The Man Who Knew Infinity (2015)

"Get on the grass. You're a fellow." -Prof. Hardy

Quick:  Simple story telling does little justice to a rather wondrous tale.  Capable acting by Dev Patel, Jeremy Irons, and Toby Jones carry the narrative, but there is little in the way of memorable character development or moments for pause.

Abstract: Why oh why would a movie about such beauty to be found in math shy away from really delving into its subject; math? I would wager that the audience that wants to see a movie about a mathematician from 100 years ago is a little less concerned with the story and more with appreciating the elegant beauty of numbers, harmonics, and equilibrium. Most movies with any amount of math go this route. It may be so as to not tax the brains of the writers, or it also might be that audiences do just truly hate math that much.

3.1415/5 See it, but don't look to hard for engaging substance. 

Baahubali: The Conclusion (2017)

Sivagami: This is my order. And, my order is the law.

Quick: A savage if drawn out conclusion/prologue culminating in intergenerational revenge. Satisfying in a don't think too hard about it kind of way.

Introspection: Imagine if they had released The Lord of the Rings movies with the Return of the King first, then Fellowship of The Ring, then all 3 Hobbit movies, and concluded with The Two Towers.  That's what it feels like to watch Bahubali 2: The Conclusion -even more so if you did not see part 1. *Spoiler* The reveal that Bahubali has a son and that his son is instantaneously grown and played by the same actor is just too much.  It is true that taking segments of story and placing them out of chronological order can be a boon to story telling and make the experience more enjoyable for the audience as they are privilege to future/past information that characters are not. Unfortunately, for Bahubali, this use is a giant fail.

Score: 2.8 out of 5 stars- Again I recommend it as a way to improve one's understanding of Indian (Tamil) cinema, but I wouldn't watch it for its other qualities -maybe the hair.

I want to give a special shout out to Nassar.  -I've been seeing him everywhere across Southern Indian films of late and I think he is excellent. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0621937/

Bahubali: The Beginning (2015)

"I did." -Kattappa (in reference to who killed Bahubali's father -also name Bahubali.)

FYI: Watching the 2 parts of Bahubali should be done in order, but that doesn't make the timelines choices of the creators any less jarring. Alas, this is only a review of part 1. (I unfortunately watched part 2 first and without subtitles, which biases my review.) 

Quick: For the uninitiated an Indian movie can be jarring; songs out of no where, allusions you don't understand, motivations that seem unclear, iconic imagery that lacks pull, etc. While I aspire to be culturally attuned, I cannot say that I took Bahubali into my heart. It came off as a colorful, 80's esque action film with big plot holes and bewildering substance. But it was fun. I really did enjoy the music and the hair. The hair was spectacular.

Thoughts: My big thought upon watching ":The Beginning" was how masculinity is showcased differently in different cultures and at different times. My own response is that I don't particularly identify with the musclebound machismo with a mullet style of man that is presented as the paragon for the many different kinds of Indians. It was like watching Conan: The Barbarian, Commando, and He-Man, but from an Indian perspective and with dancing (and 30 years in the future.). I do find it odd that the movie expects me to accept that Bahubali is royal because of his crazy strength, wit, dance moves, swagger, and incorruptibility. This fact is presented in a manner as to be an, "of course". This may fit into larger narratives to which I have no knowledge, but this immediately broke my suspension of disbelief and moved Bahubali into the realm of farce. I laughed. Often. I don't think I was supposed to.

Thought Experiment: I see that these kinds of films will be some part of the future of global cinema. How will Western markets/cultures react as India/China start pushing their soft power out for the masses? How will it change what I think of as masculinity, and those that grow up behind me?

Score: 2.4/5 I'd say see it. Learn something. Embrace things you don't quite understand. 

Hacksaw Ridge (2016)

Captain Glover: "All I saw was a skinny kid. I didn't know who you were. You've done more than any other man could've done in the service of his country. Now, I've never been more wrong about someone in my life, and I hope one day you can forgive me."


The Short of It: if you are only going to watch one WWII movie make sure it isn't Hacksaw Ridge. It meets technical requirements but delivers on very little.

The Long of It: I am beginning to misunderstand why we keep going back to WWII for movies. Why? Why not stories of other American wars? -assuming you just need to make a war movie. Spanish American war? WWI? Korean War? American incursions into Mexico in the early 1900's? Why WWII?

