Escape from New York (1981)

Director: John Carpenter
Writers: John Carpenter, Nick Castle
DOP: Dean Cundey
Cast: Kurt Russell, Lee Van Cleef, Ernest Borgnine, Harry Dean Stanton

In 1997, when the U.S. President crashes into Manhattan, now a giant maximum security prison, a convicted bank robber is sent in to rescue him.

Well, I guess it is a film of its time which essentially means that it has not aged well. There are films like 'The Warriors' from 1979 which has enough going for it so that it is still a great watch despite being quite campy. Escape from New York is not one such. I only checked it out because I quite liked 'The Thing', the only other John Carpenter film that I have watched and have no interest in watching other famous films of his like 'Halloween'. Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell) is a former US forces personnel, apparent from the line that 'You flew the gullfire over Leningrad, didn't you?', which also means that US was recently at war with USSR. The President was due to attend a meeting with the Russians and the Chinese  and it is of paramount importance that he is freed to do so within 24 hours. Lee Van Cleef ( The Bad from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly) forces Snake to take up the mission in exchange for Pardon after injecting something which will kill him in 24 hours time if he doesn't come back with the President. John Carpenter supposedly wanted to capture the cynicism people had with politics post Watergate scandal. The Manhattan shown in the film is quite like a Terry Gilliam sort of place.

It was interesting to see a suicide mission involving a hijacked plane crashing into a building in Manhattan. It was not World Trade Center buildings but they do feature in the film. It is overall a dry watch. It did get a sequel titled Escape From L.A with Kurt Russell reprising his role as Snake Plissken.

Rating: 2/5

The Thing (1982)

Director: John Carpenter
Writers: Bill Lancaster, John W. Campbell Jr.
DOP: Dean Cundey
Cast: Kurt Russell, A. Wilford Brimley, Keith David

A crew in Antarctica finds a neighbouring camp destroyed and its crew dead. Whatever killed them is nowhere to be found, unless it is hidden in plain sight.

'Thing' in the thing is a parasitic alien being that can assimilate into its victim and thus form an imitation. Once the crew figures it out, what follows is paranoia as they are not sure who among them is an alien victim. The situation was an inspiration for Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs and there is an even more direct connection to the Hateful Eight as well. Ennio Morricone's unused work from 'The Thing' was largely used in the latter and 'Beastiality' also made an appearance in it.

Alien being was created using practical effects which was not quite as good as Ridley Scott's Alien. There was also this very badly executed computer exposition scene where the probability of infection and time taken to infect the whole of earth is spelled out. I was feeling that the film had not aged well during the initial parts of the film but it was misplaced as it improved vastly once it began focusing on the paranoia aspect. The production quality towards the end with the night sequences in snow is really great with flares and all that. The dog in the beginning is one creepy fucker.

It had released two weeks after ET along with Blade Runner. It bombed both critically and commercially as the gory unfriendly alien in grim settings turned the audience off. It has since been hailed rightly as a masterpiece. I actually enjoyed it much more than Alien and it should be more interesting on rewatch as well.

Rating: 4.25/5

Spoorloos (The Vanishing) (1988)

Director: George Sluizer
Writers: George Sluizer, Tim Krabbé
DOP: Toni Kuhn
Cast: Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu, Gene Bervoets, Johanna ter Steege
Language: Dutch, French

Rex and Saskia, a young Dutch couple in love, are on vacation in France. They stop at a busy service station and Saskia is abducted. After three years and no sign of Saskia, Rex begins recieving letters from the abductor.

The film is told from the perspective of both the victim (Rex) and the abductor, who is a self-confessed sociopath. Unlike the usual portrayal in serial killer films, Raymond (abductor) is a middle class chemistry teacher leading a normal life with his family. He is not super-intelligent but a perfectionist of sorts. You see him constantly practising and refining his methods and even practises some moves on his daughter. He is surprised to see new missing posters put up by Rex three years after the incident and decides to confront him and exploit his curiosity. We learn from their interactions that Raymond's antics are not serial in nature but a one-off abduction. He had once saved a young girl from dying and feels that he can kill one for that heroic act.

One of the striking things about the film is its editing as it is pretty much revealed early on itself who the abductor is. Both of their stories are interspersed and the suspense is regarding the fate of the victim. The last act of the film is pretty terrifying and Stanley Kubrick had called it one of the most terrifying films he has ever seen. What makes it effective is the randomness of selection and you will put yourself in place of the victim. Raymond is claustrophobic and he has something similar in sort for his victim. One film I was reminded of was Michael Haneke's Funny Games which was like a sick spoof of the horror genre. Vanishing does break several genre conventions and has plenty of uneasy light-hearted moments.

