Rise of the Planet of the Apes is one of the most pretentious titles ever given to a movie. The much-awaited rise is barely a steady climb. Forget the planet; it doesn’t extend beyond the city’s precincts. ‘PETA propaganda’ would be a more befitting name. In its opening scenes and through most of it, the film reasserts how much humans hate animals and what obnoxious beasts we are. The message in the bottle is clear – don’t mess with animals. If they get pissed, you’re screwed big-time.

Will Rodman (James Franco) is a scientist who is developing a cure, called ALZ-112, for Alzheimer’s disease. This one’s personally relevant to him since his father is suffering from it. He conducts tests on primates in a laboratory before planning to introduce the drug on humans. The super-intelligent genes are passed onto an orphaned baby ape, whose mother was a test subject. Will adopts the chimpanzee and names him Caesar; because the great Roman emperor was just like a chimp, wasn’t he? Caesar grows, shit happens and as the title seems to insinuate, the apes rise and kick some arse.

The acting is mediocre. Franco has a perpetual punch-drunk expression on his face and Freida Pinto looks artificial as a Muppet while she plays the role of a primatologist named Caroline Aranha. So is the plot. The soundtrack is crass and overpowering. The film can be termed as just another action flick with simians instead of humans. Director Rupert Wyatt adds all the ingredients necessary to make it as sci-fi-action-like as possible. There are fancy laboratories, a chemical that can ‘change millions of lives’ and plenty of scientific jargon that bamboozles the ignorant viewer. Unfortunately, this is a problem that most big-budget flicks are facing nowadays – Green Lantern, Captain America, Cowboys and Aliens – all additions in the long list of movies trying to make some quick money. However, there is more to a quality action film than just special effects, violence and things money can buy. If the case were otherwise, Michael Bay would probably have been proclaimed as the father of modern-day film making.

The apes however hold the show together. Actor Andy Serkins and Mr. CGI together give a brilliant Caesar to you. You never notice when the influence of CGI commences or ends. He is cute as a baby, much like a human child. He understands English, can solve a plethora of puzzles and even makes quite a mark on the IQ scale. The empathy between the apes has been displayed quite well and it manages to touch you occasionally. Despite being at the receiving end as humans, you can’t help but cheer the simians in their battle against human cruelty. Well, that’s a woohoo for the primates.

Most of the movie proceeds at a sedate pace. Majority of the first half is a digression. Though the action and the effects are good, the apes rise way too late. The film is hollow and hence makes more noise than it has merits to boast about. However, it does teach few valuable lessons. Chimps can make dangerous pets for your neighbours. Keep chemicals worth millions in safer places than a household refrigerator. And never get in the way of a charging gorilla; things could get messy. In all honesty, Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a complete ape show. Pun intended.

 The author also blogs on Blogspot – http://psychocritic.blogspot.com/

Movie Info

The journey that began nearly a decade ago has finally come to an end with the release of the eighth and the final installment of the multibillion movie franchise.

Kicking right off from where Part 1 ended, Voldy Moldy now possesses the all-powerful ‘Elder Wand’ and continues with his reign of terror. With Snape replacing Dumbledore as Headmaster of Hogwarts, all looks grim within the magical community. Our beloved protagonists have little time to waste as they must destroy the remaining Horcruxes and face He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named to end the battle that started 7 books/movies ago.

It is evident from the beginning that those who haven’t followed the books or the movies from the start would have a very difficult time following the plot. While part 1 of the Deathly Hallows was all about the impending dangers that followed Harry, the second movie makes us see a whole new side to Lord Voldemort. His misery and anguish is clearly seen as a determined Hogwarts fights back with all its forces combined. The movie has an almost-melancholic slow pace at the start as the trio plans move after move but around 45 minutes into the movie, there is no end to the action.

Visual effects supervisor, Tim Burke has finally got his shot to convert the movie to 3D after the idea was scrapped for Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (Part 1). Although they weren’t necessary, the 3D effects just add to the amazing visual experience. The trolley ride into Gringotts’ Bank shows some amazing albeit clichéd visual effects. Burke is the man responsible for the massive jump in terms of CGI animation and visual effects from Sorcerer’s Stone to Chamber of Secrets. However, the CGI animation has a few hiccups; the aging dragon at Gringotts is created to perfection while the trolls that appeared during the final battle are not.  All in all, one cannot deny the visual excellence – especially the final battle and the scene in the Room of Requirement with Goyle, Malfoy and Zabini. (Whatever happened to Crabbe?)

Deathly Hallows is definitely the most action-packed of the series, with whizz-banging elaborate fight scenes and at the same time, we can see how the characters have clearly grown through the movies. This one seems to stalk the trio wherever they go, with a few cutaways to Lord Voldemort.

Despite their short screen time, Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall and Alan Rickman as Professor Snape leave a long-lasting impression, showing the audience a different facet of their personality. Ralph Fiennes (minus his nasal appendage) is a terrific combination of Sauron from LOTR and Stewie Griffin from Family Guy (Okay, maybe not, but he is EVIL). Oozing death from his evil pores, Voldemort looks more dangerous than ever. Daniel, Emma and Rupert do justice to their characters as they have for the past 10 years (Though it’s still shameful that Daniel never managed to lose his cockney accent). Helena Bonham Carter’s performance as Bellatrix Lestrange is par excellence and it is fun to watch her act as Hermione as the trio tries to break into Gringotts.

The movie however, lacks the comedy and slapstick humor that is shown in the previous films. Anyway, this isn’t a surprise since there isn’t much to laugh about especially in their given situation. The little humor that is shown is half-hearted.

