thefilmlawyers Reviews

The Last Witch Hunter (2015)

The best movie you'll ever hate

[5/10 · 4 November 2015]

The Last Witch Hunter was not received well by most critics. The poor soul of a medium did not even make it to the proverbial slaughterhouse before reviewers butchered the very essence of its existence. But, despite what my name may imply, you have to try a little hard to get me to hate a movie, even a bad one. And compared to some movies that I do in fact despise to the core, Vin Diesel the movie is not all that bad.​

First I'll point out some of the things that I didn't hate. I did not mind the excessive CGI, I did not think it was distracting. I did not mind the mediocre plot too much. And the acting did not make me want to poke my eyes out in an Oedipus-like fashion (spoiler alert for those who haven't heard this ancient story).

Now, to address the title of this edition. If all you care about is a good story, top notch acting (which the movie did more or less have), and reasonable computer effects, then don't watch the movie. But if you prefer to look past those things and look for subtleties in the story and themes, then look no further. There is one thing that kept me, personally, engaged in the story: the concept of immortality and bipolar power dynamics.

As the trailer for the film indicates, Kaulder (Diesel) was cursed with immortality by a witch queen presumably as a punishment for killing her. But what kind of punishment is immortality? How is living forever supposed to suck for Kaulder? Now some might refer to the extensive record of "immortality based" plots of other movies, TV shows, novels etc., to answer the question. Loneliness, the burden of fighting evil and never getting a rest, constantly having to worry about being exposed, and, probably worst of all, constantly dying mortal loved ones and friends, forcing the protagonist to refrain from forming attachments (which adds to the loneliness); these are all examples that pop to mind. They are probably overused plot devices and are not the only ones used to add substance to the plot of the movie. There is the female supporting character who betrays her witch friends to fight with the good guys (also indicated by the trailer). And there is the Inception-Matrix-esque cliché of the "if you die in there you die in the real world" nature. Nope, the movie screams no originality.

But there is one more reason for the immortality which had me thinking. (The actual reason is explained in the movie, which I won't spoil). If you've seen other movies, such as The Wolverine (2013), the immortal protagonist is sometimes given a way out. It is perceived as freedom from some kind of prison. And a pattern is followed. The protagonist becomes mortal for a short while, realizes that it is crucial for him (or her) to remain immortal, and ex-machina his way back to immortality. Why the need for immortality? Because there is always going to be evil lurking in the unknown. Defeat one evil and something worse will come afterward. So there needs to be something to prevent the worst from happening, to freeze the transit of evil. And the best way to do it is by Cold Warring the heck out of the problem. Applying the Ying and Yang. No God and Satan? (the movie doesn't touch on that topic). No problem! All you need is a long lasting, incorruptible good guy, (who is nonetheless vulnerable in his own way, and therefore, exploitable) and a manageable evil whose sole existence is to prevent the worst from replacing it. Of course, I'm not saying that there were a good and a bad guy during the Cold War, but the threat of nuclear destruction is what prevented nuclear destruction (and other things too, please don't grill me). I have a feeling that what might replace the witches will not care very much for them. So the bad guys have something to gain from it too (maybe, not sure).

And I think the movie did a pretty good job at relaying the theme to the audience. It teased the pseudo-plot twist in a decent way. I refrained from thinking about its predictability and decided to focus on the effort to hint at the climax. Significant attention was given for the necessity for the dream world. The lead up to the final fight (which I must admit was underwhelming), did have me thinking about the importance of power in maintaining order. Our enemies are what give us and take away the drive to defeat them.

Maybe I liked the movie because I don't watch too many like it, so I haven't gotten sick of the repetitiveness. Some claim that there wasn't much witch hunting in the movie, leading them to conclude that it was confused about what it wanted to be. But that appeals to me somehow. It's like an expensive, well filmed, mid-life crisis. Flawed, vulnerable, much like the characters, with unreached potential. I must say, I appreciate bad movies.

The Last Witch Hunter ultimately falls apart and only musters a D

Find our other reviews at http://thefilmlawyers.wordpress.com

Skyfall (2012)

The villain is not always the bad guy

[10/10 · 4 November 2015]

The third of the soon-to-be four Daniel Craig depictions of the cool James Bond is Skyfall. It is arguably the best, if not, undeniably the most successful Bond film to date. What made it so freaking awesome you ask? This question has been covered extensively elsewhere. In short, answers range from outstanding acting, excellent character development of the new 007 (ranging over three films), a fantastic plot, a captivating soundtrack, and, of course, a memorable villain. Indeed, Javier Bardem put on a mesmerizing performance as Raoul Silva, a genius cyberterrorist fueled by hatred from his past and vengeance for those he believed wronged him. If it weren't for Bardem, the movie would probably not have done as well as it did.

But, as always, I'm going to discuss what fascinated me the most, a topic which actually takes place in light of the overall discussion about Skyfall. People say the villain is what makes the movie so great, which is true. Raoul Silva is very flamboyant, funny, intelligent, and most of all, tortured, filled with agony from past experiences and the daily reminder of who he's become. I won't reveal too much about his motives, but I will say that you will sympathize with him; he's the villain, but not necessarily the bad guy. He isn't the good guy either, but he is human. He makes no attempt to cover up his insecurities and is quite frank about who hurt him. So let's see: a highly intelligent, talented, and tortured individual, does that sound familiar? I think Skyfall draws many parallels between Silva and Bond which, I believe, get to the core of the theme of the movie.

The most obvious thing that comes to mind when I think about the name "Skyfall", is the sky falling. It refers to a period of crisis or calamity. It is a point of great vulnerability and susceptibility to danger. The title of the movie denotes weakness and maybe even fear. It is at the lowest point, the point of no return, of no defence, which brings out the true strength of a person's character. Skyfall shows us that even Bond, the legendary, mind-bogglingly awesome secret agent spy dude, is fallible. He can be weakened. But just because he can be set back, it doesn't mean that he will accept defeat. His goal is to overcome his adversities.

The plot of the movie builds on precisely that theme of vulnerability. MI6 security is breached and several agents die in a bombing of agency offices. M watches in horror from her car. A message is sent to M's laptop indicating to her that the perpetrator knew exactly where she'd be, entailing that she could have been killed if the bomber wished for it. The agency is then forced to relocate to back up facilities underground. Bond himself is weakened both physically and mentally from a mission that takes place in the opening scene. He is accidentally shot and presumed dead by Eve Moneypenny (Naomie Harris). But he survives the shooting and retreats to a life of alcoholism and sex by the beach. This is highly indicative of his emotional dissociation with 007, and the desire to take a break. But, of course, he returns upon news of the explosion at MI6.

