Opening note: If you haven't watched the first instalment, Denis Villeneuve's 2015 thriller Sicario, you don't need to in order to fully appreciate this sequel, Soldado. This is a crime thriller with its own separate plot, one which is connected to the events of Sicario but is explained well enough in Soldado that you don't need to watch the predecessor to be engaged. That said, Sicario was a pretty good movie itself, so no harm in watching that first and then going to the theatre for this.
The rest of this review has
spoilers for the first movie Sicario, so read on only if you've seen it.
Sicario: Day of the Soldado feels like two full movies and a short film packed in one, and yet also feels like just half a movie. The first movie had a relatively simple plot, using Emily Blunt's character Kate to introduce the audience to the actual protagonist of the franchise, Benicio del Toro's cold-blooded hitman (Sicario is Spanish for hitman) Alejandro as well as the brutal world of Mexican cartels that he inhabits. With the second and third chapters, writer Taylor Sheridan is trying something much more ambitious. With Alejandro as the protagonist, he's crafting a complex 2-movie epic with multiple parallel threads. Each thread highlights a different perspective on the grim situation, sometimes asking tough ethical questions of its characters and us, other times just indulging in its cynical "everything sucks" worldview. Unfortunately, this instalment feels like it gives each of its three major plot threads a setup to something interesting, but ends with us realising we'll have to wait for Sicario 3 before we get any semblance of depth or nuance from them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIMChzE_aCo
The thread we start with is probably the one with most potential. It takes Matt (Josh Brolin, in the third of his four movies this summer) and Alejandro, who were fighting the drug trade across the US-Mexico border in the first movie, and has them now fighting cross-border human trafficking. After an Islamic terrorist attack in the US, the authorities suspect that the terrorists were smuggled across the border by Mexican cartels (yes, the possible xenophobia in this is addressed, without much depth). A war must be started against the cartels, for which purpose the military needs someone who has no boundaries, and as long as he's not on American soil, will go to any lengths he deems necessary to complete his missions. That someone is Matt, and he, upon deciding that they should first get the cartels fighting each other by kidnapping the daughter of one of the cartel leaders, brings in Alejandro to do the job, because Alejandro has history with said cartel leader Carlos Reyes. What I've already described here is a movie more complex than the first Sicario, and this is only one thread. This raises the question of what's acceptable in the face of horrifying evil, and would also be interesting to follow to see what obstacles our protagonists face in their mission, and how they overcome them, but we never get there as halfway through, the film switches gears to its second plot. This too raises an interesting question, that of how personal Matt and Alejandro can let their mission become for them, but as the film ends, we realise that that too is something we'll only get into in the sequel.
The film sporadically cuts away to a third subplot, one that hardly even connects to the main storylines, and just when it's finally starting to go somewhere, that too is left hanging for the next movie to pick up on. And while the title Soldado (soldier, as opposed to Sicario, which means hitman) never really makes itself important thematically, I would imagine this subplot, if anything, is where it's at least somewhat relevant.
In terms of filmmaking craft, this film could've been seen as highly effective, if it wasn't following Sicario. With that film, Denis Villeneuve was trying to create a work of art, while Stefano Sollima seems more interested in a thriller that does its job and not much more. So you have Hildur Guðnadóttir with a tense score, but it simply does not stand up to the music we got from the late Jóhann Jóhannsson. Dariusz Wolski gives the film a great, engrossing look, but he's no Roger Deakins. And without Emily Blunt, we no longer have a sympathetic character, and the emotional arcs Matt and Alejandro go through fail to evoke much emotion given how cold these characters are written to be. That's not to say there are no advantages to the new approach. When trying to make an art film, not every risk you take pans out, and the action sequence near the end of Sicario where it was so dark, one could hardly tell any of what was going on, really didn't work. In Soldado, none of the scenes can quite match the tension of the bridge scene from Sicario, but many are intense enough to be memorable, and none is outright bad.
