Bosch Season 2 available on Amazon Prime Video

A little bit of background first. Hieronymus (‘Harry’) Bosch is a fictional detective created by Michael Connnelly and has featured in over 20 novels which feature him as the main character, apart from cameos in related novels on Mickey Haller and Terry McCaleb. Harry Bosch works with the Detective Division in the LAPD and enjoys a love/hate relationship with the department. He loves his work but hates the politics within the department which makes senior officers compromise with the Mayor’s office and the District Attorney.

Bosch is pretty much a lone wolf in the books and holds his cards close to his chest, usually not even trusting this partner. I had watched Bosch Season1 on TV last year and over the last few days, binge watched the entire Season 2 on Amazon Prime video (recently launched in India with a very attractive initial subscription). This review is about Season 2 as well as contrasting it with the books.

In similar vein to the earlier seasons of Sherlock, the episodes draw upon from the books for the primary plot line while expanding on them and catering to the needs of TV in terms of drama. However there are  a couple of significant deviations, in the novels, Bosch is shown to be much more of a loner than he is shown in the episodes and his relationship with his current partner, Jerry Edgar, is shown to be closer to a true partnership. In the books, Harry considers Jerry as a lightweight and thinks he likes to shirk work while moonlighting as a realtor.

Season 2 starts with Bosch being recalled to the department, where his immediate supervisor is now Lt. Billets while Deputy Chief Irving continues to be a driving force behind many initiatives. A little bit about the cast, Titus Welliver plays Bosch, and for anyone who has not read the books, everything is just great, however the edginess of the character of Harry seem a little toned down for the episodes. IMHO, Titus Welliver does a great job, though he took some time to grow on me. The other main characters are Jerry Edgar (Jamie Hector), Lt. Grace Billets (Amy Aquino), Deputy Chief Irvin Irving (Lance Reddick) and Eleanor Wish (Sarah Clarke), Bosch’s ex-wife, ex-FBI profiler and now a professional poker player at Las Vegas. Season 2 also features Maddy (Madison Lintz) as Bosch’s daughter and Officer George Irving (Robbie Jones) as Deputy Chief Irving’s son and someone who is working undercover in the Narcotics division and Carl Nash (Brent Sexton), ex-LAPD who runs security at the gated community where the Allens live.

Season 2 starts with the disappearance of Tony Allen, ostensibly a porn producer, but in reality who launders drug money for his cousin. It turns out that Tony has been skimming money and storing it secretly and has fallen in love with a dancer from Las Vegas who he is planning to marry. Tony Allen’s widow, Veronica (a former porn actress herself), is suspected to have a hand in it as also Joey Marks (Tony’s cousin) and Rykoff (a kind of enforcer for Joey. At some point, Carl Nash also comes under suspicion.

A parallel plot also unfolds when George Irving is killed in an apparent robbery gone bad. Deputy Chief Irving is not allowed by department policy to be involved in the investigation, however has to know the truth for himself and gets Bosch to support him. Both Irving and Bosch run their own parallel investigation which seems to intersect with Joey Marks.

Given that this is live action, there a couple of thrilling gun battles, especially one reminiscent of Pulp Fiction at the Bank where Allen has his safe deposit box. I will not reveal much more about the plot since it will be better for you to see it for yourself.

As a standalone series, I would rate Bosch very highly, however if one contrasts with the books, then a few character changes do continue to niggle at you till you make peace with them. Once you get beyond that even a fan of the novels will be converted. One reason for a majority of the novels to be reflected correctly  in the episodes is that Michael Connelly is associated with both Season 1 and 2 as an Executive Producer and I am sure he had much to do with retaining the integrity of the books while making some sacrifices to the demands of television/streaming.

I watched it on a Google Nexus tablet and the size of the screen was no barrier, though I would hesitate to do so on a mobile. I recommend wearing headphones/earbuds to get the best possible sound experience. I watched it in HD, using both my BSNL broadband and sometimes Airtel 4G Wifi and it streamed well over both connections with no noticeable lag.

On the whole, you will enjoy it, regardless of whether you are an old fan, or else someone who is getting introduced to Bosch for the first time.

