The promotion of slavery is one of the darkest blots on American history. As such, much like the Holocaust and the massacres of the World Wars, such traumatic events deserve to be remembered and chronicled in the art of today. However, a simple retelling is not enough. Chronicling true events is well and good but they still need to set themselves apart from other stories that have already been told. While The Birth of a Nation is an unarguably powerful film, it does little to nothing to set itself apart from the countless predecessor slavery biopics.

The story starts off strong enough, focusing on the criminally ignored by history Nat Turner (Nate Parker) who lead an unprecedented slave rebellion inspiring the movement that would later result in the Civil War. Nat is a strong young man who learned how to read from an early age and used his talent to study the bible. When his master (Armie Hammer) finds out that there is a demand for a slave preacher to calm down other rebellious slaves he ships Nat out to various locations to earn extra coin for his plantation. After seeing the horrifying ways other slaves are being treated Nat eventually shifts from preaching for a peaceful God to that of a wrathful one. It’s a thrilling tale and one that deserves a good telling. The issue is that much like Gladiator, the film takes a good story and then takes so many creative liberties that it feels more like a less tongue-in-cheek version of Django. Nat is a slave who throws off his bonds and becomes his own man. It’s not that it is a bad story, but it has been done so many times before and frankly, much better.

Nate Parker plays Nat and I immediately give him strike one for making it hard for me to remember which one is the actor and which is the real person given the likeness of their names. The actor definitely put his heart and soul into the film, putting his acting career on hold for years and investing a lot of his own money. He also directed, starred, produced, and co-wrote the film with his college roommate. Parker is also easily the strongest actor in film. When other events grow stale and the goings on fall into a paint by numbers scheme Parker brings the chills when he delivers one of Nat Turner’s many intense monologues preaching gospel to instigate fighting for freedom. But when the focus moves from Nat to actually tell the historical side of the story, the film stumbles. Exposition is given out in a clunky form and Nat’s motivation (originally avenging his abused wife) feels incredibly forced. Speaking of the women in this film, most of them feel incredibly silenced. Though we get glimpses of the strength that Nat’s mother and grandmother possess, they are normally left to watch in fear or admiration at Nat’s deeds. Nat’s wife Cherry gets the shortest end of the stick. She exists in the film for the sole purpose of being raped by Jackie Earl Haley’s despicable slave hunter and acting as a catalyst for Nat’s decisions. For a film that goes out of its way to preach equality, this oversight is atrocious.

Cinematography wise, Nation is beautiful in an abstract sort of way. The color pallet used is subtle and grey. Battle scenes and normal day to day goings on are drabbed in dull shades, interrupted only by the bright crimson spurt of blood or the shining ivory of cotton. Nat occasionally has visions that are appropriately hazy and strange which the camera conveys through heavy fog and uninterrupted one shot slow pans across deep landscapes. This is accompanied by a heartbreakingly somber soundtrack behind, most notable again during one of many Nat Turner monologues. Tears are sure to fall as you see the heart given in these performances matched with the somber music from Henry Jackman.

A long time ago in a galaxy... well in our own galaxy and our very own planet Earth, George Lucas wrote and directed an epic space opera film called Star Wars which grew into a hugely popular franchise and a global pop cultural phenomenon with a cult following spanning generations. The first movie was released more than 32 years back and it's been 27 years since release of the last installment of the original trilogy (Episode VI: Return of the Jedi) which is indeed "a long time ago" as sequels and prequels go, even the last installment of the much less appreciated prequel trilogy (Episode III: Revenge of the Sith) came out 10 years back but Star Wars franchise continued to command huge fan following. The announcement of the release of Episode VII: The Force Awakens and the huge marketing campaign made it one of the most anticipated movie releases in recent times if not of all times. However, one of the issues eager fans had to deal with was avoiding exposure to spoilers and leaks proliferating on the Internet. I assiduously avoided every piece of information that had anything to do with Star Wars: The Force Awakens, so my review of the movie includes NO SPOILERS, or so I hope.

Director JJ Abrams has already shown his calibre by making thrillers like MI3 and visually stimulating scenes of space battles in his two Star Trek movies but it did seem doubtful if he could match the myth making skill of George Lucas. Further the tag line "Every generation has a story" further raised the question if the movie was aimed at a complete new generation or sought to satisfy the legions of fans of the original trilogy. Of course, he had at least one of the original writers, Lawrence Kasdan as a co-writer but one must confess that Abrams has been able to bring balance to the force, metaphorically speaking.

Is it a reboot? The Force Awakens does use the template of A New Hope as well as a bit of Return of the Jedi but the content is definitely fresh. As this is Episode XII, it is obvious that the story begins after the events of the Return of the Jedi and it does introduces a whole lot of new characters, places and powers of the force. The plot is fast paced, at times faster than one can absorb it fully, which thankfully gives me reasons for second viewing. At the same time there is enough emotional drama and tense sequences which could have you glued to the screen but there is very little long-drawn melodramatic sequences that partly bogged down the narrative in the prequel trilogy.
Besides there are plenty of references and homages but the best comes in the form of Harrison Ford (I don't believe this is a spoiler as Ford and Chewbacca have been prominent in the film posters and trailers). Even after 30 years, Harrison Ford as Hans Solo blows you off with his performance although he doesn't use blasters as freely :p Among the new ones, Daisy Ridley as the protagonist has delivered an incredible performance winning accolades from fans and critics alike. Other key actors like Adam Driver, John Bogeya, Oscar Issac and Carrie Fischer have done justice to their respective roles. The chemistry between the protagonist and the antagonist is surprisingly strong and is likely to get more intense in the next episode. I would love to go into details but do not wish to give away anything. An ambitious project of this magnitude and executed so brilliantly deserves to be seen on the big screen first, so I will probably wait for the DVD release and follow up with a post-review delving deeper into the plot as I have done previously with my favourite movies .

