With an enveloping direction and a beautifully engineered screenplay, Sonchiriya hits all the right targets.

Abhishek Chaubey has a niche audience to cater to; one which is not quite looking for over-the-top action and dialogue punches but for an authentically accurate atmosphere. You may not relate to it by watching through a glass of realism but you do accommodate into his world for entire film’s duration. He can promise you a good time; good time here doesn’t necessarily mean a comfortable time. The opening shot in Sonchiriya of a cut-open animal carcass with insects humming around is a proof of the fact that Chaubey is least interested in creating a comfortable setting. It is a dusty and abrasive world of rebels, ravines, guns, blood and gore set in 1975 Emergency. Sonchiriya is a film based on Chambal bandits who fight for a cause; something which the film does not spell out in crystal clear words. However, their actions quite tell you what a baaghi dharma is. Chaubey’s last film Udta Punjab showed parallel storylines about four characters who were associated with drugs in some way or the other. However, Sonchiriya gives you a quite different perspective. It does change the stereotypical thought that bandits are wicked by making us believe that bandits are simply debilitated by rigid social structures

Manoj Bajpayee is Maan Singh, the leader of the dacoits and also a humane person. He is quite antithetical to what normally we think of a bandit. When he loots a wedding ceremony, he is adamant on not touching the jewellery the bride is wearing. Infact he also tells one of his aides to give her some money as a blessing. Sushant Singh Rajput is Lakhan who is the prime weightlifter of the story. He slips into the character effectively which makes us forget his previous debacles and admire the treasured actor in him. All the characters in Sonchiriya have some weight to carry and each of them is perfect-fit for the job. Ranveer Shorey’s hot-headed Vakil and Bhumi Pednekar’s Indumati make the screenplay complete. Even in this drama driven by masculinity, Bhumi Pednekar makes her mark in the story. She is a feisty woman determined to carry the victimized little girl to a medical aid. The film delves deep into the rugged exterior and gives u a glance at the raw emotions of salvation and suffering. The characters see the ghosts of their past, a burden on their conscience, and question their morality. With brilliant cinematography from Anuj Rajesh Dhawan, the film maintains its authenticity by giving characters a Bundelkhandi dialect to speak. (It might be uneasy for people to keep looking at the subtitles, especially if they are not accustomed to watching foreign films).

The film has myriad shades of caste inequality, gender bias, politics, redemption and emotion. Sonchiriya refers to a golden bird and bandits are determined to search for the golden bird; something which might relieve them of their guilty conscience. Comparisons to Pan Singh Tomar are evident and film doesn’t quite live upto the Tighmanshu Dhulia directed classic. However, there is an immersive experience awaiting the viewers in drama from Western cinematic universe and Chaubey makes them look beyond the obvious. Here, I would like to specially mention Ashutosh Rana whose character Gujjar, a policeman has easily emerged the best performance of the film. He is brutal and nasty and yet we see his softer side towards end. The film is an ideological take on baaghi dharma and showcases its colours of spirituality and philosophy. With an enveloping direction and a beautifully engineered screenplay, Sonchiriya hits all the right targets.

3.5 on 5 stars

Uri : The Surgical Strike – Kaushal is the best fit in the story which switches quickly from facts to fiction

War films in Hindi cinema are fueled by strong patriotic vehemence rather than an assemblage of true facts for a subtle edge of seat thriller. We have examples of excellent war films which have stood the test of time; May it be Terrence Mallick’s Thin Red Line or Oliver Stone’s Platoon. Films on armed forces are expected to plunge into their psychological, emotional as well as physical realms of the men in uniform and keep audiences psyche hooked to theirs. However in Indian cinema, patriotic dialogues are thrown at higher decibels to create high spirits and sense of thrill. As character Major Vikram Shergill asks his commandos in Uri: the Surgical Strike “How’s the josh”. The answer is pretty much high for both the people on the screen as well as the ones sitting in the audience. Uri: the Surgical Strike had all the ingredients for a crisp procedural but it follows a more mainstream and a banal approach. Vicky Kaushal is the strong muscle of the film and he fits in the role like an electric plug to the socket. He is convincing as Major Vikram Shergill, tall muscular man with guts of steel and having requisite tactical skills as we meet him on his first mission on Indo Myanmar border as he leads the operation to wipe off the terrorists. He is the character, audiences could strongly root for.

