REVIEW 15: KUNG FU PANDA 2 (3D)

Release date in India:	May 27, 2011
Director:	Jennifer Yuh Nelson
Cast:	Jack Black, Angelina Jolie, Dustin Hoffman, Jackie Chan, Seth Rogen, Lucy Liu, David Cross, Gary Oldman, Michelle Yeoh, Jean-Claude Van Damme, James Hong

The makers of The Hangover: Part II should have watched Kung Fu Panda 2 for guidelines on follow-up films! Because THIS is how sequels should be made!

Po the pot-bellied panda is still a huggable darling, he’s still voiced by the inimitable Jack Black, he’s still an overweight practitioner of martial arts, in his role as The Dragon Warrior he’s still on a mission to save China and kung fu, and he still hangs out with the gang: Tigress, Viper, Mantis, Monkey and Crane. But this time the carefree Po of Part 1 is troubled by questions of his identity and his roots. He’s also up against a sinister white peacock whose parents had discovered the power of fire but also detected the evil streak in their son who would grow up to misuse it. Adding to the new plot elements in the film is the 3D which (if you don’t mind the dimness that continues to plague all 3D films) lends a fresh dimension to the breathless action sequences and the cuteness factor. As any human teenager or Po himself would tell you: it’s “awesomeness”!

The voice cast of this film reads like a Hollywood hall of fame that will have you rubbing your eyes in wonderment as the credits roll (yes, Michelle Yeoh and Jean-Claude Van Damme are new additions voicing the benign Soothsayer and Master Croc). Jack Black knows precisely how to portray the light-hearted Po who turns responsible at just the right time. Angelina Jolie proves with her turn as Tigress, that sexy is not about a hot body, a pretty face or luscious lips. Sexy is a state of being. You can’t see the actress, yet you can hear the smooth feline purr in her vocal intonations for the big cat. Gary Oldman’s nasty peacock Lord Shen is menacing despite his physical magnificence. And Po’s goose Daddy must rank as one of the cutest animated characters I’ve ever seen in a Hollywood film: everything falls into place for him – his dialogues, his back story, his sad eyes, his pouting beak and James Hong’s voice.

This is pure unadulterated entertainment with masterful voice acting, top-notch effects (including a very neat switch to more basic animation in the flashback scenes), sharp writing, lavish visuals and a sense of humour that is balanced impeccably with the film’s heavier portions. Panda 2 is also making several statements in an unobtrusively didactic fashion. Master Shifu’s lesson for Po is clear: to attain your goals you must first find inner peace. In young Shen’s ability to envision the destructive potential of fire power, surely there is a comment on our war-ravaged world. Watching the feisty Tigress should be a satisfying experience for the feminists among us: she refuses to pander to Po’s ego by camouflaging her own strength but she unflinchingly accepts him as the chosen one. Methinks Tigress is Hillary Clinton. And of course there are parallels between Po’s early years, Mary and Joseph’s escape to Egypt to save the Baby Jesus from King Herod’s men and – though I have no idea if the director and writers intended this – the story of Baby Krishna and Kansa.

But the loveliest element for me in Kung Fu Panda 2 is the completely, utterly charming reference to adoption. I suspect Americans don’t need that message as much as we reluctant-to-adopt Indians do, so please make note of it. Mr Ping the Goose hesitantly reveals to his panda son that he’s adopted. I kinda guessed, says the bear who probably knows a thing or two about the mating habits of species. 

With the switch to 3D, the choice of villain is a masterstroke since it gives the film’s animators plenty of opportunities to swish that lavish plumage at us. On the downside, a couple of action sequences are unnecessarily stretched and noisy. And while cramming so many characters into one film, director Jennifer Yuh Nelson forgot to develop Viper, Mantis, Monkey and Crane who remain nothing more than Po’s sidekicks to us. That apart, since it’s all so well put together, the good news is that the film’s ending leaves us with the very obvious promise of a Part 3. I won’t tell you what that ending is, but I’ll certainly say this: there were sparks between Tigress and Po in this film. If a romance doesn’t blossom in the next sequel, then that’s probably what the producers are saving up for Part 4 ... and biology be damned! Now that’s what Po would call “awesomeness”.