Till then the only bit I am willing to give away is that it seems in this episode the Force is no longer as passive and there couldn't have been a better title than - The Force Awakens.

Originally posted by danish Ahmed in http://xpensieve.blogspot.in/

I just saw the film.. how to say. It was like a dream. The film tells about the unconditional love(i guess more than a loyalty) between a dog hachi and his master (the professor). The dog was so brilliant and i don't think he acted, its all real, he told everything through his eyes, love, sad, awaiting for his master, everything. We should give an Oscar to hashi. The master Richard gare also acted so well with the dog with great kindness and love. The end was so sorrow but still beautiful to tell the humans that there r still more love u can do with, the real unconditional love. My eyes are cried in many scenes and there were so many eye drops in my pillow the end. A must watch film to know what is love and loyalty.

Much like the chariot horses it's eponymous hero races, this CGI laden big screen re imagining of Lew Wallace's timeless novel 'Ben-Hur' takes a fair amount of time to get into it's stride. Stumbling at first and struggling to find the correct pace, the film certainly makes a few missteps in both character development and emotional investment before it finally finds its legs but once it does, it actually becomes quite a lot of fun - utterly incomparable to William Wyler's widely celebrated 1959 Best Picture winner but still fun nonetheless. 'Broadwalk Empire's Jack Huston does a pretty good job as he dons the blood-stained robes of Judah Ben-Hur, the young Jewish prince who seeks murderous revenge against his estranged and jealous adopted brother Messala (a Roman officer played with quiet yet malicious relish by 'Fant4stic's Toby Kebbell) who killed his family and sentenced him to a life of nightmarish slavery. Director Timur Bekmambetov, best known for his wildly entertaining 2013 action fantasy 'Abraham Lincoln : Vampire Hunter', certainly ups the visual ante and action deficit of previous cinematic adaptations of this most enduring of Biblical epics and while not all of the snazzy special effects entirely convince, there is enough eye-popping splendour, seen most notably in the aforementioned chariot scenes, to fully entertain and enthrall.
Originally posted on http://dc-moviereviews.blogspot.in/2016/09/ben-hur.html

Its a fantastic film, setting a new bar for the comic movie genre. Awesome action scenes paired with highly emotional human elements create something so much more than just an adaptation of a comic writer’s story. Whether you are Team Cap or Team Iron Man, there will plenty to love for both sides.

Poorly made movies can occasionally be made bearable by a certain admirable trait, whether it be an excellent story or cinematography ect. In the Magnificent Seven’s case the saving grace comes from its star studded cast. Director Anotine Fuqua does not necessarily bring anything new to the table but the cliché western is undoubtedly fun with many a moment that will make you chuckle and wish for the old days regardless of your age. This ages old tale of a bunch of ruffians coming together to take out the bad guy may be as old as the Western itself but the undeniable charm will make you grin in spite of itself.

The always reliable Denzel Washington takes over the role of Steve McQueen as The Man in Black, Sam Chislom, a silent but deadly type in the frontier. He is met by citizens of a town being terrorized by the egomaniacal Bartholomew Bogue (Peter Sarsgaard) who is every bit of the moustache twirling villain. Joining Chislom is a merry band of rouges including gambling self-proclaimed “world’s greatest lover” Faraday (Chris Pratt) war legend Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke) bible thumping trapper Jack Horne (Vincent D’Onofrio) and more. Together this band of “heroes” works to take down the evildoers.

The hardest part of the film to swallow is easily the beginning when the cast is fractured. The hunt to bring the party together is a sloooooow burn which makes it hard to sit through the first half of the two hour run time. The only piece of the party that works solo is Chislom because of some dark emotions that play in his backstory. Other characters have similar demons in the closet like Ethan Hawke’s Goodnight, but we never see to deep into it because that would keep the film from being as fun. But as the cast slowly starts to build and becomes one cohesive unit, everything gets kicked into first gear. You get the sense that the actors had a hell of a good time making this and when they start having fun you will too. There are a number of scenes where the guys are just being guys, lying around, talking about girls, talking smack, (you know, guy stuff). These scenes may be visually unimpressive but they are easily the most fun.

That’s not to say the action does not entertain. When the bullets finally start flying, shots get intense. Like the original, the remake keeps the bravery of making sure no one is safe allowing some big characters to bite the dust. It keeps the tension tight in an otherwise carefree movie. Everyone gets their moment to shine but my personal favorite has to be D’Onofrio’s Jack Horner. The absolute bear of a man physically looks like he should be kicking ass and taking names (like he does in Daredevil) but though is character is undeniably deadly, he has a soft spot too. With a whistly voice and a penchant of respect for all including his enemies, he is masterfully balanced by D’Onofrio’s acting. I feel that everyone will have their own personal favorite which just goes to show that there is an element for everyone to enjoy in this magnificent journey.

