Sherlock Holmes – A Game of Shadows: Predictable, but Witty and Intelligent

Director: Guy Ritchie

Actors: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Jared Harris

Rating: 4/5

Up till the 60s, wit in American and British cinema was not an exception, but a rule. Helmed by good writers who were well read and exposed to theatre, the dialogues as well as scene conceptualization were exemplary. Today, while the revolution in film cameras, techniques and editing allows one to be visually witty, when it comes to writing, the quality has gone downhill.

Sherlock Holmes 2, a film whose writing wit matches its filmmaking quirkiness, comes as a wily reminder of the times gone by.

Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr) has been tracking the movements of Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris) and suspects something big. Meanwhile, Dr. Watson (Jude Law) is about to get married and Holmes decides to leave him out. But when Moriarty suggests otherwise, Holmes ends up crashing into Watson’s honeymoon. But catching Moriarty would be harder than the two imagined for he is the ‘Napoleon’ of crime and matches Holmes move by move.

In terms of the original stories of Sherlock Homes by Arthur Conan Doyle, this one resembles ‘The Final Solution’ where Doyle, tired of writing the Holmes series, wanted to kill him off. The film, however takes merely its gist to create one that has less to do with the actual story and its time, than it has to ours.

Obviously, considering that Moriarty is often considered the greatest villain in literature, his plans had to be hideously sinister. Writers Michele and Kieran Mulroney manage to wriggle out of the throats of that era, a story that is believable in its setting despite its grandiose, though clichéd theme of saving the world.

What we thus have is the perfect marriage between good writing and filmmaking. A kind of film which the masters of the past, had they been exposed to modern cinematic techniques and quick editing, would have made.

The blending of history and fiction is near perfect. Moriarty’s evil plan is to plunge the world into a World War. And when Holmes prevents it, Moriarty reminds him that he has only delayed the inevitable since greedy countries of Europe are sitting at each others throat, ready to slit it.

Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law make the perfect deductive pair as they match wits with a master criminal. However, the major drawback of the story is in the character of Moriarty. Though his scheme is sinister enough, it has been done to death so many times in cinema, that despite its generous peppering of accurate historical details, it seems clichéd.

Secondly, pandering perhaps to popular demand, more time is spend on Holmes and Watson, than on Moriarty. His cynicism and terror, does not really translate on screen. Also the film relies on typical commercial formula of beginning it with good action, peppering enough dosage of the same throughout and ending it with a bang.

Though the action sequences are craftily done and the end where Holmes and Moriarty literally play a game of chess not on the board, but by dictating moves verbally, is masterly.

Though often, the wit of the film gets overbearing with almost every second line being a punch-line, Guy Ritchie manages an entertaining fare, a good cinematic way to end your year. Despite it being predictable for the intelligent and spectacular for the ones less so.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy – Masterful Spy Tale

Director: Tomas Alfredson

Actors: Gary Oldman, John Hurt, Tom Hardy

Rating: 4.5/5

A really good spy film, unlike the stupid clichés of James Bond and Mission Impossible series, is about mind games. It’s about struggling against mind-fields to discover a truth hidden in plain sight, and decoding it.

In such a really good spy film, no clue is spoon fed to the audience with tricks like slow motion, highlighted comments or scenes or by focusing on a character to either prove then guilty, or mislead viewers. A true spy film, like the profession of espionage itself, is about teasing the viewers, making them squirm in their seats with discomfort.

A really good spy film is like ‘Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy’ (TTSS).

In the height of the cold-war of the 70s, there’s a rumour of a double agent in the top echelons of British Secret Service. After an agent walks right into an ambush in communist Budapest, the suspicions gather wind. A retired agent, Smiley (Gary Oldman) who has intricate knowledge of his own and other agencies, is recalled. He realizes that the clues to the mystery lies both in the present and a party a few years back, that keeps playing in his mind.

In a good ‘find the mole, plug the hole’ spy film, the needle of suspicion keeps circulating and does not spare even the investigators. ‘Trust no one, till the end’ is the motto, thus confusing, and challenging the viewer.

In a good spy film, the clues are never given en-masse. Instead they are scattered like dust specs in the air, visible only when light is shone on them. They are all over, hidden amidst many other incidents that can also equally be clues. Finding answers thus become like building a jigsaw puzzle, only in this case there are as many useless pieces that do not belong in the jigsaw, as there are those that do.

A good audience is the one, that picks the right one, is able to make the connections and find the mole before the protagonist does. And if you pay attention in the film, you will. But blink and chances are that you will miss it.

That’s because the film overlaps past and present as clues are thrown in plain sight. Yet, like time bombs they tick along in your subconscious till just at the right time they explode in your conscious mind and you realize you knew it all along. 

