The Adventures of Tintin:The Secret of the Unicorn (2011)

Rating: 3.5 blistering barnacles/4

A collaboration such as this should try in order to go wrong. With Herge providing the story and the story-boarding, Spielberg's creative investment going into the action and special-effects, and Peter Jackson overseeing the production, this part-action, part-comedy is a complete success. Tintin fans were apprehensive, though, because the one they have come to love was a two-dimensional figure (visually, at least) whereas the movie gives them a near-human interpretation. Being a fan myself and having watched the movie, I can affirm that this Tintin preserves the original Herge's spirit, doing it with an additional Spielberg rub off; there is a slight IndianaJonesey-feel to the overall movie experience.

Though the movie is named after one, the story is actually a mash of three books : Secret of the Unicorn, Crab with the Golden Claws, and Red Rackham's Treasure, which isn't surprising because one book would have been insufficient material to work with and would have had some characters robbed of their background story. The globe-trotting and trouble-seeking journalist and his pet dog start off their big-budget Hollywood debut here with a treasure-hunt that pits him against pirates, and their descendants that takes them from Europe to Africa and a first acquaintance with Captain Haddock, Tintin's funny side-kick for all the adventures to come.

The funniest scenes are mostly those lifted from the comics : Captain Haddock's thirst and his 'billions of blue blistering barnacles' are intact, Thomson and Thompson still bumble the way we love them for, Snowy is as expressive as a dog can get and Castafiore's songs that literally resonate. However, when the action is on, the original comics give way to the director's imagination. The special effects and the action scenes are a spectacle in involvement. Two episodes, one being a clash between two pirate ships and another a chase through Moroccon streets are as involving as action gets. These two justify the decision to use 3-D and motion capture. We jump down the buildings, we duck from gun-shots, and when footing is lost, it is our heart in our mouth.

Super 8 (2011)

Rating: 3.5/4

Super 8 is E.T.(1982) and Stand by me(1986) for our time with a bit of District9 (2009) thrown in to generate a few thrills while maintaining the dominant feel-good mood. By lifting a few shots directly from the Spielberg classic and also getting him to produce it, director J.J. Abrams has affirmed that the similarity is intentional. The sure-handedness with which he crafted this movie is what makes the movie almost as enthralling as its predecessor.

**Spoilers**

Joe is a high-school kid who lives with his Deputy Sheriff father having lost his mom in an accident. He spends time helping his friend Charles make a low budget zombie movie along with four other friends including Alice whom Joe has a crush on. One night during a shoot, they witness a freak accident that gets them involved in a Air Force aided government cover-up. Their previously calm suburb suddenly turns hyperactive with a slew of events; the Air Force amassing soldiers to apparently capture a monstrous alien, inexplicable thefts of machine parts, missing people and pets. Joe and his friends try to make their movie in the midst of this chaos convinced by Charles that it would add 'production value' to their movie. But when one of them goes missing, the kids start off an investigation on their own while the army starts evacuating people to satisfy an itch - an itch caused by all the fire power at their hand.

**Spoilers End**

The special effects are dazzling, not that we expect anything lesser from a Spielberg production, but the creature effects and one particularly devastating event that occurs early in the movie - one that manages to shock the audience and one that seems to go on and on - is definitely worth a mention. But no matter how splendid the visuals are, the real charm of the movie is in its depiction of childhood which the director has molded into an endearing and colorful affair. The insecurities, perceptions, infatuations and innocent jealousies are spot on and the earnestness with which they are played out is hilarious. To these kids, the monster-on-loose situation is but an opportunity to capture Air Force personnel in the footage for their movie, and to Charles and Joe, the movie work provides an opportunity to win Alice's affections. Sure there are villains to be found, there is one particularly condescending Air Force Colonel who is hell bent on maintaining secrecy and has no qualms silencing trouble-makers, but we do not root for his death. Had he been rendered as a devil-incarnate psychopath, a stand-off between good and evil would have transpired and the movie would have lost its warmth and sweetness in the midst.

Two-thirds into the movie when all the questions have been answered and the creature shows itself completely after nearly 1.5-hrs of tease, I found my involvement in the movie swaying, but that is not very long before the climactic clash and a superb short-film played along with credits. I found myself and other patient viewers walking out with a smile

Game of Thrones

Game of Thrones is the new HBO series based on A Song of Ice and Fire series of novels by George R.R. Martin. It is being aired today for the first time in India at 6.30 p.m.

