HS

‘American Fiction’ is an original drama script that uses satire to speak of society. At least in American society. I don’t know if it would resonate as much with non-American audiences. Jeffrey Wright plays Monk Ellison, a college professor, who feels frustrated with white America's sense of guilt over history and pandering to ideas that perpetuate black stereotypes. Ellison, who is black, doesn’t see people for the color of their skin but for the content of their ideas. He writes novels using proper English and aspires to be considered a ‘great author’ rather than a ‘great Black author.’ However, he realizes the ideas that make money and get picked up by publishers are based not on actual good ideas. To mock the publishers and the system, he, under a pseudonym, writes a novel that uses every stereotype that people might have for black Americans. Ellison depicts himself as Stagg R. Leigh, a violent, drug-using, escaped convict from prison wanted for murder (every other stereotype you can think of), using street lingo in writing as a massive troll job. To his dismay, a publisher picks up the novel, not realizing the whole thing is satire and mockery. Monk’s agent convinces him to play along, even if it means going against everything he believes in. The rest of the film is him trying to grapple with reality and make sense of his worldview.

Acting, directing, witty writing, and cinematography are on point. The entire cast was likable, but Wright stole the show. It’s a very well-done film that uses satire to express points that people have difficulty talking about. I believe social commentary for serious subjects is best done using comedy, so people can better appreciate it rather than become alienated. I believe Monk feels that society should not use racism to fight racism, and I think it’s correct. Ideas should not be judged on race. The only way racism ends is by focusing on what MLK Jr. said: judge not on the color of one’s skin but the content of their character/ideas. The film dwells on other ideas, including depression, mental health, family drama, and sexual orientation. I don’t have the film rated higher because the ending felt like a cop-out. Perhaps ending it satisfyingly would be difficult. The pacing wasn’t always great either.

Would I recommend this? Yes, it’s worth watching. Some people may not get it, but I think there is depth in the ideas if you look.

8/10

‘Sixteen Candles’ is a 1980s coming-of-age film by John Hughes that is both funny and charming. I think it’s a popular movie, and most people have probably seen it already. A newly turned 16-year-old girl named Samantha (played by 80s star Molly Ringwald) realizes nobody remembers her birthday. Her parents and grandparents forget while focused on preparing for her older sister’s wedding. The boy, Jake, who she has a crush on, doesn’t know she exists. He has a beautiful, popular girlfriend, who has no interest in him outside of using him to throw extravagant parties to get drunk at. Throughout her day, she goes through embarrassing but also funny moments that leave her frustrated.

I like Hughes' casting choices in ‘Sixteen Candles’, the soundtrack, pacing, and the feel it leaves you with. The acting is okay, but the characters are with you through their stories. Their issues are all relatable to everyone who was once a teenager or young adult, including self-confidence, romantic crushes, dreams that may never pan out, and maturity.

The 80s are known for their coming-of-age films, and director John Hughes is one reason why. His first break in Hollywood with ‘Sixteen Candles’ set the stage for his future career. He always had a way of making films that resonated with people of all ages. Such films become timeless for future generations because everyone goes through the journey of growing up with the emotions & accompanying issues. Hughes’ later films took such teen comedy dramas to another level.

Would I recommend this? Yes. While clichéd and doesn’t feel fresh, I think it’s a cool, humorous film worth watching at least once. John Cusack and his sister Joan also appeared in minor roles here. John Cusack, of course, goes on to star in ‘Say Anything’ and a side role in 'Stand by Me', both great 1980s coming-of-age films.

I first watched Predator in my teenage years and decided to check it out for a second time after news came of Carl Weathers passing away last week. He wasn’t in many films, but his most iconic roles are as champion boxer Apollo Creed in the ‘Rocky’ series and soldier in ‘Predator.’ I have watched Rocky multiple times, so I went for his second most popular film ‘Predator.’ On rewatch, one thing is crystal clear. They don’t make action movies like they used to.

Arnold Schwarzenegger plays Special Forces soldier Major Dutch, and Carl Weathers plays CIA operative Colonel Dillon. Dutch leads a team of soldiers on a hostage rescue mission in the jungles of South America. During their mission, they run into Soviet soldiers and blow shit up in typical Arnold style (HOOYAH!). Afterward, they soon realize that some unknown alien being with camouflage ability is on their tail, hunting them one at a time. Dutch decides their only way out is by creating an ambush and responding with their full arsenal of weapons against the alien. It’s a fun, no-holds-barred battle. Arnold is at his best here with his memorable one-liners. You don’t always need good special effects, directing, or amazing acting to enjoy a film.

Would I recommend this? Hell yes. Most action film buffs have probably seen this already. I liked it even more on rewatch. I dread the day when the action heroes I grew up idolizing are no longer around. Hollywood action legends like Arnold, Pacino, De Niro, Jackie Chan, Harrison Ford, Chuck Norris, Stallone, Jean-Claude Van Damme, and Bruce Willis are all up there in age and won’t be around for long. Many of them did their own stunts and knew how to entertain. I often ask myself which Hollywood action heroes today have similar personality, charisma, and badass style as those 70s/80s/90s action heroes. I think we are at the end of a generation. R.I.P Carl Weathers.

Harakiri (1962) is a Japanese film that takes place in 1630, and it is a story of the Samurai code of honor and family. Harakiri (also called seppuku) is the ritualistic suicide once employed by Samurai warriors to die while keeping their honor intact. A Samurai, Hanshiro Tsugumo, travels to the House of a rival clan Iyi, asking for a place to commit seppuku. Clans would permit such requests because it was an honorable final act for a Samurai to save his honor in their house. At that time, Samurai often arrived under a false pretense of committing seppuku but leaving with gold. The clan believes Tsugumo arrived under such false pretense. The story unravels from that point into a flashback of another Samurai, Motome Chijiiwa, who had arrived under such false pretense. I can’t say anything more about the relationship between Tsugumo and Chijiiwa without spoiling the story.

The filming style is interesting. It is depicted using dialogue and several flashbacks as it draws out the plot. The first hour is slow-paced, but the story picks up pace thereafter. It is ultimately a pushback on the Samurai code and the hypocrisy behind it.

Would I recommend this? Yes, I believe it was very well done. The directing often reminded me of Akira Kurosawa's works. I would think the director of this film was inspired by Kurosawa. However, it’s probably not for everyone because of the pacing, style, and lack of much action (until the last half hour). Not everyone likes subtitles either.