As with most books-to-movie adaptations, director David Yates has managed to omit massive chunks of the original story. This makes one wonder why 1/4^th of the book is still missing when two movies had to be shot to complete this one. Screenwriter Steve Kloves has managed to render Rowling’s story from paper to the big screen beautifully and should be given due credit for it. The art direction and set design gets even better in this movie and composer Alexandre Desplat pays homage to the original John Williams’ score including the original ‘Hedwig’s Theme’.

Overall, the movie is good with a few shortcomings here and there. Die-hard Harry Potter fans will be disappointed with certain gross misinterpretations and deviations from the original story. Even so, for the larger part, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part 2) is an exhilarating experience and a spectacular end to a monumental saga.

Movie Info

Unlike the original poster of this movie which was inspired from Lords of the Dogtown, this movie isn’t anything like any other movies you’ve seen before. Yes – it does remind you of Dil Chahta Hai and The Bucket List at times but only minimally.

The script is well-written and the plot is rather simple; Kabir (Abhay Deol) is getting married and thus, with his buddies Imran (Farhan Akthar) and Arjun (Hrithik Roshan), he goes on a road trip involving three adventure sport surprises around Spain. They face their inner devils, fall in love, resolve conflicts amongst themselves and learn lessons of life along the way.

Director Zoya Akhtar scores brownie points for this one because unlike her debut, Luck By Chance, this movie has a wider reach thanks to its storyline. The setting is urban and it suffers from the all-Indians-are-very-rich syndrome with almost every character driving around in a Beemer and living in London. Zoya plays with the theme of living for the moment pretty well and it doesn’t seem to bog you down like other movies in this genre like The Bucket List.

Carlos Catalan’s cinematography reminded me of the 60s counter-culture film Easy Rider – the open landscapes, panoramic scenery, long, endless roads, flip-angle camera movements and the almost-omnipresent aerial shots. A special mention should be given to the underwater shots also. Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy’s music is reminiscent of many international musicians though you don’t seem to mind it since it blends beautifully with the visuals.

As far as the performances are concerned, Hrithik Roshan is not surprisingly the weak link though he manages to pull his character off since it’s well-written. Abhay Deol is himself – like how he is in all his movies. For the first time in her career, Katrina Kaif’s performance didn’t give me a headache – and there is no lame Akshay Kumar dancing around. Kalki is a brilliant actor. However, casting her as an over-possessive fiancée undermines her talent though she does the job well anyway.  Farhan Akthar steals the show with his perfectly-timed performance and he is at ease when it comes to portraying emotions; he is so god damn real. Did I already mention that he is funny?

As a spectator, the story manages to immerse you in the movie in a realistic manner. Nothing seems superficial or overdone. A lot of people will complain about the movie being slow but it’s purposefully paced in that manner because it gives you the feeling of journeying with the characters themselves. The first half therefore builds up to a faster second half.

Indian cinema has come a full circle; it was Farhan Akthar’s Dil Chahta Hai in 2001 which changed the way movies would be made here. This movie caters to the same audience that DCH created: the urban Indian multiplex movie-goer.  This movie has a good vibe about itself and it manages to make you smile if not laugh with absolutely no slapstick humour or buffoonery.

Go watch it.

Director: Vikas Bahl, Nitesh Tiwari

Cast:  Irrfan Khan, Sanath Menon and Naman Jain

Chillar Party is the finest example of how to take a very promising script and turn it into a fantastically drab, ordinary movie.

The film has an interesting start with each and every single character getting introduced individually by their character traits and the reason behind their names. However, after that, there are only the occasional witty dialogues or some exceptional acting by Naman Jain which keeps you from walking out of the theatre.

Chillar Party is a fine example of a film which will probably do well and get decent reviews from most film critics, just because the entire story revolves around children. However, after watching Stanley Ka Dabba, every single actor in this movie seems boring and in serious need of acting lessons from Amol Gupte’s son, Partho. Barring, of course, Naman Jain, who is quite splendid in each scene. If you thought it was only the children’s acting which is a disappointment, let me tell you, the adults are far worse.

The cinematography is just plain dull, and there is absolutely nothing in the movie which sets it apart from the innumerable other films which are released every year. The script is half decent, but tries involving everything from class discrimination to caring for others and loving children, even to the extent of fighting for animal rights. What it ends up becoming is an utter mess!

The height is reached, when the actors on-screen start reading out lessons about values and ethics from their moral science text books, citing even the page number and paragraph. This is the time when you feel like throwing your popcorn, glass of coke, or any other thing near your hand at the screen and walking out. It is about time film makers realise that the Indian audience is not half as stupid as them. When in need of moral science classes, they are well aware of which spiritual guru or shrink to contact. If one is at the theatre, clearly that person is done with his shrink’s appointment for the day and in the mood for some entertainment, and not a re-run of his previous two hours of frustration and boredom.

However, there are certain things which work for the movie. One, it reminds us of our own childhood, watching children playing cricket and plotting against adults, who are always considered to be the enemies. Also, the background score is nice, in keeping with the dialogues and pace of the movie. Some of the songs are interesting, and it is Mohit Chauhan’s voice which makes 5 otherwise unbearable minutes of the film, bearable. Some of the dialogues are nice. Also, there is a sense of apathy which is very well created at one point of the film when the dog disappears, but like the rest of the film, it too is overdone to the point of irritation.

The item number at the end of the movie makes up for a certain portion of the movie. The song is not out of the ordinary, but watching Ranbir Kapoor shake his leg to a few pretty fancy moves in the traditional Sallubhai style is a treat to watch after two hours of monotony.

