Showing posts with label Irrfan Khan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Irrfan Khan. Show all posts

Friday, June 12, 2015

Jurassic World (2015)


Jurassic World (2015)

Director: Colin Trevorrow

Cast: Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Ty Simpkins, Nick Robinson, Irrfan Khan

The concept of an amusement park filled with dinosaurs is an attractive one because, let's be honest, who wouldn’t kill to see living breathing dinosaurs? In the Jurassic Park franchise genetic manipulation and biological tinkering have made it possible for us to see ancient creatures that were once extinct, same as if you were visiting a zoo. Unfortunately, as the last three films have taught us, giant meat eating dinosaurs are not that easy to keep in captivity. This is the fourth film in the beloved Jurassic Park franchise, and it’s only now, after four films and three failed test runs, that the park finally opens its doors to the public. Only now it’s called Jurassic World. Why would anyone want to visit a park where many people have died at the hands of genetically mutated dinosaurs is beyond me, but I guess the idea behind Jurassic World is that people have gotten over the events that occurred in Jurassic Park (1993), The Lost World (1997) and Jurassic Park III (2001). I guess the curiosity of seeing real live dinosaurs is just too much, people just don’t care, they’re going anyway. Chalk it up to confidence in human superiority. Our conquest over the natural world, we’re the kings of the planet and all that. I guess its similar to how people still go on roller coasters rides, even though people have died riding them. Just google the words “roller coaster tragedy” and you’ll see what I mean.  The premise for Jurassic World is that the park has been up and running for some time now, and that seeing a T-Rex or a Velociraptor is now commonplace. What can park owners do to keep the masses entertained?  And how long before the shit hits the fan?


Jurassic Park are a series of films with strong foundations on Michael Crichton’s book about genetic manipulation being conducted in secret islands, unbeknownst to the rest of the world. I remember reading Jurassic Park eons ago, it had an essay that talked all about how these genetic experiments are actually conducted with sheep, we just don’t know it. This gave the whole novel and subsequent film a scary legitimacy; a plausibility that might not have been there otherwise. Suddenly the story had foundations in the real world. Mix that idea with an amusement park gone berserk and you have a winner. Genetic engineering has always been a scary sort of concept; it makes humans seem like gods, playing with life, this is the reason why it’s always been a controversial matter in the real world. To this day, Crichton continues exploring this theme in his post Jurassic Park work, like for example, his 2006 novel entitled ‘Next’, a novel in which he continues to explore genetic research and corporate greed.  Jurassic World explores these ideas via these scientists that splice DNA from different dinosaurs to create entirely new species of dinosaurs. This is how we come about the main baddie in this film, the new dino created solely for Jurassic World, the ‘Indominous Rex’, a mix between a Velociraptor and a bunch of other dinosaurs. 

  
The concept of an amusement park in chaos is nothing new to Crichton, who explored this premise in the film Westworld (1973), a film Crichton himself directed about an amusement park that reproduced the old west, down to having cowboys walking down the streets, cantinas you could visit and horses you could ride. Tourists could come in and live in the old west for a couple of days. Things get crazy when robot cowboys malfunction and start shooting the tourists. As you can see, Crichton has been toying around with these ideas since the 70’s. In fact, Hollywood has used this concept before in films like Jaws 3-D (1983), were a vengeful shark runs amok inside of a Sea World, eating the people on the water rides. So to the seasoned movie buff, this concept is nothing new. What does Jurassic World have to offer that we haven’t seen before? A whole lot as it turns out because we’d never seen this concept played out with dinosaurs! These films strive on that one moment when it’s all about the chaos and the thousands of park goers running for their lives! There’s an awesome moment where Pterodactyls break loose and start snatching up tourists! Chaos indeed!