There are plenty more examples further underscoring the "falling sky" theme. One is a government enquiry into the conduct of M and the legitimacy of the 00 division. Another is Bond's return to MI6 as a different man. He's clearly weaker and has trouble passing basic physical and mental evaluations. But the most crucial implementation of the Skyfall theme takes place at the finale. The climax is too good for me to describe, and too important to spoil. But I will say this: it involves Bond and M (and a third character whom I won't mention because it would reveal too much about the location and thus spoil it for some), completely isolated from the confines of MI6, left with only their perseverance, Bond's training, Home Alone prowess, and care and commitment to each other's wellbeing. It takes place literally at nightfall, with the pitch black sky casting its shadow onto Bond and M's ultimate test of life. But they show no fear. They peer at the inevitable with steadfast eyes which cry out "bring it on, do your worst!"

The worst arrives. Destruction ensues. A tragedy is suffered. Silva is destructive and self-destructive. He does not only foresee his own demise but plans for it. He wants to go down with his revenge. He has no need for life and no greater purpose. That's what separates him from Bond. Bond does have a purpose. He has commitments to M, to the agency, and to his country. But their similarities are also uncanny. Past traumas, a connection with M, and emotional vulnerability link them together. Both find themselves in particularly impossible situations (although how Silva lands himself at his low points is also a relevant fact which happens to be a spoiler), and manage to escape them. But their common weakness ultimately ends up being their emotional injuries, a message very clearly delivered to the audience by the location of the final showdown. Bond is forced to confront and maybe heal his wounds while Silva confronts the person he blames for his pain. Who wins in the end? I wouldn't be able to answer the question even if I did spoil the ending. It's as much a conflict with oneself as it is conflict amongst each other. Perhaps that's the point; at the end of a crisis, nobody comes out a winner, only casualties of humanity's flaws and permanently changed lives.

A masterpiece, A+.

Check out our other reviews at http://thefilmlawyers.wordpress.com

Truth (I) (2015)

When covering the news turns into covering your ass

[6/10 · 3 November 2015]

Cate Blanchett stars as Mary Mapes, producer of the CBS 60 minutes programme hosted by Dan Rather (Robert Redford), in Truth. The story takes place during the Killian documents scandal when allegations arose that George Bush Jr went AWOL during the Vietnam War to dodge the draft. The controversy gets out of hand causing the resignation of Dan Rather as anchor of CBS news, and the dismissal of Mapes as producer. The film is based on the book by Mapes titled Truth and Duty: The Press, the President and the Privilege of Power.

There are multiple messages the film tries to get across. One could be that people in positions of power can get away with certain things pretty easily. Another is that people can take advantage of the chaos that ensues after the outcry of a loud minority on the internet, with the help of other media outlets, to distract from the main story. The main theme, I would say, is that bullies come in all forms, and can be highly destructive.

I think that the film-makers wanted to elicit from their audience opinions about power imbalance and accountability, and maybe even sensationalism. Clearly the other news agencies depicted in the movie were guilty of sensationalist behavior. Perhaps the writers and directors and actors wanted to simply tell a true story about a brilliant journalist who had to struggle very hard to combat the gravity of hyped up nonsense. It was an insult to Mapes' professionalism to have to deal with lame bloggers who weren't accountable to anything (assuming this is even true). Maybe that's the movie's biggest flaw. I don't know what it wanted me to believe. I'm not going to think that Mapes and Rather were innocent just because Quaid whispered a cliché monologue about why they're so compatible with each other (the plane scene).

An original draft of this review had me ranting about the political landscape of 2005. I (sort of?) learned about an important part of American media history. But the focus of the film kept changing. Some themes would come and go while others would resurface in little intervals (three to be exact). For example, the movie started out strong, with high hopes about evidence of the scandal being strong and hard hitting. Then quickly the plot takes a 90-degree turn, and now we're watching Mapes struggling to resolve one measly discrepancy that's grabbing all the media attention. After that disaster subsides, we begin watching a movie about a corporate investigation into false journalism. The storytelling was incoherent, finding myself with unanswered questions as the next big event came.

Most of my questions regarded the documents. The technical military jargon in the dialogue was difficult to follow, adding to the confusion. I found myself repeatedly asking: "who's that guy? Why is he mentioned all of the sudden? John Kerry was a thing back then?" That last question speaks to my ignorance, but still, the dialogue was clunky.

If you watch the film conscious of the underlying theme, it'll be less painful. The theme whose undertones influences all of Mapes' actions is her relationship with her abusive father. She admits at one point that he's the reason she needs to stand up to bullies. And in each of the three stages described above, that is precisely her motivation. First, she "asks questions" about a possibly incriminating aspect of Bush Jr's military history. But what happens? The bully strikes her down. She fights back by proving that the stupid discrepancy wasn't a problem after all. All is good, except now everyone forgot what the story was about. The bully returns with an investigation into her conduct. She didn't do anything inherently wrong (she makes some mistakes though), but she's treated with a disproportionate level of scrutiny. Meanwhile, a man who possibly went AWOL during wartime is winning a presidential election.

When you go to watch the movie, perceive it as a series of acts, like in a play. Act one, the scandal gets out. Act two, the haters launch their attack. Act three, the investigation. On a road which begins with covering the news, and ends with covering your butt, one thing holds; bullies suck.

I'm not watching it again, C grade

Check out our other reviews at http://thefilmlawyers.wordpress.com

Quantum of Solace (2008)

QUANTUM OF SOLACE: What could have been

[5/10 · 2 November 2015]

Alas, what could have been. What was a special opportunity for a franchise not known for establishing continuity between films to do just that was squandered with the second installment of the Daniel Craig 007 Bond series, QUANTUM OF SOLACE. While the film had a myriad of issues that somehow managed to not affect either its predecessor or its successor, the most glaring indictment of Marc Forster's feature Bond film can be best surmised by describing the lead villain: forgettable and a waste of potential.

What made Casino Royale and Skyfall (review coming soon) so exceptional were the fantastic villains employed in each, played respectively by Mads Mikkelson and Javier Bardem. By all accounts, based on his track record alone, we should be in for a treat when Christoph Waltz takes over the role of lead villain in the upcoming Spectre. While Mathieu Amalric is by no means a bad actor (this is a "high" level Bond film, after all), the effect of a poor script and heightened expectations clearly impacted his performance. A commonly glossed over fact is that there was a writers strike that occurred halfway through filming of QOS, which meant that lead star Craig and director Forster had to take over and finish off the script and add in their own pieces of dialogue. To say that impacted the film is being kind; the second half of the film contains a Pierce Brosnan- era plane fight that was just as awful as the noticeably poor CGI used as well as a burning hotel scene that sounds cool in theory but was nowhere near as epic as it could have been. You find out with almost exactly half an hour left what the ultimate goal of the villain – Dominic Greene was his name for those that actually care- was. This served to hammer home just how poor the script was when compared to Casino Royale and the exceptional Skyfall.