This is not a review of something that I have not watched. Being half-way through the superb first novel and having a stack of the remaining ones on my bed-side I guessed that its okay to write a heads-up for those who may miss this grand fantasy epic otherwise.

The story is set in the age of kings on a realm consisting of seven kingdoms ruled by noble lords whose allegiance is to their one king, Robert Baratheon. Much against the wishes of his wife and queen, Robert asks his closest friend and ruler of the North, Lord Eddard 'Ned' Stark to go with him to the South and become the Hand of the King - a position next only to the King. Queen Cersei and her brother Jaime, a knight of the King's guardians, are Lannisters, the richest and the most power hungry of all the noble houses and rulers of the West. The plot here on follows four main threads - one involving Ned's activities as the Hand and his secret investigations into his predecessor's death and a possible plot to overthrow the king, another involving Ned's wife Catelyn Stark's hunt for retribution against the Lannisters, a third one that follows Daenarys, a young lady of noble origin wedded to a barbarian lord in the East raising an army enough to sweep out the Seven Kingdoms, and a final one involving the Wall in the North - a seven hundred feet high structure guarded by the Black Knights that keeps the realm protected from the Others of the Haunted forest in the unchartered and unmapped lands where even the bravest of men are wise enough not to loiter.

In this medieval epic that has a scope on par with Lord of the Rings, alliances fall and the most unlikely ones form, loyalty and morality need a perspective to be understood, guardian angels are the four-legged carnivorous kind and the ultimate enemy is the one that hasn't been around for almost a decade and is not of man's making... Winter is coming.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

Rating: 3/4

Four Harry Potter movies in a row and director David Yates has crafted what is visually his best HP movie. With a color palette restricted to darkest of shades and a score to accentuate it, he has created an atmosphere of gloom that plays a role almost as important as the plot itself. The visual effects are, if not entirely original, spectacularly vivid. However, the movie itself can be slotted slightly below Order of the Phoenix and The Half-Blood Prince. This has more to do with the bifurcation of the story than with movie craftsmanship. Deathly Hallows Part2 is thin plot-wise and interesting sub-plots in the book do not make it to the movie. I am pretty sure that a 3-hour Deathly Hallows movie in one-part would have made for a better experience than a 4.5-hour two-part one.

(Spoilers ahead)

The story picks up right where it left us in Part-1. Harry, Hermione and Ron are continiuing on their destructive quest for horcruxes. A thrilling break-in into Gringotts and a telepathic eavesdrop later they get a horcrux and a lead about another hidden at Hogwarts. Harry's return to Hogwarts sparks open war between Snape and McGonagall. Snape escapes apparently to join Voldemort who has amassed all his followers for the attack on Hogwarts. McGonagall takes charge of Hogwarts' defenses comandeering anyone willing to fight. Considering the the amazing build-up to the central fight, the fight itself is a bit of a let-down because the focus shifts to the less interesting Horcrux hunting trio. By the time the Horcruxes are disposed off, Hogwarts' defenses have fallen and the fighting is almost done. We are shown that Lupin, his wife and one of the Weasley twins -people we have come to care about - are dead, without any hows or whos. Fortunately the major plot twists are pretty well handled. Snape's story is rendered very well which make his flip-flop between good and evil believable. The tragedy of the unsung hero of Hogwarts hits us with great intensity especially in the epilogue where Harry tells his son, Albus Severus Potter, who he was named after. The whole Harry-the-Horcrux revelation which was a shocker to the book-folk is likely to at least surprise the movie-folk too.

The most often heard complaint is that the climactic Voldemort vs Harry bout is wrapped up pretty quickly. I say, give poor Voldy a break - he has been dying one Horcrux at a time since as early as Chamber of Secrets.

For most Potter-fans the release of Deathly Hallows the book was a landmark event, the movie is mostly a curiosity; they just want to find out how it all translated to screen. But, they are 'all' going to find out, which is why Harold, the most popular Potter, is ruling the box-office in the muggle world right now.

Delhi Belly

Rating : 3/4

So it has finally happened; a mainstream bollywood flick with few holds on profanity and vulgarity- no beeping over 'fuck' or its derivatives, the arse is off taboo list, crudeness is hiked almost to the point of celebration and, in occasion, used as a plot-device. It is a pleasant surprise that this movie made its way out through the censor board.