"Memories of Murder" is a South Korean police thriller based on the true story of 'Hwaesong Serial Murders,' which was South Korea's first serial killer. It is the year 1986. A small Korean region has a serial killer on the loose, raping and killing women in grotesque manners. Two detectives are assigned to investigate the murders and bring in the culprit. They go through suspect after suspect, using questionable tactics like torture to force out confessions. The murders continue, so a third experienced detective is brought in from the big city, Seoul. They slowly and methodically work through the evidence as more murders continue and suspense mounts. The police are truly not equipped to deal with something of this scale. I won't say more to avoid spoilers. The filming is from the perspective of the detectives, but the atmosphere is dark, haunting, and dramatic.

I had never watched a Korean film before and was impressed by what I saw here. The technicals were amazing, especially the cinematography, camera work, and haunting background music. The acting was sensational by the principal detectives, making you recognize their desperation every step of the way. You actually feel what they feel, allowing you to feel empathy for the monumental task they are undertaking with no prior experience. The pacing is not always fast, but you don't notice it has slowed down. You go in with certain expectations, and it ends up surpassing them. I noticed a couple of flaws, such as a somewhat shaky camera out in the field. It might have been intentional to create more tension.

Would I recommend this? While not a must-watch, I enjoyed it enough to recommend it. I felt the subtitles and story were easy to follow without confusing me at any point. Many moments in the film reminded me of 'True Detective', 'Insomnia', 'Zodiac', and 'Silence of the Lambs.' If you enjoyed any of those, this film is on that level.

Much has been written about Indian director Satyajit Ray, who is considered one of the finest directors of all time. Not just Indian cinema, but cinema whole. Many later directors said Ray directly influenced them, including Francis Ford Coppola, Christopher Nolan, and Akira Kurosawa. I don’t think one can get a much higher compliment than that. Pather Panchali was Ray’s first movie of the Apu Trilogy, and also my first time watching one of his films. I believe the three films are standalone without requiring one to watch together or even in order. This film covers the childhood of Apu. Apu is born to a severely impoverished family in rural Bengal and must find hope under troubling circumstances. He lives with his parents, sister, and his great-aunt (I think?). His father is a priest unable to find work. His mother is a housewife trying to make do with a lack of food and a house falling apart. Apu and his sister, Durga, don’t grasp their circumstances and spend their days playing. In search of hope, Apu’s father goes off to the city to find income.

Believe it or not, but I did not know what language the film was in until halfway through the movie. I became curious and looked it up (Bengali). Sometimes, you don’t care what language an art is in if it gets you hooked. That’s the mark of a genius. Ray, who was inspired by Italian filmmakers before him, had an unique way of balancing realism with creativity in his vision. Cinematography, acting, and directing are natural. It brings the picture to life with sharp editing. I think modern Indian filmmakers can learn a lot from Ray. After watching a few hundred Indian movies throughout my life, I believe editing in Indian films is poorly done. With Ray’s first work here, I never wondered “Why is this here and not edited out?” Every scene in Pather had a reason for being there. I’m amazed that a director, who had never done a filming scene in his life before, did something this well. For most directors, their best works are later on. Before gaining experience and building upon their skills, most directors usually do their first few works poorly or in a way that is difficult to enjoy. Ray is a natural from day one. I had a hard time accepting the fact that this was his first film.

Would I recommend this? I don’t know if it’s for everyone. It’s far from a perfect movie, but I found the realism breathtaking. There is not much plot here. Some people might find the everyday life of a family living in severe poverty depressing and mundane. Subtlety often gets lost on people who are watching for an edge-of-seat thrilling experience. If you want an edge-of-seat experience, this is not it. However, if the human condition, search for hope in brutal conditions, and a story of love & dignity appeals to you, this is worth a worth.

‘Gattaca’ (named after DNA nucleotides G, A, T, and C) is one of the best sci-fi thrillers. I don’t think I can say much about the plot without spoiling it. In a futuristic eugenics-based society, genetic selection is used to conceive children with only the best genes from their parents. Vincent (Ethan Hawke) is born from love, instead of out of a petri dish, with genetic defects (or ‘de-gene-erate’ as they were called in the film). Genetic profiling estimates his lifespan to be 30 years, but he dreams of traveling the stars. De-gene-erates are considered inferior (or ‘invalid’ in the film) and not worthy of anything beyond menial jobs, like janitorial duties. Only genetically conceived individuals (referred to as ‘valid’ in the film) may have professional jobs. Vincent must find a way to overcome his destiny with his dream. Jude Law as Jerome and Uma Thurman as Vincent’s love interest, Irene, are both phenomenal in their acting in leading Vincent to his destination. I would like to juxtapose Hawke and Law’s roles, but it would ruin the movie.

I enjoyed the subtle and intelligent manner in which Gattaca presents itself. The directing, acting, visuals, music, and script are excellent. I can see this as science more than sci-fi. I don’t know the current state of eugenics research, but global agreements banned it after World War II. However, it has come back as genetic selection and even gene editing with technologies like CRISPR. I believe it’s closer than we realize if parents choose to alter things in unborn babies such as hair color, and eventually, total eradication of many diseases. There are ethical questions, such as whether we should play god and unintended consequences. All are outside the scope of this review. I think a future like in Gattaca is around the corner and will come to fruition at some point.

Would I recommend this? Yes. My eyes were glued to the screen in its entirety. I’m still thinking about the movie and will be for years. It’s very thoughtful, intelligent, and satisfying, all wrapped in one.

This film is based on the true story of renowned author and social activist Helen Keller, who was deaf and blind. She was the first deaf-blind person to earn a college degree and also from Harvard, which I found inspiring and fascinating. She goes on to publish twelve books and essays on things like disability, women’s suffrage, animal activism, and world peace. ‘The Miracle Worker’ covers her childhood, where her journey to greatness begins. After consulting doctors and the Perkins Institute for the Blind, Keller’s parents hired Perkins alumni Anne Sullivan as Keller’s teacher and aide. Sullivan had also been blind growing up before nine surgeries returned a piece of her vision. She uses her experience to teach Keller the essence of what it is to be human. It is a monumental task to teach the intricacies of human life to someone who can’t see, hear, or talk. The story is told from the perspective of Sullivan, who was later given the title Miracle Worker by Mark Twain (Twain was also one of Keller’s friends). Truly hats off to both Sullivan and Keller.

