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.
Director: Tony Scott
Writers: Shane Black, Greg Hicks
DOP: Ward Russell
Cast: Bruce Willis, Damon Wayans, Taylor Negrons
An LAPD detective's protected female witness is murdered, prompting him and her boyfriend to investigate the crime that leads to a corrupt politician and a crooked football team owner.
The film had a lot riding on it on the back of Bruce Willis' success with the Die Hard films and Shane Black's script being at that point of time the most expensive one to be bought. It apparently had lot of production difficulties with Tony Scott clashing with Bruce Willis and Joel Silver, the producer. The script also underwent a lot of rewrites and you do feel that while watching the film. It begins quite well establishing the extremely cynical character played by Bruce Willis. He ends up reluctantly teaming up with the banned quarterback character played by Damon Wayans. It is another one of those odd couple films with lots of over the top action and violence filmed in the 90s style. The script that is quite clever in the first half of the film turns quite shit with blatant expositions and tonal shifts by the end. It didn't do well at the box office and that put an end to the sequel idea that they had planned for it at the end of the film.
Overall it begins as a fun watch which becomes quite ridiculous, in a bad way, as the film progresses. Bruce Willis has plenty of funny lines and some cringe-inducing ones as well. Early 90s had plenty of experiments going on with the ways films looked and edits were done. Some of them, like Natural Born Killers, haven't aged well at all. But I did like the look of this film.
Director: Stephen Frears
Writers: Jim Thompson (novel), Donald E. Westlake
DOP: Oliver Stapleton
Cast: Anjelica Huston, John Cusack, Annette Benning
A small-time conman has torn loyalties between his estranged mother and new girlfriend-- both of whom are high-stakes grifters with their own angles to play.
I decided on watching the film after doing a simple Google search of neo-noir films and the name of the director seemed familiar (Philomena, High Fidelity). It turned out to be an adaptation of a Jim Thompson novel whose another novel was recently adapted as 'Killer Inside Me' which is a favorite of mine. The film has a very play like feel to it and the color tone and settings reminded me of Robert Altman's 'The Player'. It doesn't do any spoon-feeding at the beginning and it takes a while for you to figure out what their game plan is. John Cusack's character is playing short cons, while his girlfriend is in it for the long game. His mother is doing it professionally by massaging the odds for a menacing bookmaker. Both the mother and the girlfriend are stylistically similar in appearance which suggests the Oedipal nature of the relationships that becomes quite apparent towards the end.
There are many films featuring con-men but they tend to be always about a big con that they are trying to pull. This one is a bit different and is more of a character study. Both the leading ladies got Oscar nominations for the film and they do outshine John Cusack. It is a very good watch even though it takes a bit of time to get going.
Chenkol continues the story of Sethumadhavan's life after his prison term as he tries to get back into the society.
Malayalees should rename Murphy's law as Sethumadhavan's law because whatever can go wrong will go wrong when it comes to this character. It is a character which all Malayalees loathe to revisit unless one is really into sadomasochism. I had recently revisited Kireedom after a long time and found it to be an average to good film elevated to greatness by its latter half, especially the last 20 or so minutes. When Chenkol came four years later, it didn't do very well at box office supposedly and I guess Malayalees are not sadomasochistic much. Prithvitaj had recently described Chenkol as the most underrated sequel in Malayalam and rated Mohanlal's performance as even better than that in Kireedom. I do think both films are at a similar level and still rate Mohanlal's performance in Kireedom at a higher level because his portrayal of utter bewilderment as his life fall aparts suddenly was much more novel and let's not even go into the climax fight.
The film begins with a montage of scenes flashback to Kireedom during opening credits culminating with the climax sequence of Sethumadhavan killing Keerikkadan Jose which earns him his jail term. In Kireedom, our focus was chiefly on the plight of Sethumadhavan and we don't think much of the consequences to other characters in the film. Chenkol is mostly about that as he learns about them, like us, after his jail term. He is back in Ramapuram and it is the same Keerikkadan family that he has to contend with. Some of the exposition scenes and newly made Keerikkadan flashbacks are quite badly done and you kind of raise eyebrows when Keerikkadan Jose's step-daughter angle is opened up. But the film manages to tide over that as Sethu decides to embrace his crown by twirling his moustache. He has done many meeshapiriyan larger than life roles but the one in Chenkol is the most cathartic because he has totally earned it. But that is short-lived because Sethumadhavan's law again kicks back into action.
