AkashVijay

Avengers: Age of Ultron is the cinematic equivalent of "Ow... My Balls!!!" The first one was bloated and mindless but at least it was visually arresting at times. This one is just ugly spectacle. The CGI in this film was awful. Half the time I couldn't even tell what the hell was going on on screen.

A.I. is just as philosophical as 2001 and just as poignant as E.T. David's quest to become a real boy is the most fascinating exploration of the human condition I've ever seen. Through the course of the film, he's governed by irrational love, blind faith, self-delusion and eventual death. The primary question of the Pinocchio fable has always been “What does it mean to be human?” A.I. finds dark and sobering answers.

Brilliantly directed but poorly written. The plot often skips logic and the ending is a complete cop-out but Minority Report is thrillingly entertaining and visually gorgeous.

Interstellar may have been scientifically accurate but that doesn't excuse it of its thematic flaws. Foe one I think it's tediously wordy at times. There's a lot of unnecessary dialogue that just takes away from the emotional heart of the film - like that bloke who starts explaining why worm holes ought to be spherical in 3 dimensions using flowcharts and diagrams. What was the point of doing that? For one you'd think a Nasa pilot whose mission is to enter a wormhole would know that but more importantly it degraded a thrilling moment (entering the wormhole) with a bunch of prose. And there's a lot of this in the film. The part on Newton's 3rd law made me cringe. Characters explain the effects of warped space-time to each other and throw away cheesy relativity punch lines but they hardly ever have real human moments. I would've preferred if the film explained none of its scientific complexities. Let the audience rise up to the occasion, let them figure it out. But this is where Nolan's commercial instinct takes over. I get that he's trying to sell the film to a wider demographic and I get that there had to be some amount of exposition but Nolan does this to such an extent that it takes away the humanity of his characters. Why should I care about them? Exposition is a cheap alternative for not being able to convey your ideas through imagery. Anne Hathaway's Dr. Brandt is a poorly written character because midway through the film, her personality just flips in a dime and we have a new character clothed in the same flesh. She's introduced as a stern and no-nonsense woman but later on she starts spewing the most nonsensical things in the movie - like that "love is quantifiable" baloney she's obsessed with. Again just shows you Nolan's women can't be strong women, they can only be strong lovers. I was shocked in the end when I found out that Cooper and Brandt were supposed to end up together. Was there any chemistry there? And then you have Matt Damon who's not really a character but a walking wikipedia that's there only to list the pro's and cons of being human - the performance doesn't help either. The part of the film that needed explaining is the sci-fi-y part (which you can't look up in a book) about how humans are planning to leave the planet. In fact I still don't understand it. So the astronauts went searching for some specific numerical data required for solving some equation that could be found only inside the black hole but how would the unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics help us leave the planet. In fact how did we leave the planet? Weren't we out of fuel? I'm not trying to poke holes or anything. I just don't get it. There's things that the movie does very honestly and get's right - like the relationship between Murphy and Cooper but I also think there's stuff the film gets very wrong. The best scene Nolan's ever directed is from the Dark Knight when the Joker leans out of the police car and shakes his head in glee. There's no dialogue, there's no music but it's a haunting and beautiful sequence that conveys volumes. In my opinion Interstellar never achieves that sort of artistry. I still liked it but I don't think it's as good as recent sic-fi films such as Wall-E, A.I., Children of Men, Minority Report, Eternal Sunshine of Spotless Mind or Nolan's own the Prestige. Interstellar may leave one feeling completely indifferent or deeply moved. Sadly I'm among those who felt it was contrived, unfocussed and eventually self-defeating.

Wall-E is the 2001: A Space Odyssey of animated films; a genre bursting achievement. The first 40 mins of Wall-E is a cinematic poem on cosmic loneliness. There's no dialogue, no voice-over; it's just pure atmosphere. The plot is surprisingly bleak. Humans have abandoned the planet but they had forgotten to turn off the last robot, which dutifully continues to do its job. Wall-E's cheerful optimism makes the film's opening feel even darker. He has so much love to give but there's no one to receive it. That is until he encounters another robot, Eve, who's sent to earth to look for vegetation. The word-less love story between Wall-E (the humble garbage man) and Eve (the supermodel) is one of the most beautiful ideas I've ever witnessed on film. Wall-E is Chaplin-esque in its emotional purity and Keaton-esque in its nimbleness. And sure the humans are boring and uninteresting but I think they were intended to be that way. Just as Ratatouille was about the universality of art, Wall-E is about its power and importance. Without art, passion and creativity, humans lose their humanity. Wall-E suggests that as we replace nature with technology, we also replace our souls and individuality with a hive-like mentality. Moreover it's visually gorgeous. Pixar has launched some of the standout films of the past decade but none of them top Wall-E. Now let's be honest with ourselves, Wall-E isn't just one of the greatest animated films ever made, it's one of the greatest films, period. Who said popular films can't be art? Wall-E is magical.

In the summer of 1963, two cowboys, Ennis Del Mar and Jack Twist, are assigned the job of herding sheep on a mountainside in Wyoming. But amidst the grand beauty of Brokeback Mountain, the two men fall in love with one another. But when the job is done, they're forced to walk their separate ways. Ennis' father taught him to condemn homosexuality when he was a child, and so he began to condemn his own feelings. Both men are forced to deny the only passion either of them will ever feel. They pretend so as to fit in with the others. And in doing so they hurt themselves and carry great pain with each passing moment. Both Ennis and Jack marry and have children. But every once in while, they'd get to meet up on Brokeback Mountain where they can finally stop pretending and expose there vulnerability. This is where their hearts truly lie. Brokeback Mountain is powerful, beautiful and poetic. It hits you right on your chest like a bullet when you least expect it and steals away your heart. The cinematography is gorgeous, the score is elegant and all performances, particularly Ledger's as the restrained and distant Ennis Del Mar, are marvellous. This is Ang Lee's masterpiece. Brokeback Mountain was the best film of 2005 and the greatest / most important love story of this century.

The movie works on so many levels that it's hard not to be impressed. The Grand Budapest Hotel is laugh-out-loud funny one moment and heart-wrenchingly moving the other. This is Mr. Anderson's most artistically sophisticated film to date and it's one that'll leave you thinking about it long after the credits have rolled. It's also, in some respects, his darkest film. The Grand Budapest Hotel is essentially about how man has become indecent, obsessive and immoral over time and the bleak future that awaits this "barbaric slaughter-house that was once known as humanity". Mr. Anderson's unique visual technique resonates very strongly with the theme this time. The plot is intricate and the visual flair is reminiscent to a painting, one in which each stroke has its own story. But the heart of the film belongs to Mr. Ralph Fiennes who's stunning performance dominates the film even when he's not on screen. His character M. Gustave holds civilisation together with little more than impeccable manners and a cocky grin. And that's really all it takes to create the illusion. There's a certain charm here rarely seen in movies these days. A melancholy charm

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Although it's far from perfect, Spiderman 2 is precisely the sort of film that I'm always impressed by. It leaps beyond it's origins and deals with something different and unconventional. It talks about- the burden of responsibility, the burden of being a superhero, how it's not exactly the dream job. There are thousands of children around the world who turn off their lights at night, shut their eyes and pray for superpowers. Sam Rami's Spiderman 2 tries to point out that perhaps one should think twice. "With great power comes great responsibility". A superhero has to make sacrifices and give up the things he wants most, even his dreams. The film builds this idea wonderfully till the ending where they completely throw everything out of the window so as to make way for the sappy, hollywood manufactured ending. But despite the infuriating puppy dog happy ending forced into the film, it's still Marvel's best film to date.

The plot is incoherent and conventional but particular scenes really stand out. It's well paced with good characterisation and good acting. The cinematography and visual effects are satisfactory. It's a solid film but it just doesn't bring anything new to the table.

The 2nd act is horribly paced. It felt like most boring and linear film I'd ever seen. The ending is a bit of a saver. Strong performance from Russell Crowe and Ron Howard directs well for the most part but at the end of the film, I was most glad that I was able to finish the film without dozing off.

One of the greatest crime films ever made. This is what I call golden cinema. The Godfather is dripping with powerful ideas, it's a very poetic depiction of the mafia and the camera movements are simply stunning. The entire cast deliver stunning performances. And most notably, it's a very very unconventionally structured film. This is a masterpiece.

Batman Begins is not just a great superhero film, it's a great film, period. The first Act is magnificent. I loved watching Bruce travel to the corners of the world to understand the criminal mind, I loved the training sequences where Ra's Al Ghul taught Bruce that he mustn't bury his fears, he must confront them. And the relationship they developed between Bruce and Alfred is heartwarming. My biggest issue with the film is its 3rd Act which was literally jam packed with action. That was the only part of the film I found boring. It's clear that Nolan wanted to utilise the 3rd Act to sell the movie and fair enough but it really seemed as though the film dropped its ideas for the sake of action. There are just too many supporting characters and the film can't develop them all properly. Scarecrow was a pretty pointless villain who could have easily been written off without affecting the plot. And perhaps the most annoying part of the film is Rachel. Because firstly Katie Holmes gives a terrible performance as Rachel Dawes and secondly the character is not written well. The relationship between Bruce and Rachel had little to no chemistry. And for the record I liked the action scenes in Batman Begins (and Dark Knight). Yes it's hard to know what's going on but in Nolan's films it's not clarity and precision that's ever emphasised, it's the movement and the rhythm that makes the editing effective. It blend in very well with Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard's score. So all-in-all Batman Begins is a very impressive film with a somewhat underwhelming 3rd Act.

The Dark Knight Rises takes a big step back from the previous 2 instalments in terms of quality. I'm probably gonna get a lot of hate for saying this but I personally think the Dark Knight Rises was unnecessary. The arc was completed at the end of the Dark Knight. Batman's story in the first 2 movies was a fully formed tragedy, similar to that of Hamlet. The Dark Knight Rises tried to go full circle again to give Batman the sappy hollywood manufactured ending and it failed miserably. It recycled the ideas from Batman Begins and didn't bother with depth of any sort. Not only that but it often contradicts the Dark Knight. The plot is incoherent with a lot that just doesn't add up. The relationships Bruce shares with Cat woman and Talia Al Ghul made no sense. There was no on-screen chemistry. The exposition is unbearable, the dialogue is laughably bad at times and Bane is one of the most poorly written villains in recent memory. His motivations and intentions just don't add up. In fact his goals of freeing Gotham from the corrupt and blowing Gotham to hell, are virtually incompatible. He's not just an abstract villain. He just made no sense. And the entire confrontation between Bane and Batman is purely physical. This time even the obstacles Bruce has to overcome are physical injuries. And a physical threat is never as deadly as a physiological threat (that's what made the joker such a terrifying character). The bomb plot line is when the film really drifts back to conventionality. For the direction where these films were going, I'm immensely disappointed with what the Dark Knight Rises had to offer. It's a weak instalment in an otherwise superior trilogy. Had this been anywhere near as good as its predecessors, I would be heralding the Dark Knight Trilogy as one of the greatest movie trilogies ever made. Sadly it didn't meet the hype.

The characters are interesting but they're terribly overplayed (particularly the Joker). It's very superficial and very much all surface. But what keeps it interesting is its unpredictability and it's dark and gothic atmosphere. It's fairly Juvenile compared to todays flawed heroes but back in 89 this was widely seen as the first sign of the maturing of superhero movies. The Casting was spot on. Nicholson is perfect for the Joker and Keaton is perfect as Batman. They're polar opposite personalities but not so different at heart.

Woody Allen's twisted take on nostalgia is as witty a film as I've seen in recent years. It's brilliantly structured and draws some great performances. Shame it feels a bit overdrawn.

It is a bit too long and the pacing goes off in the middle of the 2nd Act but the film holds together because of its exception screenplay that's filled with thought provoking ideas. A must-watch.

It's not just one of Kubrick's best, it's one of the greatest comedies ever made. Black Comedy about Cold War Paranoia? Oh Come on. What else could you wan't from a film?

The Avengers is not just bad, it's boring as hell. I simply don't get the appeal for these sorts of films. A 15 minute plot and 2 hours of mindless, mind numbing action is not exactly my idea of entertainment. Might as well go into the kitchen, bang a few utensils around and use my own imagination. It's certainly not art and it's not even fun.

Slumdog Millionaire is Danny Boyle's worst film so far. Boyle tried to ambitiously replicate Fernando Meirelles' City of God - a true modern masterpiece about life on the outskirts of Rio De Janeiro - but he failed miserably. It's one of those terribly cliched and predictable movies where the lovable loser wins at the end and gets the girl and the money. The acting is weak and there's a glaring lack of substance. There's not a single transformation portrayed, no character arc just an overflow of sappy moments. It doesn't resemble a shred of reality and it completely skips the true horrors of being born in poverty. I have lived in England all my life but even someone as unaware as me could point out that kids who serve tea in India with no parents don't speak in English, certainly not with hints of a British accent. The film says that the only hope to escape poverty is by fortuity and for that people flourish it with awards? Danny Boyle's crowd pleasing "art" film is the very definition of mediocrity. It's manipulative trash simply made for the sole purposes of winning awards.

I was really on the wrong side of this film. But I've given A Clockwork Orange more than a fair chance. To me, it just doesn't work - not just narratively, it doesn't even work thematically. It's essentially meant to be this very ambitious and intimate character study that reflects the flaws in the society and the present thinking etc etc. But the problem is, Kubrick never breaks into the psychology of the central character through the course of the film. He did so brilliantly in Eyes Wide Shut but here, I felt like a distant observer. I hated Alex from start to finish and I don't think it was meant to be that way. Even in Raging Bull, a film with the most despicable central character imaginable, eventually drew sympathy. That's because we got to know why LaMotta did what he did and it's done so powerfully. His penchant for self-destruction was just an exaggerated version of what everyone goes through - hurt oneself for causing pain to others. A Clockwork Orange doesn't even aim at the sort of depth. But film does develop some ideas through the first 2 Acts but at the very end, it throws it all out of the window. Ambiguous endings work very beautifully with films like 2001 but here it felt like Kubrick himself couldn't make up his mind about the social norms. So then why make an entire movie about it?

It works because Roman Polanski is absolutely uncompromising. It's haunting and poetic and blends artistry with repugnance in a manner I've never seen before.

The film is nonsense. But Damian Lewis' tour de four is enough reason to give it a chance. He once again shows us why he continues to be one of the most underrated actors working today.

Dark, sadistic and deeply disturbed. City of God is the sort of film one can respect but it's very hard to enjoy. It brilliantly paced, very engaging but at times absurdly superficial.

Can one performance save an entire film from mediocrity? Judi Dench does her best but even her talent and flair couldn't rescue this movie from entering my long list of films that left me utterly indifferent.

The Amazing Spiderman 2 faces almost the same problems that it's predecessor faced. The screenplay is weak and the story line lacks structure and consistency. The overlong story is clichéd, crowded with villains and contains some unnecessary subplots forced into it. It doesn't really surpass it's predecessor and considering the recent achievements of the superhero genre in recent years, the Amazing Spiderman 2 is a huge step back. It's not more than just a popcorn flick. It disappointingly fails a whole lot more than it succeeds.

It's just as strong as the other 2 and certainly the darkest one of the 3. Before Midnight gets goofy at times but only because it genuinely reflects human behaviour as it exists in our own world. Conversations have never felt as fresh as they did hear. It ends perfectly setting new standards for what a love story can be.

A somewhat under appreciated film. It's a terrific thriller that kept me on the edge of my seat through the entire course of the film. The tension that builds up is tremendous. It's a no rubbish film. Not everything works in the movie but what unquestionably does is the acting. Both lead performances are stellar. Cate Blanchett is very engaging, Judi Dench is bloody magnificent.