Unrelated chains of events with unfortunate but hilarious consequences, criss-crossing randomly and culminating at one shoot-out at the end of 1hr 30 mins- thats Delhi Belly in single breath. No, its not a Guy Ritchie film, but DB's writer and director are definitely influenced by Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch. The template is copied but the dark filling is thankfully a fresh brew. Three friends/roommates - Tashi, Nitin,Arup - have a bad start when they forget whose turn it is to move the buckets to under the tap one morning. Meanwhile, a gangster is having a bad day too when he has to search for a delivery that hasn't reached him. A series of coincidences and mix-ups later, the trio unwillingly join the hunt while trying to survive the chase.

The gangster's emotional arc - frustration at his inept teammates, patience when cajoling a girl, coldness when torturing a middleman, resignation when he isn't allowed to do room service for quality reasons - all conveyed with a straight face contributes to some of the best laughs. Imran's Tashi feels as fake as his black-eye. He stands out as a guy reciting someone else's funny lines. His only good scenes in the movie are when he is fully covered up or when he doesn't speak much. His friends - Nitin and Arup - however, are very believable and provide the rest of the comedy, given the same screen time as Imran. In fact, Nitin's Disco Fighter revenge is the most original and my personal favourite comic episode in the movie.

What I found a little hard to understand is why the writer and/or director wanted everything to work out perfectly well for the threesome in the end, so much so that they were brutal to everyone else who might even hint at trouble.

The screenplay is not clever enough to pack any surprises, but thats easily excused because it takes us where we expect to reach, bloody cheerfully.

X-Men First Class (2011)

Rating : 3/4

Bad is delicious, Good is just adequate. This is exactly how I felt after watching this prequel to the X-Men movies. The Good side has the peace-loving mutant Charles Xavier (soon to be called Professor X) urging for self-restraint on mutant powers. The not-so-good side has the holocaust survivor Erik Lansherr (a.k.a Magneto) who revels in his superpower while on the vengeful trail of Sebastian Shaw, a deadly mutant who killed his mother and currently seeking world domination. See what I mean? Even with significant screen-time, Xavier isn't half as intriguing as Magneto or Sebastian.

It is 1962 and the Cold War is at its peak with the Cuban missile crisis pushing the world to the brink of nuclear war. Sebastian Shaw(Kevin Bacon), an ex-Nazi scientist and a mutant, is making sure that nothing stops the war that assures human extinction. He believes that what kills the humans will only make the mutants stronger (Doesn't it sound like the popular quote 'what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger'). Unlike Hitler who foolishly tried fighting the USA and USSR, Sebastian pits the biggies against each other. With an ingenuity more diabolic than his mutant superpower, Sebastian makes a superb super-villain whom Kevin Bacon portrays with ease and visible glee. Sebastian however makes one mistake during his days as a Nazi scientist in a concentration camp in Poland - in an attempt to incite a Jewish kid's magnetic powers, he kills his mom. The kid, Erik Lansherr(Michael Fassbender) survives the holocaust and is out for blood. Erik's search for Sebastian and the passionate ruthlessness with which he doles out punishment to the people in his way are among the film's most rousing episodes. His path crosses with that of a telepath,Charles Xavier(James McAvoy), who befriends and trains Erik along with other mutants to control and enhance their powers as they prepare to face their common enemy.

The dense plot which fits nicely into the X-universe built by this movie's predecessors gets top marks. It is with a warped sense of satisfaction that I watched the irony unfold - Magneto filling up Sebastian's void after killing him, ending his friendship with Xavier and the rest having to choose between the two of them. Having watched the sequels (X-Men, X2) the ending isn't a surprise, but its effectiveness is not diminished. After all, they all had their reasons and in Magneto's own words, peace was never an option.The last time I had this feeling was while watching Revenge of the Sith.

What prevents this movie from being a solid entertainer is that it seems to have been affected by short lapses in imagination. There are numerous places where there movie slides down to mediocrity and a few times to downright silly. The mutant training sessions are necessary but apart from the beautiful locations they are shot in, they come across as nothing but bland. Rose Byrne's CIA agent is just a pretty plot-device. There is a scene where she disguises herself as an escort to spy on a Colonel watching him through a crack like James Bond did in his early movies. Didn't we come a long way from that kind of thing? Then there is a mutant girl who flies and spits fire in the most ridiculous way that I wont even waste my time describing how (I cheered when she fell). I wouldn't have complained had it been some low profile director but it being Mathew Vaughn, the man behind the insanely entertaining Kick-Ass and Layer Cake, my expectations are justified.

