Review of 2013 Horror Film The Conjuring By James Wan, Starring Patrick Wilson, Vera Farmiga

Ed and Lorraine Sullivan are a ghost-busting couple who are professionally called 'demonologists'. Their job description: to visit supposedly haunted properties either to a) detect any troublesome supernatural presence and get rid of it or b) debunk the rumors using rational explanations. They record their findings on tapes and video cameras to i) send it to the Vatican as evidence of demonic activity to get sanctioned for conducting exorcisms, and ii) to use it during presentations when they're conducting seminars all over town. And you thought they were making home videos, did you? Those would be some nasty memories to keep! Lorraine is a clairvoyant, so she can see things other can't and visit people's memories and get a feel of their past experiences. It's a gift in case of happy memories, but looking at the nature of her profession, it doesn't seem like she gets many happy things to see.

When the Warrens visit the Perron family, who invite them after being traumatized by a demonic entity in their newly purchased farmhouse, it doesn't take time before Lorraine senses that things are going to get messy. Seriously messy. This time, the spirit isn't camera shy to lurk in the shadows until the very end of the film. It gives Lorraine an eerie welcome, hovering behind Roger Perron, the head of the family, when he opens the main door. The spirit then floats near Roger's children as he and his wife Carolyn introduce their five (yes, five. This actually happened in 1971, according to the Sullivans) girls to Ed and Lorraine. A few moments later, bammm, Lorraine sees a woman hanging from the tree (i.e. the spirit; yes, it's a woman again that haunts) close to the lake nearby. "The spirit has latched on to your family. So it'll follow you wherever you go" she then explains to Roger and Carolyn, thus putting an end to our common doubt: 'Why don't the guys just leave?'. An exorcism needs to be conducted, but the Vatican needs proof before sanctioning an approval. Our demonologists, like the 70s version of Ghosthunters, then begin installing cameras and mics all over the house, recruiting two other guys, Drew and Brad, for this twisted venture. They also have 'UV lights' that track foot-marks etc; I remember this object so well because Brad tells Drew during the film 'I need the UV LIGHTS' with such great emphasis on 'UV Lights' I thought it for a moment it was product placement.

Day one, or rather Night one remains relatively 'unghostly' except for a highly intractable door that'll shut on people's faces without warning. Its night two when things begin to shake up. We've already had a teaser even before Sullivans' entry; one girl is yanked by her legs every night, another sleepwalks to a closet every time while the littlest one (like all littlest ones in horror movies do) keeps talking to an imaginary friend who later turns out to be 'one of them little ghosts'. Now the evil spirit is incensed all the more because of the Christian crosses Ed has placed in all the rooms. She does everything in her powers to destroy the Perrons, and unlike some other spirits who circumscribe themselves to two-to-four tried-and-tested torture tactics, she has free rein here. She possesses the sleepwalking girl and takes her up to a secret area within the closet, she sends another one flying across the room, she drags the third by her hair, she flings objects at everybody etc. Other spirits make guest appearances too: the little ghost Rory, the knife-yielding maid and... yeah, I think that's it. When the evil spirit (a witch when she lived) possesses Carolyn, all hell breaks loose, with louder screaming, birds crashing, stuff flinging, cupboards crashing, Carolyn bleeding, Ed chanting, girls wailing... , and exhaustion sets in. Free rein to ghosts ain't really a good thing, is it?

The weakness of 'putting everything in to impress' hovers over James Wan's The Conjuring throughout, until it becomes an exercise to watch the film. Even when the spirit is introduced, James tries to put in as many 'Spirit Alert!' signs as possible. Repeating a few scare tactics but making them all the more frightening each time they appeared would've done the trick, for example, it was unnerving to know what was in store for the girl who had her leg yanked every-time. But Wan does a lot many other things too, which quickly turn laborious. 'Not scared of leg yanking? How about clocks stopping? Or birds dying? Or things breaking?' is Wan's attitude here, and it doesn't work.

The characters in the film are too many. Ed and Lorraine were required obviously, and so were the Perron couple. But five girls plus Drew and Brad? And so many ghosts? We don't know the girls to well nor the ghosts. And the film has a climax that wants us to be emotionally connected with Carolyn and the girls. Are we emotionally connected? Not really. More importantly, is Conjuring scary? Nope! My clairvoyance tells me I've seen far better horror films: Paranormal Activity, The Blair Witch Project, Rosemary's Baby, Drag Me To Hell, to name a few. I went to Conjuring wondering what nightmares shall haunt me, but I guess it's a good night's sleep for me.

Find a guide to this weekend's new theatrical releases, browse the latest movie news, and watch all of the week's new trailers, including new looks at the highly ...

Review of Nasha, a 2013 Bollywood Film Directed by Amit Saxena,Starring Poonam Pandey, Shivam Patil

Nasha gives teachers a bad name. Consider this. Anita is a newly appointed extra-curricular activities in-charge at an apparently urban high school (with probably the most dirty-minded students, whose behavior is supposed to be justified here only because they're 'coming-of-age'). She plans to conduct a romantic play during the academic year and wants her students to rehearse at her home (why? And she gets an enthusiastic approval from the headmistress, who's totally lost it, it seems). Surprisingly, only the protagonist Saahil and his bunch of loafer friends turn up every time, as if there are only ten students in the entire school. The boys are only there to ogle at her, and our 'innocent' Anita never notices their constant staring, like she's got partial vision or what?

Our drama teacher is so liberal-minded she joins them as they all sing a song together on erection. On field i.e. during rehearsals at her lavish home, she wants them to get into character (drama teacher Stanislavski would be rolling and weeping in his grave) and demonstrates to Saahil's girlfriend how a lady should flirt. The character Anita most probably chose to play was a dominatrix, as only that can explain the manner in which she corners Saahil and gets on top of him while his friends gawp open-mouthed (who wouldn't?). Saahil is infatuated with her and masturbates every night in bed fantasizing about her. That's until Anita's beau Samuel turns up and the movie takes a different albeit equally predictable track. What's disturbing, very disturbing here is Anita's conduct as a teacher. She openly smooches and probably even french-kisses Samuel in front of the kids during rehearsals. In one scene, he lifts her in his arms and takes her home in front of the students (since when is that considered professional?). When Saahil flubs during one rehearsal, Samuel tells him "Tere se nahi hoga, chal (You can't do it. Move!" and then waltzes his partner romantically; I'd probably have left that instant and never returned.

Now believe this. The two guys arm-wrestle and later race one another to prove who the better man is. Samuel pushes Saahil to the ground during the race and the kid starts bleeding. While Anita nurses Saahil's wounds, Samuel whispers to him inappropriately that he's finally got Anita's attention. Samuel proceeds to dab whiskey on Saahil's wounds, which irks Anita all the more. To make up, he takes Anita to one side (about two steps away from Saahil) and whispers something to her. They make up immediately and start smooching. Saahil gets up and leaves in a hurry. Once they're done kissing, Anita notices Saahil's absence and says 'Arre, yeh kaha gaya?' (Oh, where did he go?). Next time, why not get a room instead of making out in front of your student, that too one who totally digs you?

After a while, the play is completely forgotten. The major problem in this film is that Anita is not shown as a bad example of a teacher, even though she's setting a very poor one. Those who'd seen Cameron Diaz in the average comedy Bad Teacher would remember how her character took a pleasure in acting obnoxiously with her students and colleagues. There's nothing to hint that Anita's behavior transgresses a teacher's code of conduct; even the background score played for her is a sweet and positive one. What's also surprising is that the headmistress had no reservations or objections regarding her wardrobe, which mostly included revealing tops and mini-skirts (am not being a prude, here. Any Indian middle-aged female headmistress would have outrightly objected).