With all of the explosions, quips, and mayhem, The Magnificent Seven feels like a summer blockbuster that got pushed to the Fall.

10 Cloverfield Lane is the sequel I never knew I wanted. After the initial Cloverfield released in 2008 many were intrigued by the origins of the giant sea monster that terrorized New York but rumors of a sequel were eventually dispelled and the intrigue died down. That is until its surprise announcement only three months ago of what producer J.J. Abrams called a “blood relative” to the original film. While some fans may be disappointed that connection to the original film is lacking, the latest entry in the franchise offers plenty in terms of fantastic story direction and performances.

Michelle (Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World’s Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is running away after an angry altercation with her now ex-boyfriend. While driving one night she is violently run off the road by a mystery assailant, knocking her unconscious. When she comes to she finds herself handcuffed underground in a doomsday bunker. This immediately ensures that there will be no giant monsters rampaging through the city this time around. Instead the threats stay much more in the background and make a surprisingly effective scare. A distant rumble inspiring a “What was that?” moment creates much more terror through imagination than actually seeing monsters ever could. But as the film’s marketing suggests, “Monsters come in many forms.” This time around it’s in the form of John Goodman’s (The Big Lebowski) Howard. Howard is a huge individual, further accentuated by the small bunker he and his “guests” are in. After spending 40 years in the Navy he decided that global annihilation was inevitable and that all of us would be dead thanks to anything from nuclear warfare to Martians and so decided to build his doomsday bunker. His paranoia forces Michelle and his charming southern coworker Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.) to either appease him or fight to escape. I’ll let you guess which way that goes.

Abandoning the found footage style of the first film, 10 Cloverfield Lane takes on a much cleaner cut approach from newcomer director Dan Trachtenberg. Rather than have massive kaiju roaming the streets he decides to take the slow build approach to reveal anything that hints at paranormal activity. Most of the time we don’t even have time to worry about what could be lurking outside the bunker; you will stay too busy be terrified of where Howard is. As Michelle and Emmett plot to escape Howard’s paranoia only worsens and makes him more erratic. The bunker he has created seems to hold secrets of its own which is cleverly revealed slowly along with the answers of what happened to the outside world.

This constant fear of dread that is instilled in us is thanks to John Goodman’s fantastic performance as the paranoid disaster fanatic. Winstead serves as the emotional heart of the film, trying to make the best of her situation despite being in constant fear of her captor/savior. Gallagher adds a surprising amount of emotion himself, often adding a much needed lightness to the proceedings when things get most dark. The small cast works well together despite having nothing but each other to really react to or interact with. It is almost funny when the credits finally roll and you see how short the list really is but then you realize how much talent it would take to create something of this magnitude with such a small cast and production. It is a fantastic debut for the director and shows the real acting chops that the cast possesses.

The story is smaller and more isolated than the first Cloverfield’s stupid drunks running in NYC but it is no less impactful. We get a closer look into the psyche of the human spirit faced with annihilation and what grisly ends it would move to in order to make itself feel safe.

Taking place in Boston in the middle of the early 2000s, a group of reporters for The Boston Globe (A.K.A. the “Spotlight” team) get a whiff of a large scandal happening within the Catholic Church resulting in molested children. However, they are hesitant to go after the church until their new editor Marty Baron (Liev Schreiber) comes in and softhandedly demands that they investigate. Catholicism is very prominent in Boston and the Spotlight team is justifiably worried that this will paint a target on their back but they go ahead with the story anyway. The team finds themselves not only opposed by the church but by the community as well. Nevertheless they press on to uncover one of the largest scandals in history.

The team is made up of Michael Rezendes (Mark Ruffalo), Walter “Robby” Robinson (Michael Keaton), Sacha Pfeiffer (Rachel McAdams), and others whose names you won’t remember. To their credit the cast gives some of the best acting of their collective lives while slowly uncovering that the city they know and love has been hiding such a dark secret. Boston is a character in and of itself from the shiny urban areas in the financial district to the urban decay as the camera takes us farther from the city’s shiny center. Bu despite the actors putting forth their best (especially Ruffalo), the material they deliver gets increasingly dull as time goes on. The uncovering of this scandal was huge and had networks and people talking for years but the movie just has scene after scene of people simply standing still and talking in classroom like environments. I get that journalism is mostly just that; asking questions and trading information with fellow journalists, but a film requires more to keep the proceedings entertaining and Spotlight fails to do so.

Though our journalists are definitely warriors of truth they never come off as idolized. None of them are perfect, everyone has a flaw or a lapse of judgment that makes them feel legitimately human. There were times where these people would be fighting so hard for the truth and I had to ask myself if they were doing it for the children in danger or because they simply wanted a good story that would make headlines. Some of these faults are larger than others and there is even a huge twist at the end that is continuously hinted at that I did not even see until it was revealed. There is a delightfully slow burn here with some of the topics that make the reveal so fulfilling, but there are times where it could have moved SO much faster.

