Bridge of Spies - 2015 - Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks

I had noted at the back of my mind that Bridge of Spies was likely to be an interesting movie to watch, primarily because of three names, Steven Spielberg (Director and Producer), Tom Hanks (usually anything that Tom Hanks is associated with, is worth watching) and the Coen brothers (though I have not watched all their movies, I have been a fan since Fargo and more recently No Country For Old Men).

I missed watching it when it came to the local multiplex, however I managed to catch it recently on Cable TV, and am I glad that I did! I had not actually read about the movie much, I only knew that it was based in the era of the Cold War, a subject which fascinates me, given that I have read a lot of John Le Carré and Len Deighton. After watching the movie I searched to see if it was based on a book and to my surprise, I found that it was an original screenplay.

The movie is based on a real-life incident involving the swap of a Russian spy for an US U-2 spy plane pilot. It opens with the arrest of Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance) in the United States and it is very evident that he is a Russian spy given that a transmitter is found in his room. The US is keen to show to the world that it is not a banana republic and they take justice seriously. Given that Abel does not have a lawyer and the Russians refuse to acknowledge him (Abel carries a UK passport), the US Government starts a search for someone appropriate to defend Abel.

Enter James Donovan (Tom Hanks), who is doing well at the law firm where he works and hopes to be promoted shortly. Donovan is approached by a senior partner in his firm and told that he should taken on the case as a favour to the firm as well as to the US government. Donovan is sceptical and doesn’t want to be part of a rigged trial. Donovan is assured that a free hand will be given and that he would be given a free hand to decide his strategy. Donovan reluctantly takes on the case, however is drawn in immediately after a couple of meetings with Abel.

Despite putting up a good defence, Donovan loses the case and Abel is sentenced to death. During the course of the trial, Donovan is branded by the media as anti-American and a traitor and the effect is felt on his family Abel appreciates all that Donovan has done for him but has accepted his fate. Donovan refuses to give up and appeals the sentence and gets it reduced to life imprisonment. This forms the first half of the movie and by itself is captivating and would have been worth watching, however there is more!

The US military has been carrying out aerial reconnaissances of the USSR by using its top secret U-2 spy plane and one of them crashes into Russian territory. The pilot is captured and sings like a canary, however that is unknown to the US side. Meanwhile, Donovan is looking forward to resuming his normal life. One day he gets a letter, supposedly from Abel’s wife and she asks Donovan whether he can meet the Abel family lawyer, a person called Vogel, and see if a swap can be arranged. Donovan reports this to the CIA who encourage him to pursue it, while retaining complete arms length and deniability for the transaction.

Donovan now finds himself in East Germany and sees first hand what the Cold War is all about and how there is not really much difference in the tactics used by both sides in the field. Donovan is however made of sterner stuff and retains his moral compass even as he tries to figure out who is bluffing whom. There is also a US graduate student thrown into the mix and Donovan uses his own initiative to engineer a 1-2 swap, Abel for the U-2 pilot and the student. The movie then builds up to its final denouement (in a very understated way) and also manages to thrown in a classic Cold War reference to Checkpoint Charlie.

Tom Hanks as Donovan is superb, however this is what we expect from Hanks, in a lesser actor this would have been termed as an outstanding or breakthrough performance. The real screen stealer is Mark Rylance as Abel, who through his calm demeanour and dead-pan humour, holds our attention in every scene he is in; I look forward to watching more of him in movies where he gets more screen time. Spielberg as director shows us that he has not lost his touch and the movie is as much his triumph as for Hanks/Rylance and the Coen brothers. Rylance, deservedly won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar as well as a slew of other awards.

Overall, this is a must watch movie for all film buffs, particularly for those who are interested in the Cold War and how small parts of it played out. I will run out of superlatives if I try to write anything more, so without further ado, go find it by whichever means and watch it at your earliest.

Rating: 5/5

As always, thanks for reading, and do leave a comment/like so that I get your feedback. Do also scroll down for other book/movie reviews which you may not have seen.

The Girl On The Train - Paula Hawkins

Girl on the train (the book) had created a lot of buzz, which got accentuated when the movie was announced and then the movie was successful in its own right. I had put this on my reading list and got around to it a couple of months ago. I have not watched the movie, however please do not confuse this book/movie combo with an earlier similar sounding and themed book/movie – Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn with the movie starring Ben Affleck and Rosamund Pike.

As far as the story is concerned, it is told from the point of view of Rachel, Anna and Megan, and also jumps back and forth in time (a technique also used in Gone Girl). Rachel is an alcoholic who is in denial, after her messy break-up with Tom, who has subsequently married and fathered a child with Anna.

Rachel has been fired from her job in London for her erratic behaviour, resulting out of her alcoholism. She is sharing a flat with her friend and to keep up appearances, dutifully continues her commute to London every day. It is made evident that she is running low on money, however always seems to have some on hand to buy booze.

Rachel has been unable to let go even after Tom has remarried and there are multiple occasions where she has tried to contact Tom and Anna, including times when she has gone to their (in her mind her) home, even when Tom is not at home. Anna is legitimately worried about the safety of herself and her daughter, though Rachel has not yet done anything which could be considered criminal.

Rachel’s commute to London takes her past the old suburb where she used to live with Tom. She sees a good looking couple, Megan and Scott, from the train and starts building up a fantasy of a perfect marriage which she imagines them to enjoy. This fantasy slowly turns into an obsession where she imagines herself in place of Megan.

All of the above is background and we find out about it in bits and pieces through the book. The book opens on a typical commute day for Rachel, however on that day she spots Megan kissing another man in her backyard. This sets off mental alarm bells for Rachel, as to why Megan (at that point she doesn’t even know their names) is risking her ‘perfect’ marriage. This prompts her to get off at the suburb where Tom/Ann, Megan/Scott live, however she is already half way to getting drunk. She comes to consciousness the next morning in her own flat and it is clear to her that she has been on a binge. However all that happened the previous evening is a blank in her mind.

The first thing Rachel finds out is that Megan has disappeared the same evening and clearly Rachel must have had something to do with it. The rest of the book is about how Rachel struggles with herself to do the right thing, firstly, to go to the police to report her suspicions, and when the police do not seem to take her seriously, do some enquiries of her own.

The rest of the book is about how Rachel goes about her investigations, interspersed with chapters which are narrated from Anna’s and Megan’s point of view. The plot expectedly has some twists, however nothing compared to the big reveal which is the center piece of Gone Girl.
To summarize, it is a reasonable read, to sound more than a little sexist, a chick flick whodunnit, which Gone Girl, is most certainly not! At the other end of the spectrum is Sue Grafton with Kinsey Mulhone, just to prove that The Girl On The Train is not the norm.

The writing is not that great, not having read any other book by Paula Hawkins, I cannot comment on whether her usual standard is better or worse, however taken this book on its own, it is just about passable. Not enough momentum to qualify as a true blue thriller and neither too much complexity to be a true murder mystery. Some alcoholics or heavy drinkers are likely to identify with at least parts of Rachel.

If you are curious about what the buzz is all about, then by all means go read it, but do not do so with any great expectations. I would just about rate it as a 2.5/5.

Thanks for reading!

Batman vs Superman - Dawn of Justice (Review)

Batman vs Superman - Dawn of Justice

Warning: Spoilers ahead.

Let me start off with a warning: Superhero films are subject to your understanding of their respective universes. If you do not understand them, then you are well-advised to do your homework or else stay away from watching them. There are some superhero movies which may transcend this warning, e.g. The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises, all others, like The X-Men franchise, Avengers and their associated prequels and spin-offs, do need a fair bit of understanding. Again some movies do overcome it with power casting, good scripts and tongue in cheek humour, however Batman vs Superman is not one of them. So, unless you connect with the Justice (as in Justice League) part within the title, you may lose your way as you sit through the movie.

The basic premise of the movie is that both Batman (Ben Affleck) and Superman (Henry Cavill) are both loved and hated by their respective cities (Gotham and Metropolis), due to the collateral damage they tend to cause in their superhero avatars. Batman being human is seen at best a vigilante who uses any means to achieve his end, however Superman is the real concern, given that he is an alien and impervious to any human designed countermeasures. Senator Finch (Holly Hunter) is trying to retain some perspective, however she also wants to hear from Superman himself whether he sees himself answerable to the planet which he now calls home.

Both Batman and Superman also harbour doubts about each other. Superman thinks Batman is a borderline criminal (off late Batman has taken to branding the criminals he catches with the bat symbol, effectively a sentence of death as they are imprisoned), while Batman thinks Superman is not answerable to anyone on Earth and moreover can single handedly cause the destruction of the planet. While all this is going on, Alexander 'Lex' Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg pale in comparsion to earlier Luthor's by Kevin Spacey), is indulging in his own megalomania and hatching plans of his own, which involve getting his hands on Kryptonite (the only thing that can affect Superman's superpowers).

All this is back story stuff and in a already lengthy movies takes more than an hour to establish. There is also some unnecessary footage of the Daily Planet with Perry White (what a waste of Laurence 'Morpheus' Fishburne) and Lois Lane (Amy Adams), also establishing the love interest between Superman and Lois Lane (yeah! we get it, Superman will do anything to save Lois). From Batman's side, we see Alfred (Jeremy Irons) playing a combination of Michael Caine's Alfred and Morgan Freeman's Lucius Fox (shades of Jarvis too!). Alfred is far more vocal (acerbic, might I say!) and active in the storyline rather than being a mere background character. If I felt sorry for Laurence Fishburne then really I have no words to express my sorrow at Jeremy Irons being made to play Alfred. He is by far the strongest actor in the movie with reasonable screen time (I feel for Diane Lane as Martha Kent, but mercifully our agony is reduced since she has so little screen time).