If teachers are given a bad name, wait till you hear how male relatives are depicted in Nasha. Saahil lives with his dad and uncle; we also get to know that mom is dead and the two men make jams for a living. Now try listening to this without exclaiming "What!!". As Saahil is masturbating one night, his uncle (or dad. It's interchangeable, really) enters the room and tells him something like "Aur kitna karega?" (How much longer will you continue?). Saahil feels embarrassed and stops, of course. Now, why on earth will a person enter the room knowing that his son is masturbating inside? Even if he unknowingly does, wouldn't he stop on realizing and hurry back outside? Why would he embarrass his nephew by telling him that he's caught in the act? In another scene, Saahil's father tells him "Porn dekhne ke bajaaye achi movie dekh" (Why don't you watch some good films instead of porn?" (Saahil is jerking off to porn at that time). What!!!

Nasha is also plagued with three of the most ridiculous songs in memory. What's worse is that we don't get enough of what we had come for i.e. nudity and sex (anyone who says "No. I came for the direction and acting" is a fat liar). Poonam Pandey, known especially to cricket-lovers as the 'girl who posed naked in a magazine after Kolkata Knight Riders won IPL', will surely join the 'Muses of Mahesh Bhatt' brigade alongside Sunny Leone soon. Pandey has long and sexy legs, a bodacious bust, a beautiful back and a bootylicious butt, plus she's certainly more expressive than Leone. She has a wide manly-looking lower jaw, but she looks very flattering nevertheless, especially with appropriate lighting. But Nasha doesn't let her go all the way because of the Censor watchdogs. Whenever the focus is lifted from her body to her acting (not bad considering the ridiculous part she's given to play), the result is a disappointing detumescene. The filmmakers don't know what to focus on in Nasha, the sex or the story. And sadly, both get a bad name.

Review of 2013 Film 'The Ship of Theseus', a 'Hinglish' Film Directed by Anand Gandhi

The Ship of Theseus is a painstakingly dialectical observation of the transient human forms journeying in the sphere of reality. It examines the paradoxes in arguments about human beliefs, values and ideologies, exploring through the cave of space and time to find answers in the arcane light of truth. The film is deep, sometimes dense enough to put you into a storm of confusion, yet its mysterious powers to stimulate your mind into questioning the basis of existence is nevertheless a remarkable feat for writer-director Anand Gandhi. It's all the more astonishing to know that Ship of Theseus is Gandhi's debut feature film, and wait it you hear the biggest shocker - this work comes from the same man who began the incredibly contrived 'evil mother-in-law vs. saintly daughter-in-law' tradition in Indian television soaps such as 'Kyuunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi (Because the mother-in-law was once a daughter-in-law herself)' and 'Kahaani Ghar Ghar Kii (Story of Every Home)' more than a decade ago.

This man has completed his journey, his eight-year pilgrimage at last (he conceived his idea in 2005, after making two short films 'Right Here Right Now' in 2003 and 'Continuum' in 2005) and he has found some answers, which he brings to the world in the form of Ship of Theseus. His search is probably still on, yet this film is as good as it gets.

Deconstructing the mighty body of Ship of Theseus to its bare bones would require considerable expertise (missing Mr. Ebert) and hence pardon me if my attempt falls short. There are three characters embarking on three different journeys, catalyzed by the coaxial theme of organ transplantation. The transplantation acts as the physical manifestation of the Plutarchian paradox, which questions that 'if all the parts of a ship are replaced plank by plank and the same were used to build a new ship, then would the new ship remain the same ship as before?'.

Aliya Kamal, a visually impaired photographer whose perception of beauty and art is developed through touch and sounds in the absence of images, seeks for perfection in her pictures and often rejects photos her boyfriend finds great, leading to arguments between the couple. Her sixth sense of using sound (plus her boyfriend and the always reliable editing software) as her guide to capture delightful visual moments is threatened by her decision to go ahead with a cornea transplant to restore her eyesight. She shall realize that there's no such thing as a 'swan cart', an image she had designed inside her head for God knows what.

Maitreya, the second character, is an English-speaking erudite (and atheist) monk who fights for noble causes such prevention of animal cruelty during cosmetic and medicinal testing. He journeys on foot to fast track court (which is consistently sluggish) and lets his Parsi lawyer fight on his behalf (the defense lawyer meanwhile rubbishes the case as 'a sentimental petition', and door to door begging for alms. When his protégé Chavarka notices him saving a centipede from being squashed under somebody's foot and letting it go on top of a leaf, he jokes that 'the centipede may have been trying to commit suicide and now being saved, would have find his path to nirvana'; there is constant friendly arguments between the two revolving generally around the idea of moksha or enlightenment.

Soon, it is found that Maitreya has liver cirrhosis and the ailing monk, whose staunch refusal to touch any object made at the expense of torturing animals, refuses to undergo a transplant which would also involve taking dozens of such pills. He withdraws into seclusion, and ends up punishing his own body; for someone who believes so much in karma (what goes around comes around), God knows what sin did the saint commit to suffer so much pain.

Navin, the third character, is a money-minded stockbroker who busies himself in the world of shares and stocks even when he is admitted to the hospital. Once released, he goes home where his art-loving grandmother (whom he calls 'ajji', which means grandmother in Marathi) scolds him for showing little interest in art and social matters. When she is admitted to the hospital after fracturing her leg, she arranges a Rajasthani musician to sing folk tunes for her and her friends inside the hospital; Navin meanwhile fidgets around, trying to find a way to escape. The two have an argument later, where Navin accuses her of being intolerant towards his attitude of living, which is to luxuriate in material comfort and yet have basic human compassion. When he learns that a poor man's kidney was stolen a day before he got his own kidney, he fears he might have the man's kidney and searches for the true owner. God knows what drives him all the way to Stockholm in search of the new owner.

Anand Gandhi captains his Titanic Ship along its course, and it remains totally unhampered by any stupid icebergs. The easy way to look at this movie is that it's about organ donation, but on closer look, you'll see the theme of 'reconfiguration of human psyche by external forces' shining through. The film's structure is so massive, it's themes so multitudinous, that you don't feel sure at times whether you are moving in the direction the film intends you to move. My advice for those who can't understand everything would be to leave it to God and just understand what's easier for your mind to comprehend. Subsequent viewings will reveal further answers.

The cinematography by Pankaj Kumar is extremely fluid, and Gandhi allows the camera to remain static over long periods of time. That's where our actors, Aida El-Kashef, Neeraj Kabi and Sohum Shah (also the producer), do all the excellent visual communication, bringing an emotional intensity which gives these philosophical concepts a simpler, human form of expression. There's some powerful imagery here that draws our focus to the grand scheme of things. We begin to question ourselves then, wondering "God knows why... ?". Our journey begins.

Check Out This Article On Online Shopping That Offers Many Great Tips

Are you tempted by the lure of shopping from the comfort of your home while enjoying a cup of coffee and lounging in your pajamas? Have you been wanting to shop online, but are apprehensive about the process? Are you unsure if you're getting the best deal or if a website is trustworthy? Well, you've come to the right place. Keep reading to learn the ins and outs of online shopping.

Shop around when shopping online. You may find that prices for certain items can vary greatly from store to store. To be sure you get the best deal, look at a few different stores to find out their prices, as well as shipping charge. This will allow you to get the best deal you can.

A great way to stay safe when shopping online is to avoid clicking any web addresses that are sent into your email. If you are expecting an email from a company, go to the actual website and do not click any links. Legitimate businesses do not send emails asking for personal information or account information.

When you enjoy the convenience of frequent online shopping, it's very important to keep changing the passwords you use for each account. Every couple of weeks or so, make up a new password for your bank and the shopping sites directly. Use abstract words, combined with numbers and other odd characters for the strongest passwords.

Do not just go to one online merchant to buy a product. Do some price comparison with other retailers. Compare the product costs along with shipping prices and their return policy. When you have this information, you can rest assure that you will purchase from a retailer whom you can count on.

If you notice an item that you like and want to purchase while you're out running errands, see if you can find a better deal for it online! Many things like shoes or video games are cheaper online, so doing a quick internet search could save you some money.

Searching is the key to saving money with online shopping. Do a search for whatever it is you want to buy. You can use a traditional search engine like Google, or a shopping-specific engine like Shopping.com so you can more easily see who has the item in stock and what their price is.