The plot is pathetic, Al Pacino overacts beyond description and they might as well have cast a wooden pinnate to play Charlie Simms. One of the worst films to ever be nominated for best picture.

It started off as a **** espionage thriller but it eventually capitulated to the trite mindless action packed 3rd act all blockbuster films seem to have these days. It's a good superhero film but this movie had the potential to be a lot more than it was.

It's not a perfect film. It lacks the innovative ideas of the Godfather and it has a hard time juggling multiple storylines. The Michael-Kay subplot is very rushed and the film doesn't quite have the thrill and the mystery of the first film. But it succeeds in being an immensely powerful character study. Al Pacino, even better in this one, is remarkable as a malicious figure of quiet authority waiting and longing for the right time to strike his prey. Works very well for the most part but it's not quiet the achievement the first film was. But there's no shame in that.

Feels terribly oscar-bait-y. But it has 2 strong attributes. The singular blend of humour and melancholy in Steve Coogan and Jeff Pope's screenplay keeps Philomena entertaining heartfelt all the way, even when it goes over the rails from time to time. And Judi Dench, remarkable as always, carries the film to the finish line on her shoulders with room for more.

A terrific performance by Redmayne in a decent movie. But this movie just feels too neatly tied and a bit too angelic. Everyone in this movie is so perfect. There are no character flaws whatsoever. Even when Stephen and Jane separated, Jane just fell on her knees and said "I'm sorry I wasn't of better service to you. I did my best". That's just manipulative and mawkish beyond belief. It was an insult to the audiences' intelligence. But that being said, the movie does balance Stephen Hawking's marriage, his illness and his work very well. But it's disappointing to see this film following the quintessential trite, mundane and conventional biopic formula, given that it's about a truly unconventional and exceptional man.

The Departed is overlong, overwritten but also terribly rushed at times. Several supporting characters in the film are left not underdeveloped but undeveloped. All the characters (apart from Dicaprio's who is the only person who undergoes some some sort of emotional transformation) are wooden, almost heartless at times (Matt Damon being the worst). The love triangle forced into the film made no sense. It feels completely out of place and was frankly pointless. The entire plot feels a bit too McGuffin-y and goes beyond nonsensical at times. So Costello needs not one but 2 moles in the police despite the fact that he's already under the protection of the FBI? Good move there Costello. The dialogue is terrible. It's just cursing for no real thematic purpose. And don't even get me started about that godawful ending. This wasn't Hamlet, it was just stupid and ridiculous. It's all false drama with no real emotional stakes. The Departed is all surface, no depth, all style, no substance.

Visually Impressive but really that's all there is to it. Alfonso Cuaron's space opus is 90 mins of Sandra Bullock explaining the plot to herself. The film is literally devoid of ideas.

How to train your Dragon 2 is richer, more complex and more mature than it's predecessor. It has a more emotional touch to it and visually it's just as thrilling if not more. Exploring the up's and down's in the relationship between a boy and a dragon, this is a film that holds nothing back and isn't afraid to explore the unexplored. It's a film that adults are likely to enjoy just as much as children. Although it felt a touch too long, it's undoubtedly one of this years great achievements. Is it overall better than it's predecessor? Probably, time will verify.

