All The Money In The World (2017)

Director: Ridley Scott
Writer: David Scarpa
DOP: Dariusz Wolski
Cast: Michelle Williams, Christopher Plummer, Mark Wahlberg

The story of the kidnapping of 16-year-old John Paul Getty lll and the desperate attempt by his mother to convince his billionaire grandfather Jean Paul Getty to pay the ransom.

I had no idea that the film was based on real events and it was quite strange that I wasn't aware of the name Getty, considering the fact that he was the first person to become a dollar billionaire. He had made his money by building oil tankers  that are used to bring oil from Saudi Arabia to the West. He had married five times and had maintained a harem. He was into his 80s when the events depicted in the film happened. I sussed out the basic premise of the film from the trailer and since I didn't know it was based on true events, had no idea how it was going to play out which is always good.

The film made news when Ridley Scott decided to recast Christopher Plummer as Jean Paul Getty in the aftermath of Kevin Spacey allegations, after having almost finished post-production. Plummer was the original choice for Ridley but had cast Spacey due to his marketability, ha ha. I'm glad he made the change because Spacey as the character in his 80s with prosthetics didn't look good at all. Christopher Plummer is amazing in the role as is Michelle Williams as the distressed but strong mother.

The only complaint I've about the film is its dull look due to the colour choices. The opening scenes of it is like a homage to Fellini films. Ridley started directing films late, as a 40-year-old, and it is ridiculous how hard he is working in his late 70s. He is kind of hit and miss in terms of conversion and this one is a hit.

Rating: 4/5

Bone Tomahawk (2015)

Director: S. Craig Zahler
Writer: S. Craig Zahler
DOP: Benji Bakshi
Cast: Kurt Russell, Patrick Wilson, Matthew Fox, Richard Jenkins

Four men set out in the Wild West to rescue a group of captives from cannibalistic cave dwellers.

It is a straight up Western set after the end of civil war and to be more specific in the 1890s. I didn't know that the concept of frontier towns existed in US that late. The white Americans don't make much distinction between the usual Red Indian tribes that they encounter and the cannibalistic clan that they are dealing with in this film. The colonization of America is these days depicted in an overly apologetic manner as opposed to the whitewashing that was there in an earlier era. It has kind of swung back too much the other way as if all the Red Indian population was wiped off in a deliberate manner ignoring the role played by the diseases that their immune system was not equipped to deal with and the natural conflicts that would have occurred when settlers came in. Applying today's standards to historical events have got a lot to do with it.

This film focuses on the frontier conflict aspect with characters that are true to their historical settings. There is no attempt to sugarcoat things or be too much apologetic about it. This can cause it to be an uncomfortable viewing for many and it is especially famous for one particular gory scene. To be fair they give an early warning with the opening scene itself. It is a good watch overall even though it kind of peters out towards the end. The character played by Richard Jenkins is quite annoying as he was in 'The Shape of Water' as well. Video and audio being out of sync in the print that I watched didn't help matters.

Rating: 3.25/5

Sudani from Nigeria (2018)

Director: Zakariya
Writers: Muhsin Parari, Zakariya
DOP: Shyju Khalid
Cast: Soubin Shahir, Samuel Abiola Robinson, Savithri Sreedharan
Language: Malayalam

Film is set around the sevens football milieu of Malappuram where Majeed (Soubin Shahir) is the 'Manager' of a struggling club. His star player from Africa for the upcoming season is Samuel who injures himself in a freak bathroom accident. The hospital expenses and recovery has to be taken care by Majeed and, to save hospital costs, he decides to take Samuel to his house and the film is basically about the human bonds that form over there.

For some strange reason the people from Malappuram call all the African players Sudu, short form for Sudanis. After a star turn in his first match, a fan asks Samuel if he is from Sudan and Samuel is quite adamant in making it clear that he is from Nigeria. The significance of this is realized later in the film. Majeed is an unemployed bachelor, and a Real Madrid fan, who is taking all the initiatives to get himself married. He has a difficult relationship with his step-father and is quite selfish at home and takes one-sided decisions, probably in an effort to establish himself as the man of the house. His mother still has an apologetic relationship with him and doesn't object when Samuel is brought to her home. It is she and her neighbor friend, Beeyumma, who steals the show in a film where most of the actors are newcomers, all of whom have done an excellent job.