Rating: 4.5/5

ഉയരങ്ങളിൽ (Uyarangalil) (1984)

Director: I V Sasi
Writer: M T Vasudevan Nair
DOP: Jayanan Vincent
Cast: Mohanlal, Rahman, Nedumudi Venu, Kajal Kiran
Language: Malayalam

Mohanlal is an ambitious assistant manager in a tea estate who along with two of his colleagues decides to steal company's money. He is the chief planner and lures the other two into his plan as all three are in need of money. The plan doesn't come off and they are caught by the manager who extracts a confession letter which he is gonna present it to the board to dismiss them. Mohanlal goes to negotiate with him, while the other two are reluctant and remorseful, and ends up killing him. His career takes off after that as he is promoted as the manager but his co-conspirators and a Police officer who suspects him are a constant nuisance.

I had caught glimpses of this film from TV but hadn't seen it in full. My friend Prajeesh recommended it to me, like Chandrika was recommended to Amala Paul by her friend Ria. It is an underrated gem of a film with a protagonist who is genuinely 'bad', which is such a unique thing for Indian films. You will have people pointing out Spadikam and Devasuram as examples of films in which Mohanlal played characters who are not socially correct. But you are meant to root for those characters and they don't stay 'bad' for too long.

In Uyarangalil, Mohanlal's character is a genuine villain but I still ended up rooting for him and wanted him to succeed so that the film doesn't have a 'Crime doesn't pay' message kind of ending. It doesn't take that route but does even better by leaving us questioning whether he is also a hero. It doesn't come up in a twist kind of way because I was able to tell what was going to happen next which means it happened organically.

The choices made by the character is consistent in the sense that he was forced to commit the murders to serve his survival needs and ambition. The best thing about the portrayal is that it is done in an understated matter of fact way. That is so essential because that is how he gets away with it for so long. I haven't seen any of MT's period films quite recently but I do think his films set in contemporary times are better and often overlooked. Uyarangalil is not perfect and Rahman's very obviously fake beard is thoroughly distracting but it is such a different film done with no apologies and the last lines, screenshot posted here, should be quoted much more. Other film I could think of where our big 'heroes' played a genuinely bad character is Vidheyan. Difference is that Mammooty's character is not the chief protagonist but the titular character is.

Rating: 4/5

Die Hard (1988)

Director: John McTiernan
Writers: Jeb Stuart, Steven E. de Souza
Cinematographer: Jan de Don't
Cast: Bruce Willis, Alan Rickman, Alexander Godunov

The film follows off-duty police officer John McClane (Bruce Willis) as he takes on a group of highly organised criminals led by Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman), who perform a heist in a Los Angeles skyscraper under the guise of a terrorist attack using hostages, including McLane's wife Holly, to keep the police at bay.

Die Hard is of course the film that launched Bruce Willis, who was till then a TV actor who does comedy, as an action star. The studio had approached Arnold Schwarzenegger for the role as a sequel to 'Commando' but he turned it down. We can thank him for that because we just cannot imagine anyone else playing McClane now. Out of the left-field choice of Bruce Willis and the then fresh idea of a non-muscled up lone wolf hero fighting against all odds were what made Die Hard such a path-breaking film. Since then the whole premise has been regurgitated numerous times and we got Die Hard on a plane, Die Hard on a President's plane, Die Hard on a Ship etc, as the honest trailers guys put it. I was never a fan of Arnie action films (couldn't finish Predator) and films like Die Hard , Bourne series etc are my kind of action films. Only downside to it is that it forced Bruce Willis to do many action films which led to the underutilization of his considerable acting capabilities.

What makes it great when compared with other action films, including the sequels in the same franchise, is that it got a great villain. To be honest, I won't call him a villain even because Alan Rickman is just cool as the silver-tongued operator with classical education. You will almost feel sad when he meets his end in the film. It is hard to fathom that it was a debut role in films for the excellent Alan Rickman, whom many idiots will remember just for his role as Severus Snape in the Harry Potter franchise.

Die Hard works as a great action film, a great Christmas film and a great comedy film. Most of the characters in it, especially outside of the building, are cartoonish but it works well for the comedy. I just loved those FBI guys, both of whom are named Johnson (no relation). It is a must-watch.

PS: Yippie Ki-Yay, Motherfucker!!

Rating: 5/5

കള്ളൻ പവിത്രൻ (Kallan Pavithran) (1981)

Director: Padmarajan
Writer:    Padmarajan
Cinematographer: Vipin Das
Cast:         Nedumudi Venu, Bharat Gopi, Adoor Bhasi, Beena
Language: Malayalam

Pavithran (Nedumudi Venu) is a small time thief with two families, one with his official wife and another with his mistress. A rich mill owner (Bharat Gopi) accuses him of stealing some utensils from his home. As he starts to snoops around Pavithran's mistress' home, he begins a relationship with her. Meanwhile, Pavithran meets a mysterious merchant from town while trying to sell the utensils who shows him his huge utensils warehouse which he doesn't care to lock because of the notoriety of snakes in there. Affected by this meeting, Pavithran moves back in with his official wife but slowly his fortunes starts turning with him becoming rich and driving his nemesis' business down to the ground.