Spotlight is a good film. It just was not the best film of 2016 and that bothers me. I get that Best Picture winners normally tackle large political or sociological issues with grace which Spotlight wholeheartedly did, but in terms of film production and overall execution it stays simply above average.

After earning Oscar for Birdman, director Alejandro G Iñárritu comes up with another masterpiece, The Revenant, a movie on the legendary American frontiersman and fur trapper Hugh Glass whose gritty survival story is brought to life by the absolutely brilliant performance by Leonardo DiCaprio, excellent direction by Iñárritu and the overall outstanding effort of his crew members. And when I say brought to life I mean it. The movie is executed so flawlessly that it draws the viewers into the torturous ordeal of Glass as he suffers from tremendous violence of wild nature and savagery and malice of fellow-humans to the point of death but returns overcoming untold hardship with an unyielding zeal to survive and extract revenge.

Partly based on Michael Punke's book The Revenant: A Novel of Revenge, the story begins with flashback glimpses of the protagonist Hugh Glass' tragic past as he along with his half-native son Hawk (half-Pawnee Indian from mother's side) guides a company of American frontiersmen fur trappers through the icy cold wilderness where they come under sudden attack from a tribe of local natives (Arikara Indians whose chief's daughter has been kidnapped) . A gory battle ensues which leaves three-fourths of the party dead and the rest escape on the boat but abandon it on advice of Glass and start trekking on foot. While alone Glass is severely mauled by a bear, clawed and bitten on chest, neck and back leaving him barely alive. Unable to carry him through difficult terrain, three members are left behind to look after him and give Glass a decent burial when the time comes. The unscrupulous John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy) betrays Glass, first trying to suffocate him to death but after being prevented from doing so by Hawk he murders Glass' son and leaves him half buried to die from wounds. But in doing so he inadvertently also gives Glass a strong reason to try to survive and seek revenge.

Further Iñárritu and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki's collaboration post Birdman pays off brilliantly again. The decision to shoot in natural light brings out the cruel but natural beauty of the tundra in strong contrast to the harsh and grueling narrative. After winning Oscars last two consecutive years for Gravity and Birdman, Lubezki might win a third one the manner in which he has captured the spittle flying out of Glass in his agitation, the icy breath fogging the lens and the beautiful sunset with equal brilliance. Even the only CGI scene, that of the grizzly bear mauling Glass is shot in a way so as to bring out the ferocity of the attack rather than focusing on just the visual effect.

Finally, the movie seems to convey parallel messages in what is essentially a story one man's grit and determination to survive against all odds and a wronged father's zeal to avenge the death of his son. Interwoven in the plot are elements of violence between man vs wild, man vs man, exploitation of indigenous people by European settlers and also spiritualism as Glass drifts in and out of hallucination of his dead wife, who whispers to him words of encouragement that keeps him going.

Finally, this harsh and brutal and highly realistically made survival story of Hugh Glass may not be for everyone, it is more of an visceral experience than a story on celluloid. But it is definitely worth a try for everyone except those very weak of heart. However, if you find the gory realism in the movie pulling you into it and making you uncomfortable, people slaughtering each other without giving much reason and the ending bit ambiguous, remember it's a survival story in a time when as the placard in French put around the neck of the hanged Pawnee Indian says.
Originally posted by danish Ahmed in http://xpensieve.blogspot.in/

Having stunned audiences worldwide with his ultra-violent re-interpretation of Sam Raimi's video nasty classic 'Evil Dead', director Fede Alvarez triumphantly returns to the horror genre with 'Don't Breathe', a stripped down yet extremely effective and claustrophobic psycho-shocker that may be sparse in dialogue and character development but very heavy on tension, thrills and knuckle-chewing terror. 'Evil Dead's Jane Levy stars as Rocky, one of three desperate teenage burglars who end up fighting for their lives when they foolishly decide to rob a blind yet very dangerous war veteran ('Avatar's Stephen Lang) whose creepy and desolate home hides twisted and terrifying secrets. Throw a vicious, froth mouthed pooch who makes Cujo look like Lassie into the already volatile mix and you have a lean, mean and very efficient roller coaster ride of a film that may be simplistic but soon reveals itself to be a disturbing, distressing and sometimes downright disgusting shockfest that is sure to please genre fans both seasoned and rookie.
Originally posted on: http://dc-moviereviews.blogspot.in/2016/09/dont-breathe.html#more

Two years of a faithful wait for the movie made me as happy as Harry was on his 1st visit to Hogsmeade when I took delivery of the tickets to watch Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince at a multiplex with one of my close friends…also an ardent Potter series fan! Right from the 3rd movie the scriptwriters had taught us fans to get used to them twisting the original tale and doing away with parts of the story that we considered significant…but inspite of the warning David Yates’ HP 6 left me broken hearted as I found yet again that this was a director who made a story of his own…my rant about the movie goes thus :

For all ye Muggles who think ‘its jus a movie’ :
Harry Potter is a teen wizard (yes he can do magic n stuff) who has returned to his school with best friends Ron and Hermione for his 6th year. His headmaster Dumbledore takes him through preparations to face and ultimately destroy the baddie Voldermort who in the past killed Harry’s parents. It’s a story of revenge that has a good dose of friendship and in the case of this movie a lotta adolescent love. The visual effects are mindblowing and the movie boasts of a cast comprising some of Britain’s most talented actors.