The acting and directing were mind-blowing, especially in teaching scenes with no dialogue to draw upon. I cannot even imagine how some of these scenes were brought to life. The ladies playing Sullivan (Anne Bancroft) and Keller (Patty Duke) both won an Oscar for this. 110% deserved. Several scenes are unforgettable. I won’t discuss them all, but one scene stood out to me where Sullivan is teaching Keller the basics of etiquette, such as eating food with a spoon and using/folding a napkin to keep clothes clean. We might think of it as not a big deal, but it’s a very different story for someone limited to just the feeling of touch. Such a person would have no comprehension of the ideas of etiquette, and nothing in their past sense experiences to draw from. Babies learn most of what they know by watching and language by listening. In this scene, Keller’s instinct is to toss food in her mouth with her hands like a chimpanzee would. Sullivan has to teach her that is not how we in our civilization are supposed to act. Keller was also still a child then, so Sullivan had to overcome her temper tantrums and lack of knowledge of how civilized humans are to behave. Over time, Sullivan taught Keller the idea of language, of the fact that we humans have a word for everything. One word at a time, entirely through her sense of touch until it dawns on her what Sullivan’s aim was. She goes on to change history through her written words. I don’t think most people can grasp something of that magnitude.

Would I recommend this? Yes, the story is marvelous, and this film is a masterclass on the art of acting. It stands the test of time. I had heard of Helen Keller before in my history classes, but I did not know how she overcame her deaf-blind disability. This film left me flabbergasted to see a window into it. To me, it’s a story of courage, persistence, and willpower. Keller was still alive when this film was made in 1962.

8/10

‘The Black Stallion’ is a fictional film based on a novel. A young boy, Alec, is traveling with his father on a ship near Northern Africa. On the ship, he encounters a ferocious Arabian horse, which he later named ‘Black’ for the color of the horse’s mane, being transported under ropes and heavy ties. Alec takes a liking to Black, feeding him some sugar cubes, even though he was told not to. A massive storm hits the ship, and Alec rescues the horse from his ties before they both fall overboard. After waking up shipwrecked on a deserted island, Alec again encounters Black running free on the beaches. Alec slowly bonds with Black, and they become inseparable. I won’t talk about the specifics to avoid spoiling.

While the film is intended for kids, I believe everyone would appreciate it. I was awestruck watching such a majestic film that depicts the emotional relationship between Alec and the horse. A lengthy stretch of the film during the deserted island was especially captivating. There are no people or vehicles or buildings or language. There is no sign of civilization in sight. For about 25 minutes, the film leaves us with only the sounds of roaring waves, calm winds, raindrops tip-tapping, a subtle background score, and the two of them bonding. It felt remarkable to watch. The cinematography, editing, visuals, score, and acting allow you to feel the same emotions as Alec does. I can only imagine how it must have looked on the big screen in 1979.

Would I recommend this? Yes. The description above might not do justice. The only word I can think of to describe the experience is spiritual. It’s gentle, soothing, and subtle. If you appreciate something original and fresh, this film is it.

‘Mary and Max’ is an animated film about a little 8-year-old girl, Mary, from Australia becoming pen pals with a 44-year-old man, Max, from New York with Asperger syndrome, a form of autism. Both lead bleak, troubling lives for different reasons, but they become best friends over 20 years of writing back and forth. Neither had any friends until they found one another. They find lots in common even though their communications are wholly through physical letters, from across the world and generational differences. They have some misunderstandings along the way and ups and downs like any friends, but they hang in there. It’s a humorous story of friendship as they share their sorrows and isolation and build each other’s confidence in a chaotic world that keeps bringing them down.

‘Mary and Max’ is a beautiful, humorous, heartbreaking film that makes you think. It’s such a unique film, unlike any other animated (or non-animated) film I have seen before. The ending will have you fighting back tears. The writing, animation, direction, soundtrack, and voice acting are well done. I don’t think it’s a kid film because it covers dark themes like depression, mental health, pessimism, suicide, and loneliness. I felt the pacing was a bit of a letdown, and it didn’t hold my attention all the way through, unfortunately. Parts of it were easy to drift off into other thoughts. The narrator’s monotone didn’t help matters.

Would I recommend this? I am a bit on the fence about this film. The characters are likable. The story is relatable to probably everyone, but there is also a disconnect somewhere. I believe it’s worth a watch. Even if it doesn’t leave you with a smile, there is something magical and poignant about it.

7.5/10

World War 2 is ending. The Japanese are desperate to turn the tide of war. Shikishima, a Japanese Kamikaze pilot, does not have the will to ram his plane into an American ship in a suicide run. Instead, he chooses to live by diverting his Mitsubishi Zero to a nearby Japanese airbase on Odo Island. There, he runs into Godzilla, who destroys the base, leaving Shikishima as one of the few survivors. He returns home to a Tokyo that was firebombed by American bombers, leaving his family dead. He runs into an orphan baby and a lady, Noriko, who is caring for the baby, and he takes them in. A year later, Godzilla reenters the picture once again. With America at odds with the Soviets over the Cold War and the Japanese fleet disbanded, the Japanese public has to stop Godzilla with what they have at their disposal before he continues his rampage.

This film delves into the human aspect, which is deep. Other Godzilla films before this had no feel over tons of remakes. In all those decades of remakes, they somehow missed one of the most crucial things to a good story: character development. The characters were shallow, lifeless, underdeveloped, and present to only prop up Godzilla. This film took a different, fresh approach. In this one, the human aspect is central to the film, at least concerning the main characters and as crucial to the story as Godzilla himself, which is refreshing. The acting, story, special effects, cinematography, and pacing are very well done. There are questionable moments you can nitpick about, but overall, nothing is worth complaining about. I will add the film is in Japanese, but with English subtitles. You get used to it without feeling like you are missing details.

Would I recommend this? Yes. I have not seen most of the Godzilla films, but the few I have seen were disappointing. I can’t recommend any other Godzilla film or TV show until ‘Godzilla Minus One’ came along. This is perhaps the first Godzilla film to date that I would consider a quality film.