Of course comparisons to Jurassic Park (1993) are inevitable, so let’s get them out of the way. True there are nods to the original film, which fans will immediately spot. We revisit places from the first film, we see certain recognizable props and vehicles from Spielberg’s original. Some scenes in Jurassic World pay homage to Spielberg’s film, but that’s just director Colin Trevorrow respectfully acknowledging Spielberg’s genius. Thankfully the films offers us original elements as well, it’s not all one big homage like some reviewers are making it out to seem. In terms of the way it was made, well, Spielberg’s Jurassic Park is special in the sense that it mixed practical, physical effects with digital ones. Back in ’93, when Jurassic Park was made, it was the first film that showed the world how far digital effects could go when done right. I remember the first time I saw Jurassic Park in theaters! I was blown away, and yes, why not, I’ll admit it, when the T-Rex first roared, I got goose bumps. It looked so real. A lot of it had to do with the use of amazing puppets built for the film. If you go back and see Jurassic Park (1993) you’ll see, most of the time, the T-Rex is not computer animated, most of the time; it was all done through giant, life size puppets. Fast forward 22 years into the future and filmmaking has drastically changed, today computer animation has completely taken over movie making and so, we don’t see many puppets on this film. Most of the time, the dinosaurs are entirely computer generated. That’s just the way cinema is nowadays, so I guess we just have to accept it and enjoy those few moments when an adventurous filmmaker decides to make things the old fashioned way. Yet, when computer effects are done right they can blow us away and Jurassic World has good computer animation, so in that area, you won’t feel let down. We get top notch computer animation here.   We also get to see dinosaurs we haven’t seen before, like the giant whale dino.  


The film moves at a great pace, it slowly introduces us into the whole world. We get to see how the park works, who runs it. It takes its time to set things up properly, which is something I liked. You feel like you’re watching a real movie as opposed to a movie that’s in a hurry to get to the “good stuff” without setting up things properly first. In my opinion it’s a very well structured film. In fact, if you ask me, I say that that this film is better than The Lost World (1997) in the sense that The Lost World, though entertaining, felt like it was an unnecessary sequel which ran on one simple premise alone, putting the dinosaurs within the context of the city landscape. The third one was also pointless to me. In contrast Jurassic World feels like a natural continuation of the original story line which had everything to do with opening the park to the public, which finally happens here. I loved the way they portrayed the fully functional park, you’ll wish that it existed! Another plus is of course Chris Pratt as Owen, playing the role of what can only be described as a ‘Raptor Whisperer’. Chris Pratt looks like Indiana Jones on this one, it wouldn’t surprise me if he actually ends up wearing the Fedora hat at some point in his career, especially now that he is working with Spielberg. So that’s it ladies and gents. What we got here is a film that doesn’t surpass the original but is better than all previous sequels. All in all, a fun time at the movies.


Rating: 4 out of 5  


Monday, November 26, 2012

Life of Pi (2012)



Title: Life of Pi (2012)

Director: Ang Lee

Cast: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Tabu, Rafe Spall

Review:

So Life of Pi is an event flick: a wonder of the imagination, a celebration of film, escapist entertainment of the highest caliber; if only it wasn’t so preachy! I went into this movie pretty much not knowing what it was about. I’d seen the previews with the flying fish sequence, and it looked to me like it was going to be a surreal, visual spectacle (which it ended up being every step of the way) but I had no idea what the book the film is based on was about, or the themes that the film was going to be addressing. I went into Life of Pi pretty much blind. But the previews displayed qualities of a top notch production at the hands of a gifted director, so I went in expecting to see something really amazing, and it was amazing in many ways and not so amazing in others.


Life of Pi tells the story of one Pi Patel, a little Indian kid who is brought up by his mother and father,  who by the way run a zoo. One day, as the family embarks on a life changing journey to Canada, a huge storm breaks out in the middle of the ocean and the boat, with mother and father and all the animals from the zoo go down into the ocean. Pi barely survives by escaping in one of the lifeboats. He manages to stay afloat on the boat, along with a hungry, defiant tiger, an injured zebra, an orangutan, a rat and a hyena. How long will Pi survive out in the vast ocean before he dies? Will he make it?


Life of Pi reminded me of a couple of movies. First off, it reminded me of Interview with the Vampire (1994) because it has this premise of a writer, listening to someone tell a story so they can then write a novel, or an article. So the film unfolds as a man interviews Pi, who very willingly tells the writer his story; a story that will supposedly make anyone who hears it “believe in God”. As the adult Pi tells his tale, we get to see Pi through various stages in his life, key defining moments that shape Pi into the man he will become. I loved the character of Pi, he comes off as very defiant of life, he isn’t afraid of anything, he willingly goes out and looks at a storm square in the eye and asks for “more”. To him life is fun, vibrant, joyful and wondrous, something to be experienced and cherished. I loved how the young Pi is portrayed as someone so curious and full of life. The character of Pi is one of the best things about the film, we can identify with Pi because he asks the same questions we ask. He isn’t afraid to question god and his existence.