As always, thanks for reading and do “Like” the page to receive updates as well as any comments will be highly appreciated.

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!

Star Wars - The Force Awakens review

The latest in the Star Wars franchise, the much awaited Episode VII - The Force Awakens, comes more than 10 years after the prequel - Episode 3 - The Revenge of the Sith. To do an 'executive summary', The Force Awakens is a welcome return to the story telling of the original trilogy, and that is a good thing! The newer movies (Ep I-III) focused more on razzle-dazzle special effects (though the dichotomy between the good and the dark side does play an important role), and the spectacle often distracted us from the story. Maybe Lucas felt that he had to compete in creating extravaganzas, however (at least in my view), the Jedi became very common place and lost much of their mythology in the process. It also didn't help that Ewan McGregor probably felt the shadow of Sir Alec Guinness and hence could not do justice to the central role that Obi-wan Kenobi plays in the storyline.

Anyway, back to the present. Given that Disney has already announced a new trilogy and Ep VII is the first of them, the primary intention is to reboot the franchise and set the stage for the movies to come. The film does an admirable job of it, while paying homage to the original trilogy (in a perfect world, we could pretend that Ep I-III never happened). The person chosen for this onerous responsibility is none other than J J Abrams who successfully managed to reinvent Star Trek and he brings the same expertise to this project.

Caution: Spoilers ahead, so if you haven't seen the movie, you may want to stop here, however given the way the movie is breaking box office records (likely to surpass $1 Billion in its second week), it is unlikely that there will be anyone left in the galaxy who hasn't seen it in the next few days!

At the start of the movie we learn that Luke Skywalker (now a Jedi master) has gone missing after a group of Jedi that he was training were wiped out by the First Order (a new incarnation of the Sith). The Resistance is still alive and kicking and still led by Princess Leia (now General Organa) and they are desperate to find Luke as a way of thwarting the First Order. Luke has become a hermit and is living alone in an unknown location, however a map has been found and is being transported back to the Resistance base by a resistance pilot when he is shot down on a planet called Jakku.

Here starts the real story. The map is hidden in a droid (BB-8), a roly-poly R2-D2, who is not quite as smart as R2 but no slouch in the awareness department. The droid is found by Rey (Daisy Ridley - English accent and all) who takes a liking to it, even though BB is being very mysterious about his mission (classified!). Meanwhile, we are introduced to another central character, Finn, who rescues the pilot, Poe. Of course, the First Order locates them on Jakku and sends Kylo Ren (a former Jedi converted to the First Order) to retrieve them. Kylo is the son of Han Solo and Princess Leia and has been turned to the dark side.

One of the first harkbacks to the original trilogy is the introduction of the Millenium Falcon (whistle, whistle!), and we know that the movie is in the right hands. Rey turns out to be a reasonable pilot and as they make a daring escape from Jakku, and run into Han and Chewie. Harrison Ford is still able to evoke screen magic with his lopsided smile and does a nice line in wry humour, much of it at his own expense. Arnie attempts the same thing in his Terminator roles, however imho, Ford does it better.

Not to reveal too much of the plot, there is another homage to the first Star Wars, when a planet destroying weapon needs to be stopped. This is the part which seemed a little contrived to me, but your view may differ. We also learn that Rey is strong with the force and she has her own 'these are not the droids you are looking for' moment (this is homage!), though we don't learn till the end as to how she is so strong with the force.

The main aspect that I liked about the movie is that the 3D and special effects do not get in your way and given the huge expectations that Star Wars fans would have had about the movie, Abrams does a great job of handling the pressure. The movie sees the introduction of three main characters, Rey, Finn and Kylo Ren. Of these, one does not need to be too strong with the Force to realise that Rey is the future of the franchise, and it is likely that the next couple of movies will be built around her.

All in all, likely to beat all comers at the box office for the forseeable future and likely to topple both Titanic and the Avengers: Age of Ultron.

Highly recommended to fans of the original trilogy, fans of Ep I-III may be a little disappointed (get a life people, Ep IV-VI rule!) and well worth your time and money. It is quite likely that people will view it multiple times in the theatre.

The Force does truly Awaken! Live long and prosper J J Abrams!