8/10

Another one of director Frank Capra’s classics. This one stars the great Clark Gable opposite Claudette Colbert. Although neither of them might be considered superstars, this film was revolutionary as one of the earliest romantic comedies, setting the formula for all future romantic comedies in Hollywood, Bollywood, and beyond. Despite being filmed 90 years ago, “It Happened…” absolutely stands the test of time. Gable plays a renegade journalist, Peter, and Colbert plays Ellie, a runaway heiress to a wealthy father. Against her father’s wishes, she runs away to elope with some pilot she thought she loved. Peter and Ellie meet as strangers on a bus to New York. Ellie’s father sends detectives on her trail and a $10,000 reward ($233,000 today) for anyone with information about her. Issues along the way, such as a flooded bridge and the bus breaking down, cause them to share a hotel room and hitchhike. Both despised each other for different reasons - he saw her as a cowering, spoiled brat, and she saw him as an obnoxious, egoistic jerk. They soon realize in their conversations they have shared dreams of life. Through the journey, they mature by being around one another and fall in love. The chemistry is apparent between the two leads. Charming, charming, charming through and through.

The technicals are on point. Acting, directing, cinematography, editing, pacing, and timing on witty quips are sensational. At the 7th Oscar in 1935, “It Happened...” became the first of only three films in history to do a clean sweep - winning every major category. Best picture, best actor, best actress, best director, and best screenplay. No film replicated that until 1976 with “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” and 1992 with “The Silence of the Lambs.” Gable gave away the Oscar he won for this film (the only one he ever won) to a kid he met. The kid returned the Oscar years later after Gable died young in 1960 (another actor to die in his prime).

Some other tidbits. During the 1930s and 40s, actors were known for doing multiple films in a single year. Studios had high demands, and the pay was much lower. For instance, Gable did 40 films across the 1930s, and Colbert did 36. That’s about 4 movies per year (some years, 5-6 films in a single year). No other actor does that today. Studios also employed actors with exclusive rights - MGM employed Gable. For his scandalous affair with another MGM actress, Gable was loaned to Columbia Studio to do this film as punishment. The legendary Bugs Bunny was inspired by Gable in this film. One comedic scene has Gable removing his shirt. Undershirts dropped in popularity among men when they saw Gable didn’t wear one.

Would I recommend this? I believe this is a must-watch movie before you die. I rarely watch romantic comedies, but I pleasantly enjoyed it. It’s hard to not like. Like most old movies, the ending felt a bit rushed. Overall, the film is everlasting and a joy to watch.

8.5/10

‘83 is a dramatized biopic Indian film of the Indian cricket team that won the World Cup in 1983. It was truly a monumental upset against a behemoth West Indies team, who had won the previous two World Cups. Some facts to build up the case. Considered one of the greatest teams in cricket history, West Indies had multiple legendary bowlers and the best batter in the world, Viv Richards. India had only won one World Cup game before 1983 (mind you, a single regular group game), and this time was in a stacked group with West Indies, Australia, and Zimbabwe. India defeated England on their home turf in the semi-finals, then went on to face West Indies in the final at England’s Lord’s Stadium, the oldest active stadium from 1814 and the most well-known. The most remarkable part was India had scored only 183 runs during their batting and faced the monumental task of holding West Indies to under 183 runs with Richards on strike. They held West Indies to 140 runs, the second lowest in World Cup history not passed until 1999 by Australia against Pakistan. India essentially snatched a victory from the lion’s grasp. It’s a fantastic story until you realize it happened.

Ideas, emotions, grit, spirit, and pride unite into a decent film. Directing was good in adding palm-gripping drama. The only thing I would complain about is filler moments to add comedy in the middle of cricket scenes. I wasn’t too pleased by those filler moments, but it’s nitpicking. The cricket scenes would be better with less sensationalism. Ranveer Singh, who played Indian captain Kapil Dev, had good acting. The rest of the cast wasn’t bad at all. The children of the original players played several of the cricketers in the film. I appreciated that no random songs broke out of the blue (there were ~3 short songs that weaved into the film action). About half of my playlist is Indian songs, but I don’t enjoy them in movies. I fast-forward all songs in Indian films - hence, I don’t watch Indian movies in the theater and rarely watch Hollywood musicals.

Would I recommend this? Not a must-watch, but I enjoyed it. Cricket fans would like it as it’s a celebration of the 2nd most watched sport in the world.

7.5/10

Dune Part Two finishes the journey of hero (if you can consider him a hero) Paul Atreides on planet Arrakis, but the epic is not over. It’s quite an experience, even though I didn’t watch it on the big screen as it’s meant to be. Atreides possesses the ability of precognition to see the future (and past) as he pursues his revenge against rival House Harkonnen and the Emperor, who caused the destruction of Atreides’ house. In the process, he becomes one of the local Fremen and a messiah figure. I won’t go into more detail even though similar stories have been told and re-told across every religion and many media over the decades (most popularly, Star Wars and Lawrence of Arabia). There were quite a few changes from the book, but it stayed true to it. Personally, I prefer the films over the books. I didn’t appreciate Frank Herbert’s dry writing style.

Denis Villeneuve’s directing style is subtle but effective. You can experience that style across all his films, regardless of what genre he directs. He doesn’t use a lot of dialogue beyond what is necessary. I enjoy that subtlety because I think it speaks to high-intelligence directing. I believe the pacing could have been quicker here, especially in the first 45 minutes where very little happened, but that would go against Villeneuve’s style. The acting was good, but nothing mind-blowing. Character development was missing, and limited dialogue made it difficult to communicate much information. The problem with directing an epic between two films is that you only get maybe 6 hours max. There is not enough time to depict every character and every nuance. The beautiful visuals, special effects, editing, sound, and majestic cinematography are breathtaking. I can’t say enough about the legendary Hans Zimmer with yet another brilliant score. It was haunting, with a dark undertone foreshadowing what was to come. You might as well line up the awards it’s going to receive in 2025. There will be (almost) a sweep, but there’s a long time to go for other films to challenge this.

Would I recommend this? Yes. It’s very well done. I felt more satisfaction from the first film because there was less content to cover. The plot gets complex in part two, which covers a much larger portion of Herbert’s Dune than part One. I think this should have been a multi-season TV series like Game of Thrones, but that would mean a much lower budget.

8.5/10

This film is tough & painful to watch, but impactful. The story is about an old man, Anthony, going through age-related dementia. We can see the fairly rapid progression from his perspective. Confusion, disorientation, mood swings, memories, and time blend from day to day, moment to moment. He loses his sense of reality and struggles to stay in the moment. We become part of his hallucinations, seeing it as how he would glimpse things. It’s very unsettling and heartbreaking to see in action. For the first time since I have been reviewing movies, I don’t have much to say. I usually have to restrain myself from writing too long reviews, often removing sentences/thoughts altogether to keep them short. I can’t stop talking about films if I like them. However, this time, I am struggling for words; I don’t think words can do this film justice.