And here’s where the movie took me completely off guard! I wasn’t expecting Life of Pi to be a film about religion at all! Now, this being one of my favorite themes, I was even more engaged in the film then I thought I would be. Suddenly, this was a film about Pi challenging God, to see if he was really there, to see if he would answer back. The existence of God is one of the biggest questions anyone could face in life. Is he real? Does he even know how much we suffer down here? If he is so powerful, why doesn’t he do something about all the bad things that happen? Why doesn’t he show himself? I loved how inquisitive young Pi is, because I myself always asked these questions, and I would always get the shaft from adults, because let’s face it, not many adults know how to define God, can’t say I blame them. Personally, I think that if there is such a thing as god, then it is probably something bigger and more powerful then anything we can imagine. But I don’t know if there is a god, because I’ve never seen him or heard him. The only thing that comes close to being Godlike for me is the universe and everything in it, which is one viewpoint displayed in the film. At one point a giant lightning bolt hits the middle of the ocean and Pi thinks he is seeing god and that it’s amazing. I was right there with Pi, believing in the majestic, awesomeness of nature. Now there’s something worth praising!


So anyhow, be ready for a film that questions the existence of god, and tries to define why we should believe in him, which to be honest is what I didn’t like about the film. The film starts out with a believer trying to get an unbeliever to believe. I don’t mind films that address the idea of God, in fact, I often times find them fascinating. What I do hate is when films of this nature try to give a definitive answer to a question whose answer is elusive and inconclusive at best. I mean, when it comes to God, all we can really come down to are ideas, a hypothesis, a proposal of what it could be, but what the ultimate creator of all things is, let’s be honest, nobody really knows. It’s one of the biggest mysteries in life.  Sadly, there comes a point in Life of Pi where you feel as if the film is preaching to you about believing, and honestly, I don’t like films that propagate the idea of believing in fairy tales. I like watching fairy tales and fantasy films for their escapist nature and for entertainment, but I would never believe these films to be true. Because they are fantasies, unreal by nature.


What this film asks us to do is believe in God because it’s a far prettier perspective on life then the sad, dark truths that unbelievers have to offer.  The film is right though, being an unbeliever offers a bleaker outlook on life, they don’t believe in a beautiful afterlife where you will meet all your loved ones that have died. They don’t believe in magical invisible beings that watch over you. Unbelievers usually side with logic and science, things that are tangible, things that can be proved, tried and tested.  And though this is a more realistic outlook on life, some rather believe in the fairy tales that religions have to offer, however faceless and ephemeral they may be. In the end, we all choose how we are going to look at life. Each man is an island; we all see the world the way we want to, if you feel better going through life believing in fantastical beings watching over you, then more power to you. I just didn’t agree with the idea that Life of Pi is trying to propagate: that simply because the idea of God is a “prettier idea” that it is immediately a better option. I’m sorry but no. If you were to tell me that you suddenly want to believe in Hobbits, because you thought they were cute, I’d give you a good wakeup call and tell you to try and live in the real world. Would you rather see life through the spectrum of reality, or through the looking glass of an elaborate fantasy? If you ask the filmmakers behind Life of Pi, the pretty lie is better.


In the end, I really enjoyed the visual aspects of Life of Pi, the film was an amazing trip, it offers one amazing vista after another, the visual wonders never cease with Life of Pi. Technically speaking I am sure that Life of Pi will win the best visual effects Oscar, no doubts about it. This is a surreal masterpiece, it felt something akin to a Tarsem Singh film, like The Fall (2006) for example. Life of Pi is escapist, visual eye candy. The colors leap off the screen; the computer generated images are top notch. Just the fact that almost all of the animals depicted on the silver screen are computer generated says something about the achievements of the film. The computer generated animals  look amazingly realistic. When compared to something like Jumanji  (1995), yet another film filled with CGI animals, Jumanji feels like a dinosaur in terms of realism achieved through computer generated imagery. As for the the 3-D in Life of Pi, it’s great, fish seem to leap off the screen and onto the theater! For these reasons, Life of Pi is definitely worth a visit to theaters, just watch out for all the preaching that leaps off the screen as well.

Rating: 4 out of 5


LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails