TV Review: Supernatural

I’m a total horror buff. Like most of my kin, my affair with the occult started way back in childhood with camp fire stories and grandmother tales. Today, TV seems to have replaced all the traditional media of yesteryear (sorry, gran) but you wont hear me complaining. TV gave us the sexy vampire killer ‘Buffy’, a virtual paradise for conspiracy geeks in ‘The X-files'. It has completely whetted my appetite for the paranormal. And with Supernatural, I have just got hungrier.

Supernatural, created by Eric Kripke, is a fantasy/horror series following the adventures of the Winchester brothers Dean (Jensen Ackles) and Sam (Jared Padalecki). The story goes like this: Years ago, after seeing his wife die in very mysterious circumstances, John Winchester (their father played by Jeffery Dean Morgan) became obsessed with the occult and devoted his life to vanquish all evil.

In such an unnatural environment, the boys grow up with the knowledge of evil which the general populace is unaware of. This upbringing does take its toll on the boys, especially Sam who yearns for a normal life. After Sam turns 18, he moves out in pursuit of normalcy with Dean continuing in the ‘family trade’. But as fate would have it, the father goes missing and the brothers join forces once more, retracing their father’s steps to solve his disappearance. The series continues from there with the duo moving from one adventure to another taking on all things that go bump in the night.


Photo 1: Mrs. Winchester dies in ‘mysterious’ circumstances
Photo 2: John Winchester with young Dean And Sam

From the the ‘Lady in White’, a ghost based on tales told worldwide of women who, in an act of desperation, kill their children and then themselves because of a cheating husband to a ‘Djinn’ a creature much like an evil genie, Supernatural keeps throwing up a vast array of mythic monsters. Every baddie is well researched and has its origins on actual folklore or legends. More recently the show has had its full share of biblical demons and angels which according to alternate theories are not the white feathery images normally imagined to be.


Supernatural baddies (L to R): Lady in white, Djinn, Reaper

If the bad guys are good, then the best part about Supernatural are the stories. Every episode is a complete story in itself. Be it about vampires, tricksters, zombies or demons, the men behind the show have always managed to round off an episode. There is a main thread for each season that takes the plot forward but missing one in the middle will have no effect on your understanding. Even the alternate one-off are quite enjoyable with popular celebs throw in for good measure. The latest in this line was a blood thirsty Paris Hilton playing herself.

Slick production values is another great plus. Supernatural can easily boast of amazing special effects that can rival any Hollywood horror flick. The entire series is crafted with an eerie atmosphere complete with a scary score that will make the hair on the back of your neck stand.  I guess coming from the stables of Warner Brothers Television Unit does help.


Great production values with slick effects creates eerie atmospheres

The creators’ fascination with Rock & Roll is quite evident from the use of AC/DC songs that start off each season. From ‘highway to hell’ to ‘black is back’ or even the latest season which features ‘thunderstruck’ as the opening theme. Sometimes even the episodes have titles like ‘In my time of dying’, ‘house of the holy’, ‘ Sympathy for the devil’ etc. A tribute to Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones and other bands from the era gone by?

While the protagonists are quite popular among the shows audience, the creators have shown keen intelligence in their casting. In one stroke, they have straddled two strata of audience: ‘Just out of College’ Sam known for his teenage appeal for the youth and ‘Vintage Chevy driving, Rock & Roll buff’ Dean for the young adult. Both brothers are crafted with a distinct personality that make them unique and makes for great on screen chemistry.

As the series motors on, sibling dynamics ensue with brotherly squabbles. Light, humorous comments is a trademark of the brothers conversations which do help in lightening the tension onscreen.
For example:
Dean: Ya' know she could be faking.
Sam: Yeah, what do you wanna do, poke her with a stick?
[Dean nods]
Sam: Dude, you're not gonna poke her with a stick?

 
Sam  (L) and Dean (R) have distinct personalities that gel well with each other

Even returning characters like Bobby the mentor (Jim Beaver) who you might say is quite the hillbilly, Castiel, Heaven's fallen angel (Misha Collins) are well thought out. As the series rolls on, these characters play pivotal roles and are instrumental in the development of the main characters.


Photo 1: Sam and Dean’s hillbilly mentor Bobby
Photo 2: Castiel, heaven’s fallen angel

Trying to summarize episodes will take away the fun of watching Supernatural. Not to give away the plot of the main thread but I cant resist a teaser about the recently started 5th season (the final one, if rumours are to be believed) which features the end game with hell’s main man ‘Lucifer’. A final season replete with Heaven’s fiercest arch angels and Hell’s most dreaded demons is to sure to give this show a closure it rightly deserves.

So then, if I can say so, Supernatural is a definite must-see for all Horror/ Fantasy fans. Even if you are not, Supernatural is loads of fun and excitement for its gripping storyline, well rounded characters, scary bad guys and amazing special effects.

9/10

Review: The Great Dictator (1940)

Guest Reviewer: Ravikant Kisana

Multiplexes recently entertained us with Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds — a visually stunning and terrifically tongue-in-cheek take on the World War II genre of movies. However, the movie does beg the question of whether this line of films needed a bold revision. Even as the ‘fanatic’ Basterds hunted down ‘humane’ Nazi soldiers and a comical Hitler, a small section of the audience veritably squirmed in their seats. There was something wrong here. History may be long forgotten, but some sore topics should not be subject to a revisionist pop-culture treatment.

It was with this somewhat disturbing, nagging feeling in my mind that I revisited one of the classics from a forgotten time, directed by Charlie Chaplin. And the genius of one of the greatest film-makers of the 20th century reassured me that once upon a time, film-making was not just about breaking conventions. It was about making a statement, galvanising the masses, providing hope and inspiration when there were none — and doing it all with a comical swagger that simply had to make you smile.

Charlie Chaplin in and as The Great Dictator

The Great Dictator (1940) by Charles Chaplin, stands as one of the greatest WW-II films ever made; and such is the irony that a film as meaningful and deep in such times should be a classic comedy.

On a lazy Sunday afternoon, reclining snugly with a big bowl of butter pop-corn, you don’t really want to get into that German epic shot in documentary style on Spanish conquistadors from the 16th century. At such times, Charlie Chaplin is your man!

The Great Dictator is his first ‘talkie’ in the true sense of the word. It stars Chaplin in a double-role as a Jewish barber — a lovable and sensitive simpleton — juxtaposed against the comically fiery Adenoid Hynkel, supreme dictator of the fictional land of Tomania.