As a standalone thriller, Quantum of Solace is an above average and competent film; as a great or good Bond film, it is not. Since it clearly wished to establish the aforementioned continuity, expectations were rightly raised as modern audiences have grown to expect such a concept in their films (the Bourne trilogy was mostly good for this). In a bid to build upon the crushing romantic loss from the first film, the second film aimed to provide Bond with a "lovers quest for revenge" type storyline that somehow managed to move away from what makes a Bond film so unique. Absent was the trademark charm and Bond's suave attitude with the ladies (Gemma Arterton was wasted in a minor role while Olga Kurylenko had no chemistry with Craig), which took this film into "Subpar-Bond flick" territory.

The technical aspects were severely lacking as well. The opening segment of the film post-intro credits sets the stage for what was to follow, a lengthy car chase managed to cut so often that the average time for a single shot was probably close to a second. Think about that for a second. In the second it took you to process that thought, you would have seen a drastic shot jump. The overuse of shaky-cam (I guess the Bourne trilogy was not all perfect for popularizing that fad) was a glaring indictment of the film's editing issues, as compounding said shaky-cam with the aforementioned quick cuts was the best way to illustrate the film's plethora of issues. The score, otherwise excellent in the other Craig films, falls flat as well with no memorable sound segments anywhere throughout the film; "Another way to Die" by Alicia Keys and Jack White may be a good song, but it was a poor choice for a film that needed something at an epic scale to rescue it from its multiple other technical shortcomings. Why else were people so excited for the Skyfall score and soundtrack when it was announced that Adele would be lending her talents to the film? Her titular song fit the theme of the film perfectly and essentially served as a bow on what was an excellent return to form for the series AFTER this… problem.

Speaking of problems, how can one go any further without at least giving a cursory mention as to the plot of this film. For starters, the film was effectively about Bolivian water rights. I will repeat that with added clarity: outside of added "tension" elements such as American involvement (which could have been something more than the footnote it ended up being), the film proved to be about Bond trying to stop a villain that was intent on consolidating rights to Bolivian water. I'm not sure how much more clearly one can explain how a film about an MI6 agent in a series renowned for its internal espionage and high stakes gamesmanship was focused on BOLIVIAN. WATER. RIGHTS.

The acting was serviceable, with there being no memorable performance to speak of. Craig admirably attempts to play a heartbroken yet stoic Bond but even he cannot save the script. Dame Judi Dench was excellent as has become par for the course for her while the duo of Amalric and Kurylenko disappointed; a poor script and undefined character direction can be reasonably argued for the former, but the latter was entirely miscast in her role. After Quantum of Solace and Hit-man (2007) showcased her inability to grasp a leading role, it is little wonder she has not been considered for larger roles in any major films in recent years.

After reading this review, please do not get turned off by the franchise. Rest assured, the series rebounds excellently with Skyfall, for which we shall be airing a review in the coming days. If you are attempting to marathon the series prior to the release of Spectre, avoid watching this film and re-read this review.

After careful consideration, Chulbul Pandey graces this film with a grade of D

http://thefilmlawyers.wordpress.com for more

Casino Royale (2006)

Daniel Craig goes "all in" as 007 in Casino Royale

[8/10 · 28 October 2015]

Casino Royale was the 21st film in the ever-popular James Bond anthology starring a brand new Bond in Daniel Craig, Eva Green as Bond-Girl Vesper Lynd, Dame Judi Dench as M and the ever dead-eyed Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre. Casino Royale can only be described as a high-stakes gambling thriller where Bond is forced to play a ludicrously big poker game in order to defeat a master weapons dealer.

Casino Royale was Daniel Craig's first go at being 007 and the movie goes with that theme, this essentially being an origin story as to how Bond becomes a 00 agent. It starts off with a beautifully constructed black and white scene which goes to show the style that this new Bond undertakes during his missions. But right after the gorgeous opening theme, the film cuts to an action scene with Bond tearing Africa apart and shows his naivety as a special agent and how much he still has to learn to become the agent that he is in that opening shot. And on cue, Bond gets called out by M about it. This beginning to a "new" Bond really sets the tone for the movie as Bond now has to deal with overcoming his childishness and put away his ego if he wants to prove himself as a 00 agent.

Intertwined with this theme of becoming a mature 00, Bond has to now delve deeper into the mission that involves essentially defeating the supposed villain Le Chiffre in a very high stakes Poker game. There's never any time for Bond to be just sitting idly, and in the midst of the entire poker game (which has to have lasted about 45 minutes) a bunch o' danger things happen to Bond, which when they happen, you're just saying to yourself: "Yea, that's something that would only happen to Bond."

I think it has to be said right away that I absolutely loved this film, not just because as we progress through his series, I feel Daniel Craig is the best Bond in terms of being able to emotionally relate to him when he goes through his trials and tribulations. Minus Quantum of Solace of course. But this movie also gives us its utmost best attempt at portraying Bond and the rest of MI6 to be more like what would be found in the modern day.

However, this film is not perfect, not by a long shot. First off, it is way too long, clocking in at 144 minutes. The last 20-25 minutes could easily have been lopped off as it becomes more akin to a romance gone bad than a typical Bond movie. Second, the way it deals with the villain is atrocious. One of the things that made a Bond film a classic was the villain. You look at past movies like the early Sean Connery films and you remember that you had great villains in Dr. No and Blofeld. Le Chiffre belongs to that club as being a very memorable villain, playing this weapons dealer who's got his own issues to a tee. What ruins it, is how the plot develops to get rid of him. Of course, he's gonna be killed, this is a Bond film, the villain would never survive and make Bond look bad. But the way Le Chiffre is killed is partly a connection to the last 20 minutes when the actual villain of the story is revealed. But that is still the 20 minutes that I would have chopped off in the cutting room. But the movie's purpose in the portrayal is that there is always a higher up who is in more control of the supposed main characters.

The other memorable part of Bond films tends to be the Bond Girl. In years past, Bond girls have been iconic characters like Pussy Galore covered in gold in Goldfinger, or just like her, the girls have had manic names. But in previous movies, they've been there, for the most part, for the pleasure of Bond. In this, Eva Green nails the performance by bringing out the emotional side of Bond. Their interaction is key and the building of their relationship is crucial as to how the plot progresses to defeat Le Chiffre. They start with this witty banter which moves to a more loving relationship after an "unfortunate stairs scene" involving Bond, Vesper and a couple of mad African killers. However, even after the twist that director Martin Campbell throws the viewers way, Bond is now in an emotional state that shows that the "game" is not all about him anymore and that there are people around who immensely care about him anymore. And this is the biggest redeeming factor of the movie as you get a complete rounding of Bond from being egotistical to by the end being the Bond that we're all used to seeing. And that is none too apparent than Bond not using his trademark line of "The name's Bond, James Bond" till the absolute end of the movie.