A word on the women in this film, and in Taylor Sheridan's other films. Isabela Moner plays Isabel Reyes, the daughter of Carlos Reyes, and while she's given a remarkable personality, that's not the same as being given much of a character, a role, and in the larger picture, she rarely serves as more than a damsel in distress. And had I only seen this one Taylor Sheridan movie, I would club that with my other complaints, expecting Isabel's depth of characterisation to show up in Sicario 3. Catherine Keener plays Matt's superior, and is often wrong when he's right about how to deal with situations at the border. Had I only seen this one Taylor Sheridan movie, I would attribute that to the common trope of bureaucrats not understanding problems as well as those in the field. But I've seen other Taylor Sheridan movies. In Hell or High Water, women barely exist, and in Sicario and Wind River, the role of the woman is to be naive and fail until she's shown the right way to do things by the men around her. It's a disturbing trend where it's starting to feel like Sheridan lives in a world where only men really get things done.
On the whole, I still think Sicario: Day of the Soldado is a good movie. A tense, engaging thriller. And I recommend watching it in spite of its lack of depth in theme or character, for the simple reason that it sets up for a sequel that is shaping up to be far more interesting. I sure hope Emily Blunt shows up.
What did not necessarily work for me was Bumblebee's memory loss, and the way it was used to make him feel less like Charlie's friend and more like her pet at times. I would've been much more interested in a story where two people, thinking at the same capacity, become friends. The barrier of one of them being mute could then have made this something truly special. The memory loss plot device also hurts the narrative in that major changes in Bumblebee's character arc are based on tech instead of his friendship with Charlie. It left me feeling like I was watching two Bumblebees, a confident Autobot soldier in his speaking scenes and in the scenes with Charlie, little more than a Herbie knockoff.
This feeling of familiarity is omnipresent. You know what it means when a robot has red glowing eyes instead of blue, because it's basic movie language, and that which can't predict, we aren't surprised by. The only thing new is to leave the theater with positive feelings after watching a Transformers movie. It does not take a great film to earn the title of best Transformers movie.
The best children's stories entertain or educate children, and simultaneously offer adults something more to chew on. Mary Poppins Returns isn't quite complex enough for that, and the best adults could really take away from it is a pleasant sense of nostalgia for the original, but that's not to say it's not a great entertainer for kids. The technical production is fabulous, with stunning visual effects that not only make the Mary Poppins magic fit seamlessly with the live action world around her, but manage to make the live action characters not look odd when they find themselves in a 2D animated world. Moreover, the children are immediately lovable, and since their mother's death has left them responsible and wise beyond their years, they also act as great role models for the little ones watching.
Lest we let form take over content, I should address the quality of the clips themselves. The screenwriting here is fantastic, with efficient dialogue that skillfully uses interactions to build character. The philosophical conversations are just the right level of on-the-nose. On a technical side, Slade ably does the job of translating the material to screen without adding much. There's no flair to the cinematography or the set design. It could almost have felt like a drag if not for the terrific performances across the board. Fionn Whitehead had already shown us what he could do with very little dialogue in Dunkirk. Now we know how good he is with dialogue, and a lot of it. Will Poulter, who's always great, is unsurprisingly great here too, perfectly conveying both Colin's brilliance and his nuttiness.
In addition to being an excellent movie on its own merits, Bandersnatch is also groundbreaking. On the one hand, I'm excited to see this format go mainstream. It's certainly versatile, and can be applied to genres like fantasy, romance and even superheroes. But on the other hand, Bandersnatch may have deconstructed the very notion of interactive storytelling so thoroughly that any future stories in the format run the risk of feeling contrived.
Your move, Netflix.
Shirkers is just as compelling in its first half, when it’s following the production of the movie, as it is in the second half when it follows these characters as adults trying to figure out exactly what happened, and exactly who this Georges Cardona was. It works because of how much of an enigma Cordona is, and also how much Tan herself isn’t. Her own personality, her flaws are laid bare in front of us, to the point that many may end up with the conclusion that she’s an inconsiderate asshole. This isn’t a documentary trying to make you like her, just to empathise.