Overall it is a worthy follow-up to Kireedom but you do know what to expect when it comes to Sibi Malayil and his blatant tear-jerkers. I rate Sibi Malayil films like Dasharatham and His Highness Abdullah higher than the kind of films for which he is famous for. One criticism that could levelled is that Sethumadhavan in Chenkol is portrayed as a flawless personality while the one in Kireedom is a bit more three dimensional.
PS: I do recognise the contribution of online trolls to Kerala society but they kind of spoil your film watching experience because of their heavy usage of iconic scenes, expressions and one liners from Malayalam cinema. I laughed out loud when the below scene came up. You see the irony, I'm using a troll image of the said scene.
Directors: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen Writers: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen DOP: Roger Deakins Cast: Frances McDormand, William H. Macy, Steve Buscemi
Jerry Lundegaard's (William H. Macy) inept crime falls apart due to his and his henchmen's constant bungling and persistent police work of the quite pregnant Marge Gunderson (Frances McDormand).
I consider myself to be part of what I call 'outsourced subprime crisis generation'. Meaning that we got a lot of free time due to the fact that we graduated in 2008. This helped us in getting a chance to take a thorough look into the wide world of foreign language cinema. This and the perfect timing of BSNL Broadband (jeez that 2-8AM unlimited download plan!) taking off in a big way around that period. The rite of passage quite often involved starting off with IMDB's top 250 list. You'll learn with experience that IMDB is a crock of shit (stupidity of masses) but that top 250 list was always a good place to start. That is how I remember stumbling on to Fargo and the filmography of Coen Brothers' who are either second or third in my list of favourite directors, depending on my mood, along with Michael Haneke.
Their filmography have been quite amazing from the get go but it was Fargo's success that brought them their limelight. It won them best director award at Cannes and an academy award for best original screenplay. Film is famous for its cold Minnesota setting and very distinctive accent (Yah, you betcha!). Stunning cinematography from Roger Deakins is a given and the excellent BGM was something that I caught on to on rewatch. Events that happen in the film are quite horrific but is depicted in a comedic folksy manner. It is based on a true event but the characterisation is fictional. So you have quite contradicting disclaimers when you go from opening credits to closing credits. Performances from the cast is excellent and the film has spawned a TV series and the Japanese film Kumiko: The Treasure Hunter.
If I were to rank Coen Bros films that I've watched, it would go something like this:
Director: Martin Brest Writer: Bo Goldman DOP: Donald E.Thorin Cast: Al Pacino, Chris O'Donnell, Philip Seymour Hoffman
A prep school student needing money agree to 'babysit' a blind colonel, over the Thanksgiving weekend, but the job is not at all what he anticipated.
Scent of a Woman was the film where academy made amends for their past mistakes and gave Al Pacino his first and only Oscar. He is my favourite English language actor of all time and should've already won it for either Godfather or Dog Day Afternoon. His career can be classed into two phases- the initial one characterised by quite subtle performances in films like Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon & Godfather and the latter 'Hoohah' years characterised by films like Scarface, Scent of a Woman, Devil's Advocate etc. This division is also quite chronological with the dividing line being his serious illness in the late 70s. He did quite roll back the years for 'The Insider' and 'Donnie Brasco' and gave a mix of the two eras in 'Heat'.
The only other film that I've seen of Martin Brest is the excellent 'Midnight Run' which is a comedy road film featuring Robert De Niro. Both these films are ultimately feel good ones where everything is tied off too well at the end. Midnight Run is the better one in my opinion and how much you like SOAW would depend on how well you take to Pacino's performance. It is not among my favourite performances of his but I still like the film on the whole. Hoo-ha... Philip Seymour Hoffman once again steals everyone's thunder.
My favourite Pacino performances goes something like this:
1. Dog Day Afternoon
2. Godfather
3. Insider
4. Donnie Brasco
5. Heat
Director: Anthony Minghella Writers: Patricia Highsmith, Anthony Minghella DOP: John Seale Cast: Matt Damon, Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Philip Seymour Hoffman
In the late 1950s New-York, Tom Ripley (Matt Damon), a young underachiever is sent to Italy to retrieve Dickie Greenleaf, a rich spoiled millionaire playboy. But when the errand fails, Ripley takes extreme measures.