Casino Royale does a great job of "rebooting" a franchise which had gotten over-reliant on using gimmicks and odd story-lines for their movies, in a way that made James Bond look like he was invincible. Casino Royale doesn't do that. You can actually feel every blow that Bond takes in the movie, and makes him almost like a normal, mortal human being and what it would be if they took that much punishment. There are reservations that I had about the film, a lot of them regarding the final 20 minutes, but I am willing to overlook that just cause the rest of the movie was shot marvelously.

Casino Royale earns its 00 status and gets a B+

http://thefilmlawyers.wordpress.com for more reviews

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

A British film aficionado's ultimate orgasm

[9/10 · 27 October 2015]

Gary Oldman. Tom Hardy. Benedict Cumberbatch. Colin Firth. John Hurt. Ciaran Hinds. To say that the cast of the film adaptation of John Le Carre's famed spy series is at an A-list level is an understatement; this film stars a "who's who" of British cinema. In keeping in line with the Cold War theme established in our recent Bridge of Spies review, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy replaces the Americans with MI6 (British Intelligence) against the Soviets, in a very thrilling cat-and-mouse game intent on unmasking the traitor embedded within the Circus (MI6's upper echelon).

To start off, all those worried about the large ensemble cast potentially being too egotistical to coexist in minor roles within this the film can rid themselves of any worry, as the cast meshes perfectly and sees every actor deliver a stellar performance, regardless of screen time. Another thing to keep in mind is that this film is not targeted towards those that have an inclination for action-heavy spy films ala the Bond film series, but rather those that are willing to think and appreciate the subtle nuances that the film painstakingly recreates from its source material.

It seems hard to believe that it was over twenty years ago that Gary Oldman was playing insanely over the top – and still memorable- villain Stansfield in Leon The Professional. In Tinker, Oldman heads the cast in the role of George Smiley, recruited by Control (played masterfully in a short role by John Hurt) to sniff out the spy at Circus, with the suspects being assigned codenames that are illustrated in the film's title. Smiley has two weaknesses that are established early on, his cheating wife and a Soviet equivalent named Karla. It speaks volumes about the quality of the script and the direction that not once are either of the two parties shown yet they both play an integral role in establishing Smiley's character and aiding in arriving at his decision determining who the mole is. Within the cast that we mentioned was as deep in high-end talent as any in recent memory, Oldman stands out for portraying his veteran character as someone that would normally be as nondescript as can be if not for Oldman mastering how to portray a brilliant mind and checkered past that helped earn his Smiley character his position within MI6's Circus.

Accompanying Oldman are the actors mentioned above and it truly is a veritable dream team of the top British actors alive today. Cumberbatch and Hardy play roles one would not expect them in with their massive popularity nowadays, but it speaks to their quality as actors that they excel in their roles (Hardy was a delight as the disheveled Ricky Tarr). Mark Strong is amongst the least heralded of the cast yet delivers an equally poignant performance in his role as a teacher whose role in the introduction sets the stage for the rest of the film. There is no disappointment amongst the cast's performances, further helping the film stake its claim as one of the best of 2011.

The film was directed by Tomas Alfredson, he of Let the Right One In fame, which established his credentials as an auteur capable of establishing the right blend of melancholia and tension amongst Tinker's less than happy group of spies. Alfredson's direction was just the right amount of subtle, capturing the smallest of facial expressions and presenting them in ways that make the viewer actively wonder who the mole could be. Although the revelation of the mole was a tad anti-climactic and should have been guessed by the more attentive viewers a few scenes prior, the setup leading up to said reveal was executed as well as can be, with Alfredson's presentation keeping the viewer in a state of suspense and tension throughout. Very rarely can one say that a film is just the right length as an adaption from a book –Peter Jackson's ludicrously bloated Hobbit trilogy, anyone? - but Alfredson manages to capture the essence of the TV series and book in the run time of 127 minutes. Here's hoping he gets another crack at adapting source material as well written and established as Le Carrie's spy series, his work on Tinker solidifying him as one of the better directors in cinema.

The cinematography and sound that accompanies Alfredson's direction was nothing short of brilliant itself, with the sound editing standing out for its innovative use of conversation filters. To put it another way, the sound editing helps the audience listen to conversations within Smiley's head and filters it just right that it presents the key phrase which helps him solve the mystery as if it was homing in on it. A tad difficult to describe in text form but it is something that needs to be experienced in order to be appreciated for its innovativeness. Cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytemma's use of stylistic nuances further elevates the quality of scenes, as lingering shots that focus in on random or insignificant objects still evoke a sense of intrigue for the audience. The visual pleasure that Hoytemma's shots is something which must be experienced along with the aforementioned sound editing, with something as insignificant as a close-up of Oldman's character's furrowed brows on his face, draped in shadow, still somehow serving to showcase to the audience what his character stands for. Speaks to the quality of the cinematography that scenes such as this can be paired with the highly-tense opening scene that was focused on quick cuts and yet still flow well together.

For those that appreciate old school espionage tales or just wish to see all of Britain's finest actors in one film together, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a must see. Nowhere else will you get to see Sherlock Holmes in a film with Mad Max and King George while Commissioner Gordon is omnipresent.

http://thefilmlawyers.wordpress.com for more reviews

Bridge of Spies (2015)

Bridge of Spies: "A solid, yet unspectacular, effort as Spielberg and Hanks reunite."

[8/10 · 23 October 2015]

Greetings everybody, Chulbul-Pandey has returned to deliver another review of an Oscar hopeful! This week, the film being covered is the one that reunites Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks in the midst of the Cold War. This film, ladies, and gentlemen is Bridge of Spies.

When going into a film headlined by Steven Spielberg in the role of director and Tom Hanks in the lead role, hopes immediately are raised that the film will be as memorable and classic as their most celebrated team up, Saving Private Ryan. Add in the fact that the film was written by Joel and Ethan Coen (oh, you know, the duo behind classics such as Fargo, No Country for Old Men & True Grit) and expectations rightfully reach stratospheric levels of hype. Despite all of that quality, what the film delivers does not reach that level of expected quality; it comes agonizingly close to being a great film but the certain setup decisions hold it back. Keep in mind, the film was still a solid effort that ticked all of the right boxes so failing to reach the lofty goals I described in no way detracts from what was still a solid flick. From the great acting to incredible visuals to the focus on the story that does away with the expected love story shoo-in typical of many films, it certainly does a lot of things right. The part that immediately draws the viewer in is how Hanks' character, an American insurance lawyer, is selected to defend a Russian spy (played by Mark Rylance) in a case where the odds are heavily stacked against said Russian. The opening 45 minutes has the viewer thinking this will be a Cold War era film that goes against the norm, focusing more in-depth on the xenophobia prevalent during that era and less on establishing the Soviets as the indisputable villains. That the film fails to further such an idea and opts to focus on battlefield negotiations can be seen as a disappointment, as a film dedicated to exploring hostilities by the highest levels of the United States authorities against sympathetic non-American villains would have been a fairly novel and innovative idea. The film's decision to move away from this idea drags its grade down a notch, bringing it from something special to just solid.