Sign up on online communities that focus on finding bargains online. Forum members post their best bargain finds and daily deals for other members to enjoy. This is a great way to stay posted on the bargains that pop up everyday. You just never know if something that you want goes on sale.

Beware of phishing scams. No online retailer will send an email requesting you to send them any personal information in an email. If you receive an email like this, contact your credit card company using the number on the back of your credit card. This will ensure that the email is legit.

Look for clues that the small online shopping site you've chosen is reputable. Is there online store powered by Amazon? That's an obvious sign that it's legit. Is it a secure website (look for https instead of http)? If so, it's another great sign. Do they show customer feedback? Another excellent sign. If you see none of these, you should do more research prior to making the decision to buy through them.

In conclusion, there are many things to know and understand about online shopping before you start clicking away. After reading this article, you are well aware of these ideas and are ready to enjoy shopping from the comfort of your home. So, grab a cup of coffee and put on your pajamas and shop 'til you drop!

Review of BA Pass, A 2013 Ajay Bahl Film Starring Shilpa Shukla and Shadab Kamal

When characters in a film have unclear motives, there audience feels disconnected. Mukesh, the protagonist of B.A. Pass is a naïve middle-class college-going guy who shifts to his aunt's house in Central Delhi along with his younger sisters after the death of both his parents. He is made to perform all the household chores such as sweeping the floor and serving drinks to guests. Basically, his life's quite similar to Harry Potter's at the Dursley's home, albeit slightly better - at least he gets to sit on the dining table. He has a cousin who is just as big (although not in physique) a prick as Dudley Dursley was with Harry; not one day goes without his cousin browbeating him for not getting a job and contributing to the family income. Mukesh meets a Sarika, a mysterious lady in her thirties, at one of the kitty parties hosted by his aunt. The next morning, she calls him home for some work.

The two quickly jump into action. She trains him how to control, he learns obediently. And all along we wonder what's running through Mukesh's head but never get an answer. Is he doing it purely for sex? Does he love her? What happens after in between their love making - do they talk? Does he grow protective of her? Is he so stupid he doesn't suspect even once that she might be using him? Or that she may be involved with other men like him? Our penetrating questions get no satisfactory response.

B A Pass isn't a place to look for character study. The movie takes the maxim 'Desperation drives the poor and deprived to commit dishonorable acts' is literally taken without adding any layer of psychological complexity that makes us empathatize with those committing such acts. There's a complacency, a 'just go with it' attitude we see in Mukesh that disturbs us quite a bit. Sarika drops too many hints along the way which clearly suggest that she intends to make him a gigolo, and yet he stays ignorant. He doesn't seem to have blind or unconditional love for her either, so what is it he seeks from her? He can't be such a tubelight to fall into her traps so quickly, so easily; he reads Kasparov and aces at chess (he plays chess with Johnny, a guy he befriends at the graveyard), and anybody who's good at chess is expected to have minimal intelligence. And it doesn't help that Shadab Kamal, the actor who plays him, dutifully plays his role without trying to redeem the poor characterization through his performace. When Mukesh is forced to turn to gay prostitution after getting into trouble and losing all his female clients, Shadab doesn't convey the hesitation, the humiliation which any straight man would face in such a situation. He just goes with it, and I find that perplexing.

Mukesh's partner-in-sex Sarita wears a different colored brassiere every time, but her character doesn't reveal any colors to her personality except black. So it surprises me that the costume designer thought it would suit to change the color of her underclothes each time when using black throughout would've functioned better in defining the character she actually is. There is no good side to Sarita, no grey shade, only black. In an earlier scene, she mentions 'she travelled a lot with her father and saw many things at a very young age'. We wish she had revealed what she had seen exactly, and what made her the kind such a woman. The director doesn't explore this aspect, and chooses to keep it all implied. "Oh she must've seen bad stuff! Naughty stuff!" is what we're supposed to understand by her remark and just go with it. Again, no help from Shilpa Shukla, who plays her rule dutifully yet blandly.

Whenever there's a sex scene in the film, there's a large object to hide the no-nos and in one case, the scene goes out of focus. The large objects strategically placed in front to cover the entire pelvic area makes the sex scenes look rehearsed because the movements are just too rhythmic. A smarter thing would've been to cut to close ups shots of the characters getting pleasure as Censors can't object a face, can they?

The good thing about B. A. Pass is that it's mercifully short, clocking in at 95 minutes. It could've ended one scene, one fade out early and made a better impact. There are funny parts in the film, like Sarita's biji warning Mukesh about Sarita's character, calling her a 'nagan, a kanjari (derogatory word used for a lower caste associated with activities like prostitution)' before Sarita can shut her in the bedroom, or the female client who narrates episodes of her favorite serials as she's having sex with Mukesh. The part involving a client whose husband is in comma (a special appearance made by actress Deepti Naval) remains underutilized.

The biggest mistake B. A. Pass makes is that it highlights all the film festivals where it won awards or was screened, even before the movie begins. This elevates expectations, and you go in anticipating a film that doesn't choose the easy route of 'just going with it'. Unfortunately, it is into this very trap that B A Pass trips and isn't able to escape.

Review of Thalaivaa/Leader (Rather Talai-Vali/ Headache), a 2013 Tamil Movie Starring Vijay

Tamil A.L. Vijay's Thalaivaa has courted controversy after theatres in Chennai which originally intended to play the film received bomb threats, thus leading to a no-show on the first week of its release. It has however reached a cinema hall in the quaint but economically mushrooming city of Vadodara, my home-town. And my brothers, or rather bros, in Chennai, consider yourself saved (except for that poor fan-boy who committed suicide after his idol Vijay 's ( i.e. the lead actor and not A.L. Vijay,the director) film didn't see a release in Chennai. Bro, a word of advice: there are better things worth giving up your life for)! For the film is such a god-damn ridiculous piece of trash it should be kept out of human reach. Here's another word of advice, this time for Tamil Nadu's chief minister Jayalalitha, whom actor Vijay has approached for approving his film for Chennai theatres: don't listen to him! Instead do this: set up gas chambers just like the ones used in WW2 concentration camps and get about a million people killed. Set up a nuclear plant in the hub of the city and leak it. You'd probably see your name taken alongside Hitler's, but if you make the gravest mistake of releasing this film in the city you lead, consider your precious C.M. seat taken! In the first case, you'd be a dictator and yet not lose your precious 'kursi' (seat)...

I believe one S R K Karnan has filed petition with the Chennai High Court alleging that the film portrays the lives of his father and grand-father, two social leaders in Mumbai's slum-ridden area of Dharavi, in a highly unflattering light by distorting facts and depicting the two men as dons and thugs. His petition would probably be rejected, but if he does make another one claiming his lineage is portrayed as boneheaded idiots, he'd probably win the claim. Thalaivaa is hardly a biopic. Neither is it about "the people" as the protagonists in the film often claim. It isn't about Anna, who if Karnan's claim is true has been based on his granddad. Neither is it about Karnan's father. It's all about the idiotic hero Vijay. His screen-time and close-up shots confirm this. He dances, he romances, he sings, he jokes, he does dollops of dishum-dishum (fight) and some poor imitation of Robert Di Nero in Godfather and Abhishek Bachchan in Ram Gopal Varma's Sarkar/Sarkar Raj, whenever he gets a free time from all the dancing, romancing and dishum-dishuming.

He's a wannabe dada/don. The film itself is a wannabe Godfather, a wannabe Sarkar, a wannabe typical-Indian-romance (but with twist) and at times even a wannabe ABCD (Prabhudeva's film on dance). It spends much of its time worshipping its hero Vijay, to an extent that it kills of Anna's character (played competently by Sathyaraj) pretty quickly. It wastes little time to reveal its true intentions of becoming another in the endless list of forgettable kitschy 'romance-drama-action' money-spinners that are dumped on mass audiences by Kollywood and Bollywood. Sathyaraj, playing Anna, is a former coolie who eventually becomes the protector of honest slum-dwellers of Dharavi by delivering justice through violence and force. But the film relegates him to a shadow, one appearing occasionally to tell his son how busy he is, as soon as Vijay enters. He plays Anna's NRI son-settled-in-Melbourne Vishwa, and the film abruptly switches gear from dead-serious drama to hokey-jokey comedy. Comedian Santharam joins in as Vishwa's buddy Logu to fuel the film's path of self-destruction, and for a while we get an unappetizing feel of watching 'Sarkar + Comedy'.