The lack of conflict leads to a casual pace, but with a runtime of an hour and a half, it never gets boring. Dhunu isn't razor-focused on getting the guitar, she's wise enough to recognise when other concerns take precedence. Thus, the film isn't focused on its central premise either, and episodically goes through a lot of highs and lows in these characters' lives. But those of us who aren't intimately familiar with this lifestyle will be constantly engaged in the process of discovering it, so the plot doesn't really need to take the driver's seat.
The other big reason the film works is Lara Jean herself. While the plot is full of annoying tropes such as concealment of information that didn't need to be concealed and the love triangle (two of them, in fact), it spends very little time on these contrived conflicts. The focus, instead, is on the inner conflicts faced by the protagonist, and that's a good thing, since in addition to being likeable, she is genuinely interesting. So what if her central arc has been done before, and better, by The Perks of Being a Wallflower? Watching someone shy leave their shell is never going to get old.
Christopher Robin. (Ewan McGregor) with his long time friend Winnie the Pooh in Disney’s live-action adventure CHRISTOPHER ROBIN.[/caption]
When the movie works best is when Christopher is having fun with his friends, reconnecting with his fun side. Even that aspect of the movie isn't perfect, since at times it feels like Forster is more interested in telling us that his characters are having fun than in just letting us live the moment. That said, it is always, at the very least, endearing, in large part due to Ewan McGregor's performance. He takes a tried-and-tested mold, the adult who has lost touch with his inner child, and infuses it with heart and energy. Because of this, even when Christopher is being his dull self, McGregor has an arresting screen presence, keeping us engaged in his story.
There is, however, one significant factor in favour of the original: Meryl Streep. She was almost the only actor who could make the dramatic beats feel at least a little genuine in the midst of all the ridiculousness, and her presence is sorely missed this time around. Good thing Lily James is a more than capable replacement, she's a good singer, and is so much fun to watch onscreen that for the first half hour, you really don't mind the absence of an engaging plot. New additions include Cher and Andy Garcia. At the beginning of the movie, I was just baffled by the choice of that accomplished an actor for what looked like a rather small role, but once the logic behind his casting did become clear to me, the decision only got weirder, for reasons I cannot disclose without spoiling a major reveal.
The last few years have given us what I consider some of the greatest action movies ever made, movies that have and will continue to inspire future action directors to up their game. Incredibles 2 shows us how good animated action can be, Captain America: Civil War is a showcase of what's possible with superhero action choreography, Fallout is as good as stunt-based action gets, and Mad Max: Fury Road is simply an all-around perfect action movie. It's a good time to be an action movie lover.
One auxiliary point: in its attempt at making us not recoil from this institution for criminals, the movie makes a distinction between classes of criminal, with certain kinds not allowed in there. This includes, terrorists and murderers. Murderers, however, are completely okay. Hollywood, and pop culture in general, has a long history of treating murder as a minor inconvenience, often even a game, but while you can usually compartmentalise those feelings so that they do not affect your experience of every movie with casual murder, Hotel Artemis makes it a little too explicit, and that turned me off on the whole experience.
If, however, that doesn't bother you, this is what I have to say about the movie: it's an entertaining watch, and if you've seen every other movie in theatres that interests you, this is worth a watch. Just keep your expectations low.
All along, the movie is happy basking in its cleverness. Scott at one points asks if they just “put quantum in front of everything” they say and answer is pretty much a yes. I called the movie an indulgence in the beginning because it slows down in moments that hold no plot significance, just pure scientific fascination. The close up magic tricks are employed for quick laughs but the easy resizing of objects throughout the movie doesn’t feel deeper either. No one is trying hard, but it’s kind of a reprieve for the core audience who has had much trauma already.
At times the movie feels like filler, giving us characters arcs, actions and humour but only to hurtle to the end point. We are going somewhere bigger. It would be difficult to stay away from that sentiment until the next Avengers. But the easy going nature of the movie, along with its emotional appeal and the usual Marvel charm, makes it a worthwhile watch.