On the whole…it was nothing like the heaven of magic that the 1st two movies created…but still we got to see a couple of characters we love on screen…and with the special effects it wasn’t hard to sit through the movie. But the magic was missing...ironically yes...there were wands, broomsticks, spells, hexes, jinxes and even a singing phoenix but the magic of the entire concept was missing! And the fact that the 7th movie lies in the hands of David Yates only makes me wish that I make myself ready to face a similar experience yet again next year!

I read plenty of the short horror stories when I was a kid but was not immensely attached to them so I figured I could suffer through the latest blow to my cherished childhood memories. Surprisingly, I found I didn’t have to. Goosebumps is a surprisingly fun, even heartfelt film that simultaneously manages to pack in the creeps for kids and adults alike.

Rather than focus on a single Goosebumps novel, the film decides instead to embrace all of them at once. That’s one hell of a gutsy move. Of course there isn’t enough time to fully explore the fun/horror of every single monster, but none of them feel like worthless props hanging in the background. What’s more, the characters that do get the spotlight are written wonderfully and balance scariness with their R.L. Stine trademarked quirks perfectly. This is most notable with the film’s main antagonist Slappy, the self-aware, creepy-as-f**k dummy which was the only real monster I remembered from the books because it scared the ever loving sh*t out of me. Slappy is hilarious and sinister, spouting off unrelenting puns one second and breaking a man’s fingers the next and that kind of spirit straight from the books that is captured perfectly.

Despite antagonists being the main draw of any Stine creation, the protagonists this time around are pretty fun themselves. Jack Black’s performance as R.L. Stine is surprisingly fitting and he easily draws out the most laughs of the film. He an artist, so obviously he feels sensitive and misunderstood (and constantly overshadowed by that bastard STEVE King!!!). Even though he is the creator of his own demons, that doesn’t mean he isn’t freaked out like the rest of us. When his creations find a way out into the real world he isn’t some calm and collected Indiana Jones type who knows exactly what to do; no, he runs like hell with everyone else. Technically though, Jack Black isn’t our main protagonist; that honor goes to Dylan Minnette as Zach Cooper. Zach recently moved into Nowhere, Suburbia with his mom to escape the grief of his recently deceased father. In his search for friends, he runs into Stine’s daughter Hannah (Odeya Rush) who is mysteriously kept away from others by her over protective father.

Of course, the two quickly form a friendship with the potential of more around the horizon, and while that may be a bit nuanced their sharing feeling of grief over a lost parent is not. As it turns out, Hannah also lost a parent somehow and also feels like an outsider. The pairing is sweet and believable as the chemistry between the two works well. There’s also the matter of Champ (Ryan Lee) who is there for no reason other than comic relief. Look, I’m all for a guy to laugh at when the going gets tough, but the film is funny enough without throwing another scapegoat into our faces. In a way, the trio reminds me of the group from Paper Towns where they are all off on a quest for others and themselves. There is even a moment where Champ (again, the underdog nerd of the group) gets to save the hot cheerleader type from certain doom and is rewarded with a chance to date wayyyyy outside his league. Just like Paper Towns. And the actress who plays the damsel in distress from Goosebumps (Halston Sage) is that exact character in Paper Towns… Coincidence?

Save for Champ, all of our unlikely heroes come off as likeable in their own way. They bond and grow, finding strength in their friends and themselves. It’s a strangely sweet tale for something that has so many demonic creatures in it. Of course there are cheesy CGI effects galore when it comes to fighting the big monsters.

The basic premise of the movie is drawn from a philosophical/scientific argument on the risky consequence of unchecked progression of technological civilization. In the beginning we find that a massively diminished human population has turned into an agrarian society, shunning technology for the most part. The reason given is that shortage of food has led to a situation where NASA's trained pilot is forced to take up farming. From a philosophical perspective there could be another reason. Enrico Fermi proposed in response to the question why we haven't encountered any form of communication from extra-terrestrial civilization (in the famous Fermi Paradox) that one of reasons could that an intelligent civilization that has developed technology for space travel would also have developed the capability to self-destruct. This seems all the more true when we look at our history to find that we developed the atom bomb and nuclear arsenal for MAD (mutually assured destruction) before we landed on the moon. And I am not even looking at climate change scenario. For a world with hugely diminished human population and facing starvation ,the only way to avoid complete annihilation of the species would be to forsake industrial civilization and return to basic survival methods. It is not surprising that the school teachers talk about them being a caretaker generation and things getting better.