Uri: the Surgical Strike oscillates continuously from facts to fiction. There is a hunger for revenge amongst the protagonist, the protagonist is given two fist fight scenes (something which Bollywood is not ready to shed off) and punchy dialogues. These are elements which make up almost every Hindi film and Uri was not an exception. However, it could easily have been one taking into consideration the inspirations it draws. Major Vihaan Shergill takes up a desk job so that he can take care of his mother afflicted by Alzheimer’s. He realizes his true calling back to the battlefield when a relative gets killed in a terrorist attack; a concept of vengeance which has been twisted & turned and thrown back at audience many times in past. The Pakistani terrorists enter the army barracks and shoot the officers in their sleep; an attack which charges up the Ministry to resort to extreme measures of a surgical strike. The film draws strong impressions from Zero Dark Thirty and Hurt Locker (both helmed by Oscar winning director Kathryn Bigelow). Paresh Rawal plays Govind sir whose character has resemblance to National Security Advisor Ajit Doval. He leads the operation from the Ministry and he is completely convincing. Director of photography Mithesh Mirchandani has done a fantastic job with scouting appropriate locations to add visually to the film. However, film lacks immensely at the scripting stage. The flow is unnecessarily divided into chapters which remain far from being dichotomous. They share a similar tone which itself negates the purpose of creating a chapter wise execution. The makers have done a terrific job with action making it slick and ruthless. With predictable outcomes, there is still a sense of dread as we see executions and explosions in night vision as men on mission go systematically from one safe house to other gunning down the terrorists.

 Kirti Kulhari and Yami Gautam do not have much of the heavy lifting to do as they serve to be mere cardboard characters. The factual information is clearly distorted and at points even narrative feels a bit bizarre. We see an intern in a DRDO who has a lion’s share to play in the surgical strike when Govind sir discards the DRDO approved gadgets over his bird-like surveillance drone  (something which is hard to digest if we take into account massive planning that actually went in for the surgical strike). The film is a treat for mainstream audience who wish to go in for another strong dose of patriotism. However for someone who wants to actually delve into the specifics and facts of surgical strike, a documentary would suffice.

2.5 on 5 stars

Dunkirk : Christopher Nolan's war epic is a Spectacular Tour de Force.

Dunkirk opens up with six privates walking on a deserted street in Northern France. We see one of them pausing to take a smoke only to be showered by an onslaught of bullets. Germans have successfully pushed French and British to the beaches while the trapped 400,000 men have limited means of escape. This is all the film stands on. Completely devoid of backstory and the historical specifics of World War II, Dunkirk puts us right in the moment. The plot is simple but the execution is not. Writer-director Christopher Nolan writes a screenplay fueled by claustrophobia and a powerful urge to survive the battle. His past films radiate his non-linear storytelling with the accurate blend of emotion and suspense. However, here he chooses to play with time instead. The audience is unburdened by unnecessary plot-twists and overwritten dialogues. Instead their mind is trained to adjust to the temporal complexities that distinguish between the movements on land, air and sea against the Hans Zimmer's sound mixing that act as a lament to the overwhelming terror.

Shot on a large format film, we see the young soldiers scattered on the beach, evading the bomb explosions and bullets. There is no blood and gore but the image of terror itself is a gut-wrenching experience. The film gives you a picture of the suffering and the immense pressure which is generated by their deepest desire to live. It is not a sight of defeat and chagrin but a celebration of the triumph in getting the wounded and the stranded out of the war zone. References to Prime Minister Churchill are the mere indications of his growing concern over the ebbing military muscle. Named 'Operation Dynamo', the 1940 evacuation had its share of contributors. The British Navy requisitioned civilian boats for the rescue operation wherein we meet Mark Rylance as Dawson, an old-timer who lost his eldest son during the early weeks of war. Aided by his son Peter and a young hand named George, he is determined in bringing the desolate back home safely amidst the resistance from a rescued shell-shocked soldier. The skies are patrolled by SpitFires; one of which is piloted by RAF pilot Farrier (Tom Hardy) who at the risk of degrading fuel, keeps the enemy jets from dismantling the destitution that lay beneath. Then there was towering persona Admiral Bolton played by Kenneth Branagh who was the pier-master during evacuation. These were men who ran the show. However, the biggest contributor here is Christopher Nolan. He has handpicked a compressed yet significant incident of the war and subjected it to a complex yet a visceral treatment. He disposes of the use of CGI and keeps the dialogue minimal to give the visual portrait of isolation, fear and distress. He has craftily managed to give you three individual tales taking place in their own time zones and locations converging only at one point; survival.

When it comes war movies, I have a very selective list which includes the likes of Oliver Hirschbiegel's Downfall ,  Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket and Steven Speilberg's Saving Private Ryan. However Dunkirk provides a more realistic imagery of war in a much smaller space.

9 on 10 stars 

High on ambition but low on craft , Bahubali 2 brushes greatness but fails to embrace it.

Bahubali 2: The Conclusion was always on people's mind after the the prequel left them dangling with a question which inspired tons of memes and jokes. S Rajamouli's Bahubali 2 puts an end to this very question ' Katappa ne Bahubali ko kyu maara ? '. The film looks magnificent enough to attract hordes of crowds to cinema houses. It is a known fact that the cash registers are set to overflow with the release of this film. However, as a cinephile, I wanted a thorough examination of the film's structure as I wore the monocle of a critic to make a deep diagnosis into the plot.