Bryan Singer, who directed the superb originals X-Men, X2 elected to play producer this time. He is not let down by what Mathew Vaughn delivers. Its just as delicious but with a few bitter seeds strewn over.

Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011)

Rating : 3.5/4

When evil prevails, when dark days are here to stay, when the good are on their way up and when all hope is lost, you can count on the the Dragon Warrior for deliverance. Mind you thats not much of a comfort because, he may be the Dragon Warrior, but until the nick of time he still is every bit the same stupid fat voracious cuddly squishy panda called Po(Jack Black). And thankfully so, if you ask me. Ain't that what we love him for? Who needs originality when familiarity is this much fun.

The movie begins with a prologue about how Lord Shen(Gary Oldman), son of an Emperor, embraces the dark side to prevent a prophecy foretelling his undoing, from coming true. He uses his spare time, during his banishment from home, to create the one weapon that evokes submissiveness through fear. Just as Po is beginning to live his dream as the Dragon Warrior, staying with his kung fu idols - Tigress, Monkey, Viper,Mantis and Crane - and everything around is boringly peaceful, Lord Shen not-so-subtly returns home to make things interesting.

If Panda-1's Tai Lung and Master Shifu reminded you of Darth Vader and Master Obi-Wan^*, Panda-2's Lord Shen is bound to remind you of You-Know-Who. The prophecy, the parents.. the similarity is so obvious that Po might as well be called Harry Po or The Panda Who Lived. But I'm not complaining because any similarity ends there. Every time there is an attempt at poignancy by someone or a grave situation pops up or a grim tone tries to seep in, leave it to the Panda to reduce everything into a rip-roaringly hilarious affair the very next moment. Armed with unintended irreverence, immunity from sarcasm and abysmally low self-esteem, this Panda is going to hurt your innards. Visually, theres so much to savour in so little time. Gongmen's city, where most of the action takes place, is beautifully vibrant and artistic. Theres so much happening in the co-ordinated and expertly choreographed action sequences that we are bound to miss a few things. Slo-mo is used to good effect, serving the dual purpose of hiking up the 'coolness' and also making sure we dont blink and miss something that shouldn't be missed. The voice cast is joined by a couple of newcomers among whom Gary Oldman as Lord Shen stands out. His deliberate and unhurried delivery of lines, well- accentuated by pauses, oozes menace. When Lord Shen isn't talking, he shows us how deadly a peacock's dance can be. So any doubts about a peacock making a worthy nemesis are sure to be dispelled once Gary Oldman and the animation wizards take over.

My complaints are but minor ones - Why is Master Shifu barely there on screen? Why din't they increase the brightness enough for 3D? The 3D itself was good though. Nevertheless, this movie is filled to the brim with worthy-sequel stuff. So snug in your thermals and head to the cinema.. this one's severely cool

^* Star Wars : Jedi Master Obi-Wan trains a young Anakin Skywalker to become a Jedi. However, Anakin turns to the dark side and becomes Darth Vader and eventually kills Master Obi-Wan

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)

Rating: 2.5/4

The reviews have been bad, so I set my expectations low. The 3D had apparently given headaches to some of those reviewers,so I watched it in 2D. Nevertheless, the movie still managed to disappoint. The only reason this movie exists is because Disney wanted to pinch the pockets of those who wouldn't be deterred by bad reviews, one last time. Given the large fan base this franchise has garnered, I'd say they were very successful. Nothing personal, Jack... it's just good business.

The plot isn't very original, but it is at least as interesting as its predecessors. This one has Jack Sparrow(Johnny Depp) forced to guide an expedition to the fountain of youth by Blackbeard(Ian McShane); tagging along is his daughter, Angelica(Penelope Cruz) who also happens to be Jack's ex-flame. Two other factions, one led by Barbossa(Geoffrey Rush) on behalf of the Queen, and another by a bunch of Spaniards (who barely have any screen time) are in the race too. The destination itself, of course, lies beyond a perilous journey across mermaid-infested waters, forests, cliffs; all this while everyone is uncompromisingly involved in standard pirate activities like mutiny, desertion and double-crossing.