Rating (out of five): ***1/2

Release date in the US:	May 26, 2011
MPAA Rating (US):	PG (for sequences of martial arts action and mild violence)
CBFC Rating (India):	U without cuts
Running time in the US:	90 minutes
Running time in India:	90 minutes
Language:	English

Photograph courtesy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fu_Panda_2  

REVIEW 14: THE HANGOVER: PART II

Release date in India:	May 27, 2011
Director:	Todd Phillips
Cast:	Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms, Justin Bartha, Paul Giamatti, Ken Jeong, Jeffrey Tambor

The Hangover: Part II is not really a sequel. Frankly it’s not even a remake. What’s the word in the dictionary for a film in which you take the story of a sleeper hit, transport it to another location with precisely the same actors and characters, then proceed to replicate the exact same story with not a single innovation? I think the word I’m looking for is “repeat” or a noun that means “unimaginative film”.

I kid you not! The Hangover II actually takes the same quartet of friends from the first film (Phil, Alan, Stu and Doug); travels to Thailand in the week of Stu’s wedding (instead of Las Vegas within the US like they did the first time); something happens during an all-boys drinking  session on a beach; and they wake up the next morning in a seedy Bangkok hotel to find themselves completely wasted and the bride’s teenaged brother missing. They can’t remember anything about the previous night, of course. But like us, they do recall the story of Hangover I, so they rush to the hotel terrace to see if they’d abandoned the kid there. The film is about the countdown to the wedding during which they must recover their memories, retrace their steps through that wild night, find the boy, and get to the ceremony in time. Along the way they brave biker hoods, drug dealers and a calm yet murderous gangster. Even Mike Tyson resurfaces in what must rank as one of the most ordinarily crafted celebrity guest appearances in Hollywood history. 

So what’s new? Well, in place of the tiger there’s a drug-dealing, smoking monkey here (by smoking I don’t mean smokin’ hot but that the animal enjoys cigarettes). And Paul Giamatti stars as the suave criminal the friends must contend with. Bradley Cooper as Phil is as hot as ever. Justin Bartha as Doug is as cute as before. But I really don’t need to watch a nearly two hour movie just for the joy of seeing them; I could buy posters and stick them on my wall instead. Zach Galifianakis (Alan) is the only one in the group who manages to elicit a few laughs, but frankly, in the midst of all this sameness, it’s not enough. In fact, I have to say he was far funnier playing a similarly obnoxious character in that recent crazy road movie Due Date directed by The Hangover’s Todd Phillips and co-starring Robert Downey Jr.

But let me be fair. The film is not entirely a no-hoper. It starts off well. The initial scenes in which Stu meets his fiancée’s family are amusing especially Alan’s speech about Stu. And did I mention that Bradley Cooper looks gorgeous?! I suppose if you haven’t seen Part I or if you are completely undemanding as a viewer, you might like this sequel. But the joy of watching The Hangover with all its crudeness and sexcapades was its novelty. Part II takes fans of the first film for granted. And what is saddening is that with this one getting a massive opening in the US, and with two more friends from the gang still unmarried, there’s likely to be a Part III and a Part IV: same story, different city, different groom and a new animal plus yet another cameo by Mike Tyson. C’mon, we deserve better than this!

I died of laughter watching The Hangover. I may just die of heartbreak if the producers further insult those of us who contributed to their film’s success, by repeating the repetitions of Part II in Parts III & IV!

The tagline for this film reads: “The wolfpack is back”. It should have been:  “The wolfpack is back … and they have nothing new to say … and they’ll be back twice more!”

Rating (out of five): **

Release date in the US:	May 26, 2011
MPAA Rating (US):	R (Restricted - for pervasive language, strong sexual content including graphic nudity, drug use and brief violent images)
CBFC Rating (India):	A with three cuts (includes two shots of brand names plus a crass dialogue involving a monkey and a monk that you might have already seen in this trailer. The Censor Board also asked for the blurring of some shots showing brand names. The shots of frontal nudity had already been blurred by the producers before the film was submitted to the Censors.)
Running time in the US:	102 minutes
Running time in India:	101 minutes 48 seconds
Language:	English

Photograph courtesy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangover_2  

REVIEW 13: SOURCE CODE

Release date in India:	April 29, 2011
Director:	Duncan Jones
Cast:	Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga, Jeffrey Wright

Imagine if you were sent back into the past to investigate an accident in the present, but you chose to manipulate that past instead. Well, then the future would no longer be the present from which you were sent into the past, now would it? No spoilers here at all, but that’s kind of what Source Code is about. Kind of.