Bahubali 2 is coruscant creation of Rajamouli. He is not scared to dream the impossible and he uses all the tools at his disposal to make the film grander than its prequel. There are slow motion shots and dialogues delivered at a higher decibel enough to fuel the gut-wrenching feel among the audience. Mahishmathi kingdom, created through computer graphics is an eye candy and generates a sense of wonder. There are palm trees used as sheer catapults, bulls charging at the enemy with their flamed horns and a ship which flies. There is no limit to Rajamouli's horizons as he conducts a surreal visual treatment of the frames. Though it seem bizarre in the real world, you are filled with nothing except pure delight .The film keeps you grounded as the plot delves into the life of a warrior Amrendra Bahubali (Prabhas). Amrendra is good-hearted man and a sinewy fighter, a very rare but potent mixture of power and goodness. He can control an elephant, fire three arrows at a time, lift up a carriage all by himself and I must say Kudos to Prabhas. Nothing that Bahubali does seems impossible and all thanks to his realistic portrayal.

Turning towards the negative parts of the film, I would first pick the narrative. It is banal and written with convenience rather than smartness. On the other hand, you will be overly satisfied because it is a bit too much. Rajamouli must have been adamant on finishing this project anyhow that he simply stuffed the plot in 2 hour 50 minute duration. It is completely exhausting after a point and could have been avoided. Bahubali and Devasena's ( Anushka Shetty) romance takes too much of the screen time and it is not pleasing too. It is slapstick and at some points just plain stupid. The film does boast of strong female characters Sivgami (played by Ramya Krishnan) and Devasena. Their conflicting ideologies are the sole foundation of the story.  Underneath the magnificence of Mahishmati lies the sinister plan; a conspiracy to overthrow Bahubali and make Bhallaldeva (Rana), the ruler. Rana Dagubatti as the villain Bhallaldeva is convincing but he doesn't make an impact as great as Prabhas. He is tyrannical with his evil mind games to meet his objectives. He even stoops to perfidy of attacking his own mother Sivgami. The characters are strong but plot sticks to the formula. It is not an experimental movie as the sky-high budget sure discourages experiments too. And now, the unsolved mystery for which the footfalls in the theatre will increase dramatically isnt solved promisingly. Infact with a little sensibility, you can spot it from a mile away.

 Bahubali 2 might be excessively long but it isn't lacklustre. It sure goes down in the list of my guilt-pleasures.


Rating: 5 on 10 stars

The Lobster : A methaphorical concept oozes uncontrollably out of bounds

Yorgos Lanthimos, the Greek mastermind,  is a fantastic visualizer, He has stepped out of zone where the mainstreams directors have comfortably rooted their feet in and created a dystopian world where being a loner is perceived as an awful crime. Loners are taken to a hotel where they have to find a partner within 45 days, failing to do so will result them in being turned into an animal. His fecund brain has taken us unpredictably to places we cannot imagine. However, this fantasized dramatic world possibly oozes out of bounds in the latter interim and that is where my problem as a viewer starts.

The Lobster begins with David (Colin Farell) being betrayed and cheated on by his wife. A bespectacled, thick mustached man, devoid of emotion, his speech and his blank look overly reflects the same. He doesn't cry, he doesn't smile. He is a whimsical and quirky in front of this tyrannical absurdist backdrop. He, along with his collie-turned-brother, is taken to the hotel to find a partner for himself. With the narrative of Rachel Weisz, this film assimilates the viewer and keeps him wide-eyed gripped to the marvelous plotline.

The canvas is ready and you see the characters flooring it with their eccentric behavior and the vital additions to set the screenplay going. There is group of people who throw a degrading glance at the loners and there are rebels who oppose this very idea of forced relationships. 45 days before one is transfigured into a beast can be extended if one tranquilizes the loners who have escaped into the forests. Amidst all this satirical madness, David ,too like some, escape into the woods to meet up with radical group led by Lea Seydoux. The radicals think exact opposite of the Hotel consider singlehood as an ornament to be worn with dignity and relationships as a blemish. The first half ends and that is when monotony begins symbolizing that director possibly ran short of ideas.

As a viewer and lover of satires, I always wanted to know what happens to David after 45 days. I always imagined the hotel to be the reference point to the entire story and not David. However, profuse exaggeration and predictable cliches formed the foundation of the second interim and what formed my sheer discontent. The characters speak with sheer lack of expression  and you begin to think ' Will the future actually end up being so colourless?' Rachel Weiz, whose narrative was the strong foothold since beginning of film, is brilliant in her own ways and gave a terrific performance; my favourite apart from Lea Seydoux.