Talented Mr. Ripley was the follow-up film from Minghella to 'The English Patient', which won numerous academy awards. That one was a typical Oscar bait film that you like watching it for the first time but have no intention to revisit it ever again. While this one is the exact opposite, with a truly dark story which won't make it a favourite during the awards season and tremendous performances from all concerned. Matt Damon is a favourite of mine more because of the films that he is involved with than because of superlative acting turns. He is someone who has played too many Matt Damonish roles and you've trouble seeing him as the character that he is playing. Ripley is an exception to that and it is in my opinion his best performance.
The errand that he is assigned for by the millionaire father is as part of a misunderstanding and there is the obvious class difference between Ripley and those he acquaints with on his trip.
Ripley is good at impersonating others, forging signatures and lying comfortably. He begins to long for the lifestyles of his rich new friends. There is also some homosexual undertones to the whole deal.
The greatest thing about the film is that he gets away with (physically not mentally) which is in stark contrast to the usual 'Crime doesn't pay motif' from Hollywood. We also want him to get away with it. Overall, it is a great watch and works as a psychological thriller. The film is an adaptation of Patricia Highsmith's novel with the same name and it was also earlier adapted as the film 'Purple Noon'. I do like to check out Alàin Delon's performance as Ripley.
Director: Gus Van Sant Writers: Ben Affleck, Matt Damon Cinematographer: Jean-Yves Escoffier Cast: Matt Damon, Robin Williams, Stellan Skarsgård, Ben Affleck
Film follows 20-year-old south Boston laborer Will Hunting, an unrecognised genius who, as part of a deferred prosecution agreement after assaulting a Police officer, becomes the client of a therapist and studies advanced mathematics with a renowned professor. Through his therapy sessions, Will revaluates his relationships with his best friend, his girlfriend and himself, facing the significant task of confronting his past and facing the future.
In general I'm not a fan of feel good films. That is more of a reflection on the films that come out of this genre. But when done well, they can be amazing, uplifting and shit like that. Good Will Hunting is one such example. I've seen it 4-5 times and it has been as fresh as when I saw it for the first time. The basic premise of it is something that can be really torn apart by the honest trailers guys. One could also say that many of the Matt Damon characters are essentially the same, reluctant geniuses, be it Rounders or the Bourne series. Guess he can pull it off easily maybe because he reportedly has a genius level IQ.
The film is basically a collection of several set-piece monologues delivered by Williams and Damon and one especially good one from Ben Affleck. It won all three of them their first Oscars. The set piece nature of these conversations are masked because of the goodness of what happens between those scenes. Robin Williams is playing his best role which couldn't have been more against his type. It is great uplifting watch and will be a case of a film living up to expectations. It was also a big commercial success, surprisingly enough, collecting more than 200 million on a $10 million budget.
Director: Claire Denis Writer: Claire Denis Cinematographer: Agnes Godard Cast: Denis Lavant, Michael Subor Language: French
The film focuses on an ex-foreign legion (Denis Lavant) officer as he recalls his once glorious life, leading troops in Africa.
You can't do much wrong if you start your film with a club scene set to 'Kiss Kiss' song from Tarkan. The film has a meditative quality to it as we are shown various routines that the legion goes through in their non-combat days. First half of the film will work very well as an advertisement for recruitment. The character played by Denis Lavant is like the second in command with a father fixation for his own reporting officer. It could be sexual as well but it is not explicitly mentioned. In the beginning of the film, he mentions that 'Freedom begins with remorse'. The remorse that he is noting here is concerning his actions when he had a young man whom he thought of as a competition for him in terms of his superior officer's attention/affection.
It is an adaptation of Herman Melville's 1888 novella Billy Budd. It also reminded me of William Friedkin's 'Cruising' which also had a very confused protagonist. It is a great watch and has got a super great soundtrack. Claire Denis is a very interesting director and the films that I've watched of her's has a unique quality to them while each of them being very different in terms of settings.