With this movie following the release of Ready, Salman Khan has let out a very clear message to the audience. Not only does he act in movies which make you regret spending your money on them, but also, the films that he produces, aren’t much better.

Chillar Party has a sense of innocence attached to it. But overall, it still fails to make a mark as a good cinematic experience. The film definitely has its heart in the right place. However, I’m still trying to figure out where its mind is.

I was warned but then, me being me; I watched it anyway.

Honestly, the movie does start off on a promising note. It co-relates the plot to the Apollo Moon Missions and I really can’t believe how they managed to get Buzz Aldrin (the second man to walk on the moon) to be a part of this one. The previous iterations of this franchise weren’t in 3D for a reason; Michael Bay didn’t like it. However owing to the commercial appeal of 3D cinema, they decided to go with it for this one.

To me, this movie is more like an expensive ad for a few companies – they’ve already ruined it by making the previous movies into a General Motors =Transformers gig. In this one, everyone uses computers by Lenovo and weirdly, Cisco keeps popping up here and there. The American Defence Contractor Northrop Grumman also features in a few shots.

Most of the characters from the earlier films return to this one. Mikaela aka Megan Fox’s Character doesn’t and she’s replaced by a no-talent British blonde by the name Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. Shia LaBeouf plays an equivalent of a mentally challenged chimp that’s got a medal from Obama. The only two actors worth mentioning are probably John Malkovich and John Turturro who reprises his role as Seymour Simmons. The Transformers are nut cases (literally) and go about their usual let’s-wreck-a-city spree. I have no idea why Ken Jeon (Mr.Chow from Hangover) is in this movie and why he does his similar see-my-underwear Hangover routine.

Technically, this film is brilliant. It is shot by Amir Mokri (Fast and the Furious) and the way some of the historic scenes are recreated and modern-day Chicago is destroyed is phenomenal. The CGI and SFX guys have really put in a lot of work on this one. However, I had a huge problem with Steve Jablonsky’s soundtrack to the movie. He might be Hans Zimmer’s prodigy but the guy flicks music from Requiem For a Dream and Inception in bits and pieces. And then there is that one song (in this case Iridescent) by Linkin Park without which any Transformers movie is incomplete. I feel all of Linkin Park’s songs are about the world coming to an end or Japan. Michael Bay re-uses scenes from his previous film The Island (see the video below).

Final notes? Well, Michael Bay should stop making robot flicks! Rosie Huntington-Whiteley makes Megan Fox’s performances in the previous two films look like Oscar-winning performances. No matter what I do or say, this movie may be pathetic but it will rake in tons of money and a lot of folks will update their FB statuses saying “Fucking awesome flick!” I silently disagree as I end this review while I overhear this group of kids discussing how awesome this movie is for a second-time watch right in front of me. What is this world coming to?

With Delhi Belly, writer Akshat Varma weaves a mad albeit gross story through the lavatories and streets of any Indian city (it’s not really all that Delhi-specific). The movie is in English and surprisingly the actors are very comfortable in their skin speaking it. Now a lot of people have said that this will put off the folks who don’t get the language and those who don’t belong to the present generation, but then it isn’t meant for them. (Oh there is supposedly a Hindi version too.)

The Indian youth is portrayed in an over-the-top manner which I am not complaining about. A lot of the language is what urban India speaks today. Matrushka dolls and gangsters add to the scheme of things; which includes the lives of three young folks.

Veer Das, Imran Khan and Kunaal Roy Sharma are three youngsters who have problems with different things like rich girlfriends, bowel movements and girlfriends marrying NRI Engineers. Imran portrays something he has never attempted before, Vir Das is subtly awesome. Kunaal Roy Kapur is the reason this movie is funny. Maneka (Poorna Jagannathan) is one of the most real characters I have seen on screen. Shehnaz is a better actor than a screenplay writer (Luv Ka The End), and she should stick to acting. Her portrayal of the rich, over-bearing girlfriend is pretty believable. Vijay Raaz is the gangster who “takes action” when needed and he along with his bunch of stupid goons make the plot more interesting. There are numerous sub-plots which are neatly weaved into the rest of the plot.

Amir Khan repeats the no-interval thing with this movie too and maybe that adds to the fast-flowing feel this movie gives you. There are a lot of times when you feel like you’re watching the result of a threesome between a Guy Ritchie movie, True Romance (especially then end) and a Harrold & Kumar movie, but then the Indian-ness of the movie comes up with cleverly crafted jokes which might even offend a few.

Ram Sampath is another reason that this movie is so good. DK Bose or otherwise this movie is fuelled by Sampath’s music.

So what sets this movie apart from the other movies we have seen in these years, including director Abhinay Deo’s Game? Well, it’s crafted in a way which allows the characters to move around freely within their personal attributes instead of going along an established set of traits, thus making them multi- layered and more real.

Is it a good film? Yes! It was an awesome film for me. Maybe not for others. It is definitely fun watching it if you don’t mind a few expletives here and there.

Director: Sagar Ballary

Cast: Vinay Pathak, Kay Kay Menon, Minissha Lamba, Amol Gupte, Suresh Menon, Rahul Vohra

The 2007 release of Bheja Fry, which was a scene-to-scene copy of the French movie Le Diner De Cons (The Dinner Game), created quite a buzz in Bollywood. Even though the movie was entirely plagiarized, it still managed to tickle the funny bone of the viewers, and didn’t end up doing too badly at the Box Office either. This was probably the reason the film maker ended up making a sequel to it and some of the people are actually contemplating on watching it. However, unlike its predecessor, Bheja Fry 2 fails to live up to its expectations, and by the time you leave the theatre, you feel that those two hours of your life could definitely have been put to better use.