It is a father's love for his daughter that partly motivates Cooper to plunge towards the black hole from which he is sucked into the artificial construct in the fifth dimension and from where TARS is able to gather quantum data after observing the singularity. Cooper's love for Murph is quantifiable, the matrix of cubes, each representing six different views of Murph's bedroom in every instance of time makes it possible for him to navigate specific instance of time to send message by exerting force on world-lines of specific objects such as books and hands in a watch to create gravitational waves that affect these objects. Similarly, Murph's love for his father transcends space and time. Her father has been gone for more than 25 years and if alive is thousands of millions of light years away, but she is still drawn to her bedroom where both of them started investigating the anomalies and where she believes she can find the answers. And she does. She finds the quantum data encoded in the seconds hand of the watch her father had given her and decodes the message to complete the gravity equation so that the space station is able to take off and mankind is saved from extinction.
Originally posted by danish Ahmed in http://xpensieve.blogspot.in/

This third entry in James DeMonaco and Platinum Dunes' all-crime-is-legal horror thriller franchise may improve on 2014's underwhelming 'The Purge : Anarchy' but still manages to overlook the endless array of options and story arcs the basic premise of the series so clearly invites. Following on from the events of 'Anarchy', 'The Purge : Election Year' sees anti-Purge presidential candidate Charlie Roan (Elizabeth Mitchell) being hunted on Purge night by the supporters of the annual 12 hours of terror. With the help of Frank Grillo's grizzled Sgt. Leo Barnes (reprising his role from the previous movie), Roan must evade the swastika-tattoed mercenaries and mask wearing crazies and survive the night. As is typical with the other films in the series, 'The Purge : Election Year' is far from subtle - with overt Clinton/Trump symbolism and partisan rhetoric running rampant throughout it's lean 90 minute running time. However, apart from it's somewhat amusing in-your-face political message and a number of over-the-top performances that make pantomime look understated, 'The Purge : Election Year' lacks any of the visceral thrills or pointed social metaphors that made it's predecessors stand out amongst the-then saturated horror/thriller crowd.
Originally posted on http://dc-moviereviews.blogspot.in/2016/09/the-purge-election-year.html

Jungle book is one of the best animal movie to watch for kids. Because it strongly delivered the messages about the importance of courage, teamwork, family and friendship. The story travels between young Mowgli (Neel Sethi), the orphaned "man cub" raised as a wolf and the tiger Shere Khan, jungle's most vicious predator who hated Mowgli too the core. Overall graphics in the movie is very good and nice to watch. People who gave voice behind the screen for animals have done their great job.Actually I was very much familiar with the story in my childhood age itself and so I simply enjoyed watching it.

Bridge of Spies is a much more subtle film than most war movies. Fitting for the age that it is placed in, there are no giant battle scenes here. Gunfire rarely flashes up on the screen. The only violence that is ever shown mainly comes through the US and Russia’s government’s harsh treatment of their prisoners. Refreshingly, the United States is not shown as a white knight in a world of evil. Rather, America’s government is playing just as dirty as the other side. For the sake of keeping up appearances the US government appoints James Donovan (Tom Hanks) who is primarily an insurance lawyer, to defend and possibly save the life of a potential Russian spy. But in reality the government expects the case to be rather open and shut. The defense is merely a façade to try and show the rest of the world that the United States is more just than Russia. Knowing this, Hanks is still determined to fight and try to win the freedom of his client.
Spielberg is still a terrific director and his talent shows just as it always does (except for Jurassic Park 2, what were you thinking man?). Cold War era U.S. and Berlin are captured in the steely tense ways that plagued the atmosphere back then. Children play in the streets while keeping a tight grip on nuclear preparedness pamphlets. When Donovan is sent to West Berlin, the goings on seem altogether normal but as he travels to the east end over the Berlin Wall urban and social decay rear their ugly heads and make for a frightening scene. At times, there is symbolism that hits a little too heavy however. There is more than one shot where Hanks is illuminated like an angel while the rest of the room and characters remain clouded in darkness just in case we forget who the obvious hero is. But aside from these occasionally out of places frames, the cinematography and directing is fantastic as should be expected and makes for a thrilling view.
Whether or not you are interested in history pieces, this is still a Spielberg film with some very entertaining and emotional moments that make it more than worth the theatre price. It may not meet the hype that comes with such a legendary team up but it is still one of the better releases this year. With excellent direction and strong performances, Bridge of Spies is a film worth

When Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland hit theatres in 2010, Disney was rushing to make live action remakes of all of their older, more popular animated features. Though it was met with mixed review, the film at least had the good sense to bring a bit more darkness into a world filled to the brim with lunatics. The larger problems of two dimensional characters and incoherent storytelling could be forgiven for bringing author Lewis Carrol’s whimsical world back to life. While the first film may have possessed the allure of being a new spin on an old tale, Through the Looking Glass is nothing but a cash grab hoping that the same formula will work twice. Though the created CGI world does admittedly look impressive, the terrible story cohesion and character writing makes for a tale best left on the bookshelf. Taken over by Muppets director James Bobin, Alice Through the Looking Glass finds our titular character (played by the wonderful Mia Wasikowska) having returned to the real world as a swashbuckling pirate fighter… of sorts. After completing her voyage at sea which began at the end of the first Alice, her old suitor Hamish inexplicably shows up to demand possession of her ship, The Wonder. Rather than deal with her real world problems, Alice decides to say F*ck it and heads back down the rabbit hole, or rather, through a mirror that has trans-dimensional powers for some reason. Much like a bad LSD trip, the less questions you ask, the more you will enjoy the ride.