The movie really starts picking up once Batman decides to take matters in his own hands. He figures out that Luthor is getting his hands on some Kryptonite and decides to intercept it. Instead of destroying it or handing it over to the government, he weaponizes it for himself and plans to destroy Superman thus ending the uncertainty of what Superman may or may not do in the future. There is a lot of talk in the media and government about informed consent and hand wringing all around about what do when 'Gods' descend on Earth.

Though Luthor is a psychopath, he doesn't have the physical capacity to taken on either of Batman or Superman. He gets access to the Krypton ship (how come Superman doesn't know what is happening?) and is in the process of regenerating General Zod and creating a new creature by mixing his blood/DNA with Zod's (typical mumbo-jumbo). He also has a master plan of getting Batman or Superman to fight each other (the weakest part of the storyline but which is the whole purpose of the movie, to get Batman and Superman to fight each other).

The movie has one bright spot in it, which is the introduction of Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot). She is seen in her alter-ego of Diana Prince at various points in the movie, however without seeming to take any interest in whatever is happening around her. While all this is happening, Luthor is also framing Superman for deaths which are not his doing. When Senator Finch calls for a congressional committee hearing into some deaths in Africa (one of the many occasions when Superman was rescuing Lois Lane) and asks for Superman to testify. To everyone's surprise, Superman does turn up for the hearing, however the moment he steps up to make a statement, a set of bombs go off in the US Capitol, effectively destroying the symbol of US Democracy and killing hundreds of people. Superman of course survives, but disappears, leading to speculation on whether he was the cause of the explosion.

Batman finally gets the Kryptonite he intercepted from Luthor weaponized and has issued an open challenge to Superman to come and get him. Now, Luthor gets his master plan in motion. He kidnaps Martha Wayne and tells Superman that if she has to live then Superman has to kill Batman. He also gets his creature activated and it duly starts to wreak havoc on Metropolis. Superman reaches Gotham (apparently in the movie Gotham and Metropolis are just across the bay and facing each other) and confronts Batman. Why he is unable to explain to Batman before they start slugging at each other is something we shall conveniently ignore, Batman unveils his Kryptonite laced weaponry as well as his heavily armoured batsuit and Superman struggles to counter it. It finally takes Lois Lane to intervene when Batman has Superman literally by his throat and ten seconds of explanation from her is enough to make Batman see the light. He throws away his Kryptonite spear (bad idea!) and they decide to divide and conquer where Batman promises to rescue Martha Kent while Superman takes on Luthor.

At that time they are not aware of the beast that Luthor has unleashed. Batman does his thing and gets to show off his Batplane and duly rescues Martha. Superman meanwhile finds out that the beast is forged from the same source as him but more powerful as it has been combined with external DNA. To reduce damage on the ground, Superman manages to get the beast into space, however the US Government senses an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone and fires a nuclear missile after them. The missile detonates and the beast falls back to Earth and Superman is not traceable. The beast is made of sterner stuff and the nuclear blast seems to have made it even stronger.

Batman meanwhile has figured out that this beast is also from the source as Superman and his Kryptonite spear would come in handy. He lures the beast back to Gotham, however he is unable to find the spear. Superman, also unhurt from the nuclear blast, returns back and both confront the beast.

Now the best part of the movie happens, Wonder Woman has been watching this from the sidelines as the drama unfolds on TV and figures out enough is enough, this needs a kickass woman to end it, and joins our battling duo. Both are initially baffled by her, however accept her immediately as she goes ahead and attacks the beast on her own. But where is the spear? Lois Lane has thrown into some convenient water body and now tries to retrieve it where predictably she gets stuck underwater. Superman by virtue of his Lois Lane homing sense (is that one of his superpowers!), gets to her in time and also manages to retrieve the spear. By now, Wonder Woman has the beast struggling in her magic lasso; Superman makes the Kryptonite spear an extension of himself and buries it into the beast. It has the desired effect where the beast is killed, however it has the same effect on Superman and Superman also dies.

This is where Batman and Wonder Woman have the conversation which sets the stage for future movies, there is an independent Wonder Woman movie already filming as well as two Justice League movies in the works. Thus, this movies has been one big build-up to spawning off future franchises.