From the very outset, there is nothing in particular about the movie which appeals to the viewer. The storyline and plot are very ordinary, and the humour fails to be funny, probably because this time they had to come up with an original script. The movie aims to take Bharat Bhushan’s (played by Vinay Pathak) character forward from where the last movie left off. Bhushan wins a game show and wins a free cruise. A series of mishaps ensure that he gets stuck on a barren island with Kay Kay Menon, who was trying to kill him on board the cruise due to an identity crisis. From there on, the story just keeps sinking. None of the characters are explored during the course of the film, which is probably one of the many reasons the film just doesn’t work. The reason Bheja Fry was successful was because of its humour and the comic timings of the lead actors. However, in this sequel, the humour is such that it would make a 2-year-old think twice before laughing.

The camera work in the film is very haphazard and makes the film get  on to your nerves, as there are sudden transitions from close-ups to long shots and vice-versa. The sound track of the movie is not great either. The songs which were there in the movie should have been deleted without a second thought.

What makes the film watchable are the performances of the actors. Vinay Pathak is as brilliant as ever as Bhushan, though he tends to go overboard at times. Kay Kay Menon gives a fine performance as always, but it falls below expectations, since his character had so little to do. Probably, the dullest character ever played by Mr. Menon, but still he manages to do well. Minissha Lamba did not have much of a role, apart from being a mere prop, and she nearly does it to perfection. What disappointed me a lot though was Amol Gupte’s performance. As a Bengali photographer stuck in the middle of nowhere, he gives a performance which is pathetic, to say the least. His speeches in Bengali are a shame, but more than the actor, I’d blame the director, because after watching films like Stanley Ka Dabba and Kaminey, we all know the kind of power-packed performances Gupte is capable of delivering. When there are films like I Am being released with 4 different languages coming together in 1 movie, without a single flaw, you’d expect that the director would ensure that the one other language apart from Hindi that he uses in the film sounds authentic. However, just like every other aspect of the film, this lets you down as well.

Bheja Fry 2 does not live   expectations. Ranvir Shorey and Rajat Kapoor are sorely missed, as it was clearly their chemistry with Vinay Pathak which had worked wonders in the first movie. Watch the movie if you must only for the performances. It is the only thing which tries and keeps the movie alive.

Cow rating: 2/5

Director: Bijoy Nambiar

Cast: Rajit Kapoor, Rajeev Khandelwal, Kalki Koechlin, Pawan Malhotra, Shiv Pandit, Gulshan Devaiya, Neil Bhoopalam, Kirti Kulhari

It is not too common to come across a film these days where you regret the fact that there is an interval. Shaitan is one such movie.

From the very beginning, this film reminds you of Anurag Kashyap’s unreleased film, Paanch. The story deals with five friends, each with a swanky lifestyle full of drugs, speed, races and alcohol. But all of them have very disturbed lives. A car accident in which they kill a couple of people, throws their lives into even more disarray. A police officer finds out and asks for a huge bribe in order to stay mum. To raise the money for the bribe, they decide to call one of their friend’s father and ask for a ransom pretending to be kidnappers. Then on, their state of affairs keep getting from bad to worse.

The similarities with Paanch are uncanny right from kidnapping one of their own friends, to how each of their friendships fall apart, as the movie progresses. However, unlike Paanch, the storyline is not entirely linear. And the way the story has been told is far more gripping.

The cinematography is simply awesome and combines style with finesse brilliantly. Even when the plot weakens at times, the cinematography ensures that the audience is still gripped on to the movie. Hats off to the cinematographer, R. Madhi, for pulling off what is undoubtedly one of Bollywood’s most experimental and successful use of the camera and camera angles. Along with some brilliant editing, and some quick, witty dialogues, it forms the backbone of the film.

The cast, relatively unknown, delivers quite a fantastic performance. Rajeev Khandelwal and Kalki Koechlin are extremely good, as are the rest. Nikhil Chinappa’s performance was weak compared to the rest of the actors, but overall, he did a fairly decent job. However, the guy who stole the show in my opinion was Rajat Barmecha (he was the guy in Udaan in case you were wondering who he is) as Shomu in one of the best cameo appearances of recent times.

With 6 music directors, the background score is lively and keeps up with the movie. Some of the tracks are really nice, and overall, the music just adds to the youth flavour of the movie. The ‘Hawa Hawai’ and ‘Khoya Khoya Chand’ remixes work wonders.

What makes the movie truly unique is that none of the characters are good or bad. They all have their moments of black and white. So, there are no heroes or villains. At times, you begin to empathize with them, and the next moment, you hate them when their Shaitan avatar is revealed. The debutante director, Bijoy Nambiar, has managed superbly to portray the ‘shaitan’ in him and all the actors through the course of the movie. So, this is one director to watch out for in the future.

Shaitan has its share of negatives as well. Some parts in the story are pretty pointless, like the problems between Rajeev Khandelwal and his wife. No reason is given as to why they were having issues in the first place. Also, there is no mention of the guys who are killed in the accident. These add slightly to the slack in the movie, but they are cleverly disguised with flashbacks and chase sequences to ensure that the audience does not doze off at any point of time.

By the end of it, Shaitan leaves a bitter-sweet taste in your mouth. The movie is a Bollywood version of a Tarantino or Guy Ritchie flick. As is evident from the movie, Anurag Kashyap must have had a fair bit of role to play in the making of the movie, apart from being the producer. It is fast paced, gripping, and superbly made and I’d suggest giving it a watch.

To be honest, I had my doubts about the film mainly because of the casting. I never thought James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender could live up to the standard set by Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen. I was wrong. Having watched the trailer before, I was convinced this was going to be epic… and it was.