The final hour is a distinctly notable tonal change, as the film transitions from a courtroom drama to a hostage negotiation/amateur spycraft scenario in the second half. The film used its 2+hour run time very well (when has a Spielberg film ever not been consistently excellent in terms of time management) but that glaring feeling persists throughout that it could have been more impactful and "epic" had it followed the path the first 45 minute established.

The little details that are packed into the film's scenes and individual performances are marvelously executed, from the lack of subtitles in foreign language scenes highlighting the "show, not tell" attitude adopted by Spielberg and co, to the enthralling and marvelous opening segment that sets the stakes for what is to follow. The dialogue was generally superb throughout, and it says something for the quality of a film when nearly 3/4s of it can be filled with conversations across a desk and yet the film's quality is elevated further due to such a setup. The Coen brothers' fingerprints were all over the script and it showed, as their films are famous for their engaging dialogue.

Tom Hanks, as is the norm for him, marvels in a very restrained role this time around (he'll get his usual Oscar nomination, but his performance is not quite at Saving Private Ryan level excellent). For any fans of legendary actor Jimmy Stewart, this feels as if it is the most Jimmy Steward-type role of Hanks career, which is always a good thing. Mark Rylance, in his role as an alleged Soviet spy, actually ends up stealing the show, putting forth a performance that will rightfully generate awards buzz in the coming months. His performance, despite being delivered in a supporting and thus limited role, keeps viewers invested in his Soviet character in the film, which is not something Hollywood usually excels at. His timing and delivery of lines also serves to lighten the mood for the crowd as well, as he defies the traditional expectations of a boring and stoic Soviet character. The easiest way to sum up the film would be this: Bridge of Spies is mostly about covering and delivering material that many Cold War spy and espionage films had attempted to previously but Spies succeeds in putting it all together in a much more entertaining package.

Janusz Kaminski provides some wonderful images with his cinematography. One notable scene involving a teenager biking alongside the Berlin Wall as it is being built is both tense and remarkable for its beauty. A downside of that is that while that scene – and a few others- was exceptionally shot, no single shot felt quite "epic" in its scope, a disappointment when considering the vast amount of iconic and "epic" shots Spielberg's prior films have been host to. Additionally, Spielberg moved away from his recent tendency to use overpowering soundtracks, instead utilizing either very serene ambient music or no music at all, preferring to let the scene and natural sound tell the story. That decision lends itself well to Spies, as the use of a stronger sound in the climactic scene helped to elevate the quality of the scene and bring along with it a greater appreciation for the conclusion.

As has become customary for almost any film with Spielberg at the helm or with Hanks starring, Spies will undoubtedly earn some Oscar consideration. When compared to the vast filmography of all involved,

however, one cannot help but feel that the film just lacks that extra oomph to push it over the top.

Bridge of Spies gets a B+.

Desperado (1995)

Desperado: It's not just a guitar

[9/10 · 22 October 2015]

Desperado is the second installment of Robert Rodriguez' action packed Mexico Trilogy. A man known as El Mariachi (Antonio Banderas) seeks retribution after the love of his life was killed by Moco (a drug lord who played a major role in the first movie). Enlisting the help of his American friend (played by Buscemi), he learns that the man responsible for his wife's death is a drug lord named Bucho (Joaquim de Almeida). On his journey to locate and kill Bucho, he meets Carolina (Selma Hayek) with whom he falls in love. The plot is pretty generic and it's the action sequences, witty dialogue, and storytelling, along with the production value which makes Desperado so great.

The movie begins with the American entering a bar in Mexico in a manner which immediately gravitates attention onto him. He sits down and asks for a beer. The cleverness and wittiness of the movie becomes apparent as soon as Buscemi opens his mouth. He explains that he had previously visited another bar where he had a terrible experience. He exclaims that the people there were lowlifes who, unlike the ones currently surrounding him, had no class. He makes sure to clarify that he speaks of the other bar, and not this one. Now one might think that he makes the clarification in order to appease hostility that he might receive due to misunderstanding, but I say he does more. I say he's vague on purpose. In addition to complementing the bar, he also praises the beer, claiming it as the best he'd ever had. But we find out later that everyone finds the beer disgusting, likening it to the taste of urine. So why would Buscemi speak so highly of such a bad tasting beer? It's because of juxtaposition. He aligns his praise of the beer with his praise of the bar and the "high class" people inside. It's safe to assume that he's lying about liking the beer, but the fact that he's associating the "piss tasting" beverage with the rest of the bar indicates that his compliments are not only not genuine but insults. This is further supported by his admission that the other bar's beer is similar, but not as good. This means that the other bar was bad, contained lowlifes, and equally as vile beer. Reinforcing this claim is the manner in which he describes the lowlifes of the other bar. He proceeds by saying, vaguely, "and this bar," pausing and turning his head around and continuing with a raised voice "is full of real lowlifes." His tone indicates that he wanted them to hear the "lowlifes" bit. And like his other vague comments about "a bar" being terrible, he follows up with a clarification that he's speaking of the other bar. After planting the seed of mockery in their heads, it doesn't matter much that he clarifies himself other than to avoid violence. Both bars are equally bad, and he cleverly got away with insulting them.

The rest of the movie is a series of action-packed bar battles, street battles, and even one at a bookstore. All have one thing in common, a guitar case containing all sorts of guns and grenades that made El Mariachi a living legend. The best, in my opinion, is the bookstore scene. It was the most violent scene, but not in the conventional way. Bucho had figured out that El Mariachi was hiding out at a bookstore which he uses for drug trades by bribing the owner, Carolina. Bucho's Men sneak to the top bedroom floor where they presume El Mariachi and Carolina were sleeping. Carolina is sitting on the bed, back faced to the wall door, eyes closed and playing the guitar while singing. She's clearly unaware of the men sneaking outside. Nor is she aware that El Mariachi is awake and senses the men. As the men approach from the left side (behind a curtained window), he grabs a gun and lifts it past Carolina's closed eyes and aims. Then he senses other men coming from the right side, prompting him to lift another gun past Carolina's head. As the men move closer to the door behind Carolina, El Mariachi continues to point at them, moving his arms in accordance with their movement. But as they arrived at the door, he found himself pointing both guns at Carolina, who's still unaware of what's going on. Finally the tension breaks, Mariachi pushes Carolina out of the way, and violence ensues. It's a brilliant scene putting together two contrasting things, emphasizing the beauty and peacefulness of Carolina's singing, in light of the very thing that will destroy it, not to eliminate it, but to save it.

A beautiful film. Grade of A

Beasts of No Nation (2015)

For those who disliked True Detective Season 2, Beasts of No Nation is your salvation

[8/10 · 21 October 2015]

Greetings everybody, Chulbul-Pandey has arrived on the scene! This week, we decided to take a look at the movie Netflix is pushing as the one that will break down the boundaries between streaming and cinema: Beasts of No Nation.