The film is directed by Duncan Jones, the full extent of whose imagination some of us might have unwisely thought we’d seen in Moon. We thought wrong, of course. In Source Code, Jake Gyllenhaal plays US soldier Colter Stevens (or is he?) who wakes up in another man’s body (or is it?) on a train one day. He’s seated opposite a pretty girl called Christina who seems to know him (or does she?) and is continuing a conversation that seemed to have got interrupted when he dozed off. Shortly afterwards, the train blows up and Colter finds himself confined in a decrepit-looking metallic capsule, physically drained and in conversation with a lady on a screen: Goodwin is his commanding officer of sorts and explains that he’s been sent into the recent past to probe a train bombing. Through the facility of a computer programme called the source code, he can access the last 8 minutes of any past incident, and he’s been transported to that train blast to find clues that will help the authorities prevent similar attacks. He can’t change anything in the past, he can only gather intelligence which he must report back to his bosses.

The film is a pacy sci-fi thriller that floats a theory so far-fetched, it could actually become a reality some day. As Colter is sent repeatedly into that train, it’s hard not to remain glued to the screen wondering how far he will succeed in his investigations; where the truth ends and falsehood begins; how far science must be permitted to use unwilling individual humans – dead, alive or incapacitated – for the greater good of humankind; what will happen if affection develops between Goodwin and Colter; what will happen if Colter is attracted to Christina; why arrogance makes people in charge forget that their creations may not always remain in their control; and so much more.

Jones keeps the drama so taut that there’s no time to scoff at the bizarreness of the situation he presents to us. Clearly, with Source Code he’s got a larger budget at his disposal than when he made his directorial debut with the relatively bare-bones but hugely imaginative Moon. But unlike so many film makers who waste the extra cash on nothing more than gloss, Jones puts the money to good use with effective-not-overwhelming action and special effects plus an appropriate choice of locations. He’s aided in this fascinating film by Ben Ripley’s crisp writing and a lovely cast. Jake Gyllenhaal knows just how to bring desperation, confusion and confidence, humour and humanity to a very demanding role, though that might be stating the obvious about an actor who did what he did in Brokeback Mountain! If Moon had Sam Rockwell’s astronaut playing off the robot Gerty voiced by Kevin Spacey, then in Source Code the director takes it a step further with the touching warmth between Colter and Goodwin-who’s-just-a-face-on-a-monitor played by the luminous Vera Farmiga. It’s a reminder that even the most carved-in-stone procedures and processes must take into account the fact that they are being implemented by humans, not machines. Like Farmiga, Monaghan too lends subtlety to her role as a woman who must appear increasingly surprised at Colter’s erratic behaviour each time he lands on the train, although each time is the first time for her.

Sounds complicated? Well, it’s intricate but not convoluted, so if you pay a reasonable amount of attention you’re unlikely to miss anything. And attention is something you’ll probably volunteer anyway as you go along with Colter on this unusual train ride. Don’t go comparing Source Code to every other film you’ve seen that involves time travel / time loops / memory lapses / mind manipulation. Don’t go comparing this film to Groundhog Day or Lake House or Memento or The Manchurian Candidate or anything else that comes to mind. It’s unique.

The action in Source Code is swift, the twists and turns unexpected. Indian viewers can take note of the presence of Canada-born Anglo-Indian actor-comedian Russell Peters playing one of the passengers on Colter’s train. And in the last scene, as a couple walk through Chicago’s famed Millennium Park, look out for India-born UK-based sculptor Anish Kapoor’s world renowned Cloud Gate structure.

These are just asides, of course. The thing about good science fiction is that it gets the tempo and grammar so spot-on that nothing seems ridiculous, everything seems possible. Just like it is in Source Code.