Having said that TTSS, with its complex plot and not so easy way of delivering clues, is a film meant only for select, intellectually vigorous viewers who miss no clue, no little suggestions, who can ‘tinker’ clues to ‘tailor’ together the most implausible meanings with a ‘soldier’s’ spirit and a ‘spy’s’ enthusiasm. You can test the limits of your ability to comprehend the most inane of clues with this film.

Giving credence to its sinister and broody mood of mistrust is an excellent cast that delivers a spectacular performance. Gary Oldman is cold, calculative just as his character requires while John Hurt, in a small but significant role is his usual, animated self.

The film has issues, like the reason given by the mole to do what s/he does. That, however, does not matter because if you got the film, you’ll rejoice and if you didn’t it will end up being one of the most harrowing films you have ever seen. John le Carré, on whose 1974 masterful spy novel the film is based, would be very proud indeed. 

This review has been written for the wire service IANS.

With Love, Delhi – Juvenilia At Its Best

Director: Nikhil Singh
Actors: Ashish Lal, Pariva Pranati, Tom Alter, Kiran Kumar
Rating: 1/5

Mithun Chakravarty’s film ‘Gunda’ is a cult classic amongst IITians because it is so full of cliches and stretches them so much, it becomes a delightful watch.

After many attempts, IITians have finally made a film that could have matched Gunda’s low standards. Sadly it is so pretentiously serious that Bollywood would be proud that they finally have an ‘English’ film made by ‘intelligent’ IITians to match their worst products.

After her father is kidnapped, Priyanka (Pariva Pranati) takes the help of her best friend Ashish Lal (Ashish Lal) to solve clues left by the kidnappers to try and save her father.

The patron saint of all IITian who aspire to venture into the arts, Chetan Bhagat, would be proud of this film. The dialogues are so bad and juvenile, that Bhagat’s book would sound like Doestovosky before it.

Yes you laugh in the film but for all the wrong reasons. Like when the hero tells his girlfriend how she could lose two pounds immediately - by dropping all her clothes because that is ‘exactly’ how much they weigh. It has to be an IIT engineer doing such ‘precision’ writing.

The film does try to mask its lack by involving some good people like Tom Alter, Kiran Kumar, Seema Biswas and editor Namrata Rao. But bad dialogues mouthed by a guy with a heavy Bihari ascent, kills everything. If the film were deliberately trying to make fun of English, it would have worked, but its seriousness prevents this little saving grace.

That brings us to the difficulty of making a decent film, especially by IITians who are famed for their intelligence. The trick is to first take stock of what one knows and what one doesn’t, try to better the already known and learn the remaining by watching films.

Another IITian, Kenny Basumatary did just that to make ‘Local Kung Fu’ for a mere Rs. 95,000, a film that undoubtedly has the best kung fu ever shot in India (you can check its YouTube trailer). That this bunch of intelligent IITians couldn’t do it even after spending Rs. 4.25 crore, is an insult to the IIT spirit. And that is where the other problem lies.

When IANS contacted one of the producers regarding the budget, he said, “We are just normal middle-class guys.” If you know little about India, you realize that Rs. 4.25 crore is neither middle-class nor normal. And that is where the politics of its making becomes clear.

The guy who plays the lead, Ashish Lal who had the megalomania to call his character in the film Ashish Lal is the worst possible guy to essay the role. That he does so shows the brazenness of a rich, new India which does not care or respect the field they are entering, and think money can compensate for any lack.

Sadly, it does not. The film is obvious to be panned both critically and commercially. Thus everyone who has invested in it will lose faith. In the future if some really talented filmmaker were to approach them, the once-burnt-twice-shy producers will show him or her the door. In a country like India, where money for good films is hard to come by, ‘With Love, Delhi’ ends up committing a great crime against cinema.

This review was written for the wire service, IANS. 

'Mission Impossible 4' - Thrilling Action, Disappointing Cinema

Director: Brad Bird

Cast: Tom Cruise, Jeremy Renner, Paula Patton 

Rating: ** 1/2

Visually, two things that instantly transcend the immediate boundaries of a viewer's intellect to land straight inside are sex and violence. Thus brands that can no longer appeal to your intellect, or are too lazy to try, resort to either or both. That brand can either be a product or a movie star.

This is indeed a trend observed among male movie stars. Ageing stars, who no longer have the confidence of their youth, resort to movies that have an overdose of sex and violence. If you have followed Tom Cruise's selection of films lately, you would have observed an over-reliance on action at the cost of other factors. 'Mission Impossible 4' is no different.

He unabashedly stays within the confines of done-to-death cliches to give you not a film, but a roughly stitched collage of some very well done action sequences. Thus, what is sacrificed at this altar of dreary cliches are story, characterization, plot, subplots... basically everything that makes a film a fun watch.

The story of 'Ghost Protocol' is simpler than the elaborate charades you made up as kids. Smoked out of a Russian prison, Ethan Hunt and his renegade team, have to hunt down a Russian scientist with launch codes for nuclear warheads and save the world.

