Mon Avis : Movie Review - X Men : Wolverine - Weakest link!

With nothing memorable to offer like the movies before it, this is reduced to a whirl of movements photographed up close. Jackman leaping onto an airborne helicopter and shearing the tyres of a jeep with his sharp cutlery admantium. This and a wee bit more is added to an otherwise ordinary drama that leaps from frame to frame seemingly dwelling on the making of the clawed man - Wolverine. Then there is Sabertooth played by Schrieber , will only be remembered for his trademark crooked smile. Rest are a bunch of under-powered mutants who fade away when the credits roll unlike Storm, Cyclops, Mystique and Magneto and others from first two ventures. Sadly, no characters stick here.

James discovers his bone claws quite early as a child (in 1845) and is seen being part of his family falling apart. His brother Victor (Sabertooth) carries him to adult age where they join Elite Forces to battle for US knowing their superpowers almost make them unbreakable. A nasty day lands them in a rotten cell from where they are rescued by (now well known from X1,2,3) General WIlliam Stryker(Danny Huston) to form a special force . Affected by all the bloody mayhem, he quits and becomes a lumberjack inside dark woods living peacefully with a sultry Kayla (Lynn Collins). Then happens a chain of events which lands him to Stryker's lab where he volunteers to inject admantium into his bones. This and more, is a superficial attempt to recapitulate the life of Wolverine.

Ups:

• Take it or not - trying to further unravel the mysterious life of Wolverine makes for a decent screenplay full of intrigue, no matter how you find it to be executed in the end.

Downs:

• Eventual lack-lustre execution which ends up leaving you with little thrills
• Mutant concept is highly played down and there is no battle between humans and mutants for supremacy - All this made for a brilliant premise in first three of the franchise.
• The characterisation of main protagonists it self isnt as juicy as your expect - Failing to make any impression - I wonder if this is the end of the franchisee?
• CGI s that were so raved about when the bootlegged version came out , are reduced to a bunch of scenes - Period. You could easily count them in your finger if you have seen the bootlegged version with unfinished CGI. This lands up a major disappointment

Well, its the season of franchises and with T4 and Transformers 2 slated to come out soon, the box office is sure to heat up but so far it hasnt been much encouragement.

Watch this if you are a die hard comic fans and have followed the first 3 religiously.

With an approval rating of less than 30 % on Rotten Tomatoes , this is surely a rejected sequel (prequel , whatever!)

Mon Avis: Movie Review - Star Trek (XI) - Mega FX spectacle, fun for 'series' lovers !

We have all known the franchise Star Trek as a long running series spanning across atleast two generations (43 long years) and we have all known JJ Abrams (director) through smash hit addictions like ALIAS and LOST. So here he comes again re imagining and bringing to life a mega special effects extravaganza with all the capabilities of present day animation. So whats the result? Well, some exotic display of space frontiers, star ships, morphed creatures and state-of-the-art video game like yield.

But along with all this jamboree, poor non-Star Trek lovers like me was sucked into the confounding world of Vulcans and Earthlings and took as many as first 30 mins just to figure out the backgrounds attached to the characters. Coming to the plot - This is claimed to be not so vintage Star Trek - To begin, we go back to the day of James T. Kirk's birth in deep space while escaping in a capsule out of a wasted ship, when his father makes a noble sacrifice to save the lives of others, including that of his to be born son . The next time we see young Jim — in an energetic Spielberg-influenced sequence (one of the best moments of the film(— he's a bratty Iowa boy of about 11, stealing a car called a vintage car on fossil fuel (we are talking about 2050s i guess). Flash forward another decade and Kirk (Chris Pine) is a townie. He's still a brat, but also brawny and possessing a William Shatner-esque swagger (My favorite swagger by the way - Boston Legal - also Ex- Star Trek Kirk). Then there is rest of the classy cast of Spock (Zachary Quinto)and other members with whom the series lovers will identify. Rest of the story - When you go and see the movie.

Mind you , this is not the first attempt of Star Trek on Big Screen but 11th. Last one was about seven years ago. Not that people dont tell me it has a fresh look and feel ought to be present in an ambitious summer blockbuster.