Part of me thinks that producers and financiers are simply biased towards stories from the last age of "heroes". It may also be that this was the last war where it was agreed by most reasonable people who was good and who was bad. Yet this doesn't explain why we keep getting WWII movies. There are so many. It goes on and on and on. We keep making them. In 2017 -72 years after VE and VJ days, there appears to still be a market for WWII. We as a society will move on when we do, but my tipping point has been reached.

As to Hacksaw Ridge, I thought Andrew Garfield, Vince Vaughn, and Hugo Weaving were miscast. Each one took some risks in their performances; drawl, trauma, and aggression, but each was ultimately unrewarding. I understand this as based on a true story, but I thought the portrayal of the conflict of conscience honestly a little boring and more than a little played out. Single-man standing up to THE MAN has been done.

I know that Mel Gibson was the director here, but I disagreed with a number of his choices in terms of shot selection and the how he chose to create dramatic tension.

1.9/5: Watch a different WWII movie if at all possible.

Bleed For This (2016)

Kevin Rooney: I mean, you just don't know how to give up.
Vinny Pazienza: No, I do. Trust me, I do. I know exactly how to give up. You know what scares the shit out of me, Kev? Is that it's easy.

-Boxing movies all kinda swish together now. Same plots, same boxing shots, same training sequences. Bleed For This proved to be up to a high standard yet; seen a different boxing movie, seen Bleed For This.

Maybe, I just don't get boxing; (I don't.), but I've seen a lot of boxing movies and I am now seeing that the recipe is wearing thin. In a strange correlation, the boxing movie decline has been a sin-curve behind the fall of boxing as a sport.

Two notes
1:  I may be in the minority here, but Aaron Eckhart did a really good job wit the paunch, the accent, the make-up and the balding. Weird; no doubt, but true commitment.

2:  I keep seeing Miles Teller movies. I don't know why? I haven't liked him, but I keep going back to the well. I think it's time to admit, that the shade I throw his way is out of my own misplaced jealous and confusion, not his lack of skill.  I will change my tune and do my best to get on board with his, so far, meteoric career.  The boy can box too.

2.75 out of 5: See it, but don't go out of your way.

Fantastic Beasts: and where to find them (2016)

Jacob Kowalski: "But why would I have to wear something like this?"
Newt Scamander: "Because your skull is susceptible to breakage under immense force.

Quick: Utter shlock. Pure. Unadulterated Schlock."

I am honestly surprised that I sat through FBaWtFT. I was on a plane and I am incorrigibly lazy, so I had inertia as a part of my decision making.

I hold movies that have to advocate that they look cool in low esteem already.  Not particularly looking cool and pushing Harry Potter to a place it did not need to go is a recipe for hackery. I did enjoy seeing Ron Perlman as a goblin.

What honestly upset me was that Colin Farrell was a reasonable if not excellent villain. *Spoiler* there was no reason to replace him at the finish with Johnny Depp.

I thought this nothing new, nothing non-obvious, and therefore ineligible for a patent.

1 out of 5: Skip it if at all possible.

Passengers (2016)

Gus Manusco: "But the drowning man will always try and drag somebody down with him. It ain't right, but the man's drowning."

Quick: Despite a promising golden age of Sci-fi set up, Passengers is earnestly boring and a little unsatisfying.

The setting of Passengers is one that I can get behind.  What would I do if I work up on an automated spaceship with no one else and it was going to be that way for the rest of my life? I honestly don't know. Solitude and I are not the greatest of companions. But, the struggle I would have internally regarding "a way out" I can only imagine as an ant to a spaceshuttle. The subsequent decision to bring a second person out of hibernation to share in one's pain, is also similarly tragic/flawed/understandable. The ground for this movie was fertile for theatrical exploration.

Unfortunately, instead of the whole film, this section was only given about 30%.  The rest of it is visual crowd-pleasing space movie with little soul and predictable outcomes. The ship is in trouble -Oh no!

Chris Pratt is acceptable, Michael Sheen is wasted, and Jennifer Lawrence just seems out of place (at all times.) The best actor was Laurence Fishburne.  Oh and why did Andy Garcia make a cameo? Was his role important in some alternate edit/draft?

2/5 -skip it if you can, but feel free to fall asleep after the first quarter on a Sunday afternoon.