Spectre movie review - James Bond - November 2015

All Bond movies start with a bang and Spectre does it as well as any, with the spectacular set piece located bang in the middle of the Mexican Carnivale. Bond does what he does best and the scene with the helicopter is worth the price of admission (even if one has to check your brain in at the door!).

Bond movies have a huge burden of each new one having to top the earlier one and Spectre has its work cut out for it, comes as it does after the remarkable Skyfall. Given this, it is inevitable that Spectre will pale in comparison, however if one looks at it as a standalone movie then it is almost as good as any other Bond movie.

Bond as played by Daniel Craig, has been characterized more as a working man's Bond, more physical, less prone to flirting and banter and displaying a ruthlessness which would do any Bond villain proud. In his fourth outing, Daniel Craig seems to be a little weary of the burden of being Bond and may be looking forward to pass on the baton to the next one in line (though there are already talks of a fifth Craig movie in the pipeline).

The last movie introduced the new M (Ralph Fiennes) and while Fiennes may be enjoying himself, he can't hold a candle to Dame Judi Dench, who made the character her own and left a stamp which is comparable to Sean Connery's Bond. Ben Whishaw as Q has a more active role in Spectre and it does brighten the movie a bit. In a nod to some of the action being filmed in Rome, one of the leading ladies is Monica Belluci (short-lived as any Bond heroine) and the other is Lea Seydoux, who has a much larger role.

The main villain is played by Christoph Waltz (Blofeld), who in my view is completely wasted. Waltz is better known for his unforgettable roles in Django Unchained as well as Inglorious Basterds. Here, in the best tradition of Bond villains, he tries to kill Bond in an overly elaborate way (why do villains never learn from the movies!). This sequence is characteristic of the weak plot which is the actual downfall of the movie.

We also have M's new boss, C (played by Max Denbigh). Denbigh is better known as Moriarty from the new BBC Sherlock series and here too, he is smug to a fault. He plays C as an extension of Moriarty, which is ok but for someone who has watched him in the TV series, it seems a reprise.

The hallmark of any Bond movie are the cameos played by his gadgets and in Spectre, there is the car, an Aston Martin no less and which looks good enough to eat. Sadly it has only a very brief role in the movie, the other gadget is just a get-out-of-jail-free card, and as artificial a plot device as you can encounter in a movie.

Thus, we have Spectre, a Bond movie in which all the ingredients are present and accounted for, but the cooking is a little off and the recipe (plot) is the weakest link.

Methinks it is time for Daniel Craig and Sam Mendes to move on. Together they did a great job of rebooting the franchise and allowed Bond to compete in the era of blockbuster summer movies, but both seem to have run their course.

No Bond fan will miss watching Spectre, however for someone who is not into Bond, the movie could easily be mistaken as a Bourne Identity Part x movie. This in my view is the biggest indictment the movie can suffer.

I would rate it as watchable, but only to tick a box and not as a Bond experience.

Katyar Kaljat Ghusli (Marathi movie review - Nov 2015)

Just got home after watching the movie (English translation - Heart cleaved by dagger, pardon my translation skills, if you have a better and crisper title, do comment!), and I must say that I exited the cinema fairly happy. For non-Marathi speakers, the movie conveniently has English sub-titles, and while the translation is not exactly high quality (in many later sequences, Raj Gayak is translated as Royal Poet instead of Royal Singer - which is actually a different person), it is quite serviceable.

The movie is about the rivalry (one-sided) between the reigning Royal Singer (Pandit Bhanushankar played by Shankar Mahadevan) and Khan Saheb (played by Sachin). For a Marathi movie, the production quality is quite good and the sets and costumes don't look as if any expense has been spared. One definitely needs to watch it in a cinema with good quality audio as otherwise the main USP of the movie would be lost.

Coming to the actual movie, the acting is sort of average, Shankar Mahadevan has a couple of good moments and Subodh Bhave (Sadashiv) is earnest but some sparks are provided by Uma (Mrunmayee Deshpande) and Zareena (Amruta Khanvilkar). As for Sachin (Khan Saheb), the man is a natural overactor and hams it to the gallery all through. That is the one jarring note in the acting department which otherwise is quite competent.

