Film Review: Being The Ricardos (2021)

Before I begin writing my points about Aaron Sorkin‘s latest, let me tell you about the sitcom ‘I Love Lucy‘ on which this film is based. I Love Lucy was an American sitcom of the 1950s that starred real-life couples Desi Arnaz and one of the biggest television stars Lucille Ball. They were the first interracial couple to be depicted in the American sitcom. During the run, the couples were expecting a baby and after convincing the show’s big bosses, Ball appeared pregnant and gave the audience real-feel as she became the first-ever woman to appear pregnant on television. I Love Lucy was also the first to be shot on 35mm. The show was also the trendsetter of holiday specials when it released the Christmas episode. All I am trying to inform the readers is that I Love Lucy was way ahead of its time and set many records. By records, it makes me realize that I Love Lucy was also the first sitcom to top the Nielsen ratings.

So this show has its significance but more than that, there were issues, controversies, and incidents that occurred during the progress of this show. There were personal and professional relations that were jeopardized during the production. The wave of McCarthyism reached their shores and found a communist in Lucille Ball. So Aaron Sorkin’s Being The Ricardos highlights those moments during the shooting of the sitcom. The film highlights behind-the-scenes and excessive heated and verbal confrontations behind writing a sitcom America was ever super crazy about.

Being historically accurate on most of the occasions, the film’s unusual lie throughout the screentime is that all those events occurred in one week. Sorkin did admit but I am not sure why he decided to present the story this way and that too by mentioning the days. Lucille Ball’s children, Desi Arnaz Jr. and Lucie Arnaz, who are the executive producers, admitted that there were a few fabricated scenes but overall the director did justice with their mother.

NICOLE KIDMAN and JAVIER BARDEM star in BEING THE RICARDOS Photo: GLEN WILSON © AMAZON CONTENT SERVICES LLC

I think Being The Ricardos is more character-driven than excellent screenwriting. Due to very limited writing on a run for more than two hours, Aaron Sorkin made use of the talented actors to play their quality part. And there are many scenes that buy the attention of the audience and help us understand how difficult it is to go through the process of writing and making the scenes funny. Javier Bardem as Desi Arnaz doesn’t really look like a match but is a little older. But in any capacity, can Javier Bardem play a role that will not make us praise? JK Simmons is such a terrific actor and those who have observed him can clearly get my point that he executes his roles quite differently. His physical and facial performance in this supporting role distinguishes him from the past performances and maybe there is a chance he can get nominated for the Best Supporting Actor. And I wonder what took Aaron Sorkin so long to consider sitting on the director’s chair? Why was he never directing for so many decades?

Being The Ricardos is majorly about Nicole Kidman as Lucille Ball and my oh my, what a powerful performance she has displayed. I feel she is in hot contention for winning the Best Actress award in the Oscar. There are so many scenes where the audience will contemplate her acting. An absolute blend of physical, facial, and verbal performance to remember. Notice when she runs 500 yards to Desi and gives her the breaking news in her raspy voice. Or when she breaks down in the producer’s office when he suggests voicing for the radio, you can feel a lump in your neck. Those were close to perfection. A few minutes later, she has an argument over a scene with the executive producer, the scene intensifies when they are in disagreement about the flower scene and you can observe the spark of physical and facial brilliance in Nicole the way she begins to convince him. Nicole Kidman in this film is stupendously incredible. She was a terrific choice and the outstanding makeup made her resemble her.

Being The Ricardos is a magnificent remembrance about the making of one of the greatest American television shows that have compelling screenwriting and imposing performances.

Ratings: 8.7/10

Film Review: Dangal (2016)

Aamir Khan‘s Dangal has collected over ₹1,500 crore and is becoming the highest-grossing Indian film but when I watched the film after a six-months wait, I found the film wasn’t worth even ₹1.50 crore. 

Dangal is about a man, once a national wrestling champion, who gives up his career due to the shortage of money but sees his dream of winning Gold medal coming true in his daughters, Geeta (played by Fatima Sana Shaikh) and Babita (played by Sanya Malhotra). Being based on Indian wrestling family of Phogat, Dangal is a huge insult in the name of the real-life facts accuracy. In short, it is heavily fictionalized with more than 80% of the story dramatized. I have collected a few points which I found from various media sources.

 

1) According to the authorized biography of Mahavir Singh Phogat, Akhada, it was his wife Daya, who was disappointed that the first child wasn’t a boy.