Enter love interest Meera (played by dusky beauty Amala Paul) and the film enters 'romance mode', spending almost an hour till we exclaim "Oh my goodness! What happened to the original plot?!!" (that comes right before the interval, so you can be bold enough and try to ask whether you can come in after interval and pay half the ticket price. I wouldn't recommend that either as things get even worse post-interval). Vishwa and Meera participate in a dance contest and win, overcoming hurdles like being attacked by their competitors. But why are these things important in a film about Dharavi, its people and its self-proclaimed leaders? Why on earth would he think including a series of comedy sketches, one involving a cook who cannot cook, another about a bunch of single-men in Melbourne pining for Meera and the third involving Meera lying about her marriage with a sleazy-looking B-grade movie star, would be a good idea? Because they absolutely do nothing to further the plot, and they last as long as durex condoms. And how ridiculous is it for a film to forget itself, and jump from drama to comedy to romance and return only to kill of the character of Anna, poor Anna in a car blast? And to listen to Vishwa and Logu call each other 'Bro' every single time because, you know, they're in Melbourne and all, is borderline painful. Just imagine hearing something like: A- 'Bro... ' B- 'No, bro... ' A- 'Of course, bro' B- 'Bro!', (10x).

Twists before the second half - Meera and her dad turning out to be undercover police after they visit Mumbai along-with Vishwa under the pretext of discussing with Anna about Vishwa's marriage with Meera, and a guy named Bhima claiming responsibility for killing Anna to avenge his father's murder (Anna had killed a hate-monger named Varadarajan Mudaliar in the past). Bhima is really a weirdo - he meditates chanting Anna's name (then Vishwa's; actually the words chanted during meditation help in relaxation so it's hard to understand how chanting one's villain's name will increase animosity towards that subject: weird spirituality) and he sounds like an evil cyborg, credit awful dubbing (he's played by Abhimanyu Singh, a pucca Punjabi puttar). Vishwa meanwhile spends his time either channeling his inner Sylvester Stallone/Salman Khan, pounding men after men with brute energy, or drinking bhaang and doing masti (fun). The condition of this film post-interval turns from rubbish to muck to sheer atrocity. A song in the film goes 'Thalapathy Thalapathy'; meanwhile you'd be experiencing a great deal of talai-vali (headache). I recommend a CT scan after watching this film.

If Thalaivaa is the film of 2013, then its a clear indication its the Dark Ages for Tamil cinema. This film doesn't deserve the controversy it's getting (controversy = publicity = ka-ching!).T he multiplex I visited usually plays a little too many ads. This time I wanted some more. The movie, however, takes ages to get to a point, and still doesn't make any impact.

Review of Metropolis, a 1927 German Expressionist Science Fiction Film By Fritz Lang

I am a preacher of logic and rationality. Metropolis defies logic. This Fritz Lanz film is the definition of absurdity, a characteristic I normally dislike. It offers a half-hearted resolution to the maxim 'the heart is the mediator between the mind and the hand', elaborating it wonkily, like a student science project that uses quantum physics and shit to make candyfloss for extra marks (students of science, forgive me for my ignorance here, as I have no clue about quantum physics. Its one word I keep hearing often on the web, though!).

The 'experiment' ultimately turns disappointing because the process is unnecessarily and inexplicably complicated. It ends up looking absurd, a characteristic, I repeat, I normally denounce. The major complaint I had with Fritz Lanz's 1927 science-fiction epic Metropolis, considered by contemporary critics as one of the most important films ever made, is quite similar to sci-fi author H.G. Wells' own reservations about the movie. I agree with H.G. Wells when he attacks the film for favoring message over logic, although I wouldn't be as vehemently hostile as he is (his review basically rips apart the film to shreds, and not just through any shredder but one that shreds it to nano-bits). There are two things I fail to understand:

1) The film talks about workers living in the underworld who toil for a reasonable ten hours at a factory, controlled by a magnate by the name of Joh Fredersen. A whistle billowing from a pipe-like machine marks the end of their shift. The only sign of their oppression is their style of walking, a rhymic march with slightly stooped backs. An elevator takes the workers to their homes, which aren't all that shabby. To me they looked like card-board boxes with cut-outs for windows, but they appeared quite roomy, at least from the outside.

One day, there's an accident at the workplace. Quite a number perish, and the film's protagonist Fred, Joh Fredersen's son, bears witness to the unfortunate sight. He informs his father, who until then is clueless about the mishap. There is nothing suspect about this accident. Accidents happen, shit happens. Frankly, I wanted to ask those workers 'What are you fighting for?!' because there seemed no strong motive behind their rebellion. It's also funny that we know absolutely 'nichts' (nothing) about what those machines produce? Because, you know, they are supposed to 'run the whole damn place' and that's why Joh is a monopolist turned autocrat. They run a city teeming with motorcars and planes, so these machines make automobiles and aircraft?

When there is a breakdown later in the film, the whole city comes to a standstill. There is no power, so are we to assume these machines generate power? And what do the civilians living in between the underworld of workers and the 'Club of the Sons' (where the rich, including Joh and Fred, reside) do for a living? And why is it a compulsion that if a person is fired by Joh, he goes straight to the underworld, as shown in the film.

2) Fred is smitten by Maria, the messenger of peace and equality among the workers of the underworld, and touched by the plight of the poor workers' children whom she brings along to the Club of the Sons one day to damn the wealthy (albeit tactfully) for the excesses and negligence. He follows her to the underworld, is haunted by the condition of the workers and decides to support Maria's cause for uplifting their living standards. He becomes a worker himself, and a mediator between the two world.

On hearing a word about Maria's secret meeting with the workers, Fred's father schemes with a mad scientist named Rotwang by creating a robotic clone of Maria using the robot invented by Rowtang which he originally built to replace his lost love Hel, the dead wife of Joh. Maria is kidnapped, bound in Rowtang's laboratory to clone her face onto the robot's, and then kept in captivity at Rowtang's isolated home. The clone Maria is instructed to instigate workers to riot. She also sets tongues waggling in the world above with her seductive performances. In one dance, she pops out of an oval-shaped object, which I assume was a source of inspiration for Lady Gaga's bizarre entry at 2011 Grammy awards. Also for Madonna's Super Bowl performance, where her head-gear was definitely inspired by Maria's. I wonder which diva was inspired by the good Maria? Maybe Janelle Monae, but she too became channeled as a robot in her wonderful album ArchAndroid. Okay, I digress too much.

The work force, incited by evil Maria, revolt against Joh's regime and proceed to dismantle the heart machine, which in turn results in a deluge in the underworld. The machines too are damaged extensively in the process. Now, why in the name of Metropolis would Joh, the creator of Metropolis, destroy his own city? Of course he intended to subdue these workers by force at some point but perhaps he was too late. Way too late. Sergei Eisenstein had an entire army take quick action against revolting civilians in Battleship Potemkin. Mr. Joh simply waits.

The score by Gottfried Huppertz isn't distinctive either. I bet some of Janelle Monae's Metropolis inspired musical compositions, especially Suite iii Overture, would've done magic to some scenes in this film. The Gottfried Huppertz score and 119 min runtime indicate I have the 2002 DVD edition of Metropolis. There is a 2010 restored version with 25 minutes of additional footage. Would I buy it as a lover of films? Maybe. And as a preacher of rationality? Nien.