Ups:

• Grand FX and pure Star Trek space adrenaline - The graphics are nothing short of a spectacle as they must be for a movie reaching across universe and galaxies - Even in characterisation - Kirk and Spock are played wonderfully and cast with precision :)


• Though it takes a while for a newbie to get hang of the storyline, but once you do there is enough there to keep you hooked - eg. chemistry between Kirk and Spock is well developed

Downs:

• Believe it or not - JJ falls into his own trap of doing too many series and at the point of climax it looks more like a silly tele series than a grandeur movie ending. A bit kiddish to say the least but can be ignored


• Though I appreciate the effort in adaptation but for non-star trek watchers like us - the storyline could be a little simplified rather than waiting for first 30 mins to aid our comprehensions.

All in all, a refreshing sight to see a blockbuster come through this summer after miserable Wolverine (yet to hit India) and Angels & Demons et al.

Watchable PG 13 family movie with or without encyclopedic knowledge of all things Trekkian may sputter ! :)

Mon Avis: Movie Review: Angels and Demons - kitschy gibberish, a modest thriller!

Book was a prequel - The derivative film is a a sequel - all set to tap into the euphoria surrounding Dan Brown's pulp fictions that read like a hooey and get watched panning a range from kitsch to profundity. The story line is filled with esoteric references that even a Catholic would find very hard to relate to and we the audience had to just make do with the elements of thrill and pretension that 'Oh! There is a puzzle'.

Nonetheless, the movie dint allow you to look at your wrist watches till the end of the second hour. But lo! The suspense dint end yet and there was more to come - Like those Abbas Mustan movies thrusting at your face in the (n-1)th minute - Are you sure who the real killer is? Lol

Langdon has irked the Church for telling it that Jesus was a family man , yet he is summoned for solving appearance of a mysterious sign belonging to a mythical secret society called the illuminati. One of its agents has kidnapped the Four Cardinals after the Pope is dead (later suspected of murder). Langdon is joined by Vittoria Vetra (immensely beautiful Ayelet Zurer) introduced through a sub-plot of having created the deadliest explosive in the world (in CERN) called the Anti Matter a.k.a The God Particle, that gets stolen. Thus begins a fast paced chase taking the audience through sealed crypts , dangerous catacombs, deserted cathedrals and even inside the most secret vault in the Vatican. Langdon begins to unravel the location of the Church of Illuminati where the kidnapper has also kept the stolen God Particle for blowing up the Vatican.

Ups:

• Thrills - The screenplay and script is strictly OK and will keep you glued till much later.
• Cinematography - Pity that most of the flick was not shot in actual Vatican but on lookalike sets but understandably so. Vatican could not allow too much of access after Da Vinci Code. However, the landscape is portrayed beautifully and the churches effuse a rustic charm

Downs :

• Clocking 138 mins eventually gets to you and that is a serious minus for an otherwise bearable film
• Tom Hanks doesnt add much grace to his role as he plays haggard Harvard Professor who makes an exaggerated effort to create an air of importance and mystery with senseless renditions of Catholic history

Overall, it isnt a bad flick - If you are Tom Hanks 's fan, you may be on your guard. For the fan of the book - I think this one does not live up to the standards of cinematic adaptations

Mon Avis: Movie Review : Confessions of a Shopaholic - Not intended for de-addiction!

By Aparna Verma

You have a bad day at work and if the only thing that can cheer you up is a movie, then girls this is the one. Every single woman would identify with Rebecca's character ( Isla Fisher ), trust me. We’re all shopaholics in some way or the other or atleast become one during the sale season. Its a temptation which is so hard to resist.

The movie literally takes you on a shopping spree. The girl is mad about clothes, bags and shoes and accessories that all women die for. She believes mannequins talk to her and entice her into buying all these things. Her friend even makes her join a shopaholic de-addiction programme, but to no avail.

She accidentally lands up a job with a finance magazine and becomes their star writer with much help from her boss Luke ( Hugh Dancy )… helping commoners understand the nitty-gritty’s of finance. He makes her understand the difference between "cost" and "worth". Its all good until her credit bills have rocketed sky high, and she cannot evade her debt collector any longer.

Then it’s the usual story of how the girl clears her debts and learns to say no to the mannequins.

Ups:

• This is 100 minutes of total fun with some really good comedy scenes.
  

Downs:

• Some may find it Rebecca's character similar to that of Reese Witherspoons’s in Legally blonde, but I guess as far as a movie makes you laugh, how much does it matter.
  

Watch it for the feel-good factor. :)