It starts of by putting down some of the basic back-story of both Prof. X and Magneto in quick shots and sets motion pretty fast. I must say it’s quite brilliantly paced throughout sans a single dull moment. Kevin Bacon plays Sebastian Shaw, the leader of the Hellfire club, a Hans Landa/Bond movie-type villain who plans to take over the world by starting a Nuclear War between USA and Russia accompanied by the super-hot Emma Frost played by January Jones who are joined by Riptide, Azazel and Angel Salvadore as they push the world towards the Cuban Missile Crisis.

It also sets down the odd friendship between Prof. X and Magneto, one, an optimist who believes the human race wouldn’t turn on them contrary to his own teachings and the other, more realist – almost cock-sure they will. The chemistry between James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender, my man, is like 33-year old scotch, if you know what I mean.

Michael Fassbender wags his German-tongue again, like he did in Inglourious Basterds - playing a Polish man whose mother was killed by Sebastian Shaw in a concentration camp. In order to provoke his power, Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique is mercurial among other young mutants who makes small but powerful cameos with a special mention to Nick Hoult as Beast.

My knowledge of X-Men is rather limited to second-hand comics from my cousin and from Blossoms, but this one set the story down pretty well and is amazing whether you are a comic book fan, an average reader or a newbie.

There is a pretty noticeable Watchmen influence – the entire averting nuclear war scenario. Superhero movies post Batman Begins have been following pretty much the same formula to set up a trilogy. Even though we’re practically ODing on superhero movies as of now, they might die out soon. So much that Matthew Vaughn himself said that he took up the project because this would probably be the last chance he might get to make a Superhero movie. And alas, there is no Stan Lee cameo in this one.

© Anchor Bay Films

It’s a coming-of-age movie about a group of friends based in New York. Sam (Josh Radnor), a struggling writer is best friends with Annie (Malin Åkerman ), an Alopecia patient who is searching for a reason to be loved. There is Sam # 2 (Tony Hale) who gives Annie hope for a relationship she would like. Then there is Sam’s cousin, Mary Catherine (Zoe Kazan, Elia Kazan’s granddaughter) who is facing a crisis in her relationship with her boyfriend Charlie (Pablo Schreiber).

The movie starts off with Sam accidentally meeting and “adopting” Rasheen (Michael Algieri), a six year old boy with a mysterious background. Sometime along this, he meets Mississippi (Kate Mara), a cabaret singer with whom he decides to have a “three night stand” because she is over one night stands. The movie sets pace when conflict arises within and amongst these characters.

Josh Radnor wrote this movie during the first and the second season of How I Met Your Mother (He plays Ted Moseby in HIMYM) and then sought independent funding for the film for about two years after which this film eventually got made with him as the director.

© Anchor Bay Films

The movie has a very urban feel and the typical New Yorker is brought out by the characters in the movie. The screenplay by Josh Radnor is realistic and his portrayal of New York is way different from the New York one sees in F.R.I.E.N.D.S or HIMYM. It is a darker, mature landscape where people do step outdoors. The movie is superbly shot with no high-funda tricks which in effect emphasises on the story and the people whose story it is. The subway scenes are so well shot (with the use of dim lighting) that you do feel the intensity of the situation. The characters are very identifiable and they grow with all the problems they face. The soundtrack of the movie consists of American folk songs which deepen the ‘New York effect’. Most of them have been composed by the Indie artist Jay May (who is also from New York) and it garnishes the movie so well. The music has been reproduced by Michael Brake, music editor for How I Met Your Mother. Andy Gowan is the music supervisor and is also the music supervisor for the same show. Maybe that’s the reason that the music plays such an important role in the movie even though it is so subtle.

I really loved Malin Åkerman’s performance which overshadowed even Radnor’s failure-writer act which I must add was undoubtedly real too (not to forget his look with his stubble!). Michael Algieri has very few lines because his character is written that way. Anyway, good actors hardly need any lines at all!

© Matt Marks

I loved the movie personally though a lot of people will find it drab and boring and will question why this is classified as a comedy. Mind you, comedy doesn’t just mean no-brainer movies like Hangover; this is the kind of film that tells you that good films are still being made out there!

Don’t forget to  read Josh Radnor’s interview below.

Q+A With Josh Radnor

From the HTYMP Press Kit which I found on the movie’s official site.

Q & A with Josh Radnor, Director

Josh Radnor directs Zoe Kazan - © Matt Marks

Why did you want to make happythankyoumoreplease?

I wanted to make the kind of movie I would want to watch. It frustrates me that movies that are hopeless, dark, and cynical are considered to be more sophisticated, clear-eyed, or “true” than those which present a more hopeful vision. I really wanted to make something that was defiantly un-cynical (starting with the title). No matter where one falls on the cynicism scale, deep down everyone wants to feel that everything is going to be okay – change is possible, growth is possible. I don’t ascribe to this view through some sort of naïve idealism, I really believe this.

In addition to starring in the film, this is your first screenplay as well as directorial debut. What inspired you to take everything on and write, direct and star in happythankyoumoreplease?

Well I didn’t initially intend to direct it. I thought writing and starring would be quite enough to have on my plate. When I was developing the script I had about six or seven readings with actors I knew and liked (I found the process to be so invaluable I actually thanked the actors who had done readings in the credits at the end of the movie). Through the process of doing the readings, I realized the tone of the piece was tricky – if played too broadly it became too overtly comedic and if played too melodramatically it could become bathetic. My biggest task as a director, I found, was to be a kind of guardian of the tone, to make sure everyone involved was, as they say, making the same movie – that the moment-to-moment life of the movie, above all else, felt rooted in truth.