As for the singing, there are two ways of looking at it, either standalone, where one watches the movie without having heard the songs earlier (particulary by the original singers, Pt. Jitendra Abhisheki and Vasantrao Deshpande) or where one is reminded of the originals. Again, there are two more ways of looking at it, when watching, you can forget what is heard in the theatre and in your mind hear the originals, or else hear what is being played. If one tries to compare, the songs are good but connoiseurs will always go back to the originals. Those who are likely to enjoy the songs the most are probably those who haven't heard them before or who have not seen the play (in its various avatars).

The movie does mess with the plot and there is a gratuitous Britisher added, which is completely unnecessary. Khan Saheb is also painted much darker than the play, but these can be excused as creative liberties.

Now, coming to the singing, imho, Shankar Mahadevan should have sung for Khan Saheb and Rahul Deshpande for Panditji, to my untrained ear, Shankar Mahadevan's voice does not have a truly classical feel and which might have suited the histrionics of Khan Saheb whereas Rahul Deshpande is a trained classical singer who might have done better justice to the more purist Panditji. But I suspect the decision was primarily influenced by the fact that Rahul Deshpande has played and sung Khan Saheb's part in the play and it might have seemed more logical to stick to it.

The only reason to watch the movie multiple times would be the songs, but then again, if you like them so much, you are better off finding audio recordings of the originals! A word to those who don't understand what a sangeet natak (musical play) is, a significant part of the movie is devoted to songs and if you don't like it then this movie may not be for you.

Nostalgia plays a large role in the audience who would go for such a movie and in the case of my screening, the average age in the hall was quite likely well north of 45+ (in which I fit quite nicely, thank you!). I think the movie is well worth watching for anyone who speaks Marathi and who has at least some ear for classical music but it is likely to appeal to a larger non-Marathi speaking audience (however those who fall in the same age demographic!).

I won't give stars to the movie, however I would strongly recommend giving it a look-see, it is well worth your time.

ICC Cricket World Cup 2015 - A preview

Four years ago, I had blogged extensively about the 2011 World Cup and while I may not be able to be so prolific this time around, I will try to blog my views on it – with an India perspective of course!

The Indian ODI team is now a reasonably settled unit with established competencies in batting and fielding. The bowling continues to be India’s Achilles heel and the weaknesses are too many to be unfamiliar to the Indian cricket fan.

Firstly the batting – with Rohit Sharma being prolific at the top of the order and Kohli and Rahane also being very consistent, the weak link is Shikhar Dhawan at the top. He seems to enjoy the (misplaced!) confidence of the team management and has retained his place against all odds. I can only hope that he comes good in the first couple of matches or else he should make way for a Rahane-Rohit combination at the top. Kohli seems to want to bat at #4 which leaves #3 open for Rayadu. Suresh Raina selects himself at #5 and Dhoni in ODIs is too good to bat lower than #6. This leaves a critical position open at #7 and Stuart Binny seems to be the man being groomed for the job. In the absence of Binny, Ashwin will need to come in at #7. For the bowlers, Yadav and Bhuvi select themselves which leaves two more slots. Shami is well worth persevering with and Mohit Sharma would round off the playing eleven.

There is unlikely to be room for Ravindra Jadeja, unless of course Rayadu makes way for him and everyone moves up one slot to accommodate Jadeja at #7.

The fielding is now quite competent with only a couple of notable slow movers like Ashwin and Bhuvi. Yadav has a rocket of an arm and while he may not dive around, stealing a second against him is likely to be fraught with danger.

Now, how about the chances of the Indian team in the World Cup? It has been a long season ahead of the World Cup in Australia for the team and unsurprisingly it hasn’t gone too well. Dhoni’s retirement from Test cricket was a shocker on tour and may have unsettled the dressing room. The results have not been forthcoming and except for the last warm up game, India have had a miserable tour. One can only hope that the World Cup pumps everyone up and they think about the match at hand rather than taking the next flight home.

India seem to be well placed in Pool B with the serious competition coming from South Africa and Pakistan. Given Pakistan’s uncertain form (perennial dark horses of every cricket competition!), both India and South Africa should sail through. The West Indies just may spring a surprise, however they haven’t been consistent for a long time now and there is no reason to think that it will be any different this time around. Ireland may harbor hopes of springing a surprise at the cost of the West Indies.