The film opens with an elaborate World War I sequence where Chaplin, as the Jewish private, valiantly rescues an exhausted commander by the name of Schultz. Hilarious scenes ensue as they pilot a plane to safety, only to crash it later. And in this accident, the ‘Jewish’ private suffers a memory loss.

Cut to 20 years later, and Hynkel has taken over as the supreme commander of Tomania. He opens with a fiery speech in an incomprehensible language. Having studied tapes of Hitler himself to mimic his mannerisms, Chaplin goes on to lampoon the ‘Great Dictator’ in his own inimitable style, even as an abbreviated English translation voiceover adds to the humour.

The plot moves into gear when the Jewish private — who was in a mental institution for the last 20 years — escapes to come back to the ghetto and run his barber-shop. Suffering from memory loss, he has no idea about Hynkel’s campaign against Jews and a series of funny incidents take place between him and Hynkel’s storm-troopers. After the war, Chaplin later regretted having made fun of the storm-troopers in the Jewish ghetto, saying had he known the full extent of horrors, he would never have been able to do that. But while making the film, the year was still 1940 and the world had yet to learn of the holocaust; and in so, Chaplin can be forgiven for running riot in the ghetto, if only for making you laugh so hard that your sides ache.

The lust for power, shown by childishly playing with a globe

Hynkel, meanwhile, dances ballet with an inflatable globe, day-dreaming about becoming the emperor of the whole world. It stands as one of the most iconic sequences of cinema, a beautiful interlude showcasing the lust of power in a very childishly innocent manner through a dictator who bounces a globe on his buttocks!

The movie is chock-a-block full of high quality humour as Hynkel discusses plans to invade Osterlich (Austria) with his ‘ally’ Napolini (based on Mussolini), the dictator of Bacteria. Eventually, Osterlich gets invaded by Hynkel and is soon run over by his military might. However, in the crowning moment of glory — Hynkel’s victory rally — the inevitable switch happens. Hynkel is mistakenly apprehended as the runaway Jewish barber, while the actual barber is erroneously assumed to be the great dictator himself.

Thus, the petty barber finds himself addressing a massive victory rally. The world is looking to him. And here Chaplin delivers possibly the most stirring monologue in the history of cinema. The camera zooms in to his face and Chaplin talks directly into it — breaking character, breaking all the rules and breaking the illusionary ‘fourth wall’ of the screen: Chaplin talks to you, the viewer.

Chaplin breaks the fourth wall for his final monologue

He talks to you, to the people, to the world; and in an impassioned speech for the rights of man and what it means to be a human-being, he leaves with the hope for a better world beyond the dark clouds that seem to be gathering. And you can see in the eyes of the man that he truly, fervently believes that these lines spoken into the void of a black camera could go on to change the world. It’s hard not to stand up and applaud.

And so as the movie ends and so does your pop-corn, you end up wishing that the world had really changed. After all, the idea of a bunch of fanatics gunning down the Fuhrer was really not the change you had hoped for…

Rating: 8/10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When not doling out advice for brands at O&M, Ravikant Kisana can be found decimating two gigantic burgers at a time

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TV Review: Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip

 

I generally have a difficult time convincing people to watch The West Wing, with most attempts being met by “Shee, why would I want to see a show about the US political system?” To be fair to them, I used to have a similar attitude till I watched Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip, created by the same writer-director duo. And it was only after being bowled over by Studio 60 that I couldn’t wait to watch The West Wing.

 
This is my third draft of a review about Studio 60, with the first two going well over 3,000 and 2,000 words respectively. While I’d like to delude myself into thinking that my writing could keep you entertained that long, better sense prevailed; so here’s the shortened version.

The plot of the show revolves around the lives of the cast and crew of a late-night comedy show called Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, which is an obvious reference to Saturday Night Live. [Note: To avoid confusion, henceforth, ‘Studio 60’ refers to the real-life show, while ‘Sunset Strip’ refers to the fictitious show within the real series]

After being repeatedly put down by the network’s producers, Sunset Strip’s creator rants on air about falling standards in Hollywood and bad television, in what can best be described as homage to Paddy Chayefsky’s 1976 film Network.

This rant happens to come on the first day of the network’s new President, Jordan McDeere, played by Amanda Peet (The Whole Nine Yards, Syriana). If you weren’t already a fan of Peet’s work, you will be after watching this show. The show’s creator and writer, Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men, The West Wing, Charlie Wilson’s War), has a penchant for writing strong female characters and Peet takes the baton and breaks all records in crossing the finish line.

 

Top (centre): Aaron Sorkin and Thomas Schlamme

Bottom: Amanda Peet, Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford

 

Jordan McDeere’s first act as President is to bring back the most talented production team in the program’s history: Matt Albie and Danny Tripp. The duo is now enjoying a successful movie career, but are convinced into coming back to the show — the ‘how’ of which is explained through the first episode.

Matt (Matthew Perry, of F.R.I.E.N.D.S. fame) is the writing genius behind the fictitious Sunset Strip, and is kind of an autobiographical character for Sorkin. Perry is fantastic as always his portrayal of this flawed, funny and charming lead of the series. All the acting talent that he couldn’t display as Chandler Bing comes rushing out in a performance that should have garnered him an Emmy, but sadly didn’t.

Danny (Bradley Whitford, previously seen in The West Wing and Billy Madison) is the show’s producer and Matt’s best friend. Whitford is an underappreciated actor and, by all accounts, the best acting talent on Studio 60. The character of Danny, and indeed his chemistry with Matt, is loosely based on Thomas Schlamme and his creative relationship with Sorkin. Schlamme and Sorkin co-created Sports Night and The West Wing, and have won enough awards together to fill a large trophy room.

Sorkin generally writes shows with a lot of characters, so Studio 60 is filled with other actors who will knock your socks off. Really, if you thought the three lead actors are great, you will be astounded by the performances the rest of the cast delivers. I won’t go into much detail about that, as it’s better to see them unfold.

 

The incredibly talented cast of Studio 60

While the characters are great, it is definitely the unique style of a Sorkin-Schlamme production that makes the show work. Studio 60 gives a behind-the-scenes look at the hypertension of a weekly, live comedy show. Sorkin is among the best dialogue writers in the world, and Schlamme is one of the best directors for dialogue. The ‘walk and talk’ approach they have perfected for the long conversations between the characters works like a charm, invoking urgency and energy into what would otherwise have been a dull few minutes.