 

2) The coach is depicted as villainous who is dummy enough to give wrong techniques every time he trains Geeta; whereas the real coach has claimed that only mechanism was changed, not the techniques.

 

3) Geeta losing first-round tournaments globally is completely wrong. The film shows her winning her first Gold medal in international competition in the Commonwealth game whereas she did win a gold medal a year before in Jalandhar.

 

4) Geeta didn’t cut her hair before the Commonwealth games. The video of the final game shows Geeta with long hair.

 

5) Aamir getting locked before the final fight is very incorrect. As per the biography mentioned above, Mahavir did watch the final.

 

6) The final game wasn’t that competitive; in fact, it was a one-sided two-round victory by Geeta with the score 3-0, 8-0.

 

Even besides the factual accuracies, the director Nitesh Tiwari, who is heavily praised and accoladed for his direction, has made the silliest of mistakes as few examples below:

 

1) The referee changes between the scenes in young Mahavir’s early fight. Can you believe it?

 

2) When Mahavir moves Patiala for six months, he is financially low but minutes later he owns a scooter and even books a whole theater to watch the DVD of his daughter’s fight? *claps*

 

3) Mahavir gets locked and not a single security guy bothers to watch the series of unfortunate events happening in such an international competition?

 

Performances? Yes, performances were the first rate but let me talk about Aamir Khan. He finally won a Filmfare Award in 16 years but the question is, what was so challenging about this role? Body transformation does count when the acting is judged but you will watch Aamir’s fatty character in the whole film as the young muscular phase of his role hardly is on the screen for 15 minutes.

 

If I judge his performance as a standout from two different criteria, which is 1) best performances of the year 2016, and 2) Amir’s best performances in the last 15 years, this role is still nowhere. So Filmfare yet again made a blunder in awarding it to a wrong individual.

 

Film’s technical aspects are not convincing at all. A running time of 160 minutes does not justify at all due to lengthy fight sequences and unnecessary songs.

 

Dangal is a one-timer and can be watched on a repeat mode for the sake of entertainment.

Ratings: 4/10

Follow me on TWITTER @saminaik_asn

Movie Review: Bridge of Spies (2015)

Bridge Of Spies is one of the most terrific historical drama I have seen in last few years. Directed by Steven Spielberg and written by the Coen brothers, the movie is somehow based on James B.Donovan’s book “Strangers on a Bridge“. James B.Donovan was an American insurance lawyer, who after his experience of Nuremberg Trials in 1945 (also mentioned in the movie) was asked by US Govt to defend Soviet spy Rudolf Abel.

Now who was Rudolf Abel? Shortly speaking, Abel was born in UK to Russian émigré parents, which means born to the couples living in political exile. He served Soviet military and fought against Nazis in WWII. After the war, he lived as spy in US where years later he was caught by FBI. The director began his part in the movie from here and I think that was a good decision.

The movie has two phases blended splendidly. One is Donovan/Abel phase and the other is Powers/Pryor phase. The other phase is story of two Americans. Francis Gary Powers was American pilot whose CIA spy plane was shot down by the Soviets in 1960 and Frederic Pryor, a graduate student, was caught by East German police without any charge a year later, who was studying there since 1959.

Spielberg offers sharp visual historic presentation of the famous exchange occurred in Glienicke Bridge. The famous exchange scene has been shot at very same historic site. The dare and gallantry of James B.Donovan is well explained, his wit saved Abel’s hugely expected hanging sentence into a 30-year imprisonment which turned into nationwide massive shock.

When it comes to tell history, the most important aspect to the viewers and readers is ‘deep intensity’. Spielberg successfully sketches deep realistic intensity hitting your head hard, specially at two different scenes. One is the court scene when the judge declares Abel’s punishment to 30 years instead of hanging, next 5 minutes are the peak of boiling points. The other scene is Donovan witnessing Berlin Wall shooting, facial expressions of Tom Hanks who plays Donovan here are priceless.

Bridge of Spies is committed with 90% historical accuracy with slight alterations i.e., all critical points under the incidents happened and presented in the movie are true. Spielberg’s frequent collaborator John Williams did join to compose movie’s score but left for Thomas Newman due to health issues but Newman justified his musical presence and didn’t make us miss John’s score. Production and costume designs were super-excellent, one simply cannot expect an error in these two departments as Speilberg has been veteran of many many historic movies.

Pace is slow but adaptable. Mark Rylance as Rudolf Abel is a showstopper who deservingly won Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for this role. Overall, Bridge of Spies is a decent history digging movie from a very important time-zone of the 20th century.

