Year: 1997
Genre: Drama
Director: Majid Majidi
Plot: After a young boy loses his sister's shoes, he attempts to keep it a secret from his parents by sharing his own shoes with her until he can find her a new pair.
The gist: This was Iran's official entry for Best Foreign Film at the 1998 Oscars, where it lost to Roberto Benigni's Life Is Beautiful. I haven't seen Benigni's film yet, but I must say this Iranian movie is certainly worthy of winning that award.
Children Of Heaven is solid and undeniable proof that one does not require a great plot or a huge budget to make an incredible film. Majid Majidi's film is as simple as it can be, but it's brilliant and captivating from start to finish. I was sucked it within the first five minutes as I watched Ali, a poor 9 year old boy lose his younger sister's shoes while buying potatoes from a grocer.
Ali and his sister Zahra then hatch a plan: share his shoes. She wears them to school in the morning, then she will quickly return them to him so he can use them for his classes in the afternoon. The plan doesn't work that well because no matter how fast he runs, he always arrives late and gets in trouble with the principal. Then an opportunity comes along when his school announces a long distance race where the third prize winner gets a pair of shoes. Can Ali win the shoes for Zahra?
The film is just lovely as it explores the life of poor Iranians in Tehran without going into melodrama. Ali and Zahra's family are obviously poor, judging from their inability to pay the rent and other monetary hurdles, but Majidi doesn't dwell on these, instead focusing on how the siblings live their everyday lives despite their hardship, and even when times are tough, they are essentially happy, with only the missing shoes being a problem.
Even though the race part of the plot only comes at the final third of the film, Majidi makes every second of his film count. From Ali assisting his father to find people to hire them for gardening, to him and Zahra spending time in school learning, to the two siblings having fun blowing bubbles...it's all splendidly executed and never feels out of place.
The good: Amir Farrokh Hashemian and Bahare Seddiqi (as Ali and Zahra respectively) are so young at the time they made the film, but they're both excellent and put a smile on my face nearly every time they're on screen. The simplistic plot, perfect execution and fine acting all around make this a crowd pleaser for sure.
The bad: Little things, like wardrobe (strange how Ali and Zahra wear the same clothes all the time. I know they're poor, but not that poor) and the slightly abrupt ending. But it is far from enough to ruin what is already a great film.
Verdict: This is by far one of the best films I've ever seen, period. Anyone of any age can appreciate this wonderful tale. Highly recommended. (4.5/5)
Year: 2012
Genre: Horror
Directors: Henry Joost & Ariel Schulman
Plot: Five years after the events of PA2, a family starts having strange occurrences when Katie and a mysterious boy move in across the street from them.
The gist: At this point, the Paranormal Activity films have lost their freshness and merely using the found footage technique to depict scares just isn't working that well now.
The stillness of a camera recording the goings on while everyone is asleep may still have some scare factor, but this fourth instalment kinda ruins the proceedings by not only repeating old tricks (stuff moving around by itself) but also featuring rather silly characters as the victims.
The one thing that the directors did differently from the film's previous directors is the use of laptop cameras instead of standard cameras to record the goings on. It's smart in a way, and the use of infrared for the hall shots were cool too. But it's not enough to make this better than what came before.
The good: Kathryn Newton puts in a convincing performance as main protagonist Alex, who like the previous films' protagonists, have to make others believe something weird is happening. Katie Featherston is still creepy in a way, though the idea of her being exceptionally stealthy is still unexplained.
The bad: Alex's parents are pretty dumb in my opinion, same as the non-believers from the earlier instalments. Some of the weird stuff that happens were just as stupid (the knife scene comes to mind). And like all PA films, there's always someone running with a camera recording when the shit hits the fan. I know it's so the audience can follow through, but it still doesn't make sense.
Verdict: Definitely losing its momentum compared to how the first PA began. There's more of these films next year, so they better step up, or just stop already. (2.5/5)
Year: 2012
Genre: Horror thriller
Director: Mark Tonderai
Plot: A teenage girl and her mother move into a small town, living not far from a house where the family that stayed there had been murdered. The girl befriends the boy who was the sole survivor of the incident, and soon learns he is harboring a secret about that night.
The gist: Don't let it fool you. House At The End Of The Street might be marketed as a horror film of sorts, but it's actually more like a psychological thriller, and unfortunately a boring one at that.
Jennifer Lawrence is Elissa, who moves into this small town with her mother (Elisabeth Shue) and live near the house where its inhabitants were killed by a family member recently. Elissa befriends Ryan, the boy whose family was killed in that house, despite warnings from her mother and everyone else. Ryan seems like a good guy, but we all know he's hiding something.
The script doesn't give the actors much to do as they go about their business, causing the story to develop way too slowly. It'd be nice to have a few scares here and there, but the pedestrian plot doesn't allow that to happen. In the end, it turns out to be like a teenage TV show episode with a couple of twists.
The good: Lawrence at least tries hard to make her character stand out. Her acting is probably the best thing about this film. And I must admit, some of the twists were good, though not mind blowing.
The bad: Max Theriot turns in a dull performance here, looking as bored as the film itself. The near total lack of suspense didn't help at all either.
Verdict: It's not horrible, but much too dull to sit through. You're better off watching Jennifer Lawrence somewhere else. (2.5/5)
Year: 1968
Genre: Western
Director: Sergio Leone
Plot: A harmonica playing gunslinger and a desperado team up to protect a widow from a hitman who works for a railroad owner wanting to acquire her land.
The gist: In the IMDb top 250 films, this is number 23. As a western, it has all the classic elements. A hero or two. A bad guy. Quickdraw showdowns. Stuff about honor. And lots of staring and contemplating.
If you're the kind of person who doesn't enjoy things taking their own sweet time unfolding, then this film really isn't for you. As for me, I'm kinda on the fence in that regard.
For instance, I can appreciate the opening scene at the train station where Charles Bronson's character is introduced. Nicely set up, looks pretty cool. But some of the other scenes take a bit too long to sit through, and a bit of editing would have helped.
Nevertheless, westerns are usually meant to be experienced rather than simply watched. Once Upon A Time In The West is a solid member of its genre, thanks to fine performances from the leads and great cinematography and score to go with it.
The good: Bronson and Jason Robards are great in their roles as the two heroes in question, while Henry Fonda is equally adept as the villain. I personally liked the fact that there are different music scores each time the three men and Claudia Cardinale's character appear on screen. The way the three men are each introduced in the film are cool too.
The bad: As mentioned, the editing could be improved somewhat.And there were a few times when I didn't understand why some of the characters did or didn't do certain things.
Verdict: It's not meant for people with a low level of patience. But if you let it, this film will entertain you, and give you a great example of a spaghetti western. (3.5/5)
Year: 2012
Genre: Drama
Director: Christian Petzold
Plot: For wanting to defect to West Germany, an East German doctor is banished to a provincial hospital and kept under the watchful eye of the Stasi and a fellow doctor they hired. Though she secretly plans to run away with her lover to the west, she starts to change as she strikes up a friendship with the said doctor.
The gist: Barbara is Germany's official submission to the Oscars this year, but it did not make the final list.
Set in 1980 before unification, the film focuses on Barbara Wolff, a doctor who is banished to a hospital by the countryside for applying to leave to West Germany. The Stasi (German secret police) keep close watch over her and has Dr. Andre, a physician who works at the hospital, to monitor her and report to them.
Andre however isn't just an errand boy, as he sympathises with her and tries to befriend her. She keeps him at arm's length knowing whom he represents, but slowly warms up to him as they spend more time working together. At the same time, Barbara secretly meets with her lover from the west and plans to run away with him.
Though the film largely is about Barbara and her daily activities, the real heart of the film is her friendship with Andre, and proves to be the most meaningful thing in this story. From sharing their pasts to assisting each other with patients, they slowly but surely become close, even when their emotions don't always come forth.
Credit should be given to director Christian Petzold and the crew for wonderfully authentic set design and camerawork. The windy countryside, old buildings and equally vintage bicycles successfully bring the film to life.
The good: Nina Hoss and Ronald Zehrfeld put in subtle performances as Barbara and Andre respectively, but it works. Their quiet approach to the characters allows them to present their repressed emotions and get the message across at the same time without theatrics. As mentioned, the technical aspects are well executed also.
The bad: The pace can be rather slow at times. The rather abrupt ending also didn't help matters. I felt that the story could have used a bit more time to develop from the point it ended.
Verdict: It's a solid drama that convincingly shows the situation in Germany back then by putting a story between two people in the middle of it. It's not perfect but it works somehow. (3.5/5)
Year: 2003
Genre: Horror thriller
Director: Pal Oie
Plot: The crew of a new reality TV show venture into the forest and spend a few nights in a cabin to prepare themselves before actual filming begins. Strange things start happening once they arrive, including the discovery of a dead body in the pond nearby.
The gist: This Norwegian film looks like a cross between The Cabin In The Woods and The Blair Witch Project, but still manages to maintain its own identity somewhat.
The plot is simple: a TV crew venture into the forest with no modern gear, in order to put themselves in the same shoes as the show's participants. They live together in the same cabin owned by the show's director. Everything's fine until they discover an abandoned tent near a pond, and subsequently a dead body in the water. The presence of a mysterious figure in the woods starts to spook them, but the director insists on staying put, even as he starts to show signs of losing his mind.
The filmmakers do a great job of using the forest itself as a character, and manipulating the darkness to compliment the feeling of fear that comes from being in the forest alone. The cast also perform to expectations.
The good: As mentioned, the cast are all great, especially Kristoffer Joner and Bjorn Floberg as Lasse, the chain smoker who doesn't enjoy being there at all and Gunnar, the director respectively. Cinematography, set design and lighting all work together beautifully to create the sense of dread of being in the dark forest.
The bad: The buildup is too slow. As a viewer, I wished the situation was far more tense than they had come up with. The script tries to build the suspense by having the crew argue and bicker, but they never really reach the breaking point. The final payoff was also weak.
Verdict: It's a decent thriller, but if it had capitalised on the opportunities it had made for itself, it would have been far better. (3/5)
Year: 2005
Genre: Sci-fi, action
Director: Joss Whedon
Plot: The crew of the spaceship Serenity must protect a girl with special powers from an assassin.
The gist: With Joss Whedon, you know you'll get plenty of humour mixed with action, and that's what we get here. The best part is you don't have to be a fan of Firefly, the shortlived series this film is based on.
Nathan Fillion leads a small crew of a ship called Serenity, making a living by robbing banks. One of their own, a girl called River, is wanted by an evil federation. They send an assassin after her, prompting the crew to flee while investigating the reason why they want her in the first place.
The premise has a hint of Star Wars in it, added with some western elements. Joss Whedon does a great job in seamlessly blending action and humour together, making the film real easy and fun to sit through.
The good: Though Summer Glau is predictably impressive in the fight scenes, it is Nathan Fillion who scores as the captain of Serenity. The actors playing his crew members are also great in their roles. Chiwetel Ejiofor is awesome as the assassin sent after River. And as mentioned, the script and dialogue is brilliant.
The bad: Morena Baccarin is severely underused as Fillion's love interest. And as good as the humour is, Whedon overdoes it at times, as I felt certain scenes would have worked better without it.
Verdict: A very entertaining film overall, even for those who aren't familiar with Whedon's work. (3.5/5)
