Man of Steel

There is one point in Man of Steel when Superman decides to surrender himself to General Zod of Krypton. He first presents himself in front of the US Government and is later handed over to the villains from Krypton who are about to destroy Earth. Of course, it does not take a genius to anticipate that Superman would somehow miraculously escape and end up saving the Earth. The good part is that the escape is not unbelievably miraculous; there has been considerable amount of science fiction oriented thought put into the idea of Jor-El returning in the form of a hologram. The bad part is that what follows after Superman's escape is almost horrible. In retrospect, I should have simply walked out of the theater at that point, and would have loved Man of Steel wholeheartedly. Until this point, though there was a not a huge story (which I did not expect in the first place), the writing was excellent and the screenplay was fairly engaging. If I had walked out then, I would not have had to put up myself with the seemingly never-ending climactic sequence (let us destroy as many skyscrapers as we can!), particularly the battle between Superman and Zod. Worse, it was ridiculous to see how easily  Superman does finish him off! But then, to leave a movie incomplete has never occurred to me! So, I underwent the torture Man of Steel put me through during its final hour. Thankfully, the movie ends on a better note with Lois Lane welcoming Clark Kent to Daily Planet, and the kicker is that she deliberately skips one word and ends up with "Welcome to the Planet!"

I thought the casting was really adorable. Kevin Costner and Russell Crowe occupied more screen space than I had expected them to. What was more appealing to me was the way their characters were handled. While the back-and-forth narration style is totally not-new, it brings in a lot of emotion to the foreground which is mostly a Nolan-effect. One such typical seen comes at the climax when Martha Kent (portrayed beautifully by Diane Lane) is reminiscent of the past when Jonathan Kent witness young Clarke in a Superman-ish toy-suit. Then, of course, in most scenes, Henry Cavill does steal the show while Amy Adams supports him well.

But what happened to the writing during the last one hour of the movie? Well, I am familiar with Zack Snyder's abilities to create stunning visual effects but never thought it would become an unforgivable drag, especially with the Nolans and David Goyer involved. It is fairly known that Superman was going to win the climactic battle, and the writers could have come up with a few better climactic sequences instead of Zod and Superman simply flying all over Metropolis. A similar city-destruction earlier occurred in Transformers 3 and Avengers, but it has to be thoroughly entertaining, humorous and convincing like Joss Whedon's treatment.

I understand that Nolan's involvement with the sequel is going to be far less than that in Man of Steel. I simply wish that the movie-makers steer away from the path of destroying skyscraper-filled Downtowns, and devote more attention to improve the screenplay. Asking for a real story in a superhero movie would be too much, but improved writing and a better screenplay would definitely make the sequel a good watch.

What I saw:

Direction: 2.5/5

Writing: 2.5/5

Acting: 3.5/5

Music: 4.0/5

Cinematography: 3.5/5

What I felt:

Degree of Tautness: 3.0/5

Emotional Quotient: 3.0/5

Intelligence Quotient: 3.0/5

Entertainment Quotient: 3.0/5

Now You See Me

"Look closely, because the closer you think you are, the less you will actually see" - while the makers of this movie have been pushing this message ever since the trailers came out, even after walking out of the theater, it has been hard for me to figure out what kind of a movie this is - no matter how closer (or farther) I look at the issue!

Alright, this is a movie about magicians (who call themselves The Four Horsemen, no biblical reference intended). But, is this a movie about magicians performing magic? Please stop thinking on the lines of Nolan's "The Prestige". It is hard to look at the movie from this "magic" perspective because magic does not form the essential crux of the story. Well, there is magic throughout the story, some of which well explained and some of which totally bizarre and unexplained, but the magic is simply not the central theme of the story. Of course, towards the end of the movie, people disappear in carousels, and re-appear in France; however, a simple climax twist not-so-well connected to the movie proceedings does not do enough justice to the infinite number of unexplained magic tricks throughout the movie. It would have been amazing had some of the mind blowing tricks been explained; the only plausible answer to the question: "Why were these tricks not explained" is that the story is simply not related to those magic tricks. Is this a heist movie? It started looking like one initially; though there is some stealing involved, it did not feel like one at the end. Wait, is this simple, plain revenge? Ah, the final minute of the movie conveys this idea, but at that moment, the viewers can definitely figure out the answer to the million dollar question: "What type of a movie this is?!", with the answer being: "Who cares!"

"Now you see me" is a perfect example of taking a good story, getting an amazing cast to work for you, but spoiling the fun for the audience with some poor screenplay writing and direction. For most part of the film, the story does not seem to head to any particular direction or with destination in mind at all. The magicians are supposed to perform three acts - first in Las Vegas, second in New Orleans, and third in New York City - and each act is supposed to top the previous one. While the first act sets up the stage for the movie, the second act creates so much excitement for the audience. Unfortunately, the final act along with some preceding and succeeding scenes  is mostly responsible for the letting the entire movie, and hence the viewers, down!