If anything, the show’s only fault is that the urgency seems a bit too unrealistic at times. The creators suffer from a bit of a hangover from The West Wing, where every decision really was a matter of life and death. Port the same urgency to a comedy show being watched by a regular viewer, and it’s bound to come off as an exaggerated. To empathise with the characters, you really need to be working with tight deadlines on a regular basis — a background in newspapers would help here, as it did for me!

Unfortunately, and rather unfathomably, Studio 60 was cancelled after a single season of airing. This leads to the series finale seeming quite rushed, and does not do justice to what is one of the finest television series you will ever see. Still, it becomes that much easier to recommend it as you can buy or download the show and be done with it quite quickly. In fact, think of it like a super-elongated movie rather than a TV series!

 
With a stellar starcast and one of the best Hollywood writers of all time, Studio 60 absolutely cannot be missed. In fact, if you ask me, this is the best show to have been prematurely cancelled by a network — and that list includes some fine names like Arrested Development and Firefly.

No matter what you do, don’t give this one a miss. And once you are left stunned and speechless (or perhaps endowed with over 3,000 words of speech about it), remember to start watching The West Wing next.

 

Rating: 9/10

Re-Watch: MacKenna’s Gold (1969)

When the ‘Re-Watch’ section was introduced, it provided the perfect platform to revisit some of the movies deemed as ‘Classics’ and see how relevant they are in our age.

A friend once mentioned that older movies are slow and laborious; which is true, as movies are a good reflection of the society they were made in. Today’s movies are fast and edgy, in accordance with our lifestyles, while olden cinema took the audience on an unhurried (yet measured) path, which synced with their routines.



Armed with this perspective and almost 20 years later, I watched the 1969 classic MacKenna’s Gold again. Starring the usually impeccable Gregory Peck as marshal MacKenna and the highly talented Omar Sharif as the outlaw Colorado, this Western is has the perfect ingredients for an adventure: lost Apache gold and, of course, ‘cowboys and Injuns’ (Indians, for those who can’t read accents!).

Director J. Lee Thompson starts the film off with a turkey buzzard flying high in the desert skyline while the titles roll. And they roll and the turkey flies. Then the turkey flies and the titles… well, you get the drift. That’s all you’re going to see for the first five whole minutes of the movie – no exaggeration!

When the buzzard finally lands, MacKenna is attacked by an old Apache, who has the map to the fabled Canyon d’Or – a land of pure gold! A gun fight pursues, MacKenna fatally wounds the old man, disregards the map as an old Indian legend and burns it.
Tailing the old Apache is the outlaw Colorado, his band of ‘free thinking’ Apaches and a captive daughter of the town judge, Inga Bergmann (played by Camilla Sparv). They soon capture MacKenna, who has a history with Colorado. But since he’s the only one who knows the way to the canyon, Colorado makes a deal to keep him alive and let Inga go free if MacKenna takes him to the gold.

 A pact is made between MacKenna and Colorado for the girl

From here, it’s all adventure as the motley crew moves from landmark to landmark on the map as more characters come on board, like the villainous Sgt. Tibbs (Telly Savalas).

Characters make or break a movie, but McKenna's Gold squanders the tremendous potential that its great cast of actors held: From the ‘hardened but upright’ marshal MacKenna to the ‘victim of circumstances’ outlaw Colorado, none of the characters have been fully explored in the movie. Yet, both actors manage to deliver great performances in the circumstances.

The randomness of new characters is particularly irksome. New ones are introduced after every 30 minutes, without developing the existing characters. And just as suddenly as they were introduced, they get bumped off for no apparent reason. Eli Wallach (Tuco, from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly) is the prime example of this. What a waste of a fine actor!

The rest of the story is filled up by a love triangle between the Apache woman Hesh-Ke (played by Julie Newmar), Inga and MacKenna; savage Apache attacks; and gold fever. The plot goes completely wayward, leaving only the mystery about the legend’s authenticity.

Love triangle between MacKenna, Inga and Hesh-Ki (not in picture)

Oh and one more thing: When the sun climbs higher in the sky, shadows grow shorter and not longer! The entire movie ending was based on that alone! Bah!

For the benefit of those who have not seen the movie (although I seriously doubt it), I won’t play spoilsport and reveal anything further. But should you watch it? Only if you answer ‘yes’ to the following questions:
A. For pure nostalgic value of the childhood fantasies about finding hidden treasure
B. You want to find out which is Gregory Peck’s worst movie
C. As a child, your parents forced you to shut your eyes during Julie Newmar’s nude waterhole scene
I would strongly suggest that you do not soil your perception of McKenna's Gold as a ‘classic’ and give this one a total miss. But I would say that it’s worth a watch for how much it makes you respect the rest of the movies of that age.

 Mysteriously, as the sun rises, the shadow lengthens

MacKenna’s Gold actually makes you realise how underappreciated most Westerns are. Working with the static and desolate deserts as backdrops requires great skill from a director to induce life into a shot. The climax in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly followed only the eyes of the three men in the gun duel. It was not only stylised direction, but was also done with a purpose to introduce dynamism. And the prime example of dynamism going horribly wrong is watching a buzzard fly around the screen for five whole minutes.

The movie also makes you value the amazing direction and photography skills required at the time, when modern tricks like CGI were nowhere to be found. This is one of the saving graces of MacKenna’s Gold. The movie is replete with trick shots and wide-angle frames. There are scenes where a camera was fixed to a horse to give the audience the horse’s perspective, and one where it was attached to Gregory Peck’s back as he is dragged around the desert carpet by a horse. And it was among the first few movies to boast of helicopter shots!

MacKenna’s Gold is full of trick photography and wide angles

If you can forget all the flaws, then the movie is good to watch as a lesson in the history of Westerns and inventive camera-work: The trick photography, camera angles and the fantastic imagery of the Canyon d’Or are all breath-taking.

P.S. – If you don't believe what you have just read and think I’m being too harsh, here’s the YouTube clip of the opening title credits with the smash hit Ol’ Turkey Buzzard. I dare you to watch it…

Ol’ Turkey Buzzard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRA3SrkqDSE



Rating: 4.5/10

Review: The Soloist

If you ask me, the best movies are those that make you sit back and ponder. Great cinema is that which has a vicarious effect on the audience, leading to a personal perspective about situations that you have not experienced yourself.