Ratings: 8.8/10

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER @saminaik_asn

Movie Review – The Theory of Everything (2014)

 

 

Oh a soft wind that freezes you with the medical guru declaring your fate that you have access of breathing this world for hardly 24 more months. The legacy is in the surviving and those who survive live long and serve. Life of unarguably Britain’s most famous living scientist Stephen Hawking is cinematically biographed. 

Well known English documentary maker James Marsh, who won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature for Man On Wire, directed “The Theory of Everything“. Eddie Redmayne played the central role of the scientist while his spouse Jane Hawking was played by Felicity Jones. At a budget of mere $15 M, the movie boomed at almost $100 M. The movie is based on Mrs. Hawking’s “Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen”.

Eddie spent six months on researching Hawking’s life. Once the research was done, he had a chance to meet the scientist five days before the shooting began. Variety.com stated that during the meeting, Eddie’s nervousness knew no bounds as while detailing Hawking’s own life to him, he informed that he was Capricorn like him. On that, Hawking replied “I’m an astronomer, not an astrologer.”

I am more into accepting the movies with the most accuracies as far as movies based on adapted screenplays are concerned. This movie was a blend of fictional experiments and accurate events. When the weight is stoned, you will come to observe and understand that major events in the movie are more accurate than some minor changes which somehow are acceptable. For example; 1) First meeting of Mr and Mrs. Hawking was on the occasion of New Year’s Party in 1963 but only the location was changed. 2) Hawking’s classmate Brian is a fictional character but Brian’s character and attitude is well described in Jane’s book reflecting similarities. 3) Jane and future husband Jonathan did go on camping trip with Jane’s kids when Hawking’s coughing fits worsened. But Hawking in reality was rushed to Geneva instead of losing health in an opera show showed in the movie.

Bullet notes from Hawking’s life was justified. The doctor did declare his maximum survival not more than two years. Hawking’s parents had a cottage with very complicated stairs enough to lift Hawking’s wheelchair towards their destiny. Jane’s mother-in-law did ask her who the father of her third child was.

A major breakdown on accuracy was in one of the most important event of his life i.e., the first fall – the sign of ALS diagnosis. In movie, he fall in the campus whereas in reality he fell while ice skating. The other event is the separation of the Hawking couples after the entry of nurse Elaine Mason. It wasn’t as peaceful as the movie shows. In fact, Hawking’s memoir confirms he was very unhappy with Jane-Jonathan affair enough to decide to move out to the other flat with Elaine in 1990. 

What was wrong with the movie? The major flow was that ‘The Theory of Everything’ was more inclined in describing Hawking’s personal life more as compared to professional life. The director looked more committed to present Hawking-Jane chemistry rather than focusing on his career. His works were highlighted for few minutes and his works and studies on Quantum mechanics should had a 10-minute place in the movie. 

What makes this movie worth watching? First of all, it is easily apprehending biography of a great scientist with no-nonsense and the pace keeps your mode active on above-average scale with the movie length of 120 minutes. The other thing is there are no flashbacks. Besides few childhood scenes of the Hawkings, the timeline grows where the boy and the girl meets and eyebrows of viewers raise once the health of the scientist deteriorates. Excellent cinematography by Benoît Delhomme.

And the biggest plus of the movie, which makes the review morally incomplete without mentioning it, is the fact that ‘The Theory of Everything’ is a Eddie Redmayne show. Eddie has not actually researched Hawking’s life, in fact he brought a Hawking in himself to portray with almost perfectness. Sometimes during the movie, I am compelled to forget the story and study his character building. Keeping in mind that Eddie has to show Hawking’s health deteriorating time by time, he just stamps an authority to make you say bravo. His footwork, finger movements, opening and shaping of jaws while struggling to talk were abnormally extraordinary.

I am simply lost of words when he is trying to climb the stairs while Jane and his friends are at dinner and the baby is looking at him. That scene is an emotional pasture when Hawking comes out of his wheelchair to give the female attendee her pencil in a seminar which will move you to think how disabled person applies a normal incident imagining himself/herself in a normal body. It’s painful to think.

 

The Theory of Everything is a magnificent movie and deserves huge appreciation. Eddie Redmayne has produced one of the best performances of 2014 and richly deserve the fruit of his hard work. I should not ignore Felicity Jones’ efforts of assisting him in the whole movie and bringing a wonderful on-screen pairing. Superb acting by her side. Overall one of the best movie produced in 2014.

Ratings: 8.2/10

Follow me on TWITTER @saminaik_asn