BoxOffice101 Movies

Teen, stylized as Te3n, and in the English language, Three, is perhaps the finest Bollywood thriller of 2016, so far.

The Plot: Based on the 2013 South Korean film Montage, it depicts the pain and struggle a grandfather (Amitabh Bachhan) must go through to find out what happened to his daughter, in a kidnapping event set eight years prior to the current events.

The Good and The Bad: The cinematography is the foremost aspect of this feature. I really loved the lighting applied to both the present-timed shots and those of the flashbacks. I thought the bluish tone of the flashbacks were brilliant and really added depth to the narrative.

The narrative is finely penned. But it's relevant from the first half onwards that it took three screenwriters to scribe the script. This is because even though the plot is carried  cleverly through dialogues by our main character John and his interaction with detective-turned-priest Martin (Nawazuddin Siddiqui), there are times at which the present timeline becomes boring and the past footage is more fun to view.

Acting is the second-best feature of this flick. Amitabh Bachhan steals the show with an Oscar-worthy performance. The irony is that despite us having Siddiqui and Vidya Balan, performers of such high caliber, they are overshadowed by Mr. Bachhan's superior talent.

But don't let that be a blemish on the characterization implemented by the writing team. Every individual in the movie has their own allotted time in the spotlight, and both Siddiqui and Balan are given personas which they effortlessly make their own. Siddiqui is charismatic and I liked how it's shown why he gave up/got fired being a cop and transitioned to becoming a priest. And Balan, who has already cemented her position in B-Town as one of its greatest actresses, is equally impressive as Siddiqui in this exhibition.

Furthermore, from the onset to the ending, Mr. Bachhan not only showed his versatility from being a classic Bollywood heartthrob, to a 70-year old grandfather (and yes, he's 73 in real life), but he made Te3n the epitome of a character-driven shocker. This proves that Bollywood like Hollywood, that still relies on oldies like Samuel L. Jackson and Clint Eastwood to provide quality entertainment, also gives space to its legends to prove they have no limit to their on-screen showmanship.

Te3n is stronger after its interval of one hour and a few minutes has passed. It takes about 30-40 minutes to actually build up tension. I understand that it's an emotional thriller, but it the start should've been better with a swifter pace.  

Pacing is the greatest upset of Te3n. Only after the interval does everything (the writing, direction and acting) create such a colossal impact for the viewer,  that it came out as an explosion of cinematic genius. That's why I commend the superb direction by Ribhu Dasgupta and hope that he makes more films with such finesse.

The Verdict: If you're more into higher budgeted ventures, then Te3n might not be for you, but if you want compelling storytelling with an extremely gratifying ending, then this movie is certainly a must-watch, especially for the enthusiasts of dramatic suspense.

Rating: 3 out of 4. 

If you enjoy thrillers, please do check out Masoom Thrillers #1:

After the ill-fated release of Batman vs. Superman, DC has been controversial in hyping up movies then not living up to their own potential. Suicide Squad (2016) is an even more riskier project because of its relatively lesser known characters than the afore-mentioned blockbuster. Spoilers ahead.

The Plot: After the events of BvS, intelligence operative Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) assembles Task Force X, a group containing one of the most dangerous criminals in the DCU.

The Good: David Ayer's direction was top-notch. He really showcased each and every character well in the running time of 123 minutes. In my opinion, Will Smith really stood out from among the rest of the cast, and that's due to his charisma in such roles. I loved his performance in Hancock (2008) and he showcases his caliber in playing another anti-hero.

I know most of my friends who are reading this would wonder when I would mention Margot Robbie's portrayal of Harley Quinn. And so here you have it: She was a doll. Not only was she wonderful to look at but she acted quite well. Jared Leto's theatrics as The Joker are in no way to be ignored, and despite being in the picture for a lesser screentime, he did play his part to the fullest.

I think it's unfair to compare Leto's Joker with Heath Ledger. I mean Ledger did do immaculate justice to the role but Leto gave his own stellar persona to the world's most infamous villain. And I applaud Suicide Squad on being a movie where The Joker was shown less but had as much as impact as he could in the feature.

I also liked the comic parts which really helped move the story along. And this is where Smith's Deadshot and Robbie's Quinn really outdid themselves by having a strange on-screen chemistry, the same way they did in the movie Focus (2015). They complemented each other well as much as Quinn and Joker did in this venture.

Cinematography-wise, the film is really lit up well. Although, it does seem majority of the flick was shot in a way to induce epilepsy, the overall look of the exhibition had style, and SS has emphasis on style. The action sequences are truly adrenaline-pumping especially those featuring Deadshot and Quinn. Not every SS member is given an ample amount of screen-time but the direction of the action scenes incorporating them were superbly shot. Even though members like Katana and Killer Croc seem under-used they did add a great deal of versatility towards the end. It's sad how Slipknot had so little screentime though.

Another positive factor I noticed is that the movie gets better as much as it progress. This is largely due to the start being poorly made, but as the pace moves along we get to broaden our horizons, that this is a team of anti-heroes. And that's where the uniqueness of SS lies.