The film is an adaptation of Padmarajan's short story with the same name and it is the first commercial hit of his career as a director. Film is basically about the base instincts of male and female genders, which is largely driven by evolutionary factors. Sex doesn't cost males much and it is the opposite for women. So males tend to think with their dick while females place a lot of importance to financial security. People can complain and wallow about this or this stereotyping but that is how we're predisposed to behave. All the main characters in this film behave in this manner and Adoor Bhasi's character can be seen as The God in the proverbial biblical sense. He gives Pavithran the complete freewill by showing him the warehouse lacking solid security and hanging it like the Apple from Eden. Or maybe he is the devil but it doesn't matter. Anyway it is unabashedly a morality tale with a surreal twist. Padmarajan even puts the moral message in text format at the end in a light fashion.

It is a great watch with very raw characters. Performances are excellent and Bharat Gopi is cast against his type. You would normally expect Gopi and Venu to switch places in such a story. It seems the early Padmarajan films and the ones he wrote for other directors primarily dealt with base human desires.

Rating: 4.5/5 

അപരൻ (Aparan) (1988)

Director: Padmarajan
Writer:    Padmarajan 
Cinematographer: Venu
Cast:.         Jayaram, Shobana, Madhu, Mukesh
Language: Malayalam

A young unemployed man (Jayaram), hunting for jobs, is roughed up by some people who mistakes him for a fraudster, who supposedly looks just like him. He earns a reprieve when the police officer turns out to be his old college mate but his doppelgänger's legacy continues to haunt him as he moves into the city when he gets a job.

The film is an adaptation of a short story from Padmarajan and the title translates as 'Doppelgänger'. Film also marked the debut of Jayaram who then became a sort of fixture in Padmarajan's latter year films. The basic plot might make you go 'I've seen this before' but treatment is quite different. If you've got a premise like this from a film from the 80s you expect it to end in a tragic way with a 'Crime doesn't pay' moral lesson. But this is Padmarajan and he can always make things interesting based on characterisation.

Here you can see Jayaram's character almost discovering his darker side because of the other dude who is spoken off like a myth. Many of his actions doesn't seem to come from a rational basis and some of the film's contrivances can be explained off like that. They don't have the physical confrontation the way you expect them to have and we only hear the bad dude's voice,  and that too towards the end. All in all, one could say that this story can be seen as a very superior backstory for a film like 'Don' and I wonder whether that film influenced Padmarajan in any way.

Overall, it is a nice little genre film. There aren't many interesting characters in it and the film is a bit too plot driven. Jayaram does his part will considering the fact that it is a debut film for him. His is not a very likeable character and it is intentionally so. One could also say that it is a metaphorical reading of caste sentiments in Kerala where some of the very upper caste people could very much feel like they are getting hunted for something that they presume they are not responsible for. Padmarajan does go out of the way to mention the caste of the character in one scene anyway.

Rating: 3/5  

അനന്തരം (Anantaram) (1987)

Director: Adoor Gopalakrishnan
Writer:    Adoor Gopalakrishnan
Cinematography: Mankada Ravi Varma
Cast:        Asokan, Mammooty, Shobana
Language: Malayalam

Ajayan was an orphan boy who was left at an hospital, the place of his birth. He is adopted by a widower doctor who also has a much more elder son (Mammooty). The film is told largely through monologues by the Ajayan character as he tries to narrate how he became what he is now.

The younger version of Ajayan is played by Sudeesh and the older version by Asokan. The last shot of the film has Ajayan as a boy counting the steps to a pond by using only odd numbers and just after that him doing the same but this time with even numbers. That essentially explains the film or what Adoor is trying to do. The first half of the film goes in a feel good fashion as it is mostly good things that Ajayan narrates. But second half is like a psychological horror with Ajayan choosing to tell all things that he left out initially. So the film is basically about storytelling and how our perceptions about things are shaped by what is revealed to us.

The sad thing about the film is that while the concept is really good, the execution is not that great. Film suffers with some poor performances in first half with extended silences that doesn't look natural and you feel as if actors are not sure about how awardishly they should behave. It would have aided the film a lot more if the behaviour was quite normal in first half as it would have made for an even more impactful second half when the nature of the film flips. It is hard for me to take Shobana seriously in her earlier roles because we got so used to the voice that dubbed for her in the latter part of her career. Mamootty is quite good throughout but Asokan is not consistently good. Overall it is still a good watch but could have been a much greater film with better execution. It just doesn't get past its conceptual greatness. It did win Adoor a national award and he is said to have modeled the protagonist based on himself- a dual personality who is both an introvert and an extrovert.

Rating: 3/5

മറ്റൊരാൾ (Mattoral) (1988)

Director: K.G. George
Writers:  K.G. George, C.V. Balakrishnan
Cinematographer: Ramachandra Babu
Cast:        Mammooty, Karamana, Seema, Urvasi
Language: Malayalam 

An upper middle class family is torn apart when the middle aged mother elopes with a car mechanic. Their family friend (Mammooty) is trying to get the husband (Karamana) and wife (Seema) back together.