But story isn't everything, and for directors like Quentin Tarantino, Edgar Wright and in this case, Wes Anderson, the storytelling choices often form the core of the appeal of their films, much more so than the stories they tell. Anderson's work in Isle of Dogs has already received a lot of acclaim and 
The story in Sacred Games follows two parallel narrative threads. The one set in present day is directed by Motwane and follows honest cop Sartaj Singh (Saif Ali Khan) who is at a particularly low point in his life, personally and professionally, when he gets a call from Gaitonde with some rather important information. But before getting to that information, the kingpin spends quite a lot of time narrating his backstory to Sartaj through flashbacks. This 'rise of a mob boss' story, set a few decades in the past, forms the second, and so far, much less interesting thread directed by Kashyap. If not for Siddiqui's dry observations and boundless energy on screen, there would be nothing interesting about the sequence of events we see here.
The reverse can be said about the present day storyline, where Khan's performance as the troubled hero is passable, but is easily the least memorable aspect of the otherwise compelling plot. In addition to a subplot about police corruption, the episode sets up a high-stakes mystery that involves the pasts of both main characters. Motwane gives Mumbai and its people a distinct flavour in every frame, and is also mostly successful in ratcheting up the tension in those scenes that require it.
Another player in this storyline is a RAW agent played by Radhika Apte, but her role in the premiere is minimal, so it's impossible to say much about her character or performance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28j8h0RRov4
Overall, I had a blast with the episode, because even when the story wasn't particularly engaging, the style and the atmosphere (credit to the score) were, and if nothing else, Nawazuddin Siddiqui's performance alone made the experience one worth having, and one I highly recommend. I can't say with any certainty that the rest of the 8-episode season will live up to the promise of this one episode, but I'm happy to say that I'm excited to check it out. Between Sacred Games and the anthology movie Lust Stories, Netflix might just replace theatres as the place Indian moviegoers visit looking for quality entertainment.
The movie’s biggest letdown arrives when it introduces the ex-boyfriend trope. It’s almost as if even in a movie filled with women, the biggest motive for the heist had to have something to do with a man. It neither serves a purpose nor helps with the image the movie tries so hard to project. But it can be ignored, as we focus on a movie that moves along without any major hurdles, taking us through a familiar route with fun performance and simple, at times sly humour.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/59914641/hereditary2.0.png)
Horror has long turned the word “mommy” into its most sinister element. This movie relishes in that embedded impact on its audience. The background score and sound design are unnerving, and even after you walk out, one particular sound will make you jump for a while.
The movie remains somber and edgy but it pulls out too many nervous giggles. As the scene moves or shifts abruptly from night to day to back, you can feel your entire body tingle in anticipation. You might not get jolted out of your seats, but there is no denying the lingering impact. You can go for the drama, you can go for the scares and you can go for the amazing acting and direction. If you're a horror buff, the climatic scene will remind you just why the genre is so close to your heart.
All this is not to say that Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is a bad movie, it just means that I don't think it's a good movie either. This is the kind of meh that some will despise, but others justifiably crave as the kind of escapism movies are so good at. Because sometimes, real life finds a way to drive us away.
The script seems to carry the compassion that is otherwise missing in its characters and storyline. And amidst it all, the landscape is beautiful and the colors seem to echo the boy's feelings. In a never ending sequence of suffering, the background is a welcome reprieve, as are the interactions between Charley and Pete. It’s not a new concept, the story of a boy and his horse but Lean on Pete is not a fantasy with glimpses of freedoms and grandeur. We are given no promises, no lies, making the audience understand that the story goes on even after the credits starts rolling.
The movie toes the line where its appeal is uncertain but once you're in, it makes you feel its hunger, agitation and the few moments of peace in between. Just like Charley is unable to do anything but try and save Pete, we can’t help but root for the boy with nothing but compassion and a survival instinct.
At the end of the day, Deadpool 2 is a rare comic reprieve. It's gorier than ever, and more self-aware. Definitely worth the price of admission.
Deadpool 2 is in theatres now.