It is easily possible to write pages after pages praising for the entire cast, and they actually deserve it. Be it Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Isla Fisher and Dave Franco who star as the Four Horsemen, Mark Ruffalo and Melanie Laurent as the policemen who try to catch up with the magicians' tricks, Michael Caine (who, I thought, did not have much to do!) or Morgan Freeman, all of them have performed extremely well. Halfway into the movie, I started thinking whether Mark Ruffalo or Jesse Eisenberg was the main character, especially since Eisenberg appeared so sparingly after the first fifteen minutes of the movie, and it was a full Mark Ruffalo show from thereon. However, what was supposed to be a cat and mouse game between them did not create sufficient tension to captivate the viewer.

The real problem lies with the script and direction. Though the first half of the movie sets up the stage well, it drags between the first and second act, and right immediately after the second act as well. Good writing should have upped the ante after the second act, but the movie sets off as a torn kite without a clear direction. May be that's why when the final twist - which is supposed the awe the audience - appears, the viewer is already frustrated with the one million unresolved plot holes, and hence, the reaction to the twist is: "Oh, Ok! The movie is over, let's get out of the theater!" Worse, if somebody were to try to make some sense out of it, there are a million questions about the story, particularly regarding the fifth horseman whom Mark Ruffalo has been searching for throughout the movie - very contrived, the entire episode looked.

In all truth, I liked the overall story and in parts, the movie was fun. Even the climax twist was not a let down, only the events that culminated in it were! If alone, they concentrated some more on those plot holes, if alone they had a more taut script to tie down the viewers, if alone the movie had a clear destination instead of the dumb third magic act, if alone Louis Leterrier and co. had steered the ship better, the film would have turned out to be an amazing heist-cum-revenge-cum-magic movie! Unfortunately now, the movie is none of the three!

What I saw:

Direction: 3.0/5
Writing: 2.5/5
Acting: 3.5/5
Music: 3.0/5
Cinematography: 3.5/5

What I felt:

Degree of Tautness: 2.5/5
Emotional Quotient: 2.5/5
Intelligence Quotient: 2.0/5
Entertainment Quotient: 3.5/5

Star Trek Into Darkness

How to pack a ton of emotions into an action-filled science fiction adventure? We should probably ask JJ Abrams and his team to teach a short course on this topic. It was an era of reboots and sequels when the 2009 Star Trek movie arrived with a bang to the theaters, and J.J. Abrams impeccably rewrote the character sketches of the entire Enterprise crew. In the 2013 sequel, the writers decide to take these characters, play with their emotions, create scenes and sequences that push these characters to the brink of their emotional balance, and provide an amazing roller coaster ride for the audience.

Half an hour into the movie, we are exposed to some spectacular visuals, impressive acting of Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto as Kirk and Spock respectively, beautiful dialogues, and excellent writing. For example, when Admiral Pike questions Spock, "Are you showing an attitude to a superior officer?!", Spock responds, "Actually, I am showing multiple attitudes. Which one are you talking about!?" There is so much subtle humor infused throughout the movie that you would burst out laughing on numerous occasions which would otherwise be extremely tense.

Enter Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison to blow off a Star fleet building in London. Scratch all those two-year old rumors claiming that Benedict was playing Khan! Enterprise starts off on a seemingly simple chase to track John Harrison, and even manages to capture him. But as we have already seen in The Avengers, The Dark Knight, etc., capturing the villain is only the beginning. After a couple of twists and turns, Enterprise is on the verge of destruction, and its crew members are staring into imminent death. Just like the 1982 Wrath of Khan, sacrifices need to be made to restore order.

The writing and direction show off their mastery over character development and emotions, in addition to creating stunning action sequences. The music was further expanded from the 2009 movie, and was aptly suited to the story line. The cinematography blended so well with the special effects that certain sequences were mind blowing, for instance, the atmospheric re-entry scene. On the contrary, the movie was not as taut as the 2009 film; may be the simplicity of the first venture of JJ Abrams was lacking in its sequel. Also lacking were certain original science fiction elements which were present in the older films; while there is mention of genetic engineering, cryo-beds, etc., they are not wholly key to the central plot.

I had one of the most unique experiences watching Star Trek Into Darkness. The first ever Star Trek movie I watched was the 2009 reboot. I had made up my mind to get acquainted with the original movies before I watched the 2013 movie. Being the procrastinator I am, it did not happen until the Monday prior to the release of Star Trek Into Darkness. I started watching the "original motion picture" on Monday evening, and given the spectacular bore it is, I did not finish watching it until Thursday evening. I was planning to go watch Into Darkness on Saturday, and started watching "Wrath of Khan" late night on Friday. I finished the first hour of the movie; though I really hate watching movies in installments, I could not complete the movie, and the latter half of Wrath of Khan had to wait. However, in retrospect, I ended up having an amazing one-of-a-kind experience. On Saturday morning, I watched "Into Darkness" at the theater, and came back home to complete "Wrath of Khan". Wow, what an excellent experience the entire thing turned out to be! Did JJ Abrams deliberately choose to pay his respects to the epic 1982 film? What a superb homage!

What I saw:

Direction: 3.5/5

Writing: 4.0/5

Acting: 4.0/5

Music: 3.5/5

Cinematography: 3.5/5

What I felt:

Degree of Tautness: 3.5/5

Emotional Quotient: 4.5/5

Intelligence Quotient: 3.5/5

Entertainment Quotient: 4.0/5