Review: Ender's Game

The minds of youngsters can be like a sponge as they grow up. Before hitting puberty, the human brain is still developing into what it needs to be and some may see it as a chance to teach kids right, wrong and maybe their own agendas. Whether your agenda is good or bad, instilling your beliefs in them can potentially steer them the direction that you wish. It's something that many of us already know, but according to Ender's Game, it's something that can be used to create the next wave of soldiers as well.

Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford) is one of the people who believe in this way of transforming the military into something that can protect the world from the attacks like they experienced 50 years ago during the first Formic Invasion. He runs a program that only takes the smartest kids in the world and builds them into soldiers who will have the capabilities to defend mankind when the moment arises. It's something that plenty of people want to be involved in whether they're kids or the parents of the kids.

One of the kids that is in the ranks of these intelligent youngsters is a boy named Andrew "Ender" Wiggin (Asa Butterfield). His brother Peter (Jimmy Pinchak) and his sister Valentine (Abigail Breslin) have been a part of the program before, but both failed to make the cut for various reasons. Graff knows this, but he believes that Ender is different. He sees Ender as the one who is the answer to all of the questions that he and his associates have been attempting to solve for a while now.

While being in the program, Ender is enrolled in "Battle school." It's where the best of the best continue their military education as they prepare for battle and hope to be selected. During this time, he learns the lessons needed and meets some different teachers that will help mold him into the warrior that he needs to become has he moves through the ranks. He also runs into power struggles with various authority figures. All of this is difficult for the young man with aspirations of military glory, but it's all a part of the learning process that can save the world.

Ender's Game is a movie that seems to be something that's made for kids on the surface. You see the commercials, maybe the trailers too, and see a bunch of kids who are supposed to be playing a vital part in a movie with a PG-13 rating. When you actually watch the film itself, it actually feels more like a movie for adults when you look at the mood, tone and portions of the subject matter.

Because of this, I don't know if kids will really be all that into this film. The mood of Ender's Game can't be considered anything aside from dark, frigid and serious. There are very few smiles or anything positive or upbeat that you'll notice. You're watching the kids on screen, and there's very little to separate them from the adults that we've seen in most other movies. I believe that kids should feel like kids most of the time when you're talking about film, but that's not how it is here.

I find it difficult to believe that kids will find these characters to be relatable even if they're of the same age. Then again, I don't know if you'd find too many adults who wouldn't find these guys a bit strange. They talk like adults, the have the attitudes of some of the adults we see in movies, but they're in these young underdeveloped bodies with voices of people who haven't even hit puberty. Are kids really interested in watching anything like that? Would adults be intrigued by this? We may be in bigger trouble than I thought if either one of the answers to those questions is yes.

Another thing about Ender's Game that I doubt kids will be "jumping for joy" for is the pacing of the film. The movie that's apparently made for children is extremely slow and just adds to what may be seen as something that would be hard for them to digest. This pace works well when your setting everything up, but you can't keep that pace going through an entire film that's nearly two hours long. There has to be a pay off much sooner than what we're given in Ender's Game.

All of the good that's done in the earlier portions of this movie comes undone by this and it becomes more and more difficult to give Ender's Game a passing grade by the time it reaches its climax. Because they wait for so long to finally give us that pay off, the energy never actually picks up as the movie progresses. You're waiting for that jolt to hit the screen, but it never really comes like it should.

Once you finally get to the end of Ender's Game, they finally get some spark, but that's the main problem. They keep all of the twists and turns closed up and hidden until that point and they don't really give the audience much before that after some of the early portions of the film. Except for the ending, all of this movie feels like a build up to a bigger story, but the truth is the entire movie is only a build up to a sequel.

I'm assuming that the sequel contains all of the stuff that I was anticipating going into Ender's Game. That would explain why this first film is pretty much all about preparation and setting things up, but it just seems like a hard sell as far as a film is concerned on its own. There needed to be more than what is being showcased in this film, and I think this may indeed do some damage to the entire franchise that they clearly want to sell to the people.

I would think that one needs to be more engaged in some way when going to watch a movie. Because of its lack of drive mixed together with its unrelenting training sessions and lack of identity, Ender's Game misses the mark in a way that could have been avoided if Gavin Hood and the gang realized they were making a movie that's supposed to have entertainment value for kids and people who may want to find a legitimate source of mental stimulation. Doing so would have maybe taken more time and effort, but it would have been better than what we get here.

With a good cast overall and an interesting ending, Ender's Game isn't a complete failure, but there's simply not enough in it for me to recommend it or want to see it again. If you're thinking about seeing it, just know that it's nothing but training. After that just skip to the end and you'll have your whole story. That sounds simple right? Well unfortunately, that's really all Gavin Hood's Ender's Game really is. Maybe you should just read the book it's based on instead.

Score: 2/5

Rating: PG-13

Director: Gavin Hood

Cast:
Asa Butterfield
Haille Steinfeld
Harrison Ford
Abigail Breslin
Viola Davis
Ben Kingsley
Moises Arias

Film Length: 114 minutes

Release Date: November 1, 2013

The Dark Knight Rises (2012): Bane Vs. The Joker

The Dark Knight Rises is Christopher Nolan's third and final Batman film, concluding The Dark Knight trilogy. The story takes place eight years after the events of The Dark Knight. An aging Bruce Wayne has retired from being Batman and has become a shut-in. But a new and mysterious man called Bane has come to Gotham to finish the work of Ra's Al Ghul, the leader of the League of Shadows and primary antagonist of the first film. Batman is forced out of retirement to confront Bane.

I know that I have the unpopular opinion that The Dark Knight is a disappointment. Its sequel is another matter. The storyline is more interesting. Although the length of the film is a concern and the story is somewhat slow to develop, it keeps you emotionally involved. Here you have a villain, Bane, bent on destroying Gotham by creating anarchy. The Joker, however, wanted to create anarchy just for the sake of doing it. He had a plan while The Joker was just, more or less, enjoying the ride.

Originally, studio executives wanted The Riddler to be Batman's nemesis is this film due to the success of The Joker in the previous one. But I believe this never would have worked given this plotline. We would essentially have to have the same kind of story as The Dark Knight, which wouldn't have been as successful with film audiences. Sequels were meant to be a continuity of events, not a remake with the only difference being different villains. The use of Bane and his physically demanding presence made it stand out from its predecessor.

To wrap, although The Joker has always been a personal favorite villain, Bane's presence in The Dark Knight Rises appears to me to be a vast improvement over The Joker in The Dark Knight.

Kevin T. Dillehay has written more than 100 movie reviews from all genres. He provides a unique perspective on the movies you see all the time but may not stop and think about in depth.

Review: The Fifth Estate

There are an uncountable number of things that ordinary citizens can do in this day and age thanks to the internet. You can get the latest news, listen to music, watch movies, broadcast yourself to the world, watch free porn and do a host of other things that have assisted in altering the world in some way, shape or form. For someone like Julian Assange, he used the internet in a way that's similar, but he did it on a grander scale that featured controversial methods of releasing controversial details that the ordinary citizen was never supposed to see or hear about. Along with Daniel Berg, his story is told in The Fifth Estate.

Being played by Benedict Cumberbatch, The Fifth Estate tells the story of Julian Assange as he goes as deep as he can to expose the many infractions of governments, banks and other organizations doing things that they're not supposed to be doing. He's relentless in his work and is determined to unmask and broadcast the illegal behaviors of the "powers that be" with the hopes of ultimately bringing them to their knees. His ferocious approach to accomplishing this mixed with a level of intelligence that some may perceive as superior leads him to developing wikileaks after years of doggedly hunting down the people with a discernible degree of financial power that have the capability of corrupting the ungoverned who make their own rules.

While developing the massive and dangerous website that came to be known as wikileaks.org, Assange also bumps into a large number of people who want to help in his self-appointed crusade against the unethical segments of the world's systems. One of the eager people that he meets is Daniel Berg (Daniel Brühl), a technologically sound German with skills of his own to bring to the table. Once these two become acquainted with one another, they strike a bond built around their desire to bring down the allegedly nefarious groups that Assange has spent years chasing after all across the planet.