Director: Abbas Kiarostami Writer: Abbas Kiarostami Cinematographer: Mahmoud Kayari Cast: Behzad Boranu Language: Persian A man and his team arrives in a Kurdish village from Tehran posing as telecom engineers. The purpose of their visit is not made clear to us but we know that it is related to the impending death of a woman who is more than 100 years old. As the wait turns out to be a long one, the protagonist who is called Engineer by the villagers, begins to be fascinated by the village life. By the end of the film we piece together that they are journalists who are there to document a village ritual related to mourning. Engineer becomes friends with a local kid who is in the middle of his exams. There is not much of a plot to speak of and it is seemingly a very simple film with binaries of urban and rural, old and young, and modern and ancient. It takes a while to get into the film but when it does, it becomes a great watch. The title of the film comes from a poem by Forugh Farrokhzad. "In my small night, ah the wind has a date with the leaves of the trees in my small night there is agony of destruction listen do you hear the darkness blowing? I look upon this bliss as a stranger I am addicted to my despair.
listen do you hear the darkness blowing? something is passing in the night the moon is restless and red and over this rooftop where crumbling is a constant fear clouds, like a procession of mourners seem to be waiting for the moment of rain. a moment and then nothing night shudders beyond this window and the earth winds to a halt beyond this window something unknown is watching you and me.
O green from head to foot place your hands like a burning memory in my loving hands give your lips to the caresses of my loving lips like the warm perception of being the wind will take us the wind will take us."
It was the follow-up film from Abbas Kiarostami after he won Palme d'Or at Cannes for 'Taste of Cherry'. What makes Kiarostami different from other Iranian filmmakers of his time is that he is much more European in his approach with existentialism being the common theme. This film is also not much different. I've only seen his later films beginning with 'Taste of Cherry' and I guess I've to catch up with his earlier works to see whether this is consistent throughout his career. Turkish director Nuri Bilge Ceylan is the contemporary one who very much carries the mantle from Kiarostami.
Director: K. G. George Writers: K. S. Bhasurachandran, K. G. George Cast: Saikumar, Ashwini, Thilakan Language: Malayalam
The film follows an investigation into the murder of a high-end prostitute. She was found dead in her house and the police goes through the suspect list, initially from her clientele, and later on to people from her past life as they begin to dwell deeper.
The film can be described as an investigative procedural whose USP is that the treatment is very characteristically non-filmy. It is nice to contrast it with a film like 'Oru CBI Diarykurippu', which is typically classed as a realistic film even though it had many elements to please a normal film audience. Sai Kumar plays the role of the investigating officer and his portrayal can be described as the one of the most realistic Police role from Malayalam cinema with a very professional and dispassionate demeanor. It is filmed in a very stripped-down manner and if it came out even now, it would still be classed as a very bold film. You don't usually get films that doesn't get over the top when it has got characters making a living out from this kind of background. It is normal for such films to finally get into the exploitative parts as explanation for its protagonist's transformation but the film stands out due to its matter of fact portrayal of it.
The film must have been a very low-budget one and it is sometimes let down by some poor acting performances and some extreme reliance on spoken words for moving the story forward. It is nowhere near K.G. George's best but still a good watch.
Director: Whit Stillman Writer: Whit Stillman Cast: Chloe Sevigny, Kate Beckinsale, Chris Eigeman
Story of two female Manhattan book editors fresh out of college, both finding love and themselves while frequenting the local disco. The first three of Whitman's films are together classed as 'Doomed-Bourgeoisie-in-Love' series and this one concerns a group of Ivy league and Hampshire graduates. Film is set in early 1980s New-York and the two main characters were not really friends during their college days but circumstances have conspired to make them share an apartment with a third girl. Personality wise they are polar opposite with the Kate Beckinsale character being the dominant one.
Unlike previous Whit Stillman films, where the interactions between the main characters were a bit endearingly harmless mischievous kind, in this one it is much more cutthroat and cruel. That kind of took me aback initially but it is kind of realistic if you go by the stereotypical way female acquaintances are supposed to interact. Humor in it is much more of the darker kind and film as a whole is quite three dimensional compared to his previous efforts. If you think you are gonna get a typical Whit Stillman film, then there is a chance that you might get disappointed by it. But it is still a great film in which Stillman chooses to go a bit more adult. All his first three films are set in 1980s with Metropolitan being the latest one in the chronological sense of its setting. There is references to previous two films with Matt Ross' (Gavin Belson from Silicon Valley) being kind of a cartoonish take on the protagonist from Metropolitan and Taylor Nichols making a cameo reprising his role from Barcelona. There is also this USS Maine reference from Barcelona as well.