Rating (out of five): ***1/2

Release date in the US:	April 1, 2011
MPAA Rating (US):	PG-13 (for some violence including disturbing images, and for language)
CBFC Rating (India):	U/A without cuts
Running time in the US:	93 minutes
Running time in India:	93 minutes
Language:	English

REVIEW 12: PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES (3D)

Release date in India:	May 20, 2011
Director:	Rob Marshall
Cast:	Johnny Depp, Penelope Cruz, Geoffrey Rush, Ian McShane, Guest appearances by Keith Richards + a legendary actress who shall not be named + a young model-turned-actress who looks uncannily like another rising Hollywood star

It’s important that I start off by telling you that I’m not a Pirates of the Caribbean kinda gal at all. Sure I found the first instalment of the series entertaining, but that’s primarily because director Gore Verbinski’s POTC: The Curse of the Black Pearl had novelty value. Then came Dead Man’s Chest and At World’s End – both from Verbinski – through which I was either suppressing yawns or nausea as I watched Johnny Depp’s by-now-increasingly-tedious quirks as Captain Jack Sparrow, Davy Jones’ ugh-able beard, that hideous Kraken with its revolting tentacles and suction devices, and other ewww-worthy sights.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides comes to us with a new director, inspiration from the novel On Stranger Tides by Tim Powers, a shift to 3D and the entry of God’s gift to humankind, Penelope Cruz. It cuts out the repelling visuals, delivers to us the prettiest sea-creatures I’ve seen on the big screen in a long time and ends up being a really fun experience!

The story is intricate, but this time thankfully not so crowded as to be confusing. England’s King George II wants Jack Sparrow to join an expedition to find a Fountain of Youth, with pirate-turned-privateer Hector Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush). Jack learns from Barbossa that his former ship the Black Pearl was destroyed in a battle with the legendary pirate Blackbeard. Jack escapes the King’s men but bumps into his fiery old flame Angelica (Cruz) who drugs him and drags him on board Blackbeard’s ship where he’s forced to serve as navigator, again in a quest for the fountain. Blackbeard wants to drink from it to prevent his imminent death that has been foretold. To complicate matters further, the Spanish are headed for the fount too.

On the face of it, Rob Marshall is an unusual choice of director for this film. He is best known for his multiple-Oscar-winning musical Chicago. But clearly producer Jerry Bruckheimer knew something we don’t, because Marshall has added a much-needed softness to Pirates, pared it down, cleaned up the clutter and made it his own. The long action sequences are well choreographed, most especially the chase scene at the start and the arrival of an army of mermaids. Jack doesn’t hog screen space in this film, which gives us enough respite from his eccentricities to enjoy them while he’s around without getting overwhelmed or bored by too much of him. Cruz is the perfect choice to play a woman who is the only one for whom wacko Jack has felt any “stirrings”, though a fine actress like her deserved to be challenged a bit more. Ian McShane makes a nicely nasty Blackbeard, but my pick of the cast is Rush who seems to be having a rollicking time reprising his role as Barbossa who now has a peg for a leg that also doubles up as a keg. Oops … I promise I didn’t mean to make a rhyme there, it just happened.

Though not necessarily crackling throughout, the dialogue is drolly humorous at most times, the high point being an ever-so- brief exchange between Jack and his dad played by Rolling Stones’ Keith Richards. And after a long time, here’s a Hollywood film in which the 3D really makes a difference. While watching Tangled last year, I remember wanting to reach out and grab those lanterns when they were released from the castle. In Pirates 4, the third dimension is worth the weight of those burdensome glasses on your nose and the dimness that’s the bane of all 3D films. The jungles appear more ominous because of it, that monkey is an even stranger critter than when we saw him first, and oh those lovely mermaids … what do I say to you about those graceful silver creatures swooshing through the sea waters, their luminous faces beaming at vulnerable men, their fish scales wisely camouflaged in the deep?! Their appearance leads to a romance between an imprisoned mermaid called Syrena and a cleric who worries about Blackbeard’s soul (a moralistic stance that is thankfully not stretched so much as to take away from the film’s otherwise light, cheeky, self-deprecating tone). This unusual love story is poignant in contrast with the more sexually charged chemistry between Depp and Cruz.

Let me make myself very clear: Nothing that I’ve said in this review should be misconstrued as meaning that I would like to see another Pirates of the Caribbean film. On Stranger Tides would have been a nice swan song for this series. Sadly, enough clues have been left around in this film to indicate a follow-up. That’s a pity because however brilliant Johnny Depp may be, I can’t take another film in which he’s leaning on the crutches provided to him by the physical peculiarities and/or behavioral idiosyncrasies of the characters he’s playing. I realise that I have just blasphemed in the eyes of Depp devotees, but what I really really want is to see a series of 10 back-to-back releases in which Depp is just a regular working guy in a modern city, without heavy eye make-up or mincing steps or scissors for hands or a penchant for human meat pies.