The husband is a Govt officer of significant stature who likes to restrict his wife into a homemaker. They have two kids and it is pretty evident from the early interactions that they don't have much chemistry anymore. I was thinking it would be more of a divorce case scenario and it was quite shocking when the central event in the film revealed itself. As is usual with K.G. George films, the interactions between its characters and their behaviour are very real.  He is certainly the best on that. However, my problem with this film is that it comes off as a bit regressive, especially coming from someone who made Adaminte Vaariyellu. He specialises in playing on clichés but the problem with that is that there is only a very fine line between it being a success or failure. Even though Karamana's character is shown as a bore early on, the film becomes quite one-sided later on with his character attracting a great deal of sympathy. The ending also ruins it further as  a hopeful one could have been truly path-breaking.

Despite my reservations about the ending and overall moralising tone of the film, it is still a good watch with excellent performances. I don't think there have been a film dealing with this subject matter in a real sense before and after this film in Malayalam. You are bound to get something out of a K.G. George film even if it is a lesser film of his.

Rating: 3/5

ആദാമിന്റെ വാരിയെല്ല് (Aadaminte Vaariyellu) (1983)

Director: K.G. George
Writers:  Kallikkad Ramachandran, K.G. George
Cast: Sreevidhya, Suhasini, Soorya
Language: Malayalam

The film is broadly about the plight of women in our patriarchal society and is told based on the lives of three women from three different economic strata of the society.

I generally abhor clichés in films as they basically pander to the laziness of the audience in engaging their minds. It is especially sinful when used as a tool to mask lazy and poor making. K.G. George is someone who revels in using clichés and running with it. His films generally include characters who are exaggerated versions of these clichés and he uses them to do social commentary and criticism.

Aadaminte Vaariyellu is no different in the above sense. Sreevidhya plays the role of a rich Christian woman who is club going, alcoholic and a bit loose. Suhasini plays the role of a middle class office going woman who is abused emotionally by her mother-in-law and physically by her drunk husband. The third leading lady of the film is the poor and young domestic help in Sreevidhya's house who is exploited by her master. The film basically shows that no matter which economic or social strata that one belongs to, you're screwed if you happen to belong to the female gender. The title of the film translates as Adam's Ribs and refers to the biblical story of God creating the first woman from Adam's ribs as an afterthought.

I think this one is K.G. George's best film out of what I've seen of his and it comfortably sails into my top 5 Malayalam films of all time list, if I were to make one. The closing sequence of the film where it shows various women from a rescue home staring at the cameras in a glazed manner will certainly well you up. What happens after that is glorious with what must have been the introduction of breaking the fourth wall into Malayalam cinema. I do remember seeing that in a documentary about K.G. George ages ago. The moment that I realised that was that was very cathartic indeed.

Rating: 5/5

യവനിക (Yavanika) (1982)

Director: K.G. George
Writers:  S.L. Puram Sadhanandhan, K.G. George
Cast:        Bharat Gopi, Thilakan, Mammooty, Kalanjal
Language: Malayalam

A tabla artist (Bharat Gopi) from a drama troupe, who is hated by everyone, goes missing and police starts investigating the same. He was living in with a co-artist (Jalaja), about whom he was very possessive and naturally there are many suspects who had an axe to grind with him. Bharat Gopi doesn't enter the frame till around half hour mark of the film and we see him through flashbacks as the police officer, Mammooty in a breakthrough role for his career, interrogates various people connected to the missing person.

The film is rightly or wrongly considered as one of the best investigative mysteries from Malayalam cinema. It does a thing very well in the sense that enough clues are given for the audience to guess who the murderer is. But you do feel that K.G. George is not projecting it as a murder mystery and more like a look into what goes on behind the scenes of a drama troupe. The case isn't very complicated and it gets solved in a quite straight-forward manner. What makes the film stand out is the excellent performance from the entire cast with the one from Asokan being my favourite. The mystery aspect is not the central point of the film is evident by the fact that there are numerous songs in it for a K.G. George film and you also get extended sequences from the drama on stage at various points of the film. If you are not engrossed by that aspect of the film and just want a straight forward murder mystery, you will end up being disappointed with it.

'Rashomon' effect is a very misused term when it comes to film criticism and many people use it to describe same incident being shown while different people narrate it from their perspective. That doesn't cut it. You need to have different people describing the same incident with different takes on it influenced by their perspective, biases and memories which can be quite unreliable. What you get in Yavanika is not 'Rashomon' effect. It is just multiple narration of the same thing with great amount of reliability, with reliability being the key term.

Yavanika is a great watch for what it is but don't go into it thinking it is a murder mystery genre film. It is not K.G. George's best work like it is cracked up to be, but was the one with the most mainstream appeal. Both Thilakan and Mammooty won state awards for their performances in it. It got lukewarm response initially, as K.G. George was known as a new-gen filmmaker without mass appeal, but went on to become a commercial success due to word of mouth.