Alice eventually meets back up with her old crew of wonderland misfits like the White Queen (Anne Hathoway), Tweedledee and Tweedledum (Matt Lucas), and the Chesire Cat (Stephen Fry). All are on a quest to help Johnny Depp’s nightmare worthy Mad Hatter cope with the loss of his family after a Jaberwocky decided they were better off dead. The White Queen orders Alice to go back in time to save the Hatter’s family and bring him back from the Disney equivalent of suicide. It is here where we meet the film’s one strength in the form of Sacha Baron Cohen’s Time. Time is a German sounding cooky sort who never comes off as a true antagonist. He denies Alice’s request for time travel because changing the past will (and later does) have nasty repercussions. So when talking doesn’t work, Alice throws caution to the winds and steal a time ship which is basically the equivalent of a Dr. Who Tardis with better special effects. This makes it hard to root for Alice, who is really kind of a jerk for putting the universe at risk just so her old chum can be happy. Be that as it may, Time begins a merry chase after her and the duo fight through history.

Though the story and characters are hard to follow, the film is not without merit. Alice Through the Looking Glass boasts much more impressive set pieces than its predecessor, fully realizing the crazy world of Wonderland. The film is also quite funny thanks to expert comedic timing from Bobin’s direction. Just when you start getting overly frustrated at the lack of sense in the plot, a funny quip will keep you going. Sadly, this is really all the film has to offer. Besides the very obvious CGI worlds and occasional funny moments nothing happens that will stay with you outside of the theatre. Instead, this lackluster piece will simply have you asking for your money back.

Ali zadar igo very much for your help and support you in whatever way you can get a good night's sleep and I will be there

Finding Dory is a good quality animated adventure that children and adults can enjoy alike. Unlike its predecessor, it lacks originality but makes up for it with great new characters and funny gags. The animation is on point and the lighting effects with the water make such a realistic effect that if weren’t for the adorable cartoon fish swimming around, you could almost think it was real. It speaks to the talent of Pixar and shows that they are not yet done impressing the world with their awesome features