How many have you enjoyed the visceral nature of Apocalypse Now, and the focus on characters within war rather than the war that The Thin Red Line masterfully explored? More than anything else out there, Coppola and Malick's masterpieces are the most suitable points of comparison for the effect of Beasts of No Nation. After being battered by explosions and gunfire that are then interspersed with some horrifying plot developments, you leave the film and wear the same deep stare employed by its characters. After completion, it is easy to forget the charm of of the film's first ten minutes, where Abraham Attah's Agu (in his brilliant film debut) playfully hustles Nigerian soldiers into buying the shell of his father's television set. It is reminiscent of another classic film, City of God, where the exuberance helps in drawing you into the world of the children. That's what makes the subsequent scenes that much more impactful, as darkness replaces the lighthearted nature of the introduction and pulls the viewer in towards experiencing the multiple horrors alongside Agu.

The final two hours is a gut-wrenching barrage of misery and brutal dilemmas, one after another. The narrative thread seemed to be very loose which seems purposeful, with the film utilizing child soldiers who most likely would not know what they experienced on the battlefield. There were multiple times throughout the film where I wondered how the plot would proceed but the characters and events they experienced outweigh any issues with a loose narrative.

The overarching point that the film drives home is about the aimlessness of the mission, with it stressing that war is much bigger than the soldiers fighting. Peace is not as easy to come by once the war -or any war- reaches its conclusion. Agu and his fellow child soldiers are fighting for a future that they will not be able to find solace in, from the living and economic conditions that tend to succeed war, nor from the inner peace that will not come about due to the atrocities they have committed. Similar to Malick's aforementioned The Thin Red Line, the relationship with God in war is challenged; it is questioned whether it is at all possible for one to have any spiritual happiness after committing such massive sins. The film plays up the poor foresight in war, with brief segments such as a visit to the higher-ups serving to illustrate in very clear terms that war indeed benefits nobody on the battleground. The film does not preach these messages via endless exposition, instead relying on the fact that viewers will understand it from the way the events of the film have played out.

Abraham Attah absolutely marvels in his role, stealing the show in delivering a performance that will rightfully generate awards buzz in the coming months. His performance keeps viewers immersed in the film, eagerly following along with the multiple dimensions of his character, whether he is soaking in events or lashing out against them. Idris Elba played his role to a T, and helps in providing "Hollywood" legitimacy to a film that had no other major film or television actors outside of the Brit. He teeters undefinably on the line between being a manipulative villain and manipulative mentor, turning in the sort of performance that makes one gradually change their perception of his character. The film's most dramatic moments are quite familiar, as they are staples witnessed multiple times in numerous other war films. However, Beasts stands out for having a young boy as its lead character that experiences the atrocities of war. It is a great performance from the cast when one can say that it more than held its own in comparison to a Hollywood star the likes of Elba.

Cary Fukunaga, he of True Detective (Season 1) fame, displays some wonderful cinematography. While the film does not blow you away with the same tricks as True Detective (that 6 minute 1-take scene is one of the all-time great scenes on Television), it has its superb moments. Fukunaga's style favors ambient music over montages of the war scenes and while that makes it flow together it also means that its surprises fall by the periphery. It is easy to see this playing well on Netflix, with the full court push already on by the streaming network combining with the publicity generated by theater boycotts of the film generating some additional hype. Employing a graininess filter of sorts to the film added further authenticity to the film, but said filter thankfully does not deter from what was a beautifully shot film throughout. For any fans of photographer Richard Mosse, Fukunaga pays homage to his iconic Africa photograph with one scene that was outstanding both for its integration into the narrative as well as for how it served to spruce up a film focused on demolished African villages and vegetation.

With such a strong lineup of films still to be released in the final three months of 2015, Beasts will have an uphill climb trying to find its way onto awards ballots. With Attah's remarkable performance as well as the subject material covered, Fukunaga may not experience as much of a climb as it seems. For any fans of the aforementioned The Thin Red Line and Apocalypse Now or just anybody that wishes to experience a war story outside of the usual "war over character" format, the film should be a no-brainer.

On that note, Chulbul-Pandey bids thou adieu.

Beasts of No Nation earns a very respectable A-

Crimson Peak (2015)

There's no need to beware Crimson Peak

[7/10 · 20 October 2015]

Crimson Peak is the much anticipated, brand new film by acclaimed visual director Guillermo del Toro. This is del Toro's English- language ode to his previous Spanish films: The Devil's Backbone and Pan's Labyrinth. The movie stars Mia Wasikowska as Edith Cushing, an aspiring writer in late 19th century Buffalo. She becomes enamored by Tom Hiddleston's Sir Thomas Sharpe, who is accompanied by his sister Lucille Sharpe brilliantly played by Jessica Chastain.

Now the first to thing to realize is that Crimson Peak is not your typical horror film. It's exactly what del Toro had said during promotions that this movie was a Gothic romance and not necessarily a horror movie. But, that's not to say that there aren't a few scares here and there. They are mostly prevalent with the ghosts in the middle of the film, but even then, the scares are quite predictable and for hardcore horror fans, they will be nothing. However, the sequence at the end of the movie (for about 20 minutes) is fantastically gory and has been described by many as a tribute to hammer horror. If Crimson Peak would've actually explored more with that side of its film personality, this movie could've qualified more as a horror than anything else frankly.

But that's not to say that the Gothic romance of the movie is bad or underwhelms. There is a certain sense, especially when you meet Lucille, but even with Thomas Sharpe that he may be an odd character even though he is this charming Brit seemingly just in America for a business opportunity. And when Thomas first meets Edith, there does seem to be a legitimate connection between the two characters.

The movie is at its peak in terms of its characters especially with the portrayal of the Sharpe siblings. Jessica Chastain channels her inner demonic being in portraying Lucille, while Thomas is the smooth and suave Brit who is the charmer but you can tell that there is some sort of cynicism behind his character. The character of Edith on the other hand is just used as a plot device, where her character is what is allowing the progression of the story and no further. She does make significant contribution once the action begins towards the end, but until then it's a lot of interactions with ghosts who tell her to take heed of Crimson Peak (but of course, she doesn't).

However, if there is one thing that Crimson Peak cannot be faulted on, is its style and surroundings. It will be the movie that gives The Man from U.N.C.L.E. a run for its money in terms of costume design at the Oscars. The costumes are absolutely brilliant and really do show off the period nature of the movie. The movie is also brilliantly shot with a very late 19th-century color pallet to start the movie and once the film moves to Allerdale Hall, the construct of the house itself really makes it apparent of the creepiness of Crimson Peak.

All in all, Crimson Peak is a great attempt for del Toro in his first English language film that is similar to his previous work in Spanish. But it's not his best; that title would still belong to Pan's Labyrinth with The Devil's Backbone closely behind. There is definitely more style over substance but it shouldn't detract from the fact that del Toro has made a movie that wants me yearning for more of his work.