Overall, it is another great one from Stillman with his own identity etched on to it rather than being very Woody Allenesque. Chloe Sevigny as the uptight protagonist reminded me of Greta Gerwig and sure enough, she is in Stillman's next effort 'Damsels in Distress', which came out after a very long gap in 2011. Disco didn't do very well financially but was very well received by critics. That fact that it is in the Criterion collection itself should be enough of an advertisement now.
Director: Whit Stillman Writer: Whit Stillman Cast: Taylor Nichols, Chris Eigeman, Tushka Bergen
Ted, a stuffy white guy from Illinois working in sales for the Barcelona office of a US corporation, is paid an unexpected visit by his somewhat less stuffy cousin Fred, who is an officer in the US Navy. Over the next few months, both their lives are irrevocably altered by the events which follow Fred's arrival, events which are the trivial stuff of a comedy of manners at first but which gradually grow increasingly dramatic.
Yeah right, it is not a post on how Capello's Milan raped the favorites, Cryuff's Barcelona, 4-0 in the 1994 Champions League final. I had recently discovered Whit Stillman through his debut film 'Metropolitan'. This is his second film after a long gap of four years and he had a significantly higer budget of $3 million to work with. It took me about three weeks to obtain the 1.7GB print and it was totally worth it because of the exquisite way it is visualized. Barcelona frequently figures at top among the best cities to visit/live lists and lent itself very well for films. We are now very familiar with such English films set in European cities with Woody Allen filming his recent ones there. One could really say Whit Stillman got there first, but then again, considerable Woody Allen influence is there in Stillman's films itself.
In 'Metropolitan', we had rich kids from privileged background fretting about the hate that other people have for them and worrying about downward social mobility. Instead of that, we have two American guys fretting about the hate that people from other nationalities have for American, quite unreasonably in their opinion. That and other things like why Europeans look down upon US 'culture', which Americans themselves accept in a self-deprecating manner. It is summed up in the below conversation.
Fred: Maybe you can clarify something for me. Since I've been, you know, waiting for the fleet to show up, I've read a lot, and...
Ted: Really?
Fred: And one of the things that keeps popping up is this about "subtext." Plays, novels, songs - they all have a "subtext," which I take to mean a hidden message or import of some kind. So subtext we know. But what do you call the message or meaning that's right there on the surface, completely open and obvious? They never talk about that. What do you call what's above the subtext?
Ted: The text.
Fred: OK, that's right, but they never talk about that.
It is tremendously funny like you would expect and is a must watch if you are a fan of Woody Allen. Film is quite hard to describe and best way to do is to say it is like a Woody Allen film. Stillman's first three films are supposed to be part of a trilogy with the third and last one being 'Last Days Of Disco', which I am going to watch pretty soon. Both Taylor Nichols and Chris Eigeman were in Metropolitan as well.
Marta: Ramon is very persuasive, and he painted a terrible picture of what it would be like for her to live the rest of her life in America, with all of its crime, consumerism, and vulgarity. All those loud, badly dressed, fat people watching their eighty channels of television and visiting shopping malls. The plastic throw-everything-away society with its notorious violence and racism. And finally, the total lack of culture.
Vishnu/Kuttettan (Mammootty) is a rich planter living in a hill-station and trying to lead a life of a bachelor while his mother and wife lives in his hometown. He is a womanizer and to make matters worse, most of his pursuits can be categorized as bordering on the peado-category. While he is struggling to actually fulfill his pursuits, he meets a much senior fellow (Thilakan) with similar interests and approach him to mentor him. They arrange him a 15-year-old girl, whom is taken to his house only to be discovered by his family who made a surprise visit. To escape from the situation, he lies to them that the girl is in fact his daughter from an affair that he had prior to his marriage. To complicate the situation further, his family adopts her into the fold, creating conflict between him, his mentor and their pimp (Murali).
Whether you rate the film or not would depend upon whether you see Mammootty's character as a heroic lead or not. For all intends and purposes, it is really a negative role and I don't know whether it was written to be perceived as such at the time of its release. Even by liberal standards, he is really a piece of shit character whose pursuits are largely exploitative in nature. Mammootty has a penchant for playing such roles in a comedic manner and his role in 'Azhakiya Ravanan' is another such example. Kuttettan is a 42-year-old good looking man married to an average looking woman, an alliance that looks to have been arranged by the elders rather than out of love. They can't conceive a child but the clever thing done by the writer is that he doesn't explicitly use those as a justification for the character's actions. It is as if he would have done the same things even if he was in a happy marriage. This is made even more clear in the last scene of the film when he winks at a nurse who is taking care of him after an accident.