Given that four teams qualify from each Pool, the teams in Pool A should be heaving a sigh of relief, else it could have been the group of death. Here, the big 4, Australia, England, Sri Lanka and New Zealand should make it through with Bangladesh sniffing at their heels. However, of the two Pools, Pool B with Ireland may have the only realistic chance of causing an upset. Pool A is too strong for Bangladesh to make an impact.

So, on current form, Australia looks favourites with India, South Africa and New Zealand capable of making it to the semis. One cannot discount the determination of Sangakarra and Jayawardene for Sri Lanka and if Dilshan fires at the top of the order, they could come very close. Pakistan is the eternal enigma team of World Cricket and I suspect the tone of their campaign will be set by the opening game against India.

My gut prediction is an India South Africa final whereas my brain tells me that it is likely to be an Australia South Africa final. The oracle has spoken!

The Election that Changed India - by Rajdeep Sardesai

Eminent journalist and news TV anchor, Rajdeep Sardesai, has written an engrossing book about the 2014 Lok Sabha elections in India which led to Narendra Modi and the BJP storming to victory in what has been described as a political tsunami. People from my generation (I am very close in age to Rajdeep) would have earlier identified him as Dileep Sardesai’s son, however in the last 20 odd years he has successfully carved out his own identity as a journalist, schooled at the NDTV stable and later moving on to CNN-IBN and now Headlines Today.

The book offers a lot of insight into the events leading to the 2014 elections, the primary players, and the way campaigns were run by the two major political parties, the BJP and the Congress. The BJP cast of characters is headed by the big three – Narendra Modi, Amit Shah and Arun Jaitley, whereas the Congress comes across as headless and rudderless with Rahul Gandhi as the token head. The BJP fought the election on the explicit agenda of Governance and Development with identity politics being the implicit unsaid agenda. The Congress during UPA-I and UPA-II had been bringing about a range of subsidies and legislations – MNREGA, Food subsidies, RTE, Women Empowerment, etc. meant to benefit the underprivileged and underserved sections of society, and made these the basis for them to appeal for votes.

However, the real story of the elections lies in the preparation of both parties and here the book excels in giving us an insight into the meticulousness of the BJP’s strategy and execution. One can but admire the professional manner in which the entire exercise was carried out (modeled on Obama’s campaigns in the US – no wonder Modi referred to him as Barack on his recent visit to India, he might have thought that he was already on familiar terms with POTUS!). The subtext is that the BJP outspent its rivals by a humongous margin and this by itself raises worrying questions about election funding. By Sardesai’s estimates, the BJP spent upwards of 5000 crores, and one wonders about the payoffs expected by the heavy hitters who have ‘donated’ money to the party.

The book offers some insights into the characters of Modi, Shah and Rahul Gandhi, however it essentially remains an outsider’s view (a very knowledgeable and informed outsider to be sure!). Rahul Gandhi, as anyone who would have watched his infamous interview with Arnab Goswami would attest, is at best a political novice and at worst someone who lives in la-la land and has really no idea about governance, leave alone crafting an election strategy. For an insider’s view of the Gandhi family, I would strongly recommend reading Tavleen Singh’s Durbar. That book deserves a blog to itself, however suffice to say after reading it as background, Rahul Gandhi’s fumbling responses and inability to speak to the media should not come as a surprise.

As for writing style, Sardesai writes in a very no-nonsense manner and avoids literary flourishes in the interest of telling a story. He does a great job of giving us facts, his opinions, quotes from people in the know and sometimes the inevitable sources who spoke off the record. There are the occasional tidbits (Jayanthi Natarajan’s functioning in the Environment Ministry – now very much in the public domain), but by and large, he stays away from becoming judgmental, and that is perhaps the biggest strength (or weakness depending on your point of view) of the book.

I consider myself a reasonably well informed person, however reading the book gave me an understanding of what it really takes to run an election campaign and how it is won. So, while the Gujarat model may well be debatable, but there is no doubt that the BJP model for winning the 2014 election is well likely to be the benchmark against future elections are compared and may well become a business school case study.