I imagine it is a difficult art to make a movie that compels the audience to relive someone else’s experience. Such film-making has been mastered by directors like Scorsese, Lynch, the Coen brothers and Almodovar; and while they may not always taste commercial success, they usually remain immortalised in the audience’s mind.

With The Soloist, director Joe Wright (Atonement) has attempted this tough act and almost manages to pull it off. The film is based on the book by the same name, which in turn is based on the true events in the life of an LA Times columnist named Steve Lopez (played by Robert Downey Jr.), who is searching for his next big story.

A chance meeting with Ayers gives Lopez the story he is seeking

He finds the story in a chance meeting with the homeless Nathaniel Ayers (played by Jamie Foxx) and his two-stringed violin. After some research, Lopez discovers that Ayers is actually a brilliant musician with an unsound mind – a former cello prodigy who has taken to the streets after being abandoned by his family due to his illness.

Nathaniel Ayers: A young and talented soloist

Lopez goes on to write a series of articles on Ayers, while personally helping him out away from the spotlight. The true friendship that develops between the two has its share of ups and downs like any relationship; but ultimately – and predictably – it transforms both their lives.

A friendship that transforms both their lives

But to be fair, The Soloist is not about the story line, and instead is an exercise in bringing a few issues to the light as well as letting two fine actors spar on screen.

The movie provides an interesting take on schizophrenia, dispelling the popular perception that equals it with multiple personality disorder, as done in films like Primal Fear. Schizophrenia is about a person who suffers from distortions of reality, and director Wright has portrayed it very well indeed.

A nice touch is the depiction of intermittent moments from Ayers’ past, which goes deeper into the affliction and adds a flavour to the general atmosphere of the movie.

The other issue that The Soloist seeks to highlight is the plight of ‘transient people’ (legalese for homeless) in the US. Given the strong familial bonds in India, it’s very difficult to imagine a person from a well-to-do family that ends up homeless. From a desi perspective, it’s a good look into the self-centred nature of the American societal system.

As for the acting, Oscar-winner Jamie Foxx does a decent job as the musically gifted Ayers. But the passion that should accompany an intense love for music seems somewhat superficial; which is odd when you consider that Foxx is a musician himself and won an Academy Award for playing Ray Charles!

Robert Downey Jr., once again, proves his acting prowess as a successful journalist with a flawed personal life. The Iron Man gets a heart as the movie unfolds, as his own life is enriched in the process of helping Ayers.

Downey once again demonstrates his acting prowess

But just as the movie soars, it all comes crashing down with an abrupt climax and you won’t be able to shake off the feeling that you got cheated out of some closure. The Soloist promises a lot but fails to deliver by the time the credits start rolling. I just hope that Wright isn’t keeping an open slate for a sequel (based on the pursuits of the real Ayers and Lopez) but rather kept it as it is for an artistic touch. Not that it worked…

So should you watch the movie? Well, there are three types of people who I would recommend it to: those interested in learning more about schizophrenia; those looking for a break from pot boilers and slick action flicks; and fans of Robert Downey Jr.

Rating: 6.5/10

TV Review: The Thin Blue Line (1995)

As an anglophile, I was thrilled when one of our readers asked for a recommendation of a British sitcom, or 'Britcom' (and yes, we take requests in the comments section). The first names to pop into my mind were Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minster and Black Adder — two of the finest television comedies of all time. Still, someone who specifically asks for Britcoms has to have already covered those basic shows anyway. So I finally got around to watching a TV series that I have put off for a long time: The Thin Blue Line.

The creative team of Rowan Atkinson and Ben Elton (Mr. Bean, Black Adder) has delivered yet another fine show; but this one never really got the attention it deserved. The Thin Blue Line is a funny take on the life at a British police station, headed by Inspector Raymond Fowler (played by Atkinson, who is impeccably hilarious, as always).

Standing (from left): Kray, Goody, Habib and Gladstone

Sitting (from left): Grim, Fowler and Dawkins

Fowler is a ‘by-the-books’ intelligent cop and an outright geek: he loves his modeling kits, Sherlock Holmes novels, lives to serve The Queen and frowns upon the tele. He also has an absolute disinclination towards his marital duties — a situation mourned in each episode by his wife, Police Sergeant Patricia Dawkins. Naturally, hilarity ensues…

Patricia: We are not the first, and we won't be the last couple to have problems with our sex life.

Fowler: We do not have a problem.

Patricia: We don't have a sex life!

Fowler (deadpan): Exactly, so I can hardly see how there could be a problem with it!

The mixing of home and office lives is just one of the plot mechanisms of this finely-written show. The other most highlighted aspect is Fowler’s ‘Uniformed’ vs ‘Plain clothes’ rivalry with the head of the detective squad (which sits in the same large room as the police squad), Detective Inspector Derek Grim.

Grim is the proverbial village idiot and the writing talents of Ben Elton show through here. The wonderful play on words, meant to appear inadvertent, will leave you chuckling. If there was ever a case to be made that only Brits should be allowed to write puerile jokes, it’s a show filled with lines like this:

Detective Grim: Just remember, Raymond, it's my arse and if you stuff it, I'm going to be very red in the face!

The back-and-forth between Grim and Fowler is the highlight

Other regulars on the show are Constable Maggie Habib (an Indian-origin officer and the voice of reason in this mad circus); Constable Kevin Goody (a bumbling, inept pansy who chases after Habib); Constable Frank Gladstone (a senior West Indian cop who generally tries to pass on his ‘wisdom’, or the lack of it, to anyone present with the help of personal anecdotes); and Detective Constable Robert Kray (a cynical, smart cop and the only man from Grim’s unit who gets any importance on the show). Kray is replaced in Season 2 by DC Gary Boyle, who is basically a different actor playing the same role.

Each of the seven episodes in both seasons have a simple and predictable sitcom plot: A situation arises that entangles everyone in the station only to have finally resolved to status quo at the end of 30 minutes.

Apart from Atkinson, James Dreyfus shines as the junk-food-addict momma’s boy in playing Constable Goody, who admits to joining the force only because it involves wearing a nice uniform. All in all, everyone in the show does a competent job in this laugh-a-minute Britcom.

The Thin Blue Line is not of the class of a Black Adder or Mr. Bean, but it’s a mighty fine swan song from one of the best comic-writing duos of all time. As light viewing to unwind after a long day at work, it’s simply perfect.