6 on 10

An irrefutable triumph in storytelling and imagination, Babel is a unique film

Once there was a time when all had a common language. This defied the very odds God had set for man to overcome. So, he decided to confuse them with babel. Babel is confusion; an ambiguous situation when different people speaking different languages cannot communicate through words. Alexandro Inarrtiu's masterpiece was a triumph in the creation of this world; a world of chaos. Babel is not just a cinema. It is a deep insight into raw naked human emotions and portrayal of harsh reality. It is a story spanning Morocco, United States of America, Japan & Mexico where one naive thoughtless act of child creates an an unavoidable chain of events leading to disastrous results worldwide.

Putting the pieces of story together, a Moroccan goat herder gives a rifle to his sons to practice shooting jackals. In a playful bet, the younger one ends up shooting a tourist bus. Meanwhile Richard (Brad Pitt) and Susan (Cate Blanchett) are on a vacation in Morocco to cope with the sudden death of their son. The couple are travelling in the same tourist bus which gets shot at. The shot hits Susan in the shoulder. America unhesitatingly brands this as an act of terrorism. The rifle used is traced back to a Japanese hunter who is struggling between some difficult times in his life, fighting the sorrow of his wife's death as well as the sexual longing of his daughter Chieko (Rinku Kikuchi). Susan is taken to a local village where the villagers try to get the best medical aid possible. Morocco refuse bringing an ambulance as they don't perceive it to be a terrorist act. Richard calls the nanny, who is looking after their kids in America, to cancel her son's wedding so that she can attend to the kids during this emergency. The nanny, hopeless and desperate to be at the wedding, asks her nephew Santiago (Gael García Bernal) to drive the three of them to Mexico. While their return from the ceremony, the inebriated Santiago breaks the police barrier at USA-Mexican border when the police try to arrest him for drunk-driving and carrying the kids without the permission of their parents.

It is indeed a chaotic world where each culture tries to quell the violent outbursts of circumstances leading to a scarring misdemeanor. Rinku Kikuchi plays the role of prurient adolescent who is going through hormonal changes. She desperately tries for a sexual encounter even if it means trying to seduce her much older dentist. The climactic scene where Chieko stands on the commodious glass balcony, naked and vulnerable, is touching and remains as a depressing picture in your mind. While Pitt's Richard acts as a catalyst for the film playing a uxorious husband as well as taciturn human being sometimes to the very hosts who are helping Susan to recover, and we cant actually blame him for being afraid for his wife.

The film is so designed that every other individual creates a mark of his own. Alexandro handles the horror & emotional tension between the changing time-frames, carefully creating a surreal and imagination-rich experience. A network of different cultural backgrounds woven together by one tragedy, Babel is Inarrtiu's anomalous creation.

9 on 10

Fan : The king card played very well by Maneesh Sharma

When the first trailer of Maneesh-Shah Rukh collaboration FAN was out, it strongly tried to state a story wherein a crazy obsessed fan idolizes a superstar enough to go to any unimaginable heights to meet him and maybe he even does. But, the second trailer gave away a novel concept, something which compensates for Khan's last masala movies, which critics didn't approve of. Shah Rukh Khan gives out a salute-worthy performance in a duo role of a superstar and his dangerously obsessed doppelganger.

The film begins with the archival footage of Shah Rukh khan's resurgent life with portrayal of a fan who considers himself the star's biggest follower. Possessing an unbridled love for superstar Aryan Khanna (played by Shah Rukh Khan ), look-alike bourgeois fan Gaurav Chandna ( again played by Khan himself) sets out to meet his idol amidst the shouting and screaming mob outside his sea-facing mansion. When his plans to meet the star are thwarted much to obvious reasons, Gaurav tries to bend things his way to attract the star's attention, instead pulling his frown. Aryan Khanna summons cops to knock in some reality into the little fan. What he fails to realize is that if a fan can create a superstar, he so much can bring him to the ground of apocalyptic failure. Distraught Chandna sets out to haunt the star he always loved, making him a living nightmare for the Aryan. The acts which Gaurav never understands the enormity of it being internecine.

Fan isn't a perfect script. But Maneesh's execution amalgamated with Shah Rukh Khan's never-seen-before acting glue together its torn parts. SRK is excellent and laudable as he evidently blurs the lines that separate the arrogant Aryan with spooky Gaurav. He has created a discernible behavior for both and you can vividly notice the way both Shah Rukhs run, walk and talk. Fan is a victory, for the reasons it has no unnecessary romantic angles and songs which have likelihood to deviate the plots. It shows colors of thriller and emotion on the celluloid and the credit goes to Sharma's efficacious mindset. He makes Fan, a germane thriller and a conspicuous winner.

7 on 10 stars