It is a film which defies our expectations throughout. We take it as a given that the climax of the film would involve a final football match with Samuel returning to play after recovering, but it never materializes. The sub inspector of police, the usual bullying kind, is very thin in physique. Even the football is quite sidelined after the initial parts of the film as it focuses more on the human angle. If you lay out the plot of the film as such, it will look like a sappy sentimental film, but it is made in a very nuanced manner taking time to establish all its details. Watch out for the passive-aggressive 'Nair' guy with a cow. The politics is there in the film as a subtext which is usually how it works best in a film. It is a world away from Priyadarshan's depiction of Muslim characters as people with four wives and instant talaqs. Shyju Khalid's camera work will remind you of his work from 'Maheshinte Prathikaram'. Him and Sameer Thahir had actually produced the film with E4E, who have now got a reputation for being associated with good films, have done the distribution. It is a great watch overall.

Rating: 3.75/5

Contact (1997)

Director: Robert Zemeckis
Writers: James V. Hart, Michael Goldenberg, Based on Contact by Carl Sagan & Ann Druyan
DOP: Don Burgess
Cast: Jodie Foster, Matthew McConaughey, James Woods, John Hurt

Dr. Ellie Arroway, after years of searching, finds conclusive radio proof of extraterrestrial intelligence which had send plans for building a mysterious machine.

The film covers a lot of ground in two and half hours of its running time taking the intelligence of its audience for granted. I especially liked the fact that they dropped eminent domain there without explaining it. Matthew McConaughey's character is sort of a new age spiritual Czar for the White House and the conflict between science and faith is portrayed with his relationship with Jodie Foster's scientist character. From an aging standard point of view, even though it is not set on a future timeline, what it got very correct is the presence of private players in space science with a very Elon Musk like billionaire funding Ellie's SETI project when the Govt pulled the plug.

The film had got renewed interest on the wake of release of Christopher Nolan's 'Interstellar' and not just because of the Mathew McConaughey connection. The supposed scientific accuracy of Interstellar had various scientists citing Contact as the one which captured the working of a scientist in the most accurate manner even though the time dilation at the end doesn't make much sense from a scientific point of view. But what works for Contact is that it gets emotional part of the story right and is a good mix unlike Interstellar, whose emotional scenes managed to get laughs out of the audience. In that sense, it is a rich man's Interstellar. I ended in the same feel good state that I had with Ridley Scott's Martian. I do think it is quite an underrated film and it is the less well known Zemeckis films, Flight being the other one, that I liked much more than his famous ones like Forrest Gump and Back to the Future.

Rating: 4.5/5

പൂമരം (Poomaram) (2018)

Director: Abrid Shine
Writer: Abrid Shine
DOP: Gnaanam
Cast: Kalidas Jayaram, Neeta Pillai
Language: Malayalam

Poomaram happens over the eve and five days of MG University youth festival where Maharajas college is trying to usurp five times running champion St. Theresa's college. Kalidas plays the chairman of the former and Neeta Pillai is chairperson of the latter.

Abrid Shine's brief two film old body of work is characterized by unconventional storytelling. His first film '1983' was the more cinematic of the two and I had quite enjoyed that film. His second feature, 'Action Hero Biju' followed the happenings in a police station and it was a film I detested because of its middle class pandering and sensibilities. I was not too sure whether to go for Poomaram on back of that but finally went for it due to the not so bad reviews and its supposed treatment. Also, I didn't want to encourage nepotism in Malayalam cinema by going for it blind.

The film begins on a very bad note through a very cringe worthy opening credits where Kalidas' family is introduced with very artificial and polite interactions. That plagues Kalidas' performance throughout and director has to share the blame for that. In contrast, it is Neeta Pillai who steals the show as the leader of rival college. It works like a docudrama and is at its best when it is in this mode. Casting of other supporting characters is really good but film is still rife with cheap laughs and sympathy generated out of unconventional characters due to their appearances and disabilities. It even got a reload of AHB with all its problems. The ending is also problematic where, like in AHB, director compromises the aesthetics of it up to that point with a cinematic ending. Thondimuthal Driksakshiyum was a revelation in getting performances out of non-actors and you can see the other side here with some extremely unnatural and overly polite sequences in it, which sticks out like a sore thumb, especially during the beginning parts of the film.