The bar scene was also enthralling. Despite some mediocre storytelling in between sequences, the footage of such fiends being shown together at one place, and the righteous Rick Flag (Joel Kinnaman) taking a seat next to them is simply brilliant. The story of Diablo's past really hit us in the head that why this individual is so afraid of his powers. But if this sequence was shown at an earlier period, then it might've been better, as there's a dissatisfaction when this realization has been reached.

The Bad: From onset to the ending, there is one continuous error, and that is the central storyline. Not only is it average but the follow-through by screenwriter Ayer rendered it a confusing mess. In the end, we'll just be dying to guess what majority of the team's motives were.

And I mean the only one truly crazy in the group was Harley Quinn. Deadshot was a father so his reason for staying does mean he has a stronger moral compass than the rest of the group. But the characters aren't all that interesting. Although, the actors and actresses are not to blame as they gave their all in the depictions.

But the worst character was that of Enchantress played by Cara Delevingne. I'm not sure what turned me off here, it was either the character was poorly designed or just that the actress didn't suit the role. When you reach the movie's third act, the CGI effects are so poorly enchanted on Enchantress that you'd wonder whether employing Smith and Robbie was worth the cost of such bad quality visuals. The effects of the third act also made me wonder whether this was comedy-action or action-comedy.

For a film that boasts on action, the ending was supremely anti-climatic. You still have to love that part where four SS members see their wildest fantasies coming true and Diablo (Jay Hernandez) tells them that it's not real. This part was the strongest sequence of Suicide Squad, and only if the entire duration had this much depth, the narrative would've justified the screenplay.

The Verdict: Suicide Squad lives up to its title by showcasing a group that has nothing to lose ethically. It might not be the best-written comic-book adaptation, it's a stronger viewing after the initial half has passed, and the ending might not be justifiable to the plot, but it was still satisfactory in terms of what you see is what you get.

Rating: 2.5 out of 4.

Money Monster (2016) has George Clooney and Julia Roberts as its lead stars and Jodie Foster as its director, but does it really live up to the big names behind it and in front of it? Read this review to find out. Spoilers ahead.

Plot and Analysis: Lee Gates (Clooney) is a television guru and he hosts his own show Money Monster with his faithful director Patty Fenn  (Julia Roberts). Everything goes haywire when a viewer who has lost all of his money from a previous tip from Gates, storms on to the set, and keeps Gates and the crew hostage on gunpoint.

The Good and The Bad: By reading the plot, you are already into the first act of the movie. Money Monster is undoubtedly brilliantly directed. From start to finish we don't get only close-up and long shots but a variety of camera angles and shots. And this do a lot to keep the thrill moving along, though it's short on the suspense element.

What MM got right was undoubtedly the casting. Clooney has both the looks and the old boyish charm which made me believe he could play this role in his sleep. Roberts was also good to watch but in such a limited capacity that the flick could've done without her second-top billing. The best addition to the ensemble was Jack O'Connell as the interrogator Kyle Budwell.

I'm not sure whether his acting was top-notch or the character itself was written with finesse. You might like or dislike MM but O'Connell's performance was the true highlight of this venture. And it's safe to say that he shared a greater on-screen chemistry with Clooney's individual rather than at escapist moment with Roberts' character.

And this is what MM ultimately fails at: It shows an imbalance between glamorous display and emotional turmoil. Sure, it's true that if an event had actually happened in America, it would've been on major talk shows in the States, but the script by Fiore and Kouf couldn't properly showcase that.

Furthermore, the narrative lacks depth. Budwell is a character we can easily relate to, and so is Clooney's Lee Gates but ultimately there's nothing behind the overall storyline to really convince us about a new problem.

Take shows like Person of Interest and Mr. Robot, they are continuously showing us that the downfall of capitalism is relative to the glamour and the overall lies told by businessmen. And this point is made abundantly clear by the stunning third act. But instead of making a grand finale of an ending, it's more anti-climatic with Gates and Fenn just watching TV and seeing that the stock exchange system has remained intact.

The redeeming quality of MM lies with its occasional comic relief, especially the funny interactions between Gates and Budwell and those they have with the out-of-the-sets world. Not only are these moments laughable but they show us insights into those character's mindsets.  

The Suggestion: In my opinion, if MM had only taken place in the studio, and ended the conflict somehow there, then MM would've had a proper message to the viewers. By mixing too many elements the recipe for MM's success relied on too many factors, and this led to some events in the movie being played out longer just to make for a proper feature-film length.

The Verdict: Money Monster is unique in its portrayal of how the rich vs. poor is inhabited behind Gates (Clooney) and Budwell (O' Connell), but lacks in properly knowing when to hit the notes that make a first-rate financial thriller. If this exhibition didn't seem prolonged, it could've been one of the finest in its genre, but alas this was not the case.

Rating: 2 out of 4.  

When you have a movie fictionally based on a real-life documentary, things start getting complicated, and that was the primary issue I faced while watching Our Brand Is Crisis (2015).

The Plot: Based on the 2005 documentary of the same name, the film deals with a retired American political consultant, and how she must take part in another election, helping a Bolivian presidential candidate this time around. 

The Good and The Bad: Sandra Bullock plays the main character the best way she can. She's no Miss Congeniality here but she tries to put magic into a script with nothing much to offer. We have talented actors like Billy Bob Thornton, Anthony Mackie, Scoot McNairy and Joaquim de Almeida, with director David Gordon Green (Pineapple Express, Joe) giving them all enough screen-time to succeed.

But the problem always lies in this form of political satire. It just isn't for everyone. The comic parts of Our Brand Is Crisis are worth a laugh or two but if a viewer used word-of-mouth to spread them, they won't even come across as half-funny.

The script by Peter Straughan showcased his flair for funny dialogue as with 2009's The Men Who Stare at Goats, but here the humor does nothing but move along the running time of 107 minutes as swiftly as possible.

Bullock's character Jane Bodine AKA Calamity Jane is fun to watch, and her personality is dramatized well, but the viewer can't relate with what she wants. I liked how the love-hate relationship with Thornton's character Pat Candy, who is on the opposing team, was depicted throughout the venture. Yet, these scenes are nothing but comic relief without any underlying strength.

The paramount sequences were those that Bullock shared with the main presidential candidate Pedro Castillo, played exceptionally well by Almeida, and how these two individuals did or did not get along in the feature were the most entertaining parts, as they illustrated both humor and strength in the undertone of the screenplay.

Despite the first and second acts being written poorly, the third act really redeemed the picture, yet veterans of watching this genre, or most comedies, would have guessed that the emotional impact would have definitely been in the conclusion.

And that is what really turns you off at some parts. Calamity Jane's tactics are just too predictable that they seem to make the overall cinematic experience taken for granted. If Our Brand Is Crisis was more about her overcoming her professional shortcomings in accordance with the major storyline, and not the continuous discourses with Pat Candy, then this might've been a outstanding flick.

The Verdict: In a way, Our Brand Is Crisis does live up to its title, by being a dilemma in its genre, and proving that Hollywood needs to churn out better satirical takes on politics in the near future.

Rating: 2 out of 4.

The following review of Point Break (2015) contains spoilers.

Plot and Analysis: When you make a remake of a 1991's cult classic of the same name, you couldn't fall any lower than this. We have two actors trying their best to bring out the magic of Keanu Reeves and Patrick Swayze who starred in the original, but just like the ultimate challenge at the end of the feature, they both ultimately fail.

 

Okay, so the start is just like the last two Fast and Furious franchise movies. We have a dashing blonde hero Johnny Utah (Luke Bracey) who surprisingly does manage to at least sound like Reeves in the original venture. After an extreme sports disaster which leads to his close friend dying, Mr. Utah  enlists in the FBI where he meets the typical boss played to the utmost cynicism by Delroy Lindo.

And then Utah all of a sudden gets a super boost in his IQ level by finding out that a series of robin-hood-esque robberies around the world are being committed by the same group, as if the long line of FBI personnel in the office he is advising couldn't have guessed this.

We then have Utah going to France to search for this group, he sees a party happening on a ship in a popular sea and when he also gets to surf again, he gets hit by a strong wave, and then rescued by, wait for it, the antagonist of this feature: Bodhi played adequately by Edgar Ramirez. I would even go as further as saying that his character is the only likeable one in Point Break. 

Thereon, you have the hero falling for the rebellious Samsara (Teresa Palmer) whose only interesting feature is that her name is unique but Palmer herself acted like she regretted getting the part. Then you have so much predictability in the first hour itself that it's extremely difficult to go through the almost 2-hour length of this lackluster disaster.

The Good: The cinematography and the overall mise-en-scene were enthralling and breath-taking to look at. Director and cinematographer Ericson Core was also the DOP for 2001's The Fast and the Furious and he really pays more homage to that film more than the foremost Point Break. But he also showcases that he can actually handle a budget of $105 million but Kurt Wimmer's awful script led to the movie only earning something above $133 million worldwide.

The Bad: The follow-through of the main plot, the acting (except by Ramirez) and truthfully the budget should've allowed for better actors. I mean if you're remaking Point Break, you can at least try to find convincing actors, especially of the rebellious group who managed to bore me so much, I can't even remember their names in the movie.

With Hollywood increasingly getting more chances at making high-budget ventures, they should remember that CGI might save a film from flopping (okay not in this case) but it still renders it a tedious experience to watch if it's not written well.

The Verdict: Point Break is the epitome that remakes of cult classics have to be produced rightfully or else the only task they achieve is the re-watching of the original masterpiece. The only breaking point with this reboot you'll find is in the ending, because all's well that ends well, even though this conclusion you'd be dying for after finishing the initial 60 minutes.

Rating: 1 out of 4.