On the whole, this is a movie only superhero fans (who have read the comics) will like, others will be put off by the long build-up and the overall length of the movie (two and a half hours!). Not much acting to speak off, Ben Affleck probably makes for the weakest Batman since Val Kilmer (not in bulk, but in overall keeping in the Batman persona). He is also uniformly dark and single tone and has no light moments to relieve the overall mood. Henry Cavill cannot act to save his life (or Lois's life if you will!) and Amy Adams is potentially redundant to the story (but a Superman movie without Lois Lane, sacrilege? not!). Jesse Eisenberg tries hard (more the Riddler than Luthor in his persona) and it shows. If I could forget Kevin Spacey then maybe I would be ok with him, but I can't wipe my memory that easily, so low scores for him too.

The movie has plenty of action, but much of it seems action for its own sake. Zack Snyder (the director) has dealt with superheroes before, I quite liked his Watchmen which is probably a superhero movie unlike any superhero movie that you would have ever watched, if you haven't yet, then do yourself a favour, go seek it out. The problem is that in this movie, he has a weak story and weaker material to play with. He does a reasonable job and will keep the hardcore fans happy, however the movie is unlikely to appeal much to the mainstream.

Case in point, one of the major Indian newspapers has panned the movie, whereas I thought that the reviewer completely missed the subtext of the movie (clearly not a person familiar with the superhero universe).

Thanks for reading!

Birdman (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

Birdman really scored at the 2015 Oscars and was nominated in 9 categories and won 4 (Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and Best Cinematography). Birdman is directed by Alejandro G. Iñárritu, who is very much the flavour of Hollywood and repeated his success in 2016 with The Revenant. I had not caught any of his earlier movies, except for Babel in bits and pieces, and wanted to understand his movies a little better.

Thus, when Birdman was being telecast on TV, I taped it and then watched it at leisure. The premise of the movies is that Riggan Thomson (Micheal Keaton), is an almost has-been actor who was known for his earlier roles in a superhero franchise called Birdman. Riggan is looking for validation for his acting and decides to write, direct and act in a Broadway play based on the work of Raymond Carver called "What do we talk about when we talk about love". His producer is his best friend and lawyer, Jake (Zach Galifianakis), assisted by his daughter Sam (Emma Stone) and also stars his girlfriend, Laura (Andrea Riseborough).

The rehearsals are not going very well when Laura suggests that Riggan bring in Mike (Edward Norton) as second maie lead in the play. Mike wows Riggan from the get go and Riggan starts becoming very optimistic about the play. There is a sub-plot in which we hear a voice in Riggan's head (ostensibly from the Birdman character) and it is unclear whether Riggan is actually Birdman or whether this is just in his head. The opening shot shows Riggan sitting cross legged in his room hovering about a feet in the air which fuels this suspicion in the mind of the viewer.

The play is now going through audience previews and in one of them, Riggan finds himself accidentally locked out of the theater with his robe stuck in the door. He has to abandon the robe and walk around the block (through Times Square) in nothing but his underwear. There are plenty of people who shoot videos of the spectacle and it goes completely viral on social media (which Riggan does not understand, though Sam assures him that it is a good thing to be viral).

Meanwhile, Mike is getting on Rigan's nerves with his attempts to bring realism to his performance, including drinking real gin on stage and also attempting to force himself on Laura in one of the scenes. In the finale, Riggan is required to threaten Mike with a gun and Mike is quite unhappy with the fake gun that Riggan is using, saying that he does not feel threatened at all with a fake gun. At some point, Mike substitutes the fake gun for a real gun and on opening night, Riggan while waving it around, sets it off, accidentally shooting off part of his own nose.

Meanwhile, the New York Times theater critic, Tabitha Dickinson (Lindsay Duncan) had promised Riggan to rip his play to shreds since she believed that this was nothing but a vanity project and Riggan had no idea of what he was doing. Given the dramatic first show, Tabitha changes her mind and while not exactly giving the play a glowing review, covers it in a full page review, titling it "The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance" from where the sub-title of the movie comes.

Thus far are the facts, now my impressions. The primary cast is impeccable, I have always been a fan of Michael Keaton and he lives the part of Riggan Thomson, similarly Ed Norton is a very gifted actor and whatever he does is always worth watching. The rest of the cast don't have much to do, except for Emma Stone and she doesn't have to do much beyond slouching around. There is some spark between Ed Norton and her, especially when they are playing Truth or Dare on the roof the theater. Zach has a very un-Zach role (think the Hangover, not!) and that is a good thing. So the acting is fairly serviceable.

My primary problem is that Birdman is a movie being made for critics and not for the paying public. The cinematography is a case in point, the entire movies feels like it is shot from a hand-held camera following whoever is in the frame at that time. I am sure cinephiles everywhere would be swooning over it, however it didn't do much for me. Similarly, the story is very basic and just a device to have people say interesting things to each other. As for the direction, I would give Iñárritu some points here, however not enough to make me want to watch it again.

On the whole, no problem if you have missed seeing it, however worth a dekko if you happen to catch it at your convenience.

Thanks for reading!