Rating: 7/10

And as a parting gift, here are a few funny moments from the show (although the clips missed out on most of the better ones that I laughed out loud at):

Review: District 9 (2009)

One of the first few lines of District 9 — a unique movie about an Earth-based conflict between aliens and humans, shot in the style of a documentary — sets the tone for what’s to come: “To everyone’s surprise, the ship didn’t come to a stop over Manhattan or Washington or Chicago, but instead coasted to a halt directly over the city of Johannesburg.” Director-writer Neil Blomkamp has spun a tale of social commentary, mockery and chuckle-inducing irony that promises to make this one a cult classic.

In 1982, with their ship damaged due to a part that fell out onto Earth (which no one has been able to find, of course), the aliens were stuck here and so begin a slow process of settling on the planet. The eventual colony they set up is called District 9.

The district is pretty much a fenced-in slum. Naturally, human-alien interactions ensue and the dominant population of the planet labels the aliens with a derogatory term, ‘prawns’, due to their resemblance to a South African species of king crickets called Parkton Prawns.

The best part about District 9 is how convincing it is. It takes a lot of persistent imagination to write a science fiction story and you have to immerse yourself in that world for days, playing out different scenarios in your head. Writing a socio-political commentary, on the other hand, requires tremendous amount of research and understanding of how humans work. It must have been an unfathomable effort to do both things together and make it seem like this was the only logical way the world would react to the events of the film. It’s probably because I watch movies from a writer’s perspective that this was apparent to me, as a couple of people I talked to did not even notice this aspect of the plot. To craft a masterful story — nay, a world — and then to resist the urge to bring it out as the real star, rather than the characters? For me, that’s something only George Lucas and J.R.R. Tolkien have managed to resist. Take a bow, Blomkamp, take a bow.

The undertones of social commentary run throughout the film, touching upon topics such as xenophobia, ostracism, apartheid, racial politics, etc. In fact, a little bit of digging on our friendly neighbourhood Wikipedia throws up the fact that the movie title is a direct reference to District Six — a residential area in Cape Town that the South African government declared as a ‘white-only’ place in 1966, leading to the “relocation” of over 66,000 citizens.

And that’s where the movie starts: Thirty years into the alien occupation, the powers-that-be decide to move the Prawns to a new refugee camp, outside of human contact.

The film is shot from the perspective of a documentary crew covering the life of Wikus Van De Merwe (played by Sharlto Copley), the agent in charge of the relocation plan which is being implemented by leading security corporation, MNU. Needless to say, MNU is the world’s second largest weapons manufacturer and they want to get their hands on the aliens’ superior armoury.

Wikus Van De Merwe confronts one of the ‘Prawns’

The plot shows the intriguing journey of Van De Merwe as a man who thinks he is protecting the world from the aliens to one who finally transcends such distinctions. What is great to see is how wonderfully flawed his character is. This is no morally upright citizen, nor is he up to his neck in shady deals. Van de Merwe is as human a character as you will see on celluloid, and director-writer Neill Blomkamp throws a superb ironical twist into the mix: Our protagonist is infected by the alien genes and is in a race against time to stop from being turned into a Prawn. The plot thickens, Watson!

I’m not good enough a judge of acting to know whether being a new face is what makes Sharlto Copley so believable as Van De Merwe. He seems immensely talented and completely soaks in the character. In all likelihood, it’s a role he will be defined by for the rest of his career; but I do hope that’s not the case.

Big alien gun makes humans go sploighk!

As a casual movie-goer, District 9 is a must-see for a whale of a time. And stop squirming in your seat, you will be rewarded for your patience by a gore-filled climatic action scene with lots of alien weaponry that makes humans go sploighk (no, really)!

But as a writer or avid cinema-goer, it’s a movie to be watched more than once for the numerous references and layers it carries. At times, it’s almost like Blomkamp threw in too many things out of the fright of it flopping and never getting the chance to make another movie. Thankfully, that’s not the case and the world will get to see another of his future endeavours.

Rating: 8/10

P.S. — Blomkamp had previously made a six-minute short film based on the same premise, called Alive in Joburg (2005). The cool part? All of the interview statements which do not explicitly mention extraterrestrials, were taken from authentic interviews with South Africans who had been asked their opinions of Zimbabwean refugees! Watch it here:

Re-Watch: The Lion King (1994)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are quite a few movies seen as kids that we never revisit as adults. So now that we are all grown up (well, at least technically), here’s a review ‘re-watch’ of a fond memory, but with a whole new perspective…

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When The Lion King released, there was huge hype created about its incredible new animation, although it was still 2D. My brother and I were among the first to rent a video cassette of the movie and huddled up in front of the TV. Carmen Twillie started belting out ‘The Circle of Life’ as the entire animal kingdom rushed to catch the first glimpse of the new prince. But for me, the most everlasting memory of that isn’t the hero shot of Rafiki the mandrill holding up baby Simba; instead, it’s a scene at the very beginning of the movie, where the camera is focused on a line of ants walking up a tree and slowly switches the focus to the background as a herd of zebras marches on. They looked almost real!

Cut to 15 years later and on a dull Saturday afternoon, I decided to return to The Lion King, just to see what effect it has now. The quality of animation has obviously gotten a lot better since then and while the film can’t compare to modern productions, I was glad to see that one shot still stands out just as much. Believe me, there’s nothing cooler than having a nostalgic memory stand the test of time…

Makes for a wonderful wallpaper, eh?

I’m not going to waste space on the movie’s story or other such introductory factors here. If you haven’t watched the movie (and in that case, go stand in the corner, you heathen!), you can check out the IMDB plot synopsis and its Wikipedia page to know more about it. The movie’s great and well worth your time; if it wasn’t, people wouldn’t be talking or reading about it years later.

What really surprised me about The Lion King while re-watching it now was that this was a ‘kiddie movie’ with messages that are aimed completely at adults.

The most explicit message to film is to embrace one’s past by learning from it rather than running away from it. Honestly, what is someone with 8-10 years of experience on this planet going to gain from that?

One of the best parts about re-watching the movie is that certain conversations and dialogues bring about a new depth to them. As a kid, I hardly even noticed these! Take, for example, this little exchange between Mufasa and Simba about the ‘Circle of Life’:

Mufasa: Everything you see exists together in a delicate balance. As king, you need to understand that balance and respect all the creatures, from the crawling ant to the leaping antelope.