How did you come up with the story? Did you draw on your own experiences while writing the screenplay?

Certain moments in the movie were inspired by things that actually happened to me, but very few. It’s more thematically inspired by my life – i.e. the issues of concern for the characters are issues of concern to me. I had three big ideas that got me going: 1) A guy late for a meeting ends up with a kid who gets separated from his family on the subway. 2) I wanted to base a character on my great and hilarious friend, Rachel, who has alopecia universalis, an auto-immune disorder which prevents her from growing hair anywhere on her body. 3) I wanted to end the movie with the Kander and Ebb song “Sing Happy” (I didn’t know why I felt that, or even at that point who was going to be singing it, I just felt it would be a great way to end a movie). Those were the ground rules I gave myself and I spun the story out from there.

When I was a camp counselor in high school, there was a kid in my group named Rasheen who’d been bounced around to a lot of different foster homes. I really loved this kid, and I’ve thought about him a lot over the years, wondering what happened to him. Writing the story of Sam and Rasheen served, I suppose, as a kind of retroactive caretaking gesture – in my imagination, I got to finally make sure this kid was okay. Charlie and Mary Catherine came about because I had independently started writing an argument between a couple over the merits of New York vs. Los Angeles. I was just having fun writing the dialogue and I didn’t really know who the people were at that point. But then as the script was coming together, I felt like I could add another ingredient with this couple. I liked the addition because they show that love is difficult at any stage – whether you’re single, newly in a relationship, or if you’ve been in one for years.

In the same vein as Reality Bites and Garden State, happythankyoumoreplease touches upon many core topics about growing up which young adults can relate to. Is there a certain storyline or character that you relate to the most?

Michael Algieri and Josh Radnor- /©Anchor Bay Films

All of them, really. That was actually a good sign for me as I wrote the script, that I really cared about all the characters and wanted them to be okay. Of course that can also be problematic for a writer, if you protect your characters too much. My m.o. was to let these lovable, well-intentioned people screw up in big ways and then have the guts and wherewithal to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and make a better choice the next time around. To write well you have to be fair and just in the manner of a judge, in that you have to see both sides of an argument because you’re writing both sides. When you stack the deck too much in one direction, the audience can sense they’re being manipulated. I like that these characters might employ irony when it’s socially useful but more often than not, they’re quite sincere. Their wants and needs feel real to me, their values well-placed – no one ever says if I only had a mansion or the right car I’d be happy. Above all else, they’re searching for connection.

Can you elaborate on Sam’s relationship with the boy, Rasheen, and how Sam’s lifestyle and outlook is changed once Rasheen enters his life?

At the beginning of the movie, Sam is a talented but rootless guy searching for happiness in a series of booze-fueled one-night stands. Circumstances thrust this kid into his life, and he rather recklessly extends their time together. Rasheen helps Sam get outside himself for perhaps the first time in his life, and Sam helps Rasheen feel safe for perhaps the first time in his. One of the reasons I suspect having children can be a healthy thing for a person is that it reacquaints you with wonder. You get to a certain age and a pall can set in – you’ve seen it all. Then you have a kid who’s never seen anything, everything is fascinating to them, and you begin to see the world anew through this fresh set of eyes. Rasheen is an undeniably gifted visual artist and Sam recognizes this right away. As a writer, Sam is in a low moment and questioning his own gifts, then this kid shows up with what looks like genius. You get the sense Sam wants to protect and nurture this kid and his talent. And you hope that Sam’s words to Rasheen near the end of the movie land and resonate with the boy for the rest of his life. I like to think they save each other’s lives.

What were the challenges of writing the script?

Structure isn’t really my strong suit as a writer, so it took me awhile to figure out how to keep three and a half different plots in the air and where it would all land. (I could have made three separate movies with each story, but we weren’t budgeted for a trilogy.) Balancing the humor and the more serious moments was also a concern, but I learned when to shift things. For instance, when things get too emotionally intense, a character will often make a joke to lighten the mood. And comic scenes tend to end on a more somber note. But that just feels like life to me – I don’t think life is happy or sad or confusing or clear. I think it’s all of those things, all the time.

It’s important that the ensemble cast had good chemistry since happythankyoumoreplease really focuses on the various romantic and platonic relationships between the characters. Can you talk about the actors and what they brought to the role?

I’m totally in love with the cast. I think they’re all brilliant and engaging and thoroughly watchable. Tony Hale had done a reading for me out in Los Angeles where he played Sam #2 and after that there was no question I wanted him for the role – I couldn’t even picture anyone else in the part after hearing him read it. Malin Akerman had read the script and fallen in love with the part of Annie. We met in New York one afternoon and had a fantastic time talking about the character and reading through some scenes and at the end of the meeting, I knew she could do the role. (I’ll admit that while I thought she’d be great, I didn’t know then how great. She gives such a beautiful performance.)

Kate Mara and I met because she also had read the script and wanted to meet and talk about it. I watched her reel a few days later and thought she had the exact right mix of beauty/sexiness and deep emotional availability for Mississippi. She’s a thoroughly winning and terrific actress. (I offered her the part without knowing she could sing – that she could, and sing so damn well, was one of the more pleasant surprises in the making of the movie.)

I met Zoe Kazan and Pablo Schreiber when I was in New York. They actually knew each other from theater circles, which helped a lot. I remember watching them on the monitor when we were shooting and thinking, “Wow, these two have been a couple for five years.” There was such ease between them, such deep trust and intimacy. I can’t totally take credit for that – that was just two great actors really going for it, and I had the privelege of stepping back and watching it unfold.