Rating: 4/5

കോലങ്ങൾ (Kolangal) (1981)

Director: K. G. George
Writers:  P.J. Antony, K.G. George
Cast:         Rajam K. Nair, Menaka, Nedumudi Venu, Thilakan
Language: Malayalam

Film is an adaptation of P.J. Antony's novel 'Oru Gramathinte Almavu' which translates as 'A Village's Soul'. It is set in a central Kerala village and basically got all types of characters that will be there in a traditional village. The main storyline is about two neighbouring families run by two matriarchs who are at loggerheads with each other due to garden-variety neighbourly reasons. Both these matriarchs encourages gossips about each other's daughters which ultimately proves to be self-destructive.

It is common for Malayalam films from recent times to glorify village life and project them as models of goodness. Indian reality is such that these villages are, more often than not, bastions of conservatism and petiness. They tend to be tyrannical for its younger generation who don't want to conform. You have all sorts of people keeping an eye on your lives and dictating it in direct and indirect manners. The village characters in this film are: Nedumudi Venu- Goon and a peeping Tom, Thilakan- Rich drunk guy, a professional gossiper, Sreenivasan- tea shop owner, a sensible village elder and the goodish boatman. It all might sound very clichéd but they are done very well rooted on reality. Panchavadipaalam did an exaggerated take on political happenings in a village and Kolangal does the same on normal village life in a not very exaggerated manner.

It would have been jarring if it was the male characters who were solely destroying the lives of the younger daughters but it is alright as it is their mothers who are doing the worst with their petiness. Another thing which makes the film stands out is that most of the characters in it are Christians and from a poor background which is not a usual combination in malayalam films. Cinematography and the frames are quite great, which is also unusual for malayalam films from those era. The background music when Nedumudi Venu does his peeping Tom routine is pure genius. A minor gripe I have with the film is that some of its characters are a bit cartoonishly goodish in nature and there is an element of compensating for its other perennially cunning characters. Rajam K. Nair deservedly won a state award for her portrayal of the working class matriarch. It is also an early film from Thilakan's career who is unsurprisingly excellent as the drunk guy with Hitler moustache.

Rating: 4.5/5

ഉത്തരം (Utharam) (1989)

Director: Pavithran
Writers:  M. T. Vasudevan Nair, Daphne du Maurier
Cast:      Mammootty, Sukumaran, Parvathi, Suparna
Language: Malayalam

One fine morning, not any different from every other day, a promising poet shoots herself. Leaving no trace of motive, her husband's best friend and journalist, Balu embarks on a journey to find the truth.

The film is an adaptation of Daphne du Maurier's short story called 'No Motive'. Since it doesn't have a wiki entry, I cannot really comment on whether they deviated too much from its plot. In general, film adaptations work best when the source material is a short story rather than a novel because more often than not, it will involve some universe expansion through adaptation. When it is from a novel, plenty of things get lost due to the constraints of the medium which normally means length limitation and also inner thoughts through perspective narration. I haven't seen any of MT's works quite recently and plan to explore it further, especially with his films that are set in contemporary times (not a big fan of Malayalam period films). He was a formidable force in Malayalam film industry, during what was considered as its peak, and him and Padmarajan were two blokes who came into it from a literature background though both were from very different generations. Unlike Padmarajan, he largely restricted himself into script writing and directed only a few films.

Coming back to the film at hand, it is an excellent watch and can be considered as a mystery thriller which moves at a very leisure pace. Mammootty is at his best when he plays polished intellectuals, like he does in this film, or boastful and insecure rich guys (വേദനിക്കുന്ന കോടീശ്വരൻ). As he begins investigating her past life, the things gets pieced together only gradually and there is no big twist or anything or what can be considered as twists does't feel like them because the film develops in such a fashion. I would have preferred a slightly different and less conclusive ending, with something just triggering a memory from her past instead of the improbable meeting that the film has now (I mean what are the chances !!). They could have taken the easy way out by leaving Parvathi's character out from the unfortunate incident but they quite bravely opt to give some sort of ambiguity to her plight and her memories. It is a great watch with excellent performances from all concerned.

PS: Malayalam filmmakers really knew how to do mystery genre right during those days and these days, it just means shitty twists and lengthy expositions at the end....

Rating: 4.5/5

കിരീടം (Kireedam) (1989)

Director: Sibi Malayil
Writer:    Lohithadas
Cast:       Mohanlal, Thilakan, Mohan Raj (Keerikkadan Jose)
Language: Malayalam

The life of a young man turns upside down when he intervenes in a fight in order to rescue his father (a cop) from a ruthless local Gunda (outlaw). The title of the film translates as crown and refers to the fact that the villagers sees the fight as the handing over of the crown from the old Gunda to the new one. 