Simba: But Dad, don't we eat the antelope?

Mufasa: Yes, Simba, but let me explain. When we die, our bodies become the grass, and the antelope eat the grass. And so, we are all connected in the great Circle of Life.

Another cool bit about watching the movie as an adult — especially one who has been exposed to hours of Discovery and National Geographic — is to observe the attention to detail that the animators and the writers have put in. As a child, I watched Simba and Scar face off in a vengeful final battle, hoping the noble, prodigal prince takes out the undeserving, evil king. As an adult, I noticed a lion’s instinct to rise up on his hind legs when fighting another lion, so as to use those powerful paws that can easily crush a human spine. These are little things, but they mean a lot to a keen viewer.

Hakuna Matata! (Click to listen)

Oh, and the soundtrack! I loved the songs even as a kid and had the album, but always fast-forwarded them while watching the movie. Now, the songs suddenly seem so integral to the film that it would be sacrilege to skip through them. The Lion King is an all-out musical with the songs being used as narrators and to take the story forward. Take a bow, Elton John, take a bow.

In the end, it’s almost poetic that the first feature of the Re-Watch section is a movie that tells us to revisit our past and learn from it to understand who we really are…

Rating: 7/10

Review: Burn Notice [TV Series]

If you think it’s difficult to find a good movie, try finding a good television series among the many broadcasted by over 500 TV channels in the US. The effort is worth it, though, as your reward upon finding one is a veritable gold mine that will keep you entertained for a long time. One such recent find for me has been a lesser-known series called ‘Burn Notice’.

Created by Matt Nix, Burn Notice is based on the premise that spies don't get fired, they get ‘burned’ or terminated. Set in sunny Miami, the protagonist Michael Westen (played by Jeffery Donovan) is a spy burned in the middle of a covert operation for reasons unknown, and forcefully deported to Miami. With all his assets and bank accounts frozen, he is forced to reconcile with people who will still accept him: an ex-girl friend and field operative Fiona (Gabrielle Anwar); an old friend and former navy seal Sam Axe (Bruce Campbell, famous as Evil Dead 3’s chainsaw-toting Ashley J. Williams); and a dysfunctional family led by his mother Madeleine (Sharon Gless).

The series follows Michael’s transition from ex-spy to your average Joe’s knight in shining armour, while trying to find the reason why he was burned and black listed by his own agency.

Every episode is a complete story in itself, while a common thread runs across all in the background. This makes the show perfect for the flirting viewer, who can miss a few episodes and still come to par after watching the next few ones.

Burn Notice: (L to R) Madeleine, Sam, Michael and Fiona

Usually, detective/action series are based on a tried and tested formula: A heinous crime in the opening act followed by solving it with clues or forensic evidence unearthed during investigation. And with so many shows adapting that (Life, Dexter, The Mentalist), the only difference between two shows is treatment and characters.

Burn Notice, thankfully, doesn't follow the thumb rule. It’s an all-out action series and the treatment is where it excels. Matt Nix has combined stylish execution with light whimsical humour, thrown in small portions of serious drama, and added insights from the world of espionage to create a refreshing change from the norm.

What we get is James Bond, without his fancy gadgets, performing covert operations while the protagonist’s voiceover doles out funny excerpts from ‘Espionage for Dummies 101’. Take this one for instance:

To build a listening device, you need a crappy phone with a mike that picks up everything. But you want the battery power and circuits of a better phone. It's a trick you learn when the purchasing office won't spring for a bug.

Michael shows useful ways to make spy gadgets on a budget

Successful TV shows also have good characters which the viewer creates an emotional bond with. This is one aspect where Burn Notice is slow to catch on. It’s a case where the creators try to do too much of everything, as meticulous perfection in every episode often does not give enough room for character development.

In season 1, this was slightly disappointing as I would have liked to see a softer, emotional side to Michael’s otherwise spy-like demeanour. However, towards the end of season 1 and start of season 2, the series sees some major efforts in this direction.

In season 2, new dimensions have been added to Michael’s personality depicting a certain kind of vulnerability for the people he cares for. For example, he consciously distances himself from his ex-girlfriend Fiona as he believes his growing emotional dependence on her is distracting him from getting to the bottom of his burn notice. While the interactions that follow add depth to the character, it also makes for some funny scenes.

Fiona the ex-girl friend who is quite the tactical situation expert

Even some serious mother-son bonding moments are shown in a very humorous tone, thus helping maintain a light feel to this charming series, which could easily have been heavy-handed if handled by someone else. My only complaint, as such, is the lack of screen time given to Sam, and I hope that gets fixed in the coming seasons.

Sam (Bruce Campbell) known for his role in Evil Dead franchise

All in all, Burn Notice is a cool action series and is perfect for those evenings where you don’t have time or inclination to watch a full movie, and would prefer something light and engaging.

Rating: 8.0/10

Review: Groundhog Day (1993)

Some movies are all about the director, others about the actors, some about a great plot. But there are very few movies that are more about a concept and a writer/director who wants to see where he can take it. The Man From Earth (a must-watch, if you haven’t seen it) was one, and Groundhog Day fits the bill perfectly too.

So what would you do if there was no tomorrow — in fact, every day is the same, with all the people in the city going about a set routine of events every time you wake up? Groundhog Day puts Bill Murray in an infinite loop of what he describes as the worst day of his life.

Murray plays TV weatherman Phil Connors who is set to the little town of Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania — along with his new, cheery producer Rita (Andie MacDowell) and cameraman Larry — to cover the Groundhog Day festivities on February 2nd, where a badger predicts whether spring will come early that year.

After wrapping up the report, the television crew tries to make it out of the town but is thwarted by a blizzard that blocks all roads. Having been forced to spend another day in the place, Phil wakes up to find the radio playing the same song as the day before and the RJs spewing the same lines. Of course, it soon dawns upon him that he is reliving the day.

But upon waking up the next day to find that it’s still Groundhog Day, he realises that he is caught in an infinite loop.

And it seems that he is the only one unaffected by the event. Everybody else in the town is a slave of routine and they continue to perform the same actions and say the same things, day after day after day…

That’s when director Harold Ramis (Ghostbusters, Analyze This) puts across a question that is directed more at the audience than our protagonist: What would you do if your actions had no consequences? Groundhog Day is a cool representation of the question and a wonderful concept overall.