So, I will shift focus to the technicals. Anthony Hopkins is a legend, who won an Oscar for Best Actor here (at age 83, the oldest ever). I was distraught by his acting. It felt real to me, making me forget I was watching a movie. Olivia Colman, who plays his daughter Anne, also had outstanding acting as she struggles to make sense of the situation. The writing, editing, directing, and cinematography are excellent. The screenplay is original. Typically, films like these focus on people around the patient rather than on the actual patient. Florian Zeller, the director, made this film with only Hopkins in mind. I don’t think anyone else can pull this off at that age, outside of perhaps 4-5 living actors from the film universe. From the ones I know, Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, Amitabh Bachchan, Ian McKellen, and Patrick Stewart. None would probably be as good as Hopkins.

Would I recommend this? Yes. However, it’s important to note that it’s depressing to watch. It stays with you long after you finish watching. Aging is challenging to deal with, but we all must go through it, rain or shine.

8.5/10

12th Fail (2023): 8.5/10

‘12th Fail’ is an Indian film from one of my favorite Bollywood writers, Vidhu Vinod Chopra. He occasionally directs, but I think he is a better writer than a director (he did both for this film, and both great). He has a reputation for creating outside-the-box films in a genuine, no-nonsense manner. It’s refreshing to see talented writers like him focus on honesty, sensibility, and realism in a Bollywood that is known for the exact opposite. Films like these are what cinema should be about, no matter where it originates or who makes it.

This film is based on a true story about a student, Manoj Kumar Sharma, wanting to turn things around for the better in a country filled with corruption and bribery. His father was an honest policeman suspended for hitting a corrupt cop, fighting the system in the courts. In the meantime, Sharma’s family is suffering from poverty, so he and his brother start a rickshaw business, driving people back and forth for money. They have a dispute with one of the corrupt mayor’s thugs. They get thrown in jail over a false accusation. Sharma, being a junior, gets released, and he seeks help from the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), who frees them both from the corrupt policemen. Sharma decides to become someone powerful and also serve with honesty, like the DSP and his father. The film shows his journey and perseverance through one of the hardest exams in the world - UPSC. 200,000 Indians attempt it annually, and only 30 people become Indian Police Service officers after 3 rounds of exams.

The brilliant writing, authentic acting, on-point directing, and cinematography are great. Bollywood films often have poor editing, resulting in scenes that drag on. Not here. The editing is very well done. The film went through 200 rewrites before the final product, which tells me special care went into this. Ultimately, it’s a film about not giving up. I think the easiest thing one can do in life is to give up. One needs raw guts, determination, and willpower to fight in life, especially when the odds are stacked against them.

Would I recommend this? Yes. The acting, the storytelling, and the reflection of realism awed me. Dreams don’t come true by themselves. They are in vain until you apply dedication, utmost effort, and time to realize them.

‘Searching for..’ is a documentary about a 1970s rock n roll musician named Sixto Rodriguez, who was an unknown singer, songwriter, poet, and guitar player. He was a drifter from Detroit, Michigan, with no home and no money in his name. Some producers heard his talent and signed him to a contract. Rodriguez released two albums, which didn’t sell for reasons nobody understood. He gave a concert in Australia, which was a flop. The producers dropped him after that, and he disappeared into obscurity overnight.

Years later, one of his albums ended up in South Africa, and his work went through a renaissance. People created bootleg copies and passed them around the South African black market. At that time, South Africa was a police state at the peak of the apartheid. The government there was extremely conservative to the point televisions were considered communist technology. When Rodriguez’s album rose, the government banned and censored his tracks with any mention of drugs, sex, or violence. It didn’t stop the public. He became more popular than Elvis, Beatles like Paul McCartney, Rolling Stones, and Bob Dylan in South Africa and South American countries. However, nobody had heard of him in Detroit or the USA. Nobody knew what had happened to him after the early 70s. There were rumors he had burned himself alive on stage in a suicide, and others that he had shot himself in the head after a performance. Decades later, several fans go off in search of what had actually happened. That’s where the story begins, in search of this mythical figure. Essentially a mystery with investigative journalists.

Would I recommend this? Yes. It’s a deep, touching, uplifting, and inspirational story. Genius exists in the world and places from people you would never expect. I had never heard of Rodriguez or even knew such a story was possible in the age of live television, newspapers, and digital technology.

Holdovers is a likable Christmas film taking place in 1970. It's a thoughtful film that expresses somewhat unoriginal ideas in an original manner. Paul Hunham (Paul Giamatti) plays a history teacher in an all-boys boarding school, Barton Academy. He is a strict teacher, tough grader, grumpy, rough about how he interacts, pompous, and despised by all his students and staff. He has no family to go to for winter break, so the headmaster assigns him to oversee 5 students in similar situations staying at the school. One of the kid's parent comes by and decides he will take all of them on a skiing vacation with him. However, one student named Angus can't get in touch with his mother, who is off traveling with her new husband, to get permission. Hunham takes Angus under his wing along with the school cook, Mary. Angus has a knack for causing trouble and pulling pranks. Mary's son Curtis had died in the Vietnam War. The three lead troubled lives, fending off depression for different reasons, and bond over the coming days, including at a Christmas party.

It's an interesting movie with great acting from the three. The cinematography, directing, appropriate soundtrack for the era, and subtlety in writing stand out to me. The movie explores many themes, especially focusing on the human experience, including personal growth, friendship, and living by letting go. I would say it's a light-hearted film with comedic moments, but there is a dark undertone. I liked the nostalgic feel and overall atmosphere that you get when watching. The only issue I had was that they could have quickened the pacing without losing any content.

Would I recommend this? Yes. If you enjoy films like 'Dead Poets Society', 'Rushmore', 'Being There', and 'Scent of a Women', this is a must-watch. There might be some similarities, but I think Holdovers is one unique, fresh film.