Kudos to Rajdeep Sardesai and I can only hope that he finds the time to write more. Note to readers of this blog – please read this, whether you are Indian and have a stake in what happens here or someone who is curious about the workings of the Indian democratic process.

Jo Nesbo, Ray Bradbury and QI

I had an unexpectedly long recuperation from an illness and what better time to catch up with my reading. Note for Kindle users, after the last software update on my Kindle, I now find that I can purchase e-books directly from my Kindle. No messing around with my laptop, etc. While I mostly read fiction (in my favourite genre – Crime Fiction), I did also get some non-fiction reading done.

Jo Nesbo – Oslo based Harry Hole series

I am sure that most have heard of Stieg Larssen and at least some of you would have read Henning Mankell, however Jo Nesbo is right up there with the best of them as a Scandinavian writer of detective fiction, and I don’t mean that Nesbo stands out among Scandinavian writers only, he would hold his own in any forum.

I have primarily read his Harry Hole (pronounced Ho-books which are about an Oslo police detective called Harry Hole who has a talent for detection and also getting into trouble. Harry is also an on and off alcoholic, who seems to be able to switch his addiction off at will, though he tends to lapse at the most inopportune of moments. Hole is an alcoholic in the way Rankin’s Rebus is not (Rebus loves alcohol, Hole drinks to get smashed).

As with most fictional detectives, Hole has his own code that he lives by, hang the department that pays his salary. The first couple of books tell us why Harry Hole turned into an alcoholic and that is as unexpected a twist to a main character in a detective series that you can find (no spoilers here!).

The few books that I have read (I try to go in order of their publishing and am now up to #5) tend to introduce new locales, for example the first book is set almost completely in Australia, the second in Thailand, and so on. Nesbo has a style all of his own and we identify with him though may be not empathize as much as say with Mankell’s Wallander.

All in all, the books are gripping, the plot usually moves along briskly and what I have observed is that we feel that we are heading to a denouement but we are still only half way through the book. Though people who are not fans of detective fiction may think that the genre follows a predictable pattern, Nesbo does stand out as different, primarily because of the characters, plots and locations.

Strongly recommended: 4/5 *

From the makers of QI: The General Book of Ignorance and The QI book of Quotations

If you don’t know what QI is, then you need to immediately get off this page, do a google and prepare to watch hours of YouTube videos which will make you laugh till your insides burst. QI is hosted by the inimitable (National Treasure he has been called) Stephen Fry (also called the smartest man in Britain). Forget his erudition, the panel that QI puts together is usually as high quality (Alan Davies being a permanent member) and I can only imagine the pressure on someone who gets invited.

I digress, this is not about QI but the two books written by the team behind QI, the first being the Book of General Ignorance. This book turns conventional wisdom on its head and many things that we have assumed as facts are debunked and the appropriate explanations given, almost always in ea humorous manner. Each factoid has featured in an episode of QI.

The second book is only indirectly associated with QI where its researchers have put together a fantastic set of quotations categorized by topic. This is one gem that it is worth having a hard copy of so that one can dip into it at random (this is one disadvantage of a Kindle, browsing is difficult).

Other miscellaneous reading:

The Martian Chronicles – Science Fiction – Ray Bradbury

Ray Bradbury is one of the early ‘thinking’ science fiction writers and this collection of short stories packs a punch that is disproportionate to the size of the stories. All the stories are set on Mars and told from the point of view of humans who have gone as explorers/settlers or native Martians. Each story is guaranteed to provoke a reaction and it is hard to simply move from one story to another, one needs to take some time to digest what one has read,, the mark of a truly great writer. The fact that the book is written in 1950 does not date it at all and the themes discussed are relevant even today. Regardless of whether you like science fiction or not, I would highly recommend this collection, you will thank me for it.

The Winning Way – Anita and Harsha Bhogle

I must admit that I bought this book primarily because it was co-written by Harsha Bhogle than any great expectations from the content. The primary message is that sports is a great metaphor for conducting oneself in the business world and that teamwork is the holy grail that all of us need to strive for. Having said this, the book finds more and more inventive ways of packaging this central idea (both Bhogles being IIM A alumni, this is not difficult). I don’t doubt their intentions in writing this book however the content quickly becomes very lightweight. I would have expected more from both of them.