Together, these two men lead a charge by hacking these types of institutions and releasing the information that's discovered to the public. Due to this and the unpredictable structure of Assange's creation, they're becomes a world-wide phenomenon that spreads and forces the everyone to take notice. It turns them into celebrities in some circles while also bringing heat on them from the countless new enemies that they've been able to create in only a few years.

Obviously there are a lot of elements in The Fifth Estate that are worth paying attention to for any person who wants to give this a peak due to gaining an interest in the subject matter or just seeing how it's all handled by Bill Condon and his team of filmmakers. With either reason behind your desire to want to see The Fifth Estate, you're likely to leave the theater disappointed in what you witness since it's a waste of money and costs you a couple of hours of your life that you won't get back.

That may sound harsh, but if you watch the movie, you'll know that I'm being honest in my assessment. One of the features within the film that kills is the complete lack of interesting aspects of the film. There's nothing here to pull you in as a member of the audience and at times it may be hard to focus on for some. Seeing dudes sitting at a desk typing isn't fun and having them talk about things that don't pertain to any of the story's main plot points don't help either.

All in all, that's essentially what goes on for a good portion of the movie. The issue that I have with The Fifth Estate is that there isn't much in the characters that are being put out for the audience to watch. Just about everyone in the movie is flat and uninteresting. The actors in this account of the drama surrounding the Wikileaks affair are only here to deliver lines and lines only. There's nothing about any of them that captivate you in the slightest and that's difficult to sell when a film is this long.

With the exception of Laura Linney's portrayal of Sarah Shaw, there's no one else in The Fifth Estate that shows any natural level of emotion or personality. She's just about the only one that looks to have any blood flowing through her veins, but she's not portraying a significant character in the grand scheme of things. Aside from what she does in her role, there's Anthony Mackie and Stanley Tucci who have at least some kind of personality, but they don't have much either. The rest of the characters are completely lifeless.

Movies like The Fifth Estate need lively characters more than any other kind of film. In these instances, the characters will serve as a way to "jazz it up" a bit and keep the viewers interested over the course of the film's entire duration. Without these guys, these nearly impossible for movies like this to succeed. There aren't enough dramatic aspects within the story since it only exists to give details of actual events, so they need to rely on its characters. At their best, movies that face this dilemma are like cakes without frosting; they're edible, but you won't go out of your way to get seconds. At their worse, these movies will go largely ignored and uneaten.

The characters would serve as the frosting and help in making these movies interesting. With that extra frosting, you can add all types of designs to make it look more enticing and you can add more flavor to the unappealing loaf of dough as well. It helps people ignore the fact that the cake is still the same ordinary cake that it was before, but it taste better now and you may be willing to have another serving at its best. At its worse, you'd obviously be more likely to finish it because it's more than just edible, because there's also a little bit of flavor to it this time around.

The Fifth Estate does get its point across, but it never has much suspense and it never puts itself in a position to really peak at any point. When I think about what it is, this could have and most likely would have found success if it was made into a documentary instead of a feature film. There's interesting material laid out for you in this picture, but its given to you in an uninteresting fashion that turns it into a hassle to watch. The film version is too long and lethargic to make people want to pay attention, but a documentary wouldn't have those issues since most of them are between 60 to 90 minutes long.

If it were a documentary it would also have handled the characters differently. I can see the characters being shadowy versions of Assange, Berg and the rest of the group while being featured in re-enactments of the events that we watch in the movie. Based on how bland and flavorless these guys are in The Fifth Estate, there wouldn't be too much of a difference from that perspective. The only difference would be that the people responsible for bringing this to the big screen would have undoubtedly saved a bunch of money doing it this way since they wouldn't have actors with names in these roles.

Score: 1/5

Rating: R

Director: Bill Condon

Cast:
Benedict Cumberbatch
Daniel Brühl
Anthony Mackie
David Thewlis
Moritz Bleibtreu
Alicia Vikander
Stanley Tucci
Laura Linney
Carice van Houten
Peter Capaldi
Dan Stevens
Alexander Siddig
Jamie Blackley

Film Length: 128 minutes

Release Date: October 18, 2013

Review: Gravity

For as much as we know about space nowadays, it remains just as much of an unknown as it's always been. In spite of what's been discovered about it, there are planets that continue to be discovered and unearthed. One of the only that we know for sure is that humans couldn't live up there due to the lack of oxygen and gravity. Maybe one day we'll get at least some of the answers that we're looking for, but it'll be with a lot of journeys to foreign planets made by only a few experienced people for now.

Trained professionals who may be somewhat like characters Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) will be the ones who gather all of the necessary information that we'll eventually receive. They spend years trying to learn as much as they can just to learn about things that mankind could never dream of in places where our forefathers could never travel to. It's a really distant place that, as the movie Gravity points out, is a very beautiful sight to behold for those who get to gaze upon it with their own two eyes. In that sense it's a shame that the overwhelming majority of us will never get to experience such a treat.

For these lucky universal voyagers, who are literally able to share a portion of their lives with stars and planets, there also comes a number of dangers that come with such an awe-inspiring event. The usual issues like a lack of oxygen and gravity are obvious, but there's also the problem of maybe running into storm like events that can be natural occurrences or unfortunately man-made. When Stone, Kowalski and their team are faced with this dilemma, they see themselves in a situation that would be extremely difficult for even the most experienced space adventurers to find a way out of.

The dilemma that this team finds themselves in is a life-threatening one that sees Stone put in a position that forces her to operate on her own when she gets detached from the others. These series of events have her fighting for her life while all on her own in an environment that doesn't even allow for humans to literally stand up o their two feet. What's witnessed by the audience who watch Gravity is something that becomes a tale of survival that we've seen hit the big screen recently. I guess you can say that this style of action is somewhat new for Hollywood's version cinema.

Gravity itself isn't what anyone would call a deep movie. It's straight to the point and stays on a straight line for most of its 91 minute running time. What is seen during this time is essentially something along the lines of Life of Pi. As a matter of fact, I refer to it is Life of Pi: The Space Edition. If you've seen that movie, then you've seen a better version of Gravity. Just set the movie in space instead of an ocean, and make the lead character an older woman rather than a young teenage boy and you basically have the same story. They really didn't try to hard to create anything original as far as the storyline (and ending) is concerned.

Aside from Gravity being in space and having the lead character be a woman, the other major difference between the better version of this film is early portions of the movies. In Life of Pi, Ang Lee and the gang decide to use this segment of the film to set up the story as they try to build a connection between Pi, the main character, and the audience that's watching it. With Gravity, Alfonso Cuarón felt that the need for an approach like that was completely unnecessary. There is literally no build up or anything close to it in Gravity, they just throw you into the story and almost never even try to create any type of connection between the characters and the viewing public.

They try to develop some type of connection with the audience and the characters later on in the movie, but it really doesn't work at all. It feels cheap and forced in there just for that purpose. There's never any real need for this part of the story to even be included, because it has absolutely nothing to do with what's going on. Life of Pi on the other hand, actually takes what they have and fits it properly into the film's plot. It's a proper set up that you should expect from a film that's supposed to be of high quality. Maybe Cuarón and his team of filmmakers forgot about it? Or maybe they just figure you'd be too occupied with watching the pretty visuals to notice?

Speaking of the visuals, that's about the only thing in Gravity that stands out. The action that we're watching essentially consist of Sandra Bullock floating around in space while constantly finding her way into trouble immediately after finding her way out of trouble. Does that sound simplistic? That's because it is. To make her journey even scarier, they decided that it was best to give her another issue in the film. They decided that Ryan Stone also had to have her oxygen running low. Under normal circumstances, I could see how this would be something that a filmmaker would add to a story in order to generate suspense, but it's kind of ruined in Gravity.

Gravity destroy this potentially thrilling aspect of the story by continuously having Dr. Ryan Stone talk and talk and talk while having the audience being constantly reminded of the fact that she's running low on oxygen. Now, I'm no expert on space travel or even oxygen, but wouldn't it be best if she just kept her mouth shut? By simply shutting up, she'd save a bunch of the oxygen that she is losing. Not only that, but she is told to save her breath by Clooney's character and she doesn't even attempt to listen. As a matter of fact, the two characters continue to chat it up after he told her this. How does that make sense?