‘Seabiscuit’ is based on a true story of an underdog but majestic racing horse that inspired a generation through the 1930s. During the 1930s, the Great Depression crippled the U.S. (and global) economy, causing people to lose their homes, life savings, and hope. The legendary story of Seabiscuit, the thoroughbred horse that takes on the champion horse War Admiral, was one of the shining moments in American sports history that brought people heartwarming hope. I think Seabiscuit’s story resonated so well in the 1930s because it gave people the belief that if a horse (and his jockey, Red) can overcome challenges when given a second chance in life, so can anyone.

The cast includes notables like Tobey Maguire as Seabiscuit’s jockey Red Pollard, Jeff Bridges & Elizabeth Banks as the owners Charles & Marcela Howard, and Chris Cooper as the trainer, Tom. But the real hero was Seabiscuit, who was depicted by ten actor horses. His previous owners said Seabiscuit was too little and too lazy to race, so they primarily used him to help build the confidence of other horses deemed proper for racing. He went years through his prime age being misused and mistreated. However, he was discovered by Howard and Tom when they noticed his fierce nature and the fight in him, even while being used as a failed horse. Howard hired Red as the jockey, whose story had similarities to Seabiscuit, and the two helped each other regain their dignity and spirit. Seabiscuit reached his potential at an older age, which limited the length of his career and which races he was eligible for by rule. All the characters have compelling stories, issues, and challenges they overcome through perseverance and conviction.

Would I recommend this? Yes, I believe it’s an inspiring film of determination and triumph against the odds. There are obvious inconsistencies, such as the fact that both Seabiscuit and ‘War Admiral’ came from the same line of arguably the greatest horse ever in Man O’ War. Both were also the same size. The film intentionally altered both facts to build Seabiscuit up into a much bigger underdog, even though he was one. Seabiscuit simply reached maturity later than normal. Regardless, the director and writers did a great job of bringing Seabiscuit to life. Seabiscuit is an exhilarating ride and a joy to watch.

The Getaway (1972): 7.5/10

‘The King of Cool’ Steve McQueen stars in this film next to Ali MacGraw. McQueen is the focus as Doc McCoy, a professional con artist serving a ten-year prison sentence. MacGraw plays his wife, Carol McCoy. To get released early, he cuts a deal with the corrupt parole chief, Jack Beynon, to buy off his release. In return, Doc and Carol must rob a bank. The kicker, of course, is the two must work with Beynon’s men. The robbery doesn’t go as planned, and the two end up in a hot pursuit by the police and Beynon’s men for the stolen loot.

‘The Getaway’ is about double-crossing, car chases, shootouts, and fast-paced action underneath it all. The cinematography, tight editing, and direction stand out. McQueen’s cool and natural screen presence once again comes through with flying colors. As a former U.S. Marine, he had a way of handling guns and doing many of his own stunts, both of which were apparent here. MacGraw doesn’t have a lot of lines, but her acting was good. She learned how to shoot guns and drive. Those two run the show from start to finish, reminding me of another getaway film ‘Bonnie and Clyde’, which came first in the 1960s. The car chases were entertaining in typical McQueen style. Interestingly, McQueen and MacGraw had an affair during the filming of Getaway, and the two ended up marrying. MacGraw’s former husband was an executive who cast her here, and she leaves him for the star. McQueen didn’t have many movies remaining because he died in 1980 from cancer at the prime of his career.

Would I recommend this? Probably yes, but I don’t consider it a must-watch. I don’t believe most action films nowadays are as entertaining as in previous decades. They don’t have the same feel.

‘Best Years...’ is a classic post-WW2 drama that focuses on the social issues surrounding American soldiers returning home after being off to war for multiple years. When one thinks of that era, most think about the baby-boomer generation, the affluent futures to come, and the rise of the new American superpower that came out almost intact as Europe and Asia were busy rebuilding for many years to come. However, it wasn’t all roses and sunshine for these soldiers. They had to become re-acquainted with the civilized world and get their lives back in order, after spending years off-seas fighting Nazis in Europe and Japs in the Pacific.

This film concerns three such soldiers, including an Army Sergeant Al (Fredric March), Air Force Officer Fred (Dana Andrews), and a warship sailor Homer (Harold Russell), who return home excited but also afraid of what they will find. The three have interesting circumstances, which I won’t detail to avoid spoilers. Al had been away from his wife and kids. Fred had his wife, and Homer had a fiancée and family. They return to their families with battle scars, both mental and physical, but with hopes of overcoming with a helping hand from their families, friends, and the public. They soon realize what was a joyous dream come true soon becomes a nightmare for each for different reasons. The stories are compelling and an insightful window into the era. The acting is spectacular and genuine by the entire cast. Director William Wyler is meticulous in his attention to detail, depicting each scene and issue sincerely. Cinematography is done right to reflect the realism. Some issues covered are difficult to tackle, but it’s masterfully done. Even after 78 years, ‘Best Years...’ stands the test of time.

Would I recommend this? A resounding yes. It’s a must-watch. The film is under 3 hours long, but you never feel it. I agree with IMDB listing it as one of the top 250 movies of all time. I would put it somewhere inside the top 100. It won 7 Oscars including Best Picture in 1947, and I rarely say this, but it’s well-deserved (although I prefer Frank Capra’s “It’s a Wonderful Life”).

The premise of this film is difficult to describe without experiencing it. A journalist named Will Bloom is told his father, Ed, is dying after a lost battle against cancer. Three years earlier, the two had a dispute and stopped talking to one another over it. Will’s pregnant wife convinced him to return home together to spend whatever time his father had left. Ed had always told fantastic stories of himself throughout his life where fact and fable intertwined. Will had never known who his father was outside of his tales, which was the frustration that drove him away. In search of the truth in the last days of Ed’s life, Will finds a connection that shatters how he sees his father. It also has a profound impact on how he raises his own son.

The acting, cinematography, and creative direction all stood out to me. ‘Big Fish’ is a simple but inspiring film with stories of a massive catfish, giant, storybook romance, bank robbery, circus, werewolf, and Siamese twin. Behind each tale lies the real Ed Bloom and his love for storytelling. The stories use metaphors, symbolism, and themes that always have a link to his real life. Each of his stories touched those he met on his life’s journey. If we think about it, everyday regular life for the average person isn’t typically all that colorful. What makes our lives colorful is dreams, imagination, creativity, and escaping into stories beyond. That is what we stay alive for.

Would I recommend this? Yes. Tim Burton’s films are always fantastic, colorful, and touching. This was no different.