My brilliant and resourceful casting team, Suzanne Smith-Crowley and Jessica Kelly, found Michael Algieri. One of the funnier conceits of the script (I think) is that Sam, save for not wanting to swear around Rasheen, basically makes no concessions to the fact that he’s talking to a young child. He talks to him as if he’s a contemporary. And I wanted the audience to really get the feeling that Rasheen understood what Sam was saying every step of the way. Thus, it was vital that this boy have a kind of quiet gravitas. (I’d described the character in the script as having “thousand-year-old eyes.”) Michael is a supremely wise, centered, and sensitive actor. There’s no hint of cloying, child-actor neediness in his performance. I knew if we didn’t find the right Rasheen, the movie wouldn’t have worked. Luckily, we found him.

What were the biggest differences between being on set on your CBS show, “How I Met Your Mother” and shooting a film?

Well, there are the obvious differences: four cameras versus one, shooting on a sound stage versus shooting on location, being an actor in service to someone else’s larger vision versus being the one in charge of that larger vision, etc. In many ways, it’s difficult to compare them. We’re in our sixth season of “How I Met Your Mother.” I had 23 days to shoot happythankyoumoreplease. My learning curve was, to put it mildly, steep. But working on the series taught me invaluable lessons as a director. We work fast on the show, so I was conditioned for the pace. Our director on “How I Met Your Mother” is named Pam Fryman and she’s the best director in the world. There’s no one who sets a better on-set tone; I learned that the tone of the set starts at the top. (I told people at the outset that there was no point in having a toxic, dysfunctional set when we were making a movie called “happythankyoumoreplease.”) I really credit Pam with teaching me what a kind and effective on-set leader looks like.

Even though both the series and the movie are set in New York, they feel very different to me. The New York set of “How I Met Your Mother” is brighter and lighter, clothes are new and ironed and not inexpensive, apartments are too big and never all that messy. Plus there’s disembodied laughter punctuating the whole thing which gives it a hyper-real quality. The convention kind of winks at you – you’re reminded that you’re being entertained. With the movie, I wanted the audience to feel like they were being granted access to these incredibly intimate moments in these people’s lives. There had to be a kind of voyeuristic quality because the moments we were going to see were so intimate. The thing I kept telling everyone was that this world must feel authentic, that these were people who don’t have a lot of money, who shop in thrift stores and still wear clothes they’ve had since college, who had to get creative in how they decorated their very small apartments. I describe it as a “below 14th street movie.” Also, the pacing is different between the two. On a sitcom, you’ve got a laugh line coming every 5-10 seconds (though one of the things I love and respect about “How I Met Your Mother” is it dares to be serious and heartfelt at times). With the movie, I didn’t care if something was laugh-out-loud funny; I just wanted it to feel truthful. Some of the funniest lines in the film got cut because they ended up distracting from the overall emotional momentum of the film.

What was the most challenging part of shooting the film?

Acting and directing at the same time, scheduling conflicts, clashes over time, locations, resources, etc. Those were all a very real part of the process and each challenging in their own ways. But the overall feeling I’m left with on the other side of the freefall that was directing my first film is that the hard decisions weren’t all that hard. One hears so much about the rigors/horrors of filmmaking, and as a fairly suggestible person when facing the unknown, I was kind of prepared for the worst. But the strangest thing happened: everything worked itself out. That’s not to say there weren’t freak-outs and arguments and moments of nail-biting suspense (i.e. “If we don’t get this shot the movie is ruined!”). But by and large, the big things revealed themselves to be not so big. A problem would arise, we’d deal with it, and then we’d move on to the next problem. This happened roughly 100 times each day. All of this was initially unsettling. Wait, I thought, it’s not supposed to be like this. But it was. That’s not to say it wasn’t the most exhausting, overwhelming experience of my life. Because it was also that. It’s just I was unprepared for the fact that it would also be so joyful. Eventually, I had to accept the fact that making one’s first movie didn’t have to be an exercise in agony and terror, that it wasn’t destined to all come crashing down around me, that I didn’t need to reflexively allow other people’s filmmaking war stories to become my own. In short, making the conscious choice not to freak out. It was ultimately an exercise in faith – trusting things were unfolding exactly as they should… and saying “yes” to it. Which, come to think about it, is really what happythankyoumoreplease is all about.

Can you talk about the filming process? How long was the shoot, what was it like working in NY? Did you work on shooting the stories separately?

23 days. New York is the best and worst place in the world to shoot a movie – the best because you can’t beat the production design, the worst because the city doesn’t respond all that well to “quiet on the set.” (I started to get the feeling whenever we were shooting outside and called “action” Mayor Bloomberg said, “Cue the sirens.”) The initial plan was to shoot the Mary Catherine and Charlie storyline first to give me some time getting my directing legs under me before stepping in front of the camera, but because of scheduling conflicts, I ended up being in every scene the first three days of shooting. (The very first scene of the first day I was directing Oscar nominee Richard Jenkins. Luckily, Sam was supposed to be nervous and overwhelmed in that scene, so it was a “no-acting-required” kind of day for me.) I very wisely surrounded myself with people who knew how to shoot a movie quickly in New York (I certainly didn’t know how to do it.)  A lot of people try to tell you it can’t be done, that you’ve got to shoot in Toronto or Pittsburgh or somewhere. But they’re wrong. You can do it. If you get the right people on board.

What do you hope audiences will experience while watching the film?

I hope they’ll laugh a lot and cry a little and not ever once think to look at their watch. I hope they’ll be in a supremely good mood when they leave the theater and have that “I just saw a great movie” glow. And I hope they go home and download every song Jaymay ever wrote.