This is not just Nolan's weakest film to date, I feel it's one of the most overpraised movies of this century. Inception has got to be the most insultingly superficial and unimaginative depiction of the human mind ever put to celluloid. The characterisation is terrible. In fact there is no characterisation. Nothing is revealed about the supporting characters. Their motivations and intentions are left blank and there's not a shred of humanity in any of them. Half the characters have only one task - to explain the plot to the audience. It almost feels like Nolan distributes the expository dialogue among the unimportant characters and saves the actual bit for the important characters. They're merely subjects to experimentation. And Nolan still doesn't know how to write adult women. Nolan's women tend to be ruled by their lady feelings before ultimately capitulating to the men around them. Mal is, by far, the worst example (so far). Anne Hathaway's Brandt would be second. And this is where Nolan's exposition spins wildly out of control. He spends the first half dictating all the rules of the dreamland and then spends the other half dictating how to break all these rules. And why do all these dreams feel like James Bond movies? I never understood why Inception is soooo action oriented. It almost feels like a video game at times. And there's not a shred of depth to it. I keep asking myself "why did nolan go to such great lengths to make this movie? what is he trying to convey through it?" And the answer is nothing. He's just created a world with no ideas. That's why the movie feels so cold and mechanical. And keep in mind Nolan is often praised for dealing with dark philosophical ideas (especially in Memento and his first 2 batman movies) but Inception doesn't bother with that. It's not just superficial, it's pretentious. This is the perfect example of a film that can fool people into thinking it's profound and deep. It's not.

I was on the wrong side of this film. I felt toy story 3 was a huge step back from its predecessors. But it's not just the worst of the trilogy, it's also one of Pixar's least innovative films. After an interesting start it seemed to be overloaded with plot devices - from Andy's mom mixing the toys with trash, to rest of the toys disagreeing with Woody (given he's always been right in the past), to the spying monkey, to buzz's spanish configuration, to Lotso's back story etc. It just recycles the ideas from Toy Story 2 (which in my opinion is still the best of the three). I liked the premise of the film just that its very poorly executed. Okay, the ending was touching but people seem to forget that everything before the ending was mediocrity. Overall as a film, it's not nearly as good as I would've liked.

As an epic, there will be blood is dripping with innovative ideas about the clash between religion and capitalism and the fine line that separates idealism from greed. But as a character study, it's flawed. In fact there will be blood just doesn't work as a character study. We learn so much about who Daniel Plainview is but virtually nothing about why. From his initial hatred of humanity to his final descent into loner hell, we’re never given an understanding as to what’s behind it all. Early in the film, he seems like a rapacious capitalist. Then we begin to see him as more malicious and cruel. Then we come to see him as a raving lunatic. He works hard for reasons that are never explained- seemingly uninterested in pleasing God through his diligence or even himself for that matter. And the more I think about it, the more I begin to realise how severe this problem is. It doesn't just limit the character's impact, it greatly undermines Plainview's relationship with his son. He seems to love the boy, at times, a bit. Yet he also exploits the boy for his own purposes. He seems to feel guilty when being a rotten father, but is uncomfortable with the consequences of affectionate feelings. It just doesn't add up. I guess what I'm saying is we never get to see the humanity in Daniel Plainview or lack of humanity in him. But I give it 7/10 because when the film works it really works.

Bold, gothic, commanding and visceral. No Country for Old Men is as brilliant a movie you'll see from the past decade. The visual beauty and lack of score pulls us into a tense, anxious and deeply disturbed atmosphere, dragging us through sunny landscapes so bleak that just by watching the film, you'll put your soul at hazard. Tommy Lee Jones opens the film with a monologue where he talks about how criminals have changed (or dare I say evolved) to a point where he no longer understands them. The film draws attention to this idea through the character Anton Chigurh. He's a criminal who'll outrightly kill anyone who brings him inconvenience. But Chigurh's a much more complex character. Although it's never quite revealed why he wants the satchel of money, one can reasonably argue that he wants it because it would aid his survival (same can be said for Josh Brolin's Lewellyn). But what makes Chigurh different is that he believes following the rules and morals set by society don't really help you survive. Rather they're shackles. Chigurh's morals are decided by the toss of a coin. He'll kill an innocent person who's brought him no inconvenience only if the coin permits. In other words, Chigurh believes in a random and chaotic world and for the most part it seems as though he's the person who decides others' destiny through chance. But the Coens make it clear that Chigurh is no divine/ supernatural figure. He too is subject to random events (as witnessed when he crashes his car). But how do you categorise a person like that? A person who is so dispassionate and mechanical but still believes in an ideology (or a lack of ideology). He's not a nihilist. Tommy Lee Jones' Sheriff doesn't get it. He doesn't want to chase a killer he doesn't understand. He doesn't want to be some hero, he just wants to retire before something hazardous happens to him. The genius of No Country for Old Men lies in the way it escapes banality and tightens its grip as it progresses. By the time its over, you'll be all out breath feeling as though you've just spiralled into the seventh circle of hell. It pulls you out not by heroism but by capitulation. At the beginning, Tommy Lee Jones is askes himself - how do I make sense of a crazy, violent and unstable world that has lost all its bearings? Ultimately the film's bleak and melancholy answer is - You can't.