Overall it is a very good watch with an excellent first half of the film and an alright but convoluted second half. Mammootty should be praised for accepting such a negative role, even if he didn't realize it to be so or if it wasn't perceived as such at the time of its release. Kuttettan is not much different from the role of Pattelar he did in 'Vidheyan'. I liked the fact that the the makers opted to do the social commentary in a subtle manner without giving the audience a sermon on things. His martial status comes as a twist in the film, which makes the first half of the film relatable to all kinds of people. I would've liked it even more if they had kept his feelings towards the girl at the end in an ambiguous manner with a deliberate nod to 'Lolita'. I thought that would have been more interesting than the conflict between him and his pimp. Still, it is a very good watch as long as you don't consider the main character to be heroic in any sense. I do think the writer wanted it to be a negative role and there is even a product placement from Snuggy (Nappies for kids), which I found to be ironically funny, during a song sequence. Mammootty is generally at his best when he plays rich, arrogant but foolish characters and this one can be added to that.
Director: Whit Stillman Writer: Whit Stillman Cast: Carolyn Farina, Edward Clements, Chris Eigeman
A group of young upper-class Manhattanites are blithely passing through the gala debutante season, when an unusual outsider joins them and stirs them up.
I am not familiar with Jane Austen's work and I don't think I have seen any of the films that were adapted from her books. But I do have a vague idea about what it entails and this film has been described as a post-Austen work. I came across this film through an Indiewire article which described it to be an influence on the works of Richard Linklater and Noah Baumbach. That should be a reason enough to check out this little indie-hit from the 90s. Bourgeoisie is something that gets mocked in many of my favorite films and this film does a genre-bender on that, with having people from that class (self proclaimed as 'Urban Haute Bourgeoisie') discuss the pressures that they face and fret about downward-mobility. You have one character in it saying how he was looking forward to Luis Bunuel's 'Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie', thinking that it will be a film that appreciates the qualities of their class, going by the title. Film is laugh out loud funny with an extremely intelligent script. You have them complaining about the titled-aristocracy of Europe who looks down on them. A great thing about it is that even though we think we are getting a protagonist perspective from the outsider character played by Edward Clements, it is actually through Carolyn Farina that we view the film for the majority of its running length. So, we are not sure about his motives and in the end it turns out that he is quite honest about it which we find surprising. It is a character that many of us from the middle class/upper middle class can identify with and will make you question yourself. Some in the group find him to be a phony but he has got the backing of Chris Eigeman character, who acts as the Tyler Durden of the group. The ending of the film is quite contrived, but it does earn enough credit up till then for us to be happy about it.
Overall it is a great watch and one that you will love it if you are the kind of person that enjoys the works of Woody Allen, Linklater and Noah Baumbach. Performances are great and it is really a coming-of-age film that is hilariously funny. Most of the cast were first-time actors who got the gig through auditions. It managed to get a screening at Cannes and got an academy award nomination for best screenplay. Whit Stillman made his directorial debut with this film and I will certainly catch up with other films. Metropolitan was made on a budget of $225k and was a box office success, grossing around $3 million.
Director: Antonia Bird Writer: Ted Griffin Cast: Guy Pearce, Robert Carlyle, Jeremy Davies
Captain John Boyd's (Guy Pearce) promotion stations him at a remote fort where a rescued man (Robert Carlyle) tells a disturbing tale of cannibalism. The film revolves around cannibalism in the 1840s California and some elements bear similarities to the story of the Donner Party and that of Alfred Packer.
The film could be described as a psychological thriller with elements of black comedy in it. There is some dubious use of comedic background music in it, especially during the big reveal, which kind of conveys that the film doesn't take itself too seriously and the audience should do the same. That said, there is some serious subtext to it regarding the cannibalizing nature of the Westward expansion of the US in terms of the effect that it had on the native Indians. The opening credits is similar to ones used in Westerns from the 60s, and even though it is set at a time that is typical of the genre, it is not at all stylistically same. The film is done in such a way that one could think of it as all happening in Boyd's head and not necessarily as anything mythic/supernatural. There is also some 'Antichrist' elements added to the character played by Robert Carlyle. Guy Pearce is a vegetarian in real life and had trouble while filming the meat eating scenes and used to spit them out after the director yelled 'Cut'. I think that actually might have helped enhance his performance in portraying the utter disgust.