Phil, of course, goes through mood swings as he uses his new power to spoil himself with food and women; then reach utter depression and try to kill himself; finally — and predictably – falling for Rita and trying to win her over. I won’t spoil it much, do watch the movie for yourself.

One question does remain though: Why doesn’t Phil just try to get out of town as soon as he wakes up? The film does have a few such loopholes, but it would probably be best to ignore them and enjoy the ride.

As usual, Murray delivers a solid performance — understated, sarcastic, funny and prone to moments of utter madness. The concept and the script, though, overpower his role as Ramis tries to depict what pros and cons come with immortality. Still, this is the writer of Ghostbusters and Analyse This, so don’t worry about the movie getting too heavy or philosophical at any point.

Groundhog Day is a light, fun comedy that doesn’t overstay its welcome and is perfect for a lazy Sunday afternoon, where you don’t want to tax your mind but still want something more stimulating than a Schwarzenegger movie.

Rating: 6.5/10

Trailer:

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

Anyone who has seen some of his previous movies (Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill, Deathproof) will tell you that Quentin Tarantino is an acquired taste. So distinct is his style of script-writing, direction and editing that it’s impossible not to tell his movies apart from someone else’s. But for the first time – and this is coming from a self-confessed Tarantino fanboy – I think this directorial style has gone against him while making Inglourious Basterds.

The movie is set in World War II and the Inglourious Basterds is a platoon of Jewish American soldiers under the leadership of Lt. Aldo Raine, played by Brad Pitt. Their only job is to land in Nazi-occupied France and kill as many Germans as possible, as gruesomely as possible.

Meanwhile, a Jewish cinema-owner in Paris (played by French actress Melanie Laurent) is going to be screening a huge premiere with all the major heads of the Third Reich showing up for it.

Of course, the Basterds hear of this and decide to blow up the theatre somehow. And so does the cinema-owner herself!

'A 100 Nazi scalps, or die trying!'

Tarantino’s masterful script-writing skills show throughout this movie, with his trademark intricate plots that bring several different threads together to form an explosive situation – it’s almost as good as one of Frederick Forsyth’s novels (but don’t go in expecting a factual history lesson; this is still a Tarantino movie, after all). And really, is there anyone in the whole of Hollywood who writes more memorable characters?

The movie’s title is quite misleading, in a way, as the Basterds themselves aren’t the central point of the film. Pitt, especially, seems like a bad casting choice and the film would have benefitted with a lead actor who was more… ‘American’.

The Basterds do feature in most of the major scenes, but the real stars of the movie are Laurent and the incredible Christoph Waltz, who plays Col. Hans Landa, nicknamed ‘The Jew Hunter’ for his ability to sniff out Jews in hiding. The immediate comparison I can think of to his role is that of Willem Dafoe playing Detective Paul Smecker in The Boondock Saints.

Beneath the exaggerated genius, there is a quiet, understated menace to Landa throughout the movie, unleashed in one final scene. If ever anyone in a Tarantino movie deserved an Oscar, it’s Landa as Best Supporting Actor.

Christopher Waltz as Col. Landa will make
you want to stand up and applaud

The dialogues are vintage Tarantino: drawing analogies to convey the Nazi perspective on Jews; lightening tension-filled environments with the odd quip about genitals; and somehow making the language itself seem more cold-blooded than the person who says it.

At times, the direction does benefit from the Tarantino touch. There are just a handful of people who can pull off conversational scenes as well as he can (Kevin Smith and Thomas Schlamme being the only other names that pop into my mind immediately). I had read an interview by Barry Sonnenfeld, the director of Men In Black, where he talked about how writing long conversations is difficult enough, but directing the same is even more so. Tarantino does it with ease, probably helped by the fact that he writes his own screenplays.

Still, overall, I feel it would have been beneficial to have Tarantino write the script and get someone else to direct it – say Spielberg, Stone or Ridley Scott. There are quite a few scenes in the movie where it seems like the director has a hangover from his last endeavour, the campy Deathproof. His style is intact, it’s just that I do think it does not go well with this script.

Oliver Stone showed how well he could handle Tarantino’s scripts with Natural Born Killers and I can’t help but imagine how amazing Inglourious Basterds would have been under the direction of the guy who gave us Platoon.

But by no means does that mean you shouldn’t watch the movie. Watch it for the script-writing; watch it for the dialogues; and most importantly, watch it for Christopher Waltz delivering a performance that will make you want to stand up and applaud.

Rating: 7/10

Review: State of Play

Real investigative journalism, I have been told, is about facts, conviction and the courage to stand tall in the face of adversity, ala Woodward and Bernstein. In real life, though, it’s altogether a different ball game. Working in a newspaper, I’ve realized true journalism doesn't hold much water against the immutable law of business: ‘Thou shalt not throw a spanner in the wheels of Profit (read: advertisers)’.

Still, fiction demands certain liberties, so we will take a page out of Rahul Dravid’s style and leave this one well outside the off stump. State of Play is no All The President’s Men, but it’s still not a movie to be missed out on.

Directed by Kevin MacDonald, the film has a stellar star cast with names such as Russell Crowe, Helen Mirren, Jeff Daniels, Rachel McAdams and Ben Affleck. This one almost slipped under my radar given the low amount of publicity it received – given that it’s summer time in the US, networks aren’t quite interested in marketing anything that doesn’t have ‘blockbuster material’ written all over it. But, being a patient man with a good amount of free time, I saw the movie because movies about journalism interest me. And hey, it’s Russell Crowe – how bad could it be?

State of Play is a good remake of a British television series of the same name, which aired in 2003. In the movie, Crowe plays Cal McAffery, a crime journalist who is somewhat of a relic in this new age of Internet blogging. But being a good traditional reporter, he has his contacts in every related department in the city, where he can sniff out a good story.

Russell Crowe as “Cal McAffery, a Journalist in the Washington Globe

The film starts with a petty thief being murdered for apparently no reason whatsoever by a professional assassin (depicted by two gun shots, one in the head and the other in the heart). What's strange about the incident is the critical wounding of another innocent passerby – a fact that grabs Crowe’s attention.

This is followed by another mysterious incident where a young girl is killed in a subway. She just happens to be the lead research attendant at the office of Congressman Stephan Collin (Ben Affleck) and also a secret lover of the ‘happily married’ congressman. A little digging around reveals that his office is investigating the US-Iraq war and the US government’s outsourcing policies related to it.