Crimson Peak gets a grade of B-.

Check out other reviews of The Film Lawyers at: http://thefilmlawyers.wordpress.com

Steve Jobs (2015)

Let's walk and talk to your next Apple product launch

[8/10 · 16 October 2015]

Steve Jobs (the movie), not the person (or is it?) is the new biopic directed by Danny Boyle, written by Aaron Sorkin and stars Michael Fassbender as the titular Apple Mogul Steve Jobs. Kate Winslet, Seth Rogen and Jeff Daniels are also a part of the cast as Joanna Hoffman, Steve Wozniak and John Sculley respectively. It follows the life of Steve Jobs around three major product launches in 1984, 1988 and 1998.

If anyone was wanting a movie about the Apple company, then you'll be quite disappointed, but then again you would also be the one at fault for watching a movie called Steve Jobs and wanting more Apple. The first thing that you realize is the writing of the film and how inherently "Aaron Sorkin" it is. You may have become desensitized to the very "talky" way that Aaron Sorkin writes because of "The Newsroom", but for those who haven't watched the TV show, the sharp dialogue would be very noticeable with loads of walk and talk in true Sorkin esque fashion. This in combination with Danny Boyle's sharp direction results in a movie that rattles along towards its 122 min run time.

The star of the film however, is Michael Fassbender in this neurotic portrayal of Steve Jobs. This performance would come as a surprise, not because of Fassbender (who is undoubtedly a great actor), but for those who actually were not aware of Job's personality of being a total ass to anyone he had an encounter with (which I did not know). This includes family, close workers and even friends. The story is revolving around Job's denial of him fathering a daughter and ultimately shows how that relationship is resolved over a 14 year period.

The other supporting performances are absolutely great. Kate Winslet ever so good in another dramatic role who really is the only character that is able to sort of reign in Jobs. Seth Rogen was the surprise as Woz who was able to break out of his comedic shell and really held his own in his dramatic role. Jeff Daniels is once again in full Will McAvoy form from "The Newsroom" and that has everything to do with being around another Aaron Sorkin script and having three years of practice on how to deliver Sorkin's lines.

This film is all about the performance of Michael Fassbender, who is sure to get a Best Actor nomination from the Academy, but it has a lot to do with the direction and the script of the movie. The plot does become repetitive within the three time points where you can sort of guess how each specific third of the movie will move along. However, the relationships between the characters and the dialogue (mostly due to Sorkin) are great, but it is a mish mash of three points put together and doesn't really become rounded by the end.

Steve Jobs gets a grade of B+

Me and Earl and the Dying Girl (2015)

The funnier Fault in our Stars

[8/10 · 15 October 2015]

Me and Earl and the Dying Girl is the 2015 Grand Jury prize winner from the Sundance Film Festival. It follows in the steps of Whiplash which won the 2014 Grand Jury prize. It follows the story of Greg (Thomas Mann) who is forced by his mother (Connie Britton) to become friends with a girl from his school, Rachel (Olivia Cooke) after she is diagnosed with cancer. Greg is joined by his "co-worker" Earl (RJ Cyler) to create a film for Rachel to "do something good for her".

The first thing to note is the comedy in the movie. Considering it says "Dying Girl" in the title, you'd expect and be okay if it employed a sadder register for the entirety of the movie. But it leaves the whole sad portion for the third act of the film. It rides the thin line of being quirky without being irksome which is important because of the tendency for indie-inflected films to become quite snobby for the most part.

The stand out performance is of the character of Earl by RJ Cyler. A relative unknown, he is by far the funniest part of the film even though the film takes a focus on Greg and tells the story from his point of view. However, I would've liked it much better had Earl had the bigger role in the movie over Greg, as Greg's character is something that has been seen in other films in the past.

The performance of Rachel by Olivia Cooke was very heartfelt and was a performance that you would connect to if you've ever known someone to have befallen due to cancer. Her initial response to her diagnosis is a very "teen" response where she's like "whatever". But as the plot progresses and her health deteriorates, Rachel isn't afraid to voice her displeasure with the disease and the people around her as well.

A great little gag in the movie are the parody films having play-on titles based on the classic films of all time. For example, A Sockwork Orange for A clockwork Orange etc. For any cinephile out there, it's something to be appreciated even if those movies "sucked", in the protagonist's words.

Because of the plot, there is a very easy comparison to be made with the 2014 young adult film "The Fault in our Stars". However, the register for this film is very "I hate people" in a funny way and the central relationship between Me and Earl and the Dying Girl is what grounds the movie. This movie passes and graduates high school and gets a B+.

The Martian (2015)

A comeback for Sir Ridley in the form of the Martian Wasteland

[9/10 · 14 October 2015]

By: Basel Exposition

Mx8WA

The Martian, I believe, is the comeback film for director Sir Ridley Scott after the disappointment of Prometheus and the wretchedness of Exodus: Gods and Kings. It features a cast that would be quicker for you to search up on your favourite movie database than me listing each and everyone here. But the important person is "The Martian" himself, Matt Damon playing Mark Watney. And to start with, this movie was absolutely golden in terms of the visuals, the comedic factor and the overall "gripiness" of the plot.

There is so much to say about The Martian, but I think the first thing the viewer notices is the scenery and the visuals. The movie starts off right in the heart of Mars; and even though it's filmed in the Jordanian desert, the accuracy in which the Martian landscape is captured is absolutely gorgeous. The Scientifical anomaly that is the opening storm that strands Mark on Mars is beautifully done in its scope even if the reported 150 mph winds on Mars should have just been a slight breeze. But I'm not about to use that detail to bash on the movie, rather it uses what is found in Andy Weir's source and integrates absolutely beautifully.

Now, in terms of being true to its source, there are maybe 2-3 missteps, which if you've read the book before (or after) the movie, you will notice very clearly. However, I truly believe that films should be able to stand on its own merit without having to be constantly compared to its source and The Martian's adaptation by Drew Goddard is done in a way where even though the deviations are there in the movie, you immediately let it go because of all that's going on with the film all around you.

The performances are very good, especially the very nuanced and quite accurate portrayal of Mark Watney by Matt Damon. The jokes that made the book such a delight to read were delivered on point by Damon and honestly the movie was a lot funnier than many of the comedies that have played in theatres this year. Jessica Chastain's character portrayal of Commander Lewis was very nuanced and a perfect casting to play someone who had the range of emotions needed for first, believing she had left Mark for dead on Mars, and then finding out that she had left her crew mate behind. Back on Earth, Jeff Daniels is in full Will McAvoy form. There really is no performance in this movie that can be at fault and were played absolutely to a tee.

The plot itself is a rollicking affair in which the 140 minute run time does not feel long at all at any point throughout the film. The performances are excellent on Mars, on Earth and in Interstellar space. This truly is a case which showcases why Ridley Scott is known as a great sci-fi director. It does harp back to his directorial performances of Blade Runner and Alien, but you wouldn't want to compare this to those, however, it's not a million miles away.