When searching for a poster for Naduvazhikal, I had come across the one on the left. It is really difficult to fathom that such two films would have come in within the space of a month in Malyalam and, I guess, those were the days. Kireedam is a film that you would not want to watch again because it is kind of Kerala's 'Hamlet' in terms of it being the ultimate tragedy. I think I saw it for the last time when I was less than 10 years old and it had a lasting effect because it also affected me while watching another film. I thought the same named character in 'In Harihar Nagar' to be also the same man and his fate in that film is also quite tragic. After having decided to give it a go, in order to actually gauge the merit of this film, I couldn't help but notice the 'same but not quite same' aspects of this film when compared with Naduvazhikal. Both sons get into these unwanted positions quite reluctantly because of their respective fathers and the reaction from their their dads are quite the opposite. Sethumadhavan is quite apologetic as he begins to excel inadvertently in his new role while Arjun becomes quietly confident. Both films are marked by iconic last sequence fights but Sethumadhavan's one is about survival while Arjun is in it for revenge. Both of them ends up in jail.

I really don't class 'Kireedam' as one of the best efforts from Sibi Malayil-Lohithadas combo. If you add Mohanlal to this, I actually prefer both 'His Highness Abdullah' and 'Dasharatham' to it. Kireedam is a bit manipulative and some of its side characters, especially Sethumadhavan's family and relatives, are kind of half-baked and cliched. What really elevates the film to greatness is really the tour-de-force performance from Mohanlal, amply supported by Murali and Thilakan. Mohan Raj's role as Keerikkadan Jose is so iconic that I only found out about his actual name today only. The rawness of the last fight and Mohanlal's mannerisms are so good that every Malayalee will have a little cry after watching the film's ending no matter how many times you have seen it.I guess you have to class such a film as great despite its flaws leading up to it. Film has been remade to other different languages, with a very low degree of success, and it is safe to say that it was Mohanlal who made this average material into a great film. He only got a special jury mention at the National awards where he lost out to Mammootty for 'Oru Vadakkan Veeraghada' and 'Mathilukal'.

Rating: 4/5

American Gigolo (1980)

Director: Paul Schrader
Writer:    Paul Schrader
Cast:       Richard Gere, Lauren Hutton, Hector Elizondo

A Los Angeles male escort, who mostly caters to an older female clientele, is accused of a murder which he did not commit.

One would expect it to be a pulpy film in the vein of 'Basic Instinct' if you go by the above synopsis. It is anything but. Film is directed by Paul Schrader, who also wrote 'Taxi Driver', and that should be a clue enough regarding the nature of the film. Its protagonist, Julian, is sort of a social climber in terms of how he goes about his business. This has created a situation where he is on his own when he is framed for a murder by someone. Later his pimp, who sets him up, reveals that he was very framable as he had stepped on too many toes among people from the highest of social classes. While all this is going on, he develops a reluctant relationship with a senator's wife, Michelle, and is contemplating retirement from his job. This is a trope that is used in many favourite films of mine like Drive and Thief.

The film is not an as intense character study as Taxi Driver was. It is also much more suave keeping in with the social class that Julian does business with. He is ambitious and takes pride in his job. When Michelle asks him why he prefers an older clientele, he replies that it is much more of a challenge and hence more satisfying. Even when he confronts his pimp regarding him being setup, he portrays a sense of helplessness, even as he inadvertently kills him. Film is not overly sentimental and the gradual acceptance of his fate is done in quite a subtle manner.

Some might find the ending to be unsatisfying and bit of a letdown. Things are not exactly resolved but I didn't mind it. The music, whenever it crops up, is delightfully 80s. Richard Gere is just elegantly stylish in what was a breakout role for him. I especially enjoyed the performance of the detective played by Hector Elizondo. Overall, it is a great watch.

Rating: 4/5

ഒരു സിബിഐ ഡയറിക്കുറിപ്പ്‌ (Oru CBI Diary Kurippu) (1988)

Director: K Madhu
Writer:    S. N. Swamy
Cast:       Mammootty, Suresh Gopi, Jagathi Sreekumar
Language: Malayalam

The film revolves around a suspicious case of suicide which gets handed over to CBI after it has been declared as a case of suicide by the state Police department. 

The plot-line of the film was crafted around a real life incident, the Polakkulam case, in which a hotel employee was the victim. It was investigated by the CBI and was the first instance where humanoid dummy experiment was done in the state to prove a murder case. The lead character Sethurammayar CBI, played by Mammootty, is inspired by a real-life IPS officer named Radha Vinod Raju. The film came out in 1988 and the dummy segment was immediately spoofed by Sreenivasan and Mohanlal in their own comedic CID franchise  'Pattanapravesham', which also came out later that year. You got to admire the turn around time of Malayalam films in those days as both Mammootty and Mohanlal had 12 films releasing in 1988. Guess they didn't believe much in post-production. 