It is not to say that I didn't enjoy the film. It could've been easy for the director to play up the class and caste difference between the colleges by giving it a good bad binary portrayal but he opts to do it in a realistic and subtle manner with the casting choices and mannerisms. The good and bad of arts festival culture in Kerala is portrayed well, especially its extreme competitiveness. Overall, it is a good watch with a very unique treatment but with some of the same problems carried over from AHB.

Rating: 3/5

Annihilation (2018)

Director: Alex Garland
Writers: Alex Garland, Jeff VanderMeer
DOP: Rob Hardy
Cast: Natalie Portman, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Oscar Isaac

A biologist signs up for a dangerous, secret expedition where the laws of nature don't apply or it is just very hyperactive.

It's on Netflix and do watch it without knowing anything about it. So don't read on if you haven't seen it. How it came to Netflix for international release was that the Studio heads at Paramount thought that it was too cerebral. They clashed with Scott Rudin and Alex Garland on its final cut. So they gave a two week window to release it in USA and China after which it got released on Netflix this week.

It is an adaptation of Jeff VanderMeer's first book with the same name from 'Southern Reach' trilogy. What happens in the area they are exploring, where something from space fell, is that cell activity is very heightened and evolution is on steroids. People outside have no idea what's going on and are not sure about the motive of whatever that is happening inside. The point is that it has no motive and just a property. This is what people find hard to fathom when it comes to evolution. Gene replication is a property and evolution happening due to errors in replication or mutations has no end goal. There is no motivation, purpose or end goal, just a propensity to replicate. They gradually learns that the area that they are exploring is acting like a prism for cell replication and all the mutations are leading to all sorts of species coming out of it. It makes sense up to this point and the last act of the thing mimicking didn't make much sense but it is a good cinema trope. It can be seen as the explanation of what was happening to 'The Thing' on the John Carpenter movie.

The film will also remind one of Ridley Scott's Alien. It works as a sci-fi movie, monster movie and a horror movie over the course of it. He had cited self destruction as a theme he wanted to highlight in the film and it is even stated explicitly stated in the movie by one of its characters. It is visually stunning, well acted and got a trippy soundtrack. It has a similar ending to Ex Machina and on whole I enjoyed it even more than it. And Ex Machina was great by the way.

Rating: 4.75/5

Mute (2018)

Director:Duncan Jones
Writers: Michael Robert Johnson, Duncan Jones
DOP: Gary Shaw
Cast: Alexander Skarsgard, Paul Rudd, Justin Theroux

A mute bartender goes up against his city's gangsters in an effort to find out what happened to his missing partner.

Duncan Jones considers this film to be a spiritual sequel to his debut feature 'Moon', which was an excellent watch. It is 30 years from now and has got flying cars, drone-delivered fast food and is set in Blade Runner looking Berlin. It was made for Netflix and has got a cheap TV vibe to it in terms of performances. But some of the set design and non-clean look of the future might be intentional. The population of the city or at least the people he is interacting with comes from various ethnic backgrounds and have very diverse sexual orientations. The film is dedicated as a parenting homage to director's father, David Bowie,and his nanny, both of whom have died quite recently. The Berlin setting and the nature of people he meets might be explained by that.  One of the problems with the film that I found is the way it dedicates its time to various characters. First half of the film is largely centered on the mute character and in second half we tend to spend more time with the villainous characters. That serves to work the twist but the twist is kind of dud. One good thing it does is you can't really brand the villains as traditional villains and it almost manages to make you root for the pedophile character at some points, which is quite some feat. That said, the attitude towards it felt a bit anachronistic for me because I do think we are progressing towards determining biology as the cause for that predilection. It won't ever be accepted like homosexuality but people might come around to understand why it exists and the answer might lie with nature.