This film depicts the last days of Nazi Germany when the Soviet army was 15 km from Hitler’s bunker Fuhrerbunker. Most WW2 movies focus on the battles from a soldier’s perspective, but this is from the perspective of Hitler’s secretary, Traudl Junge. She was still alive in 2002 and talked about events surrounding the last days of battle for Berlin before the suicides by Hitler and his mistress (wife then) Eva Braun. Most events are historically accurate based on all accounts, including from Junge’s autobiography.

The film captured a sense of realism through its dark, gritty atmosphere, direction, acting, and cinematography. To prepare, the actor (Bruno Ganz) playing Hitler studied the literature, accounts, and surviving media surrounding Hitler, including a recording of his normal talking tone away from cameras. Hitler didn’t allow such recordings, but Finnish secret agents recorded a private conversation in 1942 for later study. All other recordings were of his public speeches, which is not how he talked or behaved in private. Ganz also studied Parkinson’s patients to get an idea of Hitler, who had Parkinson’s. Some scenes were cold and brutal to watch but factual, including a scene by Nazi fanatic Magda Goebbels (wife of Nazi propaganda minister Goebbels) murdering her six children over her fear of living in a world without Nazism. Another is a scene of Hitler moving around pieces representing his army divisions on a map. His generals were too scared to tell him the armies were no more. Once a fanatic accepts belief in an ideal or an individual, they cannot exist outside it.

The scariest lesson is one can be a monster while completely human, as we saw here. I think it’s letting Hitler off the hook to pretend he was some peculiar demon or just a lunatic who had lost control of himself. It’s only when you realize Hitler was human and in complete control of his faculties to his final breath that the real horrors begin. The truth is villains are not anything other than human, the worst of humanity. The difference here is power dynamics and Germans enabling his bigotry and hatred by falling prey to his frantic fanaticism. History, time and time again going back to the first civilizations, teaches us Hitler is what you get when you combine the worst of humanity with absolute power. It should make us wary of those seeking absolute power while claiming to be above the laws. Power allows humanity’s worst villains to come creeping to the surface. The best AND the worst in humanity lies within humanity itself. There is a constant battle waging within each of us, one between love & hate, joy & misery, peace & fury, courage & fear, and order & chaos. We should always be vigilant to keep ourselves and others from falling prey to the worst in us.

Would I recommend this? Yes. The film is in German, but the subtitles are adequate. It’s difficult to watch, but I think it’s important to understand what fanatical hate and blind devotion to an idea/individual left unchecked can do to people.

Frank Capra directs this classic film starring Cary Grant and other actors I don’t recognize. While it’s considered a thriller, the central focus is dark comedy. The acting is good, the filming technicals are fine, and humor holds the test of time. My issue is the second half of the film drags, and some humor felt a bit too goofy, slapstick, and chaotic. Grant is typically known for his tough-guy persona and action roles, but I saw him in a new light here. I don’t think I’m ever going to watch another film with Grant and not think of his role here. He acts well with his exaggerated facial expressions and frenetic behavior. I also saw a new side of Frank Capra, who is known for his drama and romantic films.

The basic premise is that the main character, Mortimer, played by Grant, falls in love and marries a girl, who is the daughter of a priest, named Elaine. He brings her home and learns his two aunts are serial killers. The dark comedy is based on Mortimer keeping that fact hidden from the police to keep his mad aunts out of jail. Several other stories wind together into the plot, such as the crazy uncle who thinks he is President Teddy Roosevelt and runs up the stairs yelling “CHARGE!” after blasting a trumpet each time he leaves a scene. The aunts are cheerful as they point out where the dead bodies are between cooking apple pies. Mortimer’s brother also returns after escaping from the mental hospital. Most of the film takes place in a single sitting room, and it feels like a sanitarium filled with nuts!

Would I recommend this? I found it funny, but it wasn’t exactly my cup of tea. I didn’t quite get this film, which has so many characters, each with stories difficult to keep up with. It was by design. ‘Arsenic..’ combines horror with comedy, both genres I don’t watch often

‘Everest’ is based on a true story of the 1996 catastrophe at Mount Everest when a major storm struck a climbing expedition on May 10, 1996. The film clings close to the facts, including climber names, events, and even the radio broadcasts being almost verbatim as recorded. The filmmakers also filmed much of it on location at Everest, excluding the scenes at the upper high-altitude camps/Summit and base camp. A team of mountaineers spends $65,000 each for a private expedition group led by Rob Hall, played by Jason Clarke, and his team to reach the summit. The team sets off without knowing that a massive blizzard, one of the worst to strike Everest, is headed their way. Hall’s team and another team led by Scott Fischer, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, link up at Camp 2 to help each other during the climb to the summit. The teams must fight through the storm while low on oxygen and brutal conditions at over 25,000 feet altitude. The health of several mountaineers also deteriorates, and it becomes a test against time.

The filming and cinematography are amazing. The casting across the board is very well done. ‘Everest’ always keeps you on your toes with no-nonsense plots. The challenges that climbers face are apparent and require no sensationalism. It’s a flat-out biopic.

An interesting (but sad) fact is that until this film was made, the 1996 catastrophe held the record as the worst in the history of Everest. While this film was being made at Everest in 2014, an even bigger catastrophe took place, which resulted in the deaths of 16 Sherpa guides. While the film crew wasn’t involved in that avalanche, the filming had to be stopped and postponed. Rob Hall had climbed the Everest summit a record 5 times, and his wife Jan also did once. The rescue of a survivor was also the highest-altitude flight ever in a helicopter. What is not shown is the helicopter returned a second time on the same day to rescue another survivor.

Would I recommend this? Yes. The things people do to test their limits are truly something. Fighting through such brutal conditions takes courage, will, and determination.

This is one of Alfred Hitchcock’s earlier movies before his career took off. A New York newspaper reporter, Johnny Jones, is assigned the position of a foreign correspondent in Europe to cover a peace treaty to prevent World War 2. His first task is to interview a diplomat Van Meer, who was leading the peace talks, at a luncheon for diplomats. Jones falls for a girl, Carol Fisher, during the luncheon. Before the meeting can happen, Van Meer is assassinated in front of Jones. He chases off after the assassin in a car chase with Carol and another reporter. The story takes off from there.