All this could have worked had the humour and action sequences been more imaginative. As it is, there aren't any hearty laughs to be had. Sure we laugh, but not because the humour is genuinely funny, its because we know that it is supposed to be funny. Johnny Depp, whose Jack Sparrow unsurprisingly generates most of the half-hearted laughter, does not bring in anything new. He follows the 'Jack Sparrow template' which has begun to lose its sheen. Penelope's Angelica is pretty, daring and sadly obligatory. The director fails to realize that even obligatory roles can be made 'interesting' especially when Penelope Cruz is involved. None of the action sequences are noteworthy. Mermaids as deadly seductresses and an encounter with them sounds promising; unfortunately, what could have been a spectacular action scene turns out to be underwhelming and criminally unimaginative. Word of advice to director - when you are trying to tame deadly dangerous other-worldly creatures, let go of your ego and consult Peter Jackson, and on an unrelated note, between you and me, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade isn't obscure enough to be ripped off from.

The movie is not so bad as it is disappointing - disappointing that it has ample opportunity to redeem itself but settles for mediocrity. The film has its moments - Judi Dench's hilarious 'is that all?', Jack starting a mutiny, Blackbeard's menacing and charismatic villainy, breath-taking aerial shots and sets(or are they visual effects?) - but they are few and far between. They are more than counter-balanced by the likes of, say, the ill-advised romantic subplot involving a mermaid and a clergyman(Yes, the clergyman gets laid).

I wouldn't advice watching it, but again, if u are like me, you already did.

Fast Five (2011)

Rating: 3/4

We got Vin Diesel and The Rock pitted against each other when in not one of their best moods.We got lightning streaks masquerading as cars and a director with a fetish for reducing them to pulp every other moment.We got frikkin' hot girls trumping men in the strictly-men's world. This is one cocktail you dont miss and go around calling yourself an action movie buff. They got the combination right the fifth time around.

The two action sequences at the beginning and the end are the stand-outs. The latter one, which involves a runaway vault, isn't like anything that I have seen before. Thats not to say this is a landmark action film -it shamelessly copies from Bourne and Ocean's movies, it threatens us with Vin Diesel trying to emote, and it pits two midgets against Vin Diesel and The Rock. It actually heps that the pace never allows you to delve on anything as long as you are in the theater. Be warned, if you are a thinker, you will hurt yourself watching this movie.

Thor (2011)

Rating: 3/4

As per mythology, Thor is the hammer-wielding God of thunder and lightning after whom Thursday ("Thor's day") gets its name. However in Marvel's comic book universe, he is one arrogant son-of-a-God who, much against his father's wishes jeopardizes the feeble truce that exists between his kingdom of Asgard and the Frost Giants. Angered by Thor's arrogance, his father-and-king Odin(Anthony Hopkins) strips him of his powers and banishes him from Asgard to live on Earth as a mortal.

Much of the movie's creative efforts have gone into the visual-effects and writing departments which partly make up for the pretty simple plot. Jotunheim, the cold, crumbling and dark home of the Frost Giants oozes with artistically-rendered menace and also adds to the creepiness of its inhabitants. In comparision, Asgard is not so imaginatively depicted. The clash between Thor and the Frost Giants on Jotunheim in the first half of the movie is unarguably the highlight of the movie and is on-par with what we have seen in Lord of the Rings. However on the downside, this rises the bar a few notches too high for the rest of the movie to attain. Kenneth Branagh's script infuses humor into the proceedings, just as Jon Favreau's did to Iron Man, which is a good thing because it allows us to forgive some of the weaknesses of the movie.

Talking about weaknesses, Thor's nemesis is not intimidating enough. He is quite a manipulative guy, I 'll give him that, but I expected him to be at least as menacing as his minions. This is primarily why the climactic clash is a letdown. The four warrior friends of Thor who would have been interesting had some time been spent on characterizing them, come across as excess baggage. I am not sure if Branagh has to be blamed for it, its probable that the producers have decided against spending any more time and money on a bunch of disposables - Thor will return to Hollywood in The Avengers (2012), his four friends wouldn't be so lucky.

The acting is uniformly adequate though Stellan Skarsgaard surprised me with his funny turn. Natalie Portman is funny and cute and so very un-Black Swan-like in a good way. There is no motion blur with the 3D, although it could have done with slightly more lighting during the first half-hour. All in all, its fun spending an afternoon with Thor.