I understand that there needs to be some dialog in the movie, but why even include the whole "lack of oxygen" angle if you're going to completely ignore it after introducing it? Placing things in a movie just to get some type of reaction from the audience is bad in my opinion, but adding things into a film for that purpose, only to have the creators ignore it themselves is even worse. This is why I prefer the movies that I watch to make as much sense as possible at all times if possible. Plugging features and events in just to build excitement or tension doesn't work for me. It has to fit within the rest of the movie. That's something that Gravity didn't seem to care about.

As I said immediately after watching Gravity with my own eyes, I'm sure Bullock's performance will be praised and most critics will love this movie for reasons that I can't fathom. Not only that, I'm sure Bullock and the film will both probably get nods for various awards as well. While I'm willing to bet on that, it's quite obvious that I don't feel the same way. In actuality, Gravity just doesn't contain much substance or quality outside of it looking good. It seems as if Gravity only goal is to celebrate its snazzy graphics and it honestly doesn't deserve the credit that it will get from people passing out awards and accolades.

Score: 1/5

Rating: PG-13

Director: Alfonso Cuarón

Cast:
Sandra Bullock
George Clooney
Ed Harris
Orto Ignatiussen
Paul Sharma

Film Length: 91 minutes

Release Date: October 4, 2013

Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures

Review: 12 Years a Slave

Intelligence is not required to see that African-Americans (non-whites in general) are extremely underrepresented in the world of television and film here in the United States. There aren't a bunch opportunities to be had, but there are a large amount of stories about the Black experience that can be told. With the apparent lack of ideas floating around in Hollywood, you'd think that they'd be more interested in looking at this segment of America, but that doesn't look to be the case. It appears like most of them would much rather continue to push out remakes and superhero movies in order to combat what the issues that they currently have. Maybe movies like The Butler and 12 Years a Slave can assist in changing that.

Movies featuring African-American people and non-Whites as a whole don't even have to be based on true stories like those two films are, but there are a large number of actual events to look to if they want to focus on these kinds of things to find inspiration and at least a small bit of originality. 12 Years a Slave contains one of those stories and includes things that many of us are familiar with while also encompassing some aspects of race and slavery that some of us haven't really heard about. It's something that can surely be educational to many who are willing to open their eyes and give it a chance.

The story in 12 Years a Slave focuses on Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor), an African-American who was born and raised as a free man in the northeastern region of the United States of America. It's based on his personal account of the 12 years that he spent as a slave in the southern parts of America. 1841 was the year that he first ran into his unfortunate while living in Sarasota, New York with his wife and two children. He's living a good life at this point and is regarded as a talented violinist by those that he considers to be friends, family and associates.

While living the life that many would like to live, Northup found himself a target of men who made a living stealing Black people from the north and escorting them south so they could be sold into slavery. He didn't know it at the time, but there eyes were locked in on him and his time as a free man was quickly fading away. It's something that a number of unaccounted for people of color had experienced in Northern America and Northup was just one of the latest in line.

Sooner than later, the highly regard violinist finds himself tricked and forced into the most lucrative trade in American history. Whether he liked it or not, the captive is now on his way to becoming a slave as he's all of sudden chained to the endless nightmare of servitude to the types of oppressive slave masters that he had only ever heard about. It's a situation that no one would ever want to find themselves in, but it also has to be even scarier for someone whose last memories were of a normal life in a normal situation.

With being involuntarily placed into this morale killing position, he's surrounded by a type of Black person who's never known what it's meant to be free before. These people are slaves who have spent their entire lives on fields of slave master doing the job that he refuses to do. They can't read, write and are actually physically beaten and mentally brutalized if the master is even thinking that they may start to think for themselves. Of course, it's new to him and the men who control the whips and chains are determined to make him submit to their way of thinking.

One of the men who first come to take him as a slave is William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch). He's a nicer version of a slave master, but those aren't the only overseers that he and his fellow captives have to worry about. Men like John Tibeats (Paul Dano) are the ones who are determined to break him if not kill him if he chooses not to submit fully to their will. It's a dangerous game to play for Northup, but kissing the feet of another man doesn't come easy to a man who has never had to do so.

Another man that he becomes a slave to is Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender), a man who makes slave masters like Ford look like the saint of all saints. He's demeaning and appears to be on the verge of losing it at anytime. insubordination and perceived disrespect or disobedience isn't tolerated by him in any way from anyone. He treats his slaves like the animals that he perceives them to be regardless of their intelligence, knowledge or wisdom that they may have. Living with him is obviously difficult, even for the people who he calls family.

While moving through these 12 years that Northup experienced as a slave in the south, the audience bares witness to many of the brutalities that slaves had to face at the hands of the men who were considered their masters and the overseers they employed. Keeping your faith, your strength and integrity was no easy task for a slave, but some of them found a way whether they escaped, became free or died in the fields of inequality. Solomon Northup was one of the slaves who became free and faced those problems at the hands of men who lost their respect for humanity and integrity years before he ever set foot in the south.

12 Years a Slave goes out of its way to truly illustrate the savagery that's not really spoken of in today's version of America. Some of what is shown in this picture is without a doubt what some will see as very hard to watch, but it's also pretty close to what many of us have already heard about. In my opinion, films containing this subject matter have to be done this way, because it has to be faithful to what really took place. There's no "lightening" things up and that's exactly what I anticipated going in.

It not only shows the usual stuff that we know about when it comes to slavery, it also shows some of the differences between Black people in terms of their mentalities toward how they dealt with the "cards" that they were dealt. Some would fight, some would submit and others found a way to survive by submitting more than they were originally told to. In that sense, it certainly takes the time to go into the psyches of different types of people who were pushed into these unfortunate circumstances. From house negroes to field negroes to complete sellouts to their race, much of it is there.

12 Years a Slave also gives the viewer a glimpse of what the slave masters were like back then. They don't show you everything, but they do show you a lot. These guys were ruthless and heartless in unimaginable ways and it makes you wonder how humans could do these types of things to one another. Slave masters and most racists alike view Black people as being inferior to them. I guess you can say that they see them as closer to animals than humans, so that allows them to lose their own humanity in the process if they ever had any to begin with.

As many of us know, they would often use things such as religion to justify their treatment of slaves and Black people in general. That's something that's also shown in 12 Years a Slave, and theirs a bunch of other stuff utilized to put everything into its proper perspective for the audience. They show a ton of different things from those days, but I actually wanted them to show more even though I know why they couldn't. Steve McQueen and screenwriter John Ridley are only talking about what Northup experienced during his 12 years in slavery. That's why some of what I wanted in here isn't included, so I can't hold that against them.

What I do hold against them is the feel of the movie as a whole. I personally think that 12 Years a Slave is a movie of high quality that I certainly recommend, but the entire experience feels like more of an account of Northup's 12 years as a slave rather than an actual movie. I say that, because I didn't have that emotional connection that I should have had. I think it's because the film just tosses you into everything without setting it all up like they should have.

The film almost immediately throws you into his journey as a slave while barely spending time showing him as a free man beforehand. It's there, but I don't think they even spent find minutes on it to be honest with you. I would have liked to have seen him spending more time with his family, before he's just snatched away from them. I know that his family life was supposed to be good, but what did they do? What did they believe in? Who were they as a family? Never making any of that clear turns 12 Years a Slave into what could be simply a tool to educate. From that point it does a great job, but from an emotional standpoint I needed a little more.

In that sense, it reminds me of some of the foreign films that I've watched over the years. I love foreign films, but sometimes they lack the emotional connection that I want to experience while watching movies that deal with heavy subjects. I don't know why they do it, but it's one of the few things that I'm not to0 fond of when it comes to movies from other countries. I know that 12 Years a Slave isn't technically a foreign film, but it's directed by Steve McQueen, a British director and it stars a number of British actors.