It is another one of those recent films which made news for its Rotten Tomatoes score. People make the mistake of wrongly understanding the tomatometer score,which is a very binary one. The one you should be looking at is the average rating of 4/10 which is closer to the audience score of 52%. 13% means only 13% of the critics liked it but not that their average rating is something like 1.3/10. I don't pay much attention to the tomatometer rating these days because passable films can get a very high score there because nobody hates it.

Coming back to the film, it is an interesting watch if you can get through it. Some of the performances are underwhelming and some decent enough. It is not as bad as it is made out to be and I checked it out mainly due to the polarizing reactions that it got.

Rating: 2.25/5

Darkest Hour (2017)

Director: Joe Wright
Writer: Anthony McCarten
DOP: Bruno Delbonnel
Cast: Gary Oldman, Kristin Scott Thomas, Lily James, Ben Mendelsohn

During the early days of World War 2, the fate of the Western Europe hangs on the newly-appointed British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who must decide whether to negotiate with Adolf Hitler, or fight on against incredible odds.

The timeline shown in the films is roughly the same as Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk, which ditched all the political moves and took you straight to the battlefront. So this film can be basically seen as a side-piece to that showing the decision making process that was involved leading up to the retreat from Dunkirk. The Conservative party was not that keen on electing Churchill as their PM but there was pressure from Labor to ditch Chamberlain after his appeasement steps towards Hitler was deemed a historical mistake. Even after getting elected as PM, he was under pressure from Chamberlain and his cohorts who were still trying to get him to negotiate instead of a confrontation. The film is basically about Churchill coming to the decision of not to negotiate with Hitler culminating in that famous speech at the Parliament.

Indians do have a special hatred for Churchill often citing his racism and his mishandling of Bengal famine as reasons for it. They tend to view this film through that prism, criticizing it for lionising Churchill. These are the same people who crib about Dunkirk for it not having any Indian soldier on the beach. I wonder whether they also buy tickets for 'Tiger Zinda Hein'. The film doesn't portray Churchill as someone who got everything right. There is reference to his mishandling of famine and Gallipoli setback during first world war. He got Hitler right but many things wrong. A film set in that time period is obviously gonna concentrate on the war angle.

Not saying it is without faults. There is a London tube scene towards the end which is gonna make or break the movie for many. I just cringed through it. It is well worth a watch overall with an amazing central performance from Gary Oldman who is totally unrecognisable. I still would've given the award to Timothée Chalamet as I prefer performances that don't rely on makeups or body transformations. I'm a fan of Joe Wright's 'Atonement' which also had that stunning  Dunkirk tracking shot.

Rating: 3/5

The Shape of Water (2017)

Director: Guillermo del Toro
Writers: Guillermo del Toro, Vanessa Taylor
DOP: Dan Laustsen
Cast: Sally Hawkins, Michael Shannon, Richard Jenkins, Doug Jones, Michael Stuhlbarg, Octavia Spencer

At a top secret research facility in the 1960s, a lonely and mute janitor forms a unique relationship with an amphibious creature that is being held in captivity.

Guillermo del Toro made his mark initially with the Spanish horror films that he made which culminated with Pan's Labyrinth, which was more like a horror film masquerading as a children's fantasy, that made him known to the wider audience after its success at the Oscars. I haven't actually seen any of his films post that which are more known for their production design. The shape of water is no different and it has got a pretty basic plot to go with it but through some really established characters. What makes it interesting is the genres that it touches on and del Toro's brief but bloody and brutal flourishes. Michael Shannon is playing a typical Michael Shannon role but that doesn't matter because he is so good at it. Rest of the cast does a great job including Doug Jones, who also played that dude from Pan's Labyrinth. They didn't go Dr. Manhattan with him though even though it is R-Rated and they had a convenient biological excuse for it which they address. It is set in a Cold War 60s research facility and it is highly recommended that you watch with the best possible print that you can get. It reminded me of Predestination's retro and clean look.

Overall it is a great watch even though it is not as affecting as 'Pan's Labyrinth'. It has received 13 Oscar nominations and is one of the favorites for winning Best Picture. I am rooting for 'Get Out' and 'Three Billboards', both of which I enjoyed more and has more of a rewatch value. Guillermo del Toro's films are generally ones that you wouldn't be that keen to revisit even though you enjoy them.

Rating: 4/5