என்னுடைய பள்ளி நாட்களில் மதுரை நியூசினிமா திரையரங்கில் ரிலீஸ் ஆனது இந்தப் படம். இந்தப் படத்தை தனியே அமர்ந்து பார்ப்பவர்களுக்கு ஆயிரம் ரூபாய் பரிசு என்று அறிவிக்கப்பட்டதாக ஒரு செய்தி உலவியது. பல பேர் திரையரங்கிலேயே மாரடைப்பு வந்து மருத்துவமனையில் அனுமதிக்கப் பட்டதாகவும் செய்திகள் வந்தவண்ணம் இருந்தன. பள்ளியில் மாணவர்கள் அனைவரும் இதைப் பற்றியே பேசிக் கொண்டிருந்தது எனக்கு நன்றாக நினைவிருக்கிறது.
குமுதம் வார இதழில் இந்தப் படத்தின் கதை தொடராக வெளியானது. அதை நான் முழுதுமாக வாசித்தேன்.
அப்போது இந்தப் படத்தைப் பார்க்க எனக்கு அனுமதியில்லை. ஆனால் பத்து வருடங்களுக்குப் பின்னர் மதுரை அமிர்தம் திரையரங்கில் இந்தப் படத்தைக் காணும் வாய்ப்புக் கிட்டியது. மிகவும் அருமையான செவ்வியல் படைப்பாக இந்தப் படத்தை நான் உணர்ந்தேன். ஆனால் எல்லோரும் சொன்னபடி மிரட்டும் அளவிற்கு படத்தில் ஏதுமில்லை. குறிப்பாக பேய்ப் படங்களில் வழக்கமாக மிரட்டும் தடாலடி இசை இந்தப் படத்தில் இல்லை.
இப்போது இந்தப் படத்தின் இணைப்பு தற்செயலாக Netflix ல் கண்ணில் பட்டது. உடனடியாகப் பார்க்க உட்கார்ந்தேன். மிக நேர்த்தியான கதை சொல்லல் மற்றும் ஆகச் சிறந்த ஒளிப்பதிவுடன் அமைதியாக அச்சுறுத்தியது படம்.
இணையத்தில் படத்தைக் குறித்த தகவல்களைத் தேடிய போது தான் உண்மையாகவே நான் அதிர்ந்து போனேன். ஆம்...இந்தத் திரைப்படம் தயாரிப்பில் இருக்கும் போதே, படத்தில் பணியாற்றிய பலரைப் பாடாய்ப்படுத்தியிருக்கிறது.
The Exorcist நாவல் உண்மைச் சம்பவங்களின் அடிப்படையில் 1970 ம் ஆண்டு வில்லியம் பீட்டர் பிளாட்டி என்ற நாவலாசிரியரால் எழுதப்பட்டது.
ஜார்ஜ் டவுனில் பேய் புகுந்து கொண்டதாகக் கருதப்பட்ட ஒரு சிறுவனுக்கு, கத்தோலிக்கப் பாதிரிமார்களும், ஜார்ஜ் டவுன் பலகலைக்கழக மருத்துவமனையும் இணைந்து போயோட்டும் வேலையைச் செய்தனர். அந்த நிகழ்வுகளின் தாக்கத்தில் எழுதப்பட்டதே இந்த நாவல்.நாவலில் சிறுவனின் கதாபாத்திரம் சிறுமி என்பதாக மாற்றப்பட்டது. அந்தச் சிறுவன் பின்னாளில் குணமடைந்து நாசாவில் பணிபுரிந்ததாகக் கூறப்படுகிறது. அவனுக்கு பேய் பிடித்த போது நடந்த சம்பவங்கள் ஏதும் நினைவில் இல்லையாம்.
The Exorcist நாவலைப் படமாக்கும் முயற்சியில் இறங்கினார் இயக்குனர் வில்லியம் பிரேட்கின். மேக் நெயில்ஸ் என்பவரின் வீட்டில் படப்பிடிப்பு துவங்கியது. முதல் நாளிலேயே வீட்டின் கீழ் தளம் தீப்பிடித்துக் கொண்டது. பேய் பிடித்த சிறுமி ரேகன் படுத்திருக்கும் அறையைத் தவிர மற்ற எல்லாமும் எரிந்து போயின. அந்தப் படுக்கையறை மட்டும் எந்தப் பாதிப்புமின்றி அப்படியே இருந்தது. பின்னாளில் புறா ஒன்று எலக்ட்ரிகல் சர்க்யூட் போர்டில் அடிபட்டதால் தீ விபத்து நேர்ந்ததாகக் கண்டறியப்பட்டது.
படப்பிடிப்பில் ரேகனின் தாயாக நடித்த நடிகை எலன் பஸ்டின், பேயால் தூக்கி எறியப்படும் காட்சியில் உண்மையாகவே அடிபட்டார். இரத்தத்துடன் அவர் துடித்து விழும் அந்தக் காட்சி படத்தில் அப்படியே பயன்படுத்தப்பட்டது.
படத்தில் நடித்த நடிகர் ஜார்ஜ் மேக்ரூன் மற்றும் நடிகை வசிலிகி மேலியாரோ ஆகிய இருவரும் அவர்களது கதாபாத்திரத்தை நடித்து முடித்த பின்னர், படப்பிடிப்பு முழுவதும் முடியாத நிலையில் திடீரென இறந்து போயினர். படத்தில் அவர்களது கதாபாத்திரம் எப்படி இறந்ததோ , கிட்டத்தட்ட அதே போன்ற விபத்து அவர்களுக்கு நடந்திருந்தது.
மேக்ஸ் ஒன் ஷிடோ என்ற நடிகரின் முதல் நாள் படப்பிடிப்பில் அவரது மகன் இறந்து போனதாக செய்தி வந்தது. அந்த செய்தி வந்த சில நிமிடங்களுக்குள் பேய் பிடித்த சிறுமியாக நடித்த லிண்டா ப்ளேரின் தாத்தா இறந்து போனதாக அடுத்த செய்தி வந்தது. கட்டிலில் இருந்து மேலே பறக்கும் காட்சி படமாக்கப் படுகையில் லிண்டாவிற்கு முதுகில் அடிபட்டது. மேலும் படம் வெளியானதும் அவளுக்கு கொலை மிரட்டல்கள் தொடர்ந்து வந்த வண்ணம் இருந்ததன.
படத்தில் பாதிரியாராக வரும் டெமின் காராஸ் என்ற நடிகரின் மகன் படப்பிடிப்பில் அவர் இருக்கும் போது மோட்டார் சைக்கிள் விபத்தில் இறந்து போனான்.
மெர்சிடஸ் மெக் கேம்ப்ரிட்ஜ் என்ற நடிகையின் மகன் தன் மனைவி மற்றும் குழந்தைகளைக் கொலை செய்து விட்டு தானும் தற்கொலை செய்து கொண்டான்.
படம் வெளியான திரையரங்குகளில் பெண்கள் வாந்தி எடுத்தார்கள். பலர் மயங்கி விழுந்தார்கள். இன்னும் சிலருக்கு மாரடைப்பு ஏற்பட்டது. ஆதாலால் படம் வெளியான அனைத்து திரையரங்குகளிலும் ஆம்புலன்ஸ் வெளியில் தயாராக நிறுத்தப் பட்டது.
வார்னர் பிரதர்ஸ் நிறுவனத்திற்கு இந்தப் படத்தின் வசூலை விட நஷ்ட ஈடு அதிகமாக வழங்க வேண்டிய நிலை ஏற்பட்டது.
பல நாடுகளில் இந்தப் படம் தடை செய்யப்பட்டது.
இந்தப் படத்தின் பிலிம் சுருள் சாத்தானின் சக்தியைக் கொண்டிருப்பதாக ரோமன் கத்தோலிக்க சபை கண்டனம் தெரிவித்தது.மேலும் தங்களின் உணர்வுகள் இந்தப் படத்தில் புண்படுத்தப் பட்டதாக வழக்கு தொடர்ந்தது.
சபிக்கப்பட்ட இந்தத் திரைப்படத்தை எந்தவிதச் சலனமும் இன்றி முழுமையாகப் பார்ப்பவர்கள், தங்களை ஆசீர்வதிக்கப் பட்டவர்கள் என்று பெருமைப்பட்டுக்கொள்ளலாம்!