Film can be best described as a police investigative procedural which was hugely admired for how different it was when compared with films that came prior to this. There was no flab in it in terms of having typical entertainment elements like songs, elaborate stunts. verbal diarrhea from the lead and things like that. The sole focus of the film was the central investigation and the Malayalee audience, familiar with Sherlock Holmes stories, lapped it up. It was also quite popular in Madras/Chennai with it running for more than 200 days, an achievement that was replicated by only one Malayalam film since then, with Premam recently completing 200 days there. I don't consider it as a great mystery film since they are best done when at least some of the audience could figure out the twist by themselves by following the clues. That is not the case with this film or any of the other films that came out in this franchise since. A common complaint regarding these films are that S N Swamy could literally have some random person from the crowd as the culprit during the end twist portion of the film. There have been three other films released since then in this franchise and a fifth one is on its way. The second one, Jagratha, was also very good while the third one was quite average and the fourth one being quite terrible. 

Originally, the character was conceived as a tough cop named Ali Imran but it was Mammootty who convinced the director and writer that a pious intelligent Tamil Brahmin would be better. That is what makes the film stand out from other films in this genre with the lead using brain rather than brawn to solve cases. One could say that Mohanlal's character from Company owes a little bit to this character even though I am not sure about whether RGV had watched this film. The mannerisms that Mammootty brought to the table, accompanied with Shyam's excellent signature background score, were so effective that the audience were taken aback when he sparingly uses physical force during some instances. To sum up, it is a great watch and is quite a unique franchise when it comes to Indian cinema. 

PS: The actor Prathapachandran is now best remembered for his role in this film with an iconic line of his being memed quite frequently these days.

Rating: 4/5

വടക്കുനോക്കിയന്ത്രം (Vadakkunokkiyantram) (1989)

Director: Sreenivasan
Writer:    Sreenivasan
Cast:       Sreenivasan, Parvathy, Innocent
Language: Malayalam

A man with a serious case of inferiority complex, Thalathil Dineshan (Sreenivasan), is married to a beautiful girl, a girl whom he considers to be way out of his league. Soon, his love and care turns into suspicion. 

It is a common refrain that Sreenivasan is someone who made money by selling his inferiority complex for films. While he has written for many directors there are only two films for which he took up the role of director as well and Vadakkunokkiyanthram (Compass) is the first one of those two. The second one is 'Chinthavishtayaya Shyamala' which came out it 1998. Both of these films are rightly considered as classics of Malayalam cinema marrying comedy and topic seriousness in a perfect manner. The films he did with his frequent collaborator, Sathyan Anthikkad, tended to be social commentaries while these two films that he directed were much more inward looking in terms of depicting its central character. The title of the film refers to Dineshan's propensity to react to all things in the film's story-line by orienting towards his inferiority complex and suspicion just like a Compass, which always orient towards north.  

The film is laced with high quality comedy, like you would expect in a Sreenivasan film, and can be classed as a cringe-comedy, a genre in which the likes of Ricky Gervais is an expert. The character, Thalathil Dineshan, and his antics has been part of Kerala pop-culture as its very meme-worthy as well as highly quotable. His is a very exaggerated portrayal and one might raise an eye-brow at the convoluted ways in which his mind goes. When you think the film is ending with a very cliched happy ending, he gives a nod to horror films by suggesting a relapse into his old self for the character. 

To sum up, it is a great watch but I do consider his second effort as director to be the superior one out of the two. Many of the characters introduced from the midway of the film serves just as plot devices and he managed to create a richer universe around the central character in 'Chinthavishtayaya Shyamala'. 'Thalayanamanthram', which came out a year later, could be classed as a sister film to this one. 

Rating: 4.5/5

Real Genius (1985)

Director: Martha Coolidge
Writers:  Neal Israel, Par Proft, Peter Torokvei
Cast:       Val Kilmer, Gabriel Jarett, Michelle Meyrink, William Atherton

Mitch (Jarett) is a 15-year-old Physics genius who is given a scholarship, by Professor Hathaway (Atherton), and admitted into a very research intensive university. There he assists the professor to create a LASER weapon along with several other students, with the most prominent one being Chris Knight (Val Kilmer). Students don't exactly know the purpose of what they are building while the professor is employed by the CIA to develop this weapon which could target and kill people from space. 

The film is really like a high-school/college film with the difference that all of them are nerds. Still, it does follow genre conventions and Val Kilmer is the genius rebel among them. It is like 'Interstellar' of college films but in a good way. The creators have put considerable effort into making stuff like the science in it and the behavior of nerds as accurate as possible. Martha Coolidge actually spent months researching about LASER technology and policies of the CIA, and interviewed dozens of students at Caltech. 

The story is pretty basic and I saw the first hour of the film late night in a sleepy state and was quite underwhelmed by it. But the last forty minutes was really funny and worked really well for me. Val Kilmer is absolutely the highlight of the film with some great lines and mannerisms. The professor was also great as was the cute lady nerd in it played by Michelle Meyrink. Jarett's character is the protagonist character for us and probably the weakest link in the film. Overall, it is a pretty good watch despite the predictability and 'basic' nature of the plot. I would guess that people who saw it at the time will have tremendous nostalgia associated with the film.