Perhaps that’s asking for too much, so let me just say Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is a complete entertainer. It’s not a work of genius, and it’s possible that one reason why I like it so much is that it has fixed all the problems I had with Parts 2 & 3. I’m not going to analyse my reaction too much. For a pleasant evening out I’d recommend Pirates 4 to you!

Rating (out of five): ***1/4

Release date in the US:	May 13, 2011
MPAA Rating (US):	PG-13 (For intense sequences of action/adventure violence, some frightening images, sensuality and innuendo.)
CBFC Rating (India):	U/A without cuts
Running time in India:	137 minutes
Running time in the US:	137 minutes
Language:	English

Photograph courtesy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirates_of_the_Caribbean:_On_Stranger_Tides

REVIEW 11: PRIEST (3D)

Release date in India:	May 13, 2011
Director:	Scott Stewart
Cast:	Paul Bettany, Cam Gigandet, Maggie Q, Lily Collins, Karl Urban, Christopher Plummer

They can’t go to the cities, the sun will destroy them, says a character halfway through Priest.

Comes the response: There is no sun in the cities any more.

I may be off by a word or two which is why I’m not putting those sentences in quotes. You see, my concentration slipped because it was around this point in Priest that I felt the urge to giggle. I mean, I’m sure that exchange was intended to be very intense and intellectual and profound and all that, but I have a simple question: what the heck does it mean?!!!

Priest is the sort of film that tries to fool viewers into believing that great apocalyptic occurrences are unfolding on screen simply by putting characters into flowing cloaks and hooded cassocks in dark, ominously dingy settings. It’s the sort of film that thinks if the sound effects and background score are loud enough, and a few sweeping landscape shots are thrown in, then audiences will fail to notice that nothing much is actually happening on screen and nothing that any character says amounts to anything. It also comes from a team that seems to have forgotten that after having seen Avatar, it really takes a helluva lot to draw us in simply with the lure of 3D.

Like everything else in this film, the story too is hare-brained-trying-to-pose-as-scholarly. Priest is about an excommunicated warrior priest (Paul Bettany) out to save his niece who has been abducted by vampires. The church – represented by Christopher Plummer, no less – refuses to acknowledge that a threat from vampires still exists, but our hero won’t listen because he’s determined to get the girl back before she is “infected”. He’s joined in his quest by her lover (Cam Gigandet, I’m not saying “boyfriend” because I think “lover” is more appropriate to the atmospherics here) and a pretty priestess (Maggie Q) who … hmm, how do I put it? … seems to have the hots for our leading man.

Along the way, they battle ugly shiny beings that fly, mucus baubles, what seems like vampire faeces with which the vile creatures spin their webs and bags of what looked to me like mutton hanging in a butcher shop but turned out to be vampires in slimy cocoons. Ugh! The entire goal appears to be to repel us so much that we get awe-struck. Though the art direction gives the settings an other-worldly feel, the combatants ride earthly motorcycles and the grand climactic fight sequence is filmed atop a train that seems to have come from an era gone by (this bit is quite nicely done, but certainly not enough to save the film)!

It’s weird that actors like Bettany and Maggie Q agreed to be a part of this asinine project. They do their best, which doesn’t add up to much given the material at hand. In fact, Bettany reminded me a little too much of the misguided monk he played in Da Vinci Code, though in Priest he takes his shirt off to give us a generous glimpse of a very nicely worked out torso. That’s one of the high points of this film.

Once his niece is saved, the priest returns to the head of the church. I was slightly sleepy at that point, so I can’t tell you exactly why the bossman says to him: “There is no vampire menace. The war is over, priest.” The grave reply is: “No, it’s just the beginning.” Eeeks, there’s gonna be a sequel?!!

Rating (out of five): *1/2

Release date in the US:	May 13, 2011
MPAA Rating (US):	PG-13 (For intense sequences of violence and action, disturbing images and brief strong language.)
CBFC Rating (India):	A without cuts
Running time in India:	83 minutes
Language:	English

Photograph courtesy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest_(2011_film)