winner. But it never happened. Hostility remains between the two guys 3 decades later though. Stallone plays Henry "Razor" Sharp and Robert De Niro plays Billy "The Kid" McDonnen. When the two both arrive on set for a computer-simulated video game that will use their likenesses, they engage in a physical altercation which soon goes viral for all the world to see. This prompts a desire to see the two of them in the ring together once again.


Meanwhile two rivals seem to be going through the motions. Their constant bickering is liken to GRUMPY OLD MEN sans the essential cantankerous anti-chemistry. Supposedly these guys hate each other yet seem pretty content, making us forget the entire purpose. But their combined scenes are merely sporadic: Much of the film involves dragging conversations with side-characters, ranging from trainers to the sole love interest played by Kim Basinger.

Will or won't Razor stay in the fight becomes the only suspense till the final match where two old dudes beat each other raw like that frozen hanging beef. Here's where we finally get some old school blood and gusto, but it's much to late to save a missed opportunity involving this rare superstar collective, intriguing and disappointing both cult and mainstream audiences.

 If you wonder how much potential was lost on this movie just watch the last half hour. That is the best of the entire film with a well choreographed, uplifted and well done fight scene that wraps everything up in a great way. It was just amazing as a fan to see Stallone back in the ring probably for one last time.Director Peter Segal is a decent director but he is a through and through comedy director and this film needed someone who can handle comedy/drama/and an emotional story to really bring out the details. The script was sub-par there is no doubt about it and its unfortunate because they had a lot of ducks in a row but then they start throwing rocks into the mix. Still Stallone/Deniro/Rocky fans will find enough in this to be redeemable and enjoyable.