What follows is a chance discovery by Crowe to arrive at a larger, sinister plot where politics, business and war merge to make for one roller coaster of a ride complete with deception, intrigue and pot boiler situations.

Congressman Collins investigating the outsourcing of US Army Defense contracts

Here’s a bit of a spoiler, but honestly, there’s no way you couldn’t have seen this coming: Yes, this is another conspiracy movie about the US government’s secret hush-hush cover-ups. This time it involves PointCorp (a company loosely crafted after Blackwater, infamous for killing of 17 Iraqi civilians during the war), the US Army and its malpractice of outsourcing international defence contracts – namely getting ex-militia mercenaries to fight the wars in Iraq in the name of world peace and WMD’s.

The movie gets a bit loose towards the end, when it bites a bit more than it can chew after Crowe realises that ‘outsourced’ international warfare is just the beginning and the ultimate aim of this conspiracy is the outsourcing of the fabled Home Land Security of America.

A thought after watching the movie, was the amount of interpersonal relations and addition of new characters seem like a vestigial remnant of a television series building the complexity of its main characters hoping to add another season after a successful first. This level of complexity works in a series where the writer has reel time to develop it. But in a movie, if not handled well, can seem pretty confusing and force fitted.

Mirren, McAdams and Crowe playing characters which are probably more documented in the TV series

For example: The history between Crowe and Affleck going back to their college days where they were dorm buddies. A connection that is touched very lightly and taken for granted by the script writers. Another example is a past affair between Crowe and Affleck' wife Anne Collins played by Robin Wright Penn - an angle which would have had significant focus in the series but has to be deciphered by the viewer in the movie.

Congressman Collins and McAffrey reminisce their old college days

Characterization is where the movie excels. I liked the character of Helen Mirren who plays Cameron Lynne, the publisher of the Washington Globe. Well characterized and fits the bill of a publisher perfectly, she walks the thin line between a good story and sound business woman.

Hard nosed publisher Cameron Lynne played by Helen Mirren

Rachel McAdam playing Della Frye is a rookie online blogger for the Globe. And as with any young entrant in the field of journalism she dreams of making it big. She does get her wish fulfilled as she is unwillingly paired with Crowe who like a seasoned but fair veteran manipulates her to do the dirty ground work of following up on a potential story.

Rachel MacAdams as a cub online reporter in the Globe

What I didn't like though is the lack of use of Jeff Daniels as Republican George Fergus. His character is probable a very important one but somehow mysteriously ignored. A great loss as I think Daniels is an underrated actor able to deliver some crackling performances in 'The Squid and the Whale' and 'Good Night and Good Luck'.

Still, credit is due to the men behind the movie who have done a remarkable job to create a good two hour shortened version of an entire season and make it an gripping one too.

All in all, this is a highly enjoyable movie when you are in pensive mood and do make sure that you get the subtitles on as the dialogues can get a bit heavy during certain scenes.

Rating: 7/10

The Sting (1973)

Over the past few days, I’ve found that when someone asks me for a movie recommendation, my first question is, “Have you seen The Sting? Paul Newman, Robert Redford?” The duo is more famous for Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid, but if you ask me, this one has finer performances makes for better viewing too.

Everybody likes a good ‘heist’ movie. From Ocean’s Eleven to The Italian Job, these are the few times we find ourselves rooting for the thief. Sure, they’re rogues and scoundrels, but they treat their profession like an art and to see a grand plan being pulled off perfectly is an absolute thrill.

The Sting revolves around a ‘talented, but small-time’ conman named Johnny Hooker (Robert Redford in a role that you will associate him with for the rest of your life), whose gang inadvertently steals the money of a criminal banker, Doyle Lonnegan (played by a forgettable Robert Shaw).

The dangerous Lonnegan sets his men on them and one of the gang members gets killed, but not before giving Hooker the number of an old friend who is regarded as the master of the long con.

A vengeful Hooker makes his way to meet Henry Gondroff (Paul Newman in one of his best performances, epitomising the movie’s tagline: ‘All it takes is a little confidence’). On hearing about his friend’s death, Gondroff and Hooker decide to embark on the greatest and most dangerous con: rob Lonnegan of a massive sum of money.

Gondroff rounds up his old gang of con-artists, each with their special skill, and sets off to hatch an elaborate scheme. Given the high stakes and the dangerous reputation of their target, they need to deceive Lonnegan and take his money without him ever suspecting a thing. It’s a long con, so it requires patience, time and an incredible amount of hard work and investment; but with rich rewards!

Meanwhile, Lonnegan gets tired of the incompetence of his dirty cop – the pitbull-like Snyder – in locating Hooker, and so decides to put his best mercenary on the job.

The plot gets thicker as the FBI pulls up Snyder and blackmails him into giving them Hooker when he finds him. Agent Polk’s real target, though, is Gondroff, who has evaded him for quite a few years now and he doesn’t plan on letting the conman escape this time.

And slap-bang in the middle of all this, Hooker falls for the waitress at his regular diner and a romantic pursuit ensues.

Through the course of The Sting, there’s a change in the relationship between the wily Gondroff and the arrogant Hooker, slipping into a mutual admiration, with a bit of a mentor-student dynamic. The movie is filled with great dialogues and little ironies, such as Gondroff warning Hooker throughout the movie that revenge doesn’t make anything any better, and yet stepping out of retirement for this one big sting on the man who killed his friend.

Hooker is clearly the protagonist in this, as Redford digs deep to come out with a performance that matches the much more experienced Newman. When you think Newman, you think ‘Fast Eddie Felson’; and after this movie, when you think Redford, you will think ‘Johnny Hooker’.

And yes, no review about The Sting could be complete without the mention of its greatest contribution: the immortal theme. I didn’t know that this tune (The Entertainer by Scott Joplin) originated in the movie till I watched it and read up on it. It’s one that can’t be placed immediately, so it’s best to hear it here or play the YouTube video below.

So there we have it: Two of the greatest actors and one of the best teams in the history of cinema; a grand sting to rob one of the richest and most dangerous men in America by the greatest long con artist in the country and the brightest upcoming star in that field; a hitman and a dirty cop, hot on their trail; an FBI agent obsessed with hunting down ‘the one that got away’; a budding romance; and an immortal background score. What more could you ask for in a movie?

Rating: 8.5/10