Sadly, I would classify this as management self-help, a category which I loathe.

Many books by Sue Grafton (alphabet series), and a sampler by Janet Evanovich and Sara Paretsky.

I had become a fan of Kinsey Millhone the investigator in the Sue Grafton books and liked the gritty, no nonsense style. I stuck with her for close to ten books before they became formulaic to me and once the novelty of Kinsey herself wore off, I became dissatisfied with the plotting. Finally I have called a halt to it and no longer plan to read the rest of the books. However I would suggest that for someone who has not read Sue Grafton, browsing a couple of her books is well worth it, though I would not recommend committing to reading the series.

I felt that I was not reading enough female crime fiction writers and hence picked up a book each by Sara Paretsky and Janet Evanovich, both turned out to be perfectly adequate books by themselves but did not hook me enough to want to know more about their central characters and read beyond the first books. Possibly my loss, but possibly not!

Teaser:

I have recently discovered Inspector Wexford (I know, what was I doing all this time, when I profess to be a detective fiction fan!), however after reading a couple, I am somewhat hooked. Stay tuned for an update in the next blog post.

Final teaser:

I have now read six of the nine Bernard Samson books (Game, Set, Match and Hook, Line and Sinker). Here is a writer who is possibly not appreciated as much as his peers (John Le Carre, Graham Greene, etc.) and after reading the six books all I can say is that Deighton’s spycraft is equal to any of them. Deighton and Samson deserve an entire post to themselves, so stay tuned!

As always, thanks for reading and do write back with your comments!

Reading books on an electronic medium

I love reading and I have been using computers for the last 25 odd years, so I should have taken to e-books like a duck to water, or so I thought. Though I have no problems reading technical documentation online, I never seemed to take to reading e-books on a computer or laptop. It seemed that there was really no alternative to paper books, though I am not of the “I need the tactile experience of holding paper” brigade.

So, over the years, I have been stacking up books by the gross till such time that I have run out of space for my books. When a friend providently gifted me a Sony e-book reader a couple of years ago, it seemed like a marriage made in heaven. Not! Though there are plenty of free e-books available which could be loaded onto the Sony e-reader, I somehow did not take to it. For one, it was an earlier generation reader, so though it had a touch screen it was resistive and not capacitive. The actual page on the e-reader was pretty ok, however it had two fundamental flaws, one was battery life, which meant that I needed to plug it into a laptop every so often (using an external charger seemed to take much longer, though I don’t have any data to support it) and the second was inability to seamlessly shop online (no Wi-Fi).

This year I got my hands on the Amazon Kindle Paperwhite and my reading experience has now completely changed. Firstly, the backlight does make a difference, however the best feature is the ability to connect seamlessly and send books to my Kindle from the Amazon store (now available in India for payment in Indian rupees – not a small benefit!). Secondly it has a neat feature of allowing you to email free e-books to a specific email id which is tied to my Kindle. No more messing around connecting it to my laptop. Last but not the least is the battery life. It is amazing and its now been over a week and I haven’t had to recharge it. One thing I haven’t done is to get a 3G enabled device, I can’t quite imagine myself in so desperate a position that I *have to* buy a book when I am at the airport or wherever. If I can’t rely on my e-library to re-read something then it is a sad commentary on my reading habits and taste.

I am now a full fledged convert and would recommend it highly to anyone who likes reading and doesn’t want to go through the hassle of buying physical books. I would additionally highly recommend buying a cover for it, which has the dual advantage of being a screen protector and gives a close to physical experience of reading. 

Some 2013 Oscar movies

I was on work related travel for a couple of weeks to the Bay Area recently. The trip was great and I met a lot of old friends (while getting some work done of course!), however more on that some other time. During the trip, I was talking with someone who remarked that they enjoyed reading my blog and asked why I had not posted for some time. Well, it doesn’t take much to appeal to my vanity, so here goes.