‘Foreign Correspondent’ was one of the few Hitchcock films nominated for an Oscar. Interestingly, another one of his films, ‘Rebecca’, was also nominated that same year and won the Oscar for best picture (one of my favorite movies). I don’t believe ‘Foreign Correspondent’ belongs in the same sentence as ‘Rebecca’ or most of Hitchcock’s best works that came later, but it’s still interesting to watch. It had good visuals, cinematography, and camera work. Hitchcock completed the filming just months before Germany started bombarding London. Hitchcock was visiting England at the time, and war looked imminent. He returned to America a week before the bombing and added a new ending scene before release.

Would I recommend this? Not until you have watched Hitchcock’s best movies. I don’t think this was one of his top 10 movies. After watching most of his best films, I believe Hitchcock ages like fine wine, improving the suspense presentation, cinematography, camera work, and storytelling in later works.

Charlie Chaplin plays a nameless lone prospector who travels to Alaska during the 1890s gold rush. During his travel, he runs into a blizzard and seeks refuge in a cabin with two other odd fellows, Jim and Larsen. Once the storm passes, he travels to the town near the Klondike gold region. The prospector meets a dance hall girl named Georgia and falls in love. Vowing to return a millionaire, he sets off with Jim to find the cabin where a gold deposit is near.

From the Charlie Chaplin films I have seen over the years, I think this was his weaker one. Chaplin was an extraordinarily talented savant of films. He wrote, directed, acted, edited, produced, and wrote the music in most of his films. I don’t know anyone else who was as versatile from film history. Plenty directed and starred in their own film, but that’s the extent. Nobody else did everything and certainly not to the degree Chaplin did throughout his career.

Would I recommend it? I don’t think it’s a must-watch. However, it’s one of the earliest full-feature films and a cinematic experience. Silent films are not watched much anymore, but there is something that transcends time: acting. There is no sound, so everything is about the acting. Acting out things like comedy with no spoken words while still making your audience laugh is a daunting task. Chaplin was the master with his legendary miming skills, body language, and facial expressions.

Based on a true story from 1975, ‘Rudy’ is a film about courage, gritty determination, and not giving up on your dreams. Rudy Ruettiger, played by Sean Astin, is an underachieving football player with dreams of attending the University of Notre Dame and playing on the football team. However, his grades were too low, he was too poor to afford college, and he lacked the athletic talent. He was undersized and not fast, but one thing he had was his heart. He fought his way through each obstacle, one at a time, onto the team with no scholarship. The chilling ending was a classic feel-good moment with the crowd chanting "Rudy Rudy Rudy."

In most underdog stories, the main character always comes through and leaves the field celebratory after carrying his/her team to victory. However, that’s not real life. Rudy comes off victorious here in another way. He wins the hearts and minds of his fellow teammates, his small town, and his family/friends. I believe the movie is so meaningful because there is a Rudy in everyone. The fact is not everyone can be a gifted athlete or born genius, but one doesn’t have to be. All one can do is give it their best by putting their heart and soul into whatever their dream is.

Would I recommend this? Yes. It’s an inspiring movie that wins you over. The story didn’t significantly deviate from the facts outside of a few minor changes, such as making the coach Dan Devine an antagonist. It was actually Devine who motivated Rudy and put in Rudy (you always need a bad guy, huh?). Another fact omitted was that Rudy was a Navy sailor after high school before saving up for college with financial help from his father.

This film is different from anything I have watched before. It’s a brief glimpse into the Maori culture, tradition, and music of the Whangara tribe around New Zealand, which I knew nothing about before. The story doesn’t focus much on the culture, but it’s there throughout, guiding the intricate plot.

The Whangara believe that a thousand years ago, a whale saved their first leader, Paikea, after his canoe sunk. According to the Whangara belief, the first-born son of Paikea's descendants always became the next chief. Pai is one such descendant, but she is an 11-year-old girl. She was named after Paikea by her widower father Porourangi after being born against her grandfather Koro’s wishes. Koro is the chief, and he is getting up in age. His firstborn son, Porourangi, had failed in his eyes, so he had to find the next chief elsewhere. In clinging to ancient customs, Koro believes a girl can’t be a leader. He believes Pai is worthless for not being born a boy and refuses to consider her. He instead opts to find the next chief from the tribe’s boys. Pai never loses hope, continues to show her love for her grandfather, and fights to earn her respect. Even against insults and scolding from Koro, reminding her continuously that she was a girl.

It’s a very well-done film, even if the plot is simple. The actors are new, but they did well. Especially the girl who plays Pai, who had a superb performance. Pai shows girls are no less than boys, even in the face of ancient traditions. Koro has the right intentions, but his flawed, narrow-minded thinking in terms of tradition made him overlook a natural leader in front of him.

Would I recommend this? Yes. This film is captivating, beautiful, and touching. The underlying messages are inspiring and universal to people everywhere. The film was also filmed in the Maori region of New Zealand and has good cinematics.

‘Ghajini’ is an Indian Bollywood film inspired by Christoper Nolan’s film ‘Memento.’ Aamir Khan is my favorite Indian actor, and I think his acting is always excellent. This film, however, was disappointing. A company CEO, Sanjay, played by Khan, falls in love with an advertising film actress, Kalpana, played by actress Asin Thottumkal. Kalpana doesn’t know Sanjay is a business tycoon, and Sanjay plays along. When Sanjay is ready to reveal his identity, Kalpana is murdered. Sanjay is beaten with a metal rod into acquiring short-term amnesia, where he can't remember longer than 15 minutes at a time. Then he seeks revenge with his memory lapses.

The good: Leads Khan and Thottumkal’s acting. The flashback was well done. Two songs were excellent.

The bad: Below-average acting by everyone outside of the two lead actors. Everything inspired by Memento is messy. I have no problem using ideas already done by others but in an Indian setting/style/variations (with ‘inspired by ___’ byline), as long as they are not poorly executed. ‘Ghajini’ had the potential to be much better. First, I would blame poor editing and poor writing. In fact, I would edit out the whole Memento portion of the movie. The flashback should stand alone as a romantic comedy with a tragic ending and revenge. The Memento portion adds an extra thriller dimension, but it makes the movie worse and drawn out. It’s essentially two movies in one between the present story and flashback. The movie would have better, faster pacing and be more enjoyable with good editing slashing hour and 15 minutes.

Would I recommend this? No. Only if you are an Aamir Khan fan. If the amnesia portion interests you, watch Memento. If the romantic comedy with a tragic ending interests you, there are other films just as good (from both Hollywood and Bollywood).