Rango (2011)

Rating: 3.5/4

Rango is a chameleon who cannot blend in. There is a hilarious chase scene early in the movie demonstrating this, which actually serves as an indication of things to come. But then, who wants their heroes blended or stirred?We want them shaken and thats literally how Rango starts the story of his life.

Capn. Jack Sparrow meets The Good The Bad &The Ugly in Chinatown - thats Rango in short. Rango gets accidentally deserted in a desert. Heeding the advice of an armadillo, a parched Rango heads off towards the nearest town, the aptly-named Dirt. Dirt at that time is facing its worst water-crisis and its inhabitants are convinced that only a miracle can save them. When Rango, who is most obviously a stranger in the town, accidentally kills the predatory Hawk, the entire town is convinced that he is the miracle worker. He is promptly elected the town's sheriff charged with the task of bringing water to Dirt and protecting the town from the Rattlesnake, who can roam free now that the Hawk is dead. But when the town's last reserve of water is stolen from the bank (yes, people save their hard earned water in the bank), and the town's wise old Mayor turns out to be a little too wise, there isn't much room for Rango's ineptness. He is forced rise to the occassion all while trying not to end up like his predecessor - the sheriff whose headstone reads 'Mon-Thu'

The same smile-inducing quirkiness and dodginess that made Jack Sparrow so adorable is much in evidence here, which isn't very surprising considering that Johnny Depp(Rango's voice) and Gore Verbinski(direction) are behind the scenes.With its dirt-beaten houses, unwashed inhabitants and their apparels which have long lost their original colours, the town of Dirt revels in its dirtiness. What with all the nefarious characters waiting to pick on the weak, gun-slinging being the the most rewarded skill, cacti dying of thirst and the dominant colour being brown, I half-expected Clint Eastwood to pop on the screen any moment. The Man With No Name should at least have an address in Dirt.. which he sort of does.

The animation is top-notch but that seems true for most of the recent animated outings. What really sets Rango apart from the rest is the maturity of the content. It does not take the a-joke-every-minute way but whatever it does isn't repetitive or predictable; sure there is humour throughout but it is low-key because the movie is more interested in telling us the story. Most of the humor comes from Rango's attempts to blend in the crowd and stay out of trouble, both of which he utterly fails in. My favourite however is a quartet of owls who follow Rango everywhere singing out his exploits and expecting him to die a hero's death just because it makes a good story to sing about. The action/chase scenes are well choreographed. Theres one particularly innovative shot early in the movie which shows Rango getting involved in an accident from Rango's perspective.

Rango isnt something you want to wait for on HBO.. go see it now! Leave your brats at home, this one is for you ;)

Rabbit Hole (2010)

Rating: 3/4

When it comes to evoking the audience's emotions, Loss of a loved one is perhaps the most explored theme in films. Sadly however, too often filmmakers resort to manipulating those emotions with excessive melodrama - they end up exploiting rather than exploring. Rabbit Hole avoids this pitfall.

It has been 8 months since Becca(Nicole Kidman) has lost her son in a traffic accident right in-front of her house. She openly taunts other couples at group therapy, she more-than-subtly hints how bad her pregnant sister is gonna be at being a mother, she avoids any kind of counselling from her mother, she gets rid of everything that reminds her of her son - the pet, the clothes, drawings on the fridge. For a moment there it occurred to me that this mom got over her child's death a little too quickly. The same thought troubles her husband Howie(Aaron Eckhart) too. Howie's is the more conventional manifestation of grief - he keeps watching his son's videos on his phone, loves having his son's memorabilia around the home, and sometimes breaks down crying. Friction arises between them when she suggests selling away their home.

When things go wrong we look for people to blame. Since there isn't anyone to blame for her son's death, Becca starts finding faults with everything and everyone that reminds her of her son. This, coupled with her confrontational attitude about the subject makes her look like an obnoxious fault finder. The only one to understand this is Becca's mom (Dianne Wiest) whom Becca avoids listening to or argues with. In one particularly powerful scene where Becca shows her vulnerable side, she asks her mom if the pain ever goes away. Her mom, who herself has lost a son, explains how things are gonna be with soul-stirring simplicity.

Is it necessary to follow a template of emotions for people to sympathize with you? What if the popular way of coping doesn't work for you? These are the questions posed and explored in the movie. The movie title, an obvious reference to Alice in Wonderland, refers to an imaginary parallel universe where anything is possible, including a life where everything goes right. The script is intelligent and tight and the acting is almost uniformly good with Nicole Kidman turning out the best performance.