At the end of the film, Annie says, “Go get yourself loved.” The film makes the point, hooking up is easy, allowing yourself to be loved, much more complicated. Can you elaborate on that notion and how it informs the film?

Sometimes you write something and only later do you realize what it meant. Long after the script had been written, I realized that’s the key line. Loving, for whatever reason, seems to be easier than allowing yourself to be loved. Loving is active – everyone’s falling in love or lust or whatever all the time – and it gives you the illusion of control. But when someone loves you, that’s when things get terrifying. Because it forces you to step up to the plate and say, “Yes, I am worthy of this person’s love.” And a lot of us have some devious little voice inside that tries to convince us we’re not worthy of being loved. So to me, allowing yourself to be loved is one of the greatest and worthiest of goals. And every character in the movie, on some level, has to confront where they’re not allowing love into their lives.

Annie suffers from alopecia universalis. Can you talk about why you decided to give the character that condition? And how self image plays into love.

Well, as I mentioned earlier, I based Annie on my friend, Rachel, who has alopecia. Annie has this physically evident thing that makes her insecure and feel unworthy, but really, she’s no different than any of us – who doesn’t feel freakish and vulnerable and unlovable to some degree? At some point, we all have to stare down that part of ourselves and do some battle with it (because it’s a lie). Alopecia notwithstanding, Annie’s just a great, smart, hilarious person trying to, as they say, get out of her own way. To me, she’s the emotional heart of the movie.

Mary Catherine and Charlie have a lot of great dialogue about New York vs. Los Angeles. Which side do you fall on and why?

I kind of believe everything each of them says about New York and Los Angeles, pro and con. What’s great about one city is horrible about the other and vice versa. Of course, like with all arguments, it’s not really about what it seems to be about. It’s not really about where they’re going to live, it’s about the future of their relationship. They’re each in some way testing the strength of their bond, seeing whether it will bend or break. As someone who has spent a lot of time in both towns, though, I got to have all sorts of fun with the geographical argument. I happen to really like Los Angeles, and have little patience for New-York-is-the-center-of-the-world snobs and L.A. haters. I just think New York is a better town in which to set and shoot movies.

Music plays a major role setting the mood in the film. Did you work closely with Jaymay? Talk about what you were aspiring to achieve with the music you chose.

Sometimes I hear a song and sit up and say, “That’s a great movie song.” A song can be legitimately great, but not work all that well in a movie. A great movie song is a song you have to love the first time you hear it because there isn’t an opportunity to listen to it multiple times. It has to match the emotion of what’s happening – actually, it has to deepen the emotion of what’s happening – but should also be sonically pleasing. Jaymay is one of the great singer-songwriter’s out there. A few years ago, my producer, Jesse Hara, sent me a link to some of her songs and we both quickly became fairly rabid fans. I played a terrific song of hers called “Sea Green See Blue” for Carter Bays and Craig Thomas (the creators of “How I Met Your Mother”) and they both said the same thing after hearing it: “That should be the final song of the season.” (This was season 2, I think.) So they got the rights to use the song and Jaymay was pretty psyched about it, got a whole heap of new fans from her song being on the show, and she and I became pen pals and eventually friends. When we talked about the music in the movie, Jesse kept saying we had to use a tune of Jaymay’s because we have a movie about New York and relationships and all Jaymay writes about is New York and relationships. I’m not sure exactly where the idea of having her basically do the whole score came from, but when we were editing, I kept finding more and more space for her songs. And then I realized she was the perfect troubadour to take us through the emotional twists and turns of the movie. I can’t imagine the movie without her music.

Have you always wanted to be a screenwriter and filmmaker? If not, what got you into screenwriting/filmmaking. If so, why?

Writing’s always been humming in the background for me. In college, I wrote a lot for an improv group I was in (we did half improv, half sketch comedy) and also took a few playwrighting classes. When I got out of grad school, even though I was working, I still found myself with cavernous amounts of time on my hands. Writing was a way for me not to lose my mind between acting jobs. I started writing short stories, but found myself most excited by writing dialogue, and eventually turned my attention towards writing screenplays, but always with an eye towards creating acting opportunities for myself. I can’t say I’ve always wanted to be a writer/director, but it was something I had a vague feeling I’d fall into somewhere down the line. I always suspected I maybe thought a little too “big-picture” for an actor. By that I mean I’ve always been interested in how all the elements of a piece are going to come together to tell the larger story, rather than having a single-minded obsession with the part I’m playing. I loved (like, really loved) that aspect of directing – the hovering over it all and keeping the end result in my head, and how these little pieces were going to add up to tell an emotionally affecting story.

Who are your favorite filmmakers?

Kate Mara / ©Matt Marks

 

I think Richard Linklater is an important and underrated American filmmaker. He has great and palpable affection for his characters and he allows them to talk – dialogue-heavy scenes can be incredibly dramatic if done right, and he does them right. (My idea of a great film is watching Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy walk around European towns.)  Magnolia was another big influence, both in terms of the intersecting plots and its fearlessness in confronting such grand subjects as forgiveness and grace. P.T. Anderson gives me a lot of courage to go wherever my imagination takes me – I mean, come on: frogs falling from the sky! I also love Lucas Moodyson, James L. Brooks, Edward Yang, Woody Allen. Just saw a film I flipped for called Submarine, directed by a guy named Richard Ayoade. Excited to see more from him.

What upcoming projects are you currently working on?

I have a book coming out next fall. It’s kind of memoir-adjacent. And I just finished writing another script. I meant to give myself a break from acting on this next one and just focus on the writing-directing, but I accidentally wrote the lead role for myself. Ah, well… sleep is overrated.