Brilliantly Gothic, Chillingly Sincere and Deeply Spiritual. Wolfgang Peterson has presented the audiences with one of the most brutally moving war movies ever made. The plot comes second, the exhaustive and asphyxiating battle comes, first. This is what every war movie should aim to be. True to its characters and true to the war. Poetry and Repugnance walk hand-in -hand here.

It's absurd that the most acclaimed Lord of the Rings movie is the weakest one (at least to me). Return of the King lacks the tightness of Fellowship of the Ring and the emotional touch of The Two Towers. The formula it uses is- Build up to battle - Battle - Build up to battle - Battle - Half a dozen endings. This may be one of those rare examples of an adaptation being too faithful. An extremely accurate adaptation doesn't always qualify as a good one. A film stands on its own. It can't justify its flaws by leaning on the book. Return of the King blends in its enchanting score with its pitch-perfect cinematography, but it lacks the focus of the previous 2 film.

Stephen Daldry's take on Bernhard Schlink's controversial novel is as cold a Holocaust movie as I've ever seen. The pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo the film exudes, cleverly disguises its hollow and empty premise. It embraces irrelevance and glosses over relevance. Had it not been for standout performances from Winslet, Fiennes and Kross, there would've been absolutely no reason to praise the movie. The Reader doesn't just fail as a character study but it also fails in being a meaningful film.

Raging Bull has little to do with the subject of boxing per se; it's more of a character study of the flawed, tormented and troubled boxer, Jake LaMotta, and about his inability to connect with other human beings and his 'penchant' for self-destruction. Paul Schrader and Mardik Martin's screenplay unflinchingly explores what drove this man over the edge and what eventually pulled him back. Scorsese has presented the audiences with the most powerful portrayal of jealousy ever put up on the big screen, reviving the golden age of cinema (at least for a while). As the title suggests, it's not tactics or strategy but rage that drives LaMotta as a boxer. But what's interesting is that his perception doesn't seem to change when he steps outside the ring. He still feels that he has to fight the world on his own with no one in his corner but his brother. Lamotta often destroyed his opponents with a couple of chaotic blows. But sometimes we watch him stand strong, allowing himself to be hammered, refusing to go down. Why? I believe it was his way of confession, it was his way of acknowledging the wrongs he'd done and paying for the sins he'd committed. He hurt everyone around him too much, to forgive himself. Raging Bull is extremely aesthetic and over time, it has come to represent the gold standard in film-making. People can argue that this might be the greatest American film ever made. There's not too much one can say to fight that argument.

Guardians of the Galaxy is mildly entertaining and sometimes comedic. It's overloaded with CGI and action sequences and is often unbelievably stupid. But after all it doesn't take itself seriously and asks us to extend the same courtesy. In the end the loud, charismatic and energetic superhero flick does succeed a whole lot more than it fails.

Keanu Reeves may be the first actor in cinematic history to be out-performed by his sun-glasses. They emote more than he does. Throughout the film, Reeves is just about as demonstrative as Steven Hawking after a severe heart-stroke. He's so wooden that he's basically a fire risk. His acting is limited to turning the corners of his mouth down, like someone tasting tea made with urine. It's very hard to praise a film whose protagonist is played by a personality who could very easily be mistaken for a prop in front of a cigar store.

Films as bad as Batman and Robin come around only once or twice a life-time. Apparently some small fraction of the population found the film more amusing than the previous instalment, Batman Forever. I must concede. It is more comedic than Batman Forever though that's like saying suffocation is mildly more amusing than drowning. I'd rather gargle Battery Acid than have to watch Batman and Robin again.