Along the way there are some lame dialogues, some pretences at making up subplots and a star way past his prime, trying desperately to hold on to the action genre like his character hangs to the ledge of a building.

After seeing 'Ghost Protocol' as a discerning viewer, you'll realize that Tom Cruise has lost the plot, figuratively and literally. All his recent films have been shoddy excuses in the name of cinema, but had very good action. The Church of Scientology does not seem to be helping our star. He needs to enroll himself in the church of cinema.

The action scenes do not disappoint. They are elaborately conceptualized, beautifully shot and adeptly edited to make you sit at the edge of your seat. Tom Cruise might have forgotten other things, but he hasn't forgotten the art of choosing the best action team in the industry.

The film thus ends up being a never-ending action ride from the windows of the world's tallest building, to the tunnel under the world's worst prison to the streets of Mumbai and into a parking lot apparently located in India, but which you know will not exist in the country for the next few decades.

If you want to watch the film for it being shot in India, and for Anil Kapoor, you'll be sorely disappointed. Only two minutes of actual India make it to the film. The other shots thought to be filmed in the country, have actually been shot in Indian localities of North America. Kapoor barely has a few minutes' role as a lecherous business tycoon. It's not enough either for his fans or his detractors.

The mission impossible for a star is thus actually mission simple. If you indeed choose to accept mission stardom you get to date beautiful women, hobnob with the richest men and pretend as if your existence mattered. Sadly, cinema, in such pursuit of name and fame, becomes a necessary evil to be shot, chased and exploded out of a film just like its villains.

This review was written for the news wire service, IANS.

Below is the first two paragraph of the review, that were later changed in the above review: 

Your mission not-so-impossible, as a star in any film industry, should you choose to accept it, is to make money at any cost, for yourself and those who invest in you. As long as you follow this code, you mission will always be possible, but the moment you deviate from this protocol, we will deny all knowledge of your existence and you will be on your own.

The above seem to be the pledge that actors who cross over to become stars in any global film industry seem to take like agent Ethan Hunt at the beginning of any Mission Impossible film. Sadly, though in every film of the series our renegade hero goes beyond the call of duty, the person who plays him, Tom Cruise, has no such ambition. 

Machine Gun Preacher – Guns And Prayers Blazing

Director: Marc Forster

Actors: Gerard Butler, Michelle Monaghan, Michael Shannon

Ratings: 4 out of 5

Often we see such bad things that it shakes us strongly. But we turn our backs convincing ourselves that it is someone else’s problem. ‘Machine Gun Preacher’ is the true story of a ‘sinner’ who refused to walk away after his eyes were opened and thus changed things.

After realizing the error of his ways, drug peddler Sam Childers (Gerard Butler) turns to Jesus and sorts himself out. A few years later on a trip to Sudan he is appalled by killings that leave thousands orphaned. He tries to help. When his honest attempts are thwarted, he refuses to give up and picks up a gun.

Guns hiding behind Bibles and Korans have made the world a dangerous place. Director Marc Forster thankfully refuses to lose his way in the rhetoric of Christianity to create a compelling, believable drama whose focus is the individual and what he can do to change things. He paints the transformation of a man and provides those who want to help a template for their own transformation and for bringing change in the world.

We often encounter big problems. Sadly we get so overwhelmed by their enormity that we don’t even attempt change. After all, how much can you do? Sam Childers answers this question: do whatever little you can. But, do it.  

In a scene that can be easily missed, Sam sees a lot of kids sleeping on the ground outside and tries to take them to his room. When reminded that he can’t take all, he says he will take as many as he can. All the problems of the world can be solved if all of us could cultivate this attitude – help and do as much you can.

The larger problems of humanity can make for compelling drama. Yet, most creators of art, cinema and literature choose not to even attempt it. They run after little pointless stories with beautiful but often useless metaphors. Machine Gun Preacher, an action film in the typical Hollywood mould that also packs in a caring heart with good writing and direction, gives such films a tight slap.

Hence, besides writer Jason Keller and the director, credit also goes to people like producer Gerard Butler to have believed in a story that needed to be told and for saying it the way it is. That it is true, helps to reinforce the urgency of action.  

 The film has an even pace and builds the transformation of Sam very well. Yet, where it scores over many others in the genre, is in not ending with just this. It goes beyond and explores Sam’s character, and how he loses sight of his faith in the onslaught of uncaring souls till a second transformation finally purges him.

The film is relevant in the Indian context as well. What’s happening in Africa is also the story of India’s tribal hinterlands where those wanting to help like a Binayak Sen and Himanshu Kumar among others, are driven away.

Those of you who have seen photos of the 644 burnt villages in Chhattisgarh will see an uncanny resemblance with similar scenes in the film. Perhaps burnt villages look the same everywhere. And so does poverty. The poor are expendable everywhere. Yet, the most relevant point is, would you shake up your rust and do even a bit of what Sam Childers continues to do?