Maybe that's why I didn't experience the full brunt of emotion that I anticipated. Maybe it's because of my knowledge of Black history. It could be either way. Seeing as I'm African-American myself, I've studied a bunch of different things about Black history in and outside of America. Maybe if I hadn't, some of what's shown in 12 Years a Slave may have shocked me more and hit me harder. Don't get me wrong; I felt it, but not as much as I wanted to.

With all that I've said, 12 Years a Slave is quite the educational tool for people wanting to learn about the history that we don't learn about from watching television, film or opening up the history books that are given to us in American schools. Most of the stuff that I learned was on my own outside of school or any of the other places that should be teaching us about our real history in America. It's kind of crazy when a British dude is willing to teach us more about ourselves than our own movies and our own school system. That should never happen. Hopefully, this can inspire us to do more than what we've done so far. It couldn't hurt can it?

In this review of 12 Years a Slave, I never got to the acting in the film. For the record, I'll say that it's great all around, and these guys really know what they're doing. There's also a legitimate chance that Michael Fassbender will at least be nominated for some hardware in this upcoming movie awards season for his work as a supporting actor in this film. Then Again, I also wouldn't be shocked if this movie ends up being a frontrunner for Best Picture and all that stuff. I don't know if they'll win, but that's not important to me. What';s important is that people go out and see it. Some of you may shed a few tears based on the reactions that I saw from the screening that I went to.

Score: 3.5/5

Rating: R

Director: Steve McQueen

Cast:
Chiwetel Ejiofor
Michael Fassbender
Benedict Cumberbatch
Paul Dano
Garret Dillahunt
Paul Giamatti
Scoot McNairy
Lupita Nyong'o
Adepero Oduye
Sarah Paulson
Brad Pitt
Michael Kenneth Williams
Alfre Woodard
Chris Chalk
Taran Kiilam
Bill Camp

Film Length: 134 minutes

Release Date: October 25, 2013

Distributor: Fox Searchlight

Shaun of the Dead (2004) Review

Shaun of the Dead is a horror comedy taking place in London. It stars Simon Pegg as Shaun, Kate Ashfield as Liz, and Nick Frost as Ed.

Shaun is a lazy, unambitious young man who lives with his best friends Ed and Pete. He is always hanging out at the local pub, The Winchester, with Ed and Shaun's girlfriend Liz. But Liz wants more intimacy and variety in their relationship. So Shaun promises a romantic dinner with just the two of them. But when he forgets to book the reservations, he suggests going to The Winchester instead. She promptly breaks up with him. That night, he goes there with Ed and gets drunk. The next morning Shaun is too hung over to notice that London has been taken over by flesh-eating zombies. When he and Ed finally realize what is going on, they devise a plan to pick up Shaun's mom and step dad, along with Liz and her roommates, and seek out the safety of The Winchester.

This film manages to successfully combine zombies with slapstick humor. Ed and Shaun make a hilarious zombie-fighting duo early in the story. The first ones they encounter, they attempt unsuccessfully to fight off by throwing anything they can find. Their slow thinking makes for a humorous scene.

One particularly ironic scene was when Shaun, too hungover to realize what was happening around him, was walking to the nearby store with the dead all around him. He was so oblivious that he himself could have been mistaken for a zombie. Although not one of the film's most well-known scenes, this was probably one of the funniest of all.

Despite being an obvious spoof, which are traditionally not well received by movie critics, Shaun of the Dead was actually praised by movie masters Quentin Tarantino, Stephen King, and George Romero, whose classic Dawn of the Dead was clearly an inspiration for this film. In fact, Romero was so impressed that he offered the writers, Pegg and Edgar Wright, cameo roles in his new zombie movie Land of the Dead.

To wrap, Shaun of the Dead is a film that both zombie and comedy lovers alike will enjoy.

Kevin T. Dillehay has written more than 100 movie reviews from all genres. He provides a unique perspective on the movies you see all the time but may not stop and think about in depth.

Lions for Lambs

"Lions for Lambs" is a drama that looks at the Afghanistan and Iraq wars to see if they have any credibility left. What is happening in the Middle East is that they are losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because they have to spend $12 billion a Month. "Lions for Lambs" is a drama that is critical of the war's agenda. It wants to tell people the other side of story so they get an idealistic picture of what is going on in the Middle East. It is based on ideology which includes democratizing the Middle East.

Tom Cruise plays a Senator Jasper Lrring who supports the war on terror and Meryl Streep who plays a journalist who is critical of the war in lraq. She is critical because of the US governments incompetent mismanagement of the war. There is also Robert Redford, who plays Professor Stephen Malley, who is idealistic about society. His attitude inspires Todd Hayes to make something out of his own life. Two of the professor's other students are in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban because they think it is a right thing to do for their country. The students Ernest Rodriguez and Arian Finch are also idealistic about the work they are doing to spread Democracy in Afghanistan.

The movie is corporate and pro-government propaganda telling a story that is fiction because the US government sent the troops to Afghanistan to meet the agenda of protecting US interests in the Middle East. Janine Roth, the journalist who is writing a story critical of the war for U S A Today, New York post, Boston Globe, and Guardian, gave Lions for Lambs a bad review because it is liberal propaganda, that is saying there are good wars and bad wars, she makes comparisons between the current war and the one in Vietnam. Michael Pena and Ernest Rodriguez volunteered and were sent to Afghanistan, but Professor Malley was in Vietnam due to conscription. Vietnam was a different kind of war being fought in a different time, as was the first world war.

Professor Malley has strong ideals and thinks he can change society. Senator Jasper Lrring also wants to change the world by fighting for plutocracy in the US and over who controls the world.

The mainstream media was critical of Lions for Lambs for being honest about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I would give Lions for Lambs three stars. Lions for Lambs is based on liberal ideologies and asks the viewer to question the motives for America's war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also think that Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, and Robert Redford are good actors.

Padayappa, Textiles and Livestock

Once upon a time in the year 1999, the inhabitants of Chennai, India, were rejoicing after a long wait. For months they had struggled against that intolerable beast - Mr. Anticipation. They say that anticipation kills. Well, it certainly might; especially when the cause and salvation of that anticipation turns out to be Superstar Rajinikanth's latest blockbuster, Padayappa.

Padayappa chronicles the life and times of a sparkling young man (Rajinikanth) with the enviable honorific of "Padayappa". A legend in his village, his animal presence is said to exude an atmosphere of sexuality so charged, that women conceive at the very sight of him. The lady of the manor finds herself totally and utterly in a grip of lust inspired by Padayappa's visage. A woman who is obsessed, yes, but also splendidly haughty, as she views herself as unquestioningly deserving of Padayappa's carnal attention; and resorts to the basest of stratagems to get it. However her attempts at seduction fail at every hip shake, and her frustration flames to rage on discovering that Padayappa's attention was already booked - by none other than her own maid.

Jealousy causes her to serve a colourful assortment of intolerable cruelties to the domestic help, culminating mysteriously in a cessation of hostilities one day, with her gifting the maid a beautiful silk saree, woven with threads of the most vivid shade of red. The maid, blinded by pure relief, sees this as a sweet gesture and complies with her memsaab's suggestion to try it on immediately, as well as her directive to take the rest of the day off for a stroll through the countryside to dazzle the neighbours with her pretty attire. Halfway through the stroll, the maid is too distracted by the ogling idle to notice a fuse getting lit right behind her - the memsaab completing the process of releasing a sullen bull held hostage by a spindly post. The bull takes one look at the maid's red saree, feels its colour rekindle a lost sense of purpose, and decides to devote its first lap of freedom to pursuing the fabric.

The bull chases the maid through fields and valleys, with the girl hollering for immediate assistance and cursing herself for not having had seen red earlier at the sahiba's sudden generosity. However, Padayappa appears just on time - standing between distressed maiden and crazed bull, with a bucket of canary yellow paint. One quick trademark smile later, he proceeds to empty the bucket's contents onto the maid's saree.

Needless to say, the bull was devastated.