The Prestige revolves around 2 magicians who initially be-friend one another but due to an unfortunate event that triggers the worst in both men, they become archrivals. It's rushed but works. The entire film focuses on the attempts of these 2 men to outclass one another and how they end up bringing great pain to themselves. The Premise is quite basic but Nolan juggles multiple story lines and muddles it in a way that makes it not so easy to follow. This movie is more of a puzzle than a meaningful film. It keeps playing tricks on you but once the novelty wears off, it's easy to see, it's too smart for its own good. The more tricks it plays on you, the more you raise your eyebrow and go, "Hmm, did he need to do that?" because most of these stunts don't contribute too much. In a movie that's so cold at its core, you can't be emotionally invested and these tricks turn frustrating, even annoying. But the 3rd Act is what really killed it for me. The Prestige builds up a lot of suspense in the first 2 Acts and the answer it provides at the end is-"Magic"- and that was so unsatisfying to me. Another major problem I had with it was that in this cold-hearted rivalry between these 2 despicable men, Nolan actually does reveal a winner, which was again very unnecessary. Through the film I thought it was trying to convey, "if you fixate yourself on bringing pain to someone else you end up hurting yourself". But the ending threw that right out of the window. The Prestige is defined as the final act of a magic trick that instills fascination; ironically, it's the prestige of this film that let it down. Well the Prestige isn't art but it's still fun to watch; at least the first time.

This movie gets a lot of hate for some absurd reason, I can't imagine why. I think its just as good as Apocalypse Now if not better. It's a meditation on human behaviour and the psychological impact of war on humanity as a whole. It questions the underlying origins of hate and villainy and whether we're just flawed beings who're inherently bestowed with a tendency to fight and kill. Malick uses some of the most profound imagery that in themselves speak volumes. It's more than an experience.

Sappy, manipulative and a ridiculously oversimplified version of the Holocaust. Spielberg has made a name for himself in the film industry by reducing serious subjects to the lowest denominator until it's no more than any mawkish family melodrama. Why should a movie about the Holocaust be any different? Schindler's List is an aesthetic mess and exemplifies everything that's wrong about Hollywood. First off, the movie's primary focus is to show us how Oscar Schindler, a slave owner aiming to run his factories through jew labour for monetary profit, turns into a defender of jews' rights and the protector of their lives. But the problem is Schindler's transformation is portrayed in an extremely poor way. In fact, there is no transformation. Midpoint in the film, the Schindler persona has disappeared, and we have a new character clothed in the same flesh -- a self-sacrificing philanthropist who spends his entire amassed fortune to save the Jew workers. How did we get from one to the other? And then we have Amon Goeth. He's an evil, sadistic, Jew-hating **** - but do we get to know why he wakes up every morning, takes a swig of booze and snipes Jew prisoners for fun? No. Spielberg thinks the answer is obvious -- he's a ****, and **** don't have reasons for the things they do. The attempt to add depth to Göeth's character by dwelling on his twisted love affair with a Jewish girl is easily seen for what it is -- a cheap exposure of **** hypocrisy. The true intrigue, the true horror of the Holocaust does not lie in brutality alone, but rather in Hannah Arendt's "banality of evil". How can a man (or millions of men) arbitrarily narrow the moral sphere to exclude people seemingly no different from neighbours, friends and family? Another problem is the accent. There are English-speaking films and then there are German-speaking films. Schindler's List, on the other hand, does not belong to either of these categories. One of the truly unforgivable aspects of the film is the ending. When Schindler took off his gold ring and blubbered "I could have saved one more", I experienced a feeling of mild revulsion. Spielberg's invariable resort to sentimentality is quintessentially Hollywood, quintessentially cheesy and quintessentially inappropriate for the subject matter of the film. Schindler's List is technically brilliant but Spielberg is a director of extremely limited vision. His moral and intellectual depth is that of a child (and the funny part is Schindler's List may be the most mature movie Spielberg has made till now).