Rating: 3.5/5 

                                                                             

Barfly (1987)

Director: Barbet Schroeder
Writer:    Charles Bukowski
Cast:       Mickey Rourke, Faye Dunaway, Alice Krige

Film is based on the life of successful poet Charles Bukowski and his exploits in Hollywood during 60s, 70s and 80s. 

I had seen '9 Full Moons' two days back and Barfly was something that came up frequently while reading about it. The comparison is based on the odd personalities of the couple in question. In 9 Full Moons, they were a bit more subtle about it while in Barfly, both of them are equally 'damaged' heavy drinkers. Mannerisms of Mickey Rourke, playing the author character Henry Chinaski, is a bit off-putting initially but you get used to it. I guess those who are familiar with Charles Bukowski would know what to expect. I have seen the film 'Factotum', which again featured the character Henry Chinaski, many years back and kind of knew what was coming. In Barfly, the romantic angle is not the center piece of the film and is more of an examination of the character Henry Chinaski. I think if you don't already know that the character is an aspiring writer, then you might find the intermittent burst of literary flourishes bit out of the blue. 

Overall the film is a great watch but not for everyone. I found it endearing by the end even though I really don't buy his theory about living the life this way to help aid his literature. Maybe, I need to read some of his work to totally get it. The opening credits with shots of various bars/pubs sets the tone for the film and the visuals for it are stunning to say the least and reminded me of  the bar scenes from 'Swingers'. Night scenes in the film are especially great and 'The Kino Flo' lighting was first developed for this film. 

Rating: 4/5

                                                                               

എലിപ്പത്തായം (Elippathayam: Rat-Trap) (1982)

Director: Adoor Gopalakrishnan
Writer:   Adoor Gopalakrishnan
Cast:      Karamana Janardanan Nair, Sharada, Jalaja
Language: Malayalam

Film is centered around a family in post-feudal Kerala who are finding it difficult to come to grips with their new reality. It consists of three siblings with the eldest being a very lazy and patriarchal bachelor guy called Unni (Karamana) who is also prone to paranoia and cowardice. The second one is a middle-aged spinster (Sharada) and the youngest one is a tutorial going comparatively modern girl (Jalaja). Over the course of the film we learn that they also have a married sister who is the eldest among them and is making demands for their assets to be partitioned. We find that the dynamics in the house itself is such that the character played by Sharada has become like a maid to her other siblings and is often taken for granted. Rats getting trapped is a recurring motif in the film and by the end we realize that it is a metaphor for the trapped existence of the characters played by Karamana and Sharada who are caught between two worlds. 

Film actually begins on a funny note as the three characters are chasing a rat in near darkness. Then there is a sequence in which the youngest sister is seen dusting off an old rat-trap and she demonstrates how a rat will get trapped using her hands and this is done in a very Hitchcockian fashion. Then she is shown taking the first rat that is trapped to a pond in order to drown and kill it. The sequence is set to a very distinctive and foreboding background music and it is recurring sequence in the film. Towards the end we see that instead of rat, a very sick Sharada is taken to the pond and during the end sequence it is Karamana being taken. Karamana is totally dependent on others for his existence and he shows fuck all gratitude for it. He represents the exploitative feudal land lord but since feudalism has ended, he is exhibiting it towards his younger sister who lives very much like a slave. The exploitation is not outright cruel but it is just that he takes his privileged position of being the patriarch for granted and his obliviousness when behaving in a thoroughly selfish manner is utmost pathetic. The youngest sister (Jalaja) is also lazy in the modern sense and don't let herself be exploited by her two eldest siblings. She has come to grips with the new reality and takes bold steps to escape from the tharavadu (household). After that, Sharada falls sick and the only concern that Karamana exhibits is regarding how he will get fed. Sharada is taken by the villagers, presumably to the hospital, but the scene is like one of the rat sequences which finally cuts to the pond. Finally the reclusive Karamana is forced out and thrown to the pond as if he cannot bring himself to commit suicide so that he can also escape from his trapped rat life. These last two sequences in the film could very well be symbolic in the sense that both these characters are so meek that they cannot even take the initiative to end their own lives.

It was 'Elippathayam' that first brought international recognition for Adoor as it received an award from BFI (British Film Institute). It was also screened at Cannes in the Un Certian Regard, which is certainly a big deal for a film from India. It reminded me of Todd Solondz films which can best be described as social satire of the darkest kind and usually features very cringy characters and situations. The performances from both Karamana and Sharada are excellent and I was surprised that they didn't get national awards for it. They are ably supported by rest of the cast. Film is medium paced and the directorial flourishes during the opening scenes grabs your attention immediately. Nothing is spoon-fed to the audience and we will learn gradually about all the characters. It is something that I enjoy in films since it makes the experience cerebral. To sum up, it is one of the best films I have seen from Malayalam and is widely considered as Adoor's best film.  

Rating: 5/5