The Martian gets an A and a well done sticker for Sir Ridley.

Check out our other reviews at http://thefilmlawyers.wordpress.com

Son of Saul (2015)

Some humanity did exist in 1944 Auschwitz, but definitely not from the Nazis

[9/10 · 10 October 2015]

Saul fia (or Son of Saul) is a Hungarian film set in 1944 Auschwitz, about Saul Auslander (Géza Röhrig) who sets upon a personal journey to bury a child, who may or may not be his, instead of exposing that child to the norms of the genocidal extermination that was occurring at that time.

Saul fia was the 2015 Grand Prix award winner at the Cannes Film Festival and right away shows us the quality that earned the film it's award. The film is beautifully shot in the standard Academy 4:3 on 35 mm which gives it a very boxed in and very oddly personal feeling to the film, the characters, and the setting.

Upon initially seeing the child, Saul is on this mission to bury this child with dignity regardless of the danger that he is exposing himself to. Alongside this, is a side plot of the rest of his Sonderkommando (working clan) who are trying to hatch an escape plan to leave Auschwitz and it's horrors.

What is important is that the movie strives not to indulge in the horrors of what is going on in the background but instead focuses on Saul and his story. But that doesn't mean that the director forgets about its surroundings. The DP has taken glancing shots that when something catches Saul's eyes (as this film has a lot of over the shoulder 3rd person POV), the film draws focus on the plight of the Jewish people that are being exterminated in the soulless methods that the Sonderkommando are being forced to use by the Nazi's.

But the film is able to balance the way the plot runs between the escape plan with the burial plot by meshing the two plots together in a way where neither plot feels forced. That's entirely due to how Röhrig plays the role of Saul, because he is forced to make deals with members of the Sonderkommando and thus needs to help with the escape plan, but he always reverts his way back to his own storyline.

Saul fia is a movie that is sure to resonate with any person who watches it, and will make you think about the struggles and horrors that the Jewish people had to go through during WWII at Auschwitz. As well as showing how the captive Jewish workers at Auschwitz were forced to do these jobs and being absolutely helpless to the people that they had to "exterminate". Saul fia gets a near-perfect A

Sicario (2015)

A bleak, yet rather grim and true view on the War on Drugs

[9/10 · 5 October 2015]

Sicario, the third Denis Villeneuve feature film after the highly successful Prisoners and Enemy from 2013 and 2014 respectively. The movie stars Emily Blunt (Edge of Tomorrow), Josh Brolin (Everest and No Country for Old Men), and Benicio Del Toro (Escobar: Paradise Lost and Traffic) in a drug-fuelled action movie set along the US- Mexico Border.

The movie is a cliché storyline with characters that have been seen before. But the way that the characters are played is what makes this movie stand out. It should be noted that the posters may show that the movie might be about Emily Blunt's character Kate, but the crucial performance is the performance by Del Toro in his portrayal of Alejandro. This is a performance that hasn't been seen from Del Toro in quite a while. I would have to say that a Best Actor Nomination should easily be coming towards Del Toro's way. An honorable mention to Josh Brolin, portraying the team leader Matt. His character brought comic relief to a movie that was disturbingly serious.

Now the movie itself. The first thing to note is the cinematography. The movie is beautifully shot, which is not a surprise with Director of Photography Roger Deakins (No Country for Old Men and Skyfall) at the helm. The panning birds eye view shots of Ciudad Juarez along with street side shots showed the bleak circumstances that the people in Juarez were living in.

The defining message from the film is the bleakness of the War on drugs in the Southern US. It shows how agencies have to "work together" just to have a shot at a cartel leader and even getting rid of a single cartel leader just means that another leader has already propped up and ends up being a never ending circle of massacre.

It's not the story that contributes to the high mark it will get, it's the characters in the movie who you connect to immediately, with audiences most likely to latch onto Alejandro's story after his background is revealed. Sicario may not get a Best Picture nomination but might have at least 1 nomination for Best Actor. Sicario gets an A grade.

31st October (2015)

There's a movie to be made here, it's not this one!

[4/10 · 3 October 2015]

31st October is the Hindi language portrayal of the events of the Sikh genocide of 1984 that occurred after the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Played at the 2015 Vancouver International Film Festival, the movie follows the lives of a Sikh family who were caught up in the ever deteriorating situation in their neighbourhood in Delhi.

The first thing that you will notice is the flimsiness of the plot and quite frankly the acting as well. The acting is done in a way that the actors are trying to "act the hell out of it". So all you notice is the actors very cheery while they speak (as if they're on camera for the first time) for the first half of the film, and then so forcefully emotional to a point where it is cringe worthy to watch. It's not to say there isn't a well-known actor in the movie, as Soha Ali Khan (Dil Maange More) plays the mother but that absolutely does not redeem the film.

There is an unbelievable amount of indulgence (close to Tarantino - esque) with the camera continually panning over the dead bodies in the houses and streets and lingering on them for far longer than they should have.

Now, the only thing that can be said about the plot is the crazed propaganda behind the movie, which if you don't notice it during the movie; you'll surely know by the time the helpful footnotes at the end of the movie play.

There is a movie to be made about the 1984 genocide as it's a very important subject for the people of Indian and those abroad, and honestly for the rest of the world. But this movie is definitely not that movie. I will give it a generous grade of a D

Pawn Sacrifice (2014)

A very tingly performance by Spidey

[7/10 · 2 October 2015]

Pawn Sacrifice, the new film by Ed Zwick (Blood Diamond) about American chess prodigy Bobby Fischer (Tobey Maguire). It's a movie that certainly was going for the full Red vs. Blue of the Cold War and certainly gave you that if that's what you were after. You've got paranoia upon patriotism upon neurosis upon a little more paranoia. Mixed in of course with "my phone's being wiretapped".

What to like about the film? Well, in one word the neuroticism. The performance of Tobey Maguire as the ever increasingly mad, and ever decreasingly sane Bobby Fischer was a standout. I, personally did not like his character, especially when it seemed that the success was getting to his head even before facing off against Liev Schrieber's Spassky. But not liking a character, doesn't mean that the character was badly played, in my mind, it was wonderfully played, but he gave the sense of me not wanting to get nowhere near him if we were to meet.

However, the plot did keep jumping around and bringing in characters who we were to relate to, but would then unceremoniously disappear when the story shifted to the craziness of Bobby. Also, it's female characters were quite flimsy, where the issues that Bobby's sister may have had were completely ignored, and his mom was just there to play a socialite and later just a women to pan the camera to when need be.

All in all, a safe movie with a great performance by Maguire, but the character that resonated with me more was Spassky. Pawn Sacrifice gets a grade of B-.

Visit http://thefilmlawyers.wordpress.com for more reviews