The trip did involve long flights and I caught up on a lot of movie-watching during the time, and so what better subject to resurrect my blog with a review of movies that I have watched recently (mostly English, however a couple of Hindi movies thrown in too). The movies are not listed in any particular order, and in fact I may need more than one post to do justice to some, however let me start with some which got a lot of buzz during the Oscars.

In the last year, American movie makers seemed to have en masse decided to wear their love for America on their sleeves and thus we had Zero Dark Thirty, Argo and of course, Lincoln. Unfortunately, I have not yet watched Lincoln, so have to exclude it from this post.

Zero Dark Thirty

As you know, the movie is (loosely?) based around the hunt and eventual capture and execution of Osama Bin Laden. I had no great desire to watch the movie, however I decided to do so as an exercise in understanding the American mind-set. Though a lot has been made about Jessica Chastain’s portrayal and of Kathryn Bigelow’s direction, both left me a little cold. I just could not identify with it and I always got the sense of being outside the movie. If someone now says that this was deliberate on part of the director, I would beg to disagree (no director wants less than complete immersion of the viewer in their creation).

Much of the movie seemed forced to me and possibly the only time it came alive for me was when they were hunting through the bazaars of Abbotabad for the courier. A lot has been also said about the interrogation scenes at the beginning, but to me, they lacked credibility, not that I don’t believe that much worse was done during interrogations, but that I don’t think they were very realistic and meant more to shock. Towards the end of the movie, the scenes of the actual attack were very muted. In conclusion, I just could not relate to the movie, however I would recommend that everyone watches it, as an educational experience.

Argo

This movie also received a lot of press and in fact won best picture at the Oscars, which increased my curiousity. As I had only a vague recollection of the Iran hostage crisis, I read a little about it before I watched the movie. Unfortunately the movie failed to impress me. Argo has a much more documentary feel to it (though ZD30 has more credentials as a documentary), primarily because it seeks to recreate the 70s. Again, the only time the movie seemed to come alive was during the early scenes of the storming of the US Embassy. It all goes downhill after that.

I have some regard for Ben Affleck, primarily for his collaboration with Matt Damon on Good Will Hunting. Much of that goodwill has been eroded over the years with Affleck’s solo efforts (and I will not mention Gigli as he was clearly delusional and under external influences at the time!). Argo has a couple of good performance, primarily from Alan Arkin as the long distance producer, however there is very little drama and even the scenes during the end were very implausible to me. The kindest thing one can say is that Argo is well intentioned, however only a sense of patriotism can help cloud over the many faults in the movie.

Silver Linings Playbook

It is unfair for me to comment much on the movie as I failed to sit through the whole of it! It started promisingly enough, however very quickly it got on my nerves. If the subject matter, of an individual suffering from bipolar disorder, is expected to make us immediately sympathetic to it, then the only thing I can say is that it did not work on me. The character of Jennifer Lawrence grated on my nerves and the moment she started to get more screen time, I switched off. My loss, I hear you say ? Possibly, but then I bear my loss with a very light heart.

Django Unchained

I am a self-confessed Tarantino fan, so clearly I am a little biased when I said that I liked this movie. I don’t quite think it is his best (Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs come close to the top for me), however it is a very respectable effort. I am not going to write a detailed review as it will likely end up like a fan-page, however I highly recommend watching it. Though Jamie Foxx as Django is the focal point, Christopher Waltz as Dr. Schulz walks away with the movie. Leonardo diCaprio also has a ball playing Calvin Candie and Samuel L. Jackson’s Stephen has a screen presence all his own. The action is pretty much over-the-top Tarantino, however as a viewer, one is always expected to be in on the joke, as the movie is very much a satire.

Ted

A little late to review this movie, as it released quite a while ago, and goes away from the Oscar theme of this post, however I have to write about it. I have never seen such an objectionable movie in my life (reference point: I do not find Sacha Baron Cohen objectionable, even his mockumentary, Borat), the premise has the promise of comedy, however what transpires later is not comedy but so cringe-worthy that I could not last through it. What on earth is Mark Wahlberg doing in it ? I have heard that Family Guy is supposed to be funny, however this movie for me crossed every line of good (or bad) taste in a matter of minutes. Watch it, only if to understand how low movie making can sink.