Overall, it is a great and gory watch. Guy Pearce is a seriously underrated actor who should be in more films. Robert Carlyle is always great to watch and is famous for his role in Trainspotting as 'Begbie'. Cannibalism is a topic that is hardly touched upon by films meant for mainstream audience and that is very much like the way it is considered in society as well- a strict taboo subject. Ana Lily-Amirpour's (A Girl Walks Alone Home At Night) next film, The Bad Batch, is supposed to be a dystopian love story set in a community of cannibals. I haven't seen any other films from the director Antonia Bird and Robert Carlyle seems to be a constant fixture in them. She passed away recently in 2013, aged 62, and am thinking of checking out her debut feature film 'Priest' next. Female directors tend to get away with showing violence, at level 11, much more than their male counterparts and American Psycho is another such example of this.
A young couple, Ganga (Shobhana) and Nakulan (Suresh Gopi), arrives at Nakulan's ancestral home, knows as Madampalli, for a vacation. Hailing from a family that follows tradition and superstitions, Nakulan's uncle Thampi (Nedumudi Venu) objects to the couple's idea of moving into the allegedly haunted mansion, which they ignore. The couple moves in, following which seemingly supernatural events begin to happen.
Film can be best classed as a Psychological thriller and is widely considered as one of the best Malayalam films of all time. We Malayalees, exhibit a lot of superiority complex and generally see rest of India (Bengalis are an exception for some reason, maybe communism) as how Developed nations perceive under-developed ones-be it in the economic sense or when it comes to art and culture. So Manchithrathazhu, which came out in early 90s, is often cited as another one of these justification for this sense of superiority because it is a film which was much ahead of its time for general Indian audience and the fact that it was made in Malayalam and was a huge success in Kerala even as early an in 1993 kind of justifies our awesomeness. Also the fact that it was remade into several other languages a decade or so later but they still had to add a lot of unnecessary things to make it palatable for those audience as a commercial cinema, strengthens our conviction that rest of India is so behind.
All the above xenophobia aside, what makes the film such a beauty is that it has all the elements that are required from a commercial point of view but it does it in such a way that it respects the intelligence of the audience. It is a film which satisfies all kind of people but I was shit-scared when I saw it for the first time in a theater as a seven-year-old. I remember saying special prayers before going to bed (those were the days) and since I was living in an old 'Tharavadu' like house in those days, we had designated a guest room as our own version of 'Thekkini' from the film and used to not go there after that. I really had seen it then as a horror film and it took me a second viewing some 5 years later to realize that there is nothing supernatural about it.
Even though Fazil is given credit as the director of this film, it also credits Priyadarshan, Sibi Malayil and Siddique-Lal as second unit directors. That itself shows the ambition of the film since all of them were leading film directors in Malayalam Cinema during that time. It can be a recipe for disaster but their output in the film is seamless. The water-tight screenplay from Madhu Muttam is the biggest reason for its success and I guess all the directors involved would also have contributed to it, especially for the comedy parts. I am really interested in a documentary interviewing all these people behind the camera to describe how this collaborative effort happened and what was the level of contribution from each of them.
What stood out for me during this watch was the level of detail involved in the film and how well they manage to convey it without feeling like expositions. I had watched 'Back to the Future' recently and its script is held up as some sort of perfection for how well every detail of it in the beginning has a significant bearing later in the film. I am not really a big fan of that since it is also some sort of convolution. I like it when the film have things in it which doesn't have anything to do with the plot per se but adds minor but really cool things to it in terms of world building and fleshing out supporting characters. 'John Wick' and 'Mad Max: Fury Road' from recent times are good examples of such films. In Manichithrathazhu, there is a ten-minute sequence in the beginning through which the dynamics of relationship between the different families in it is established in a neat fashion. The tension between Nedmudi's and Innocent's families is not really a necessary detail for the plot of the film but such small details are really great to have. Also, almost all the characters from the film are so well developed, without having to dedicate much time on an individual basis, that you can really describe what kind of personality they have and why they behave like they behave when put in the larger family relationship context. I am talking about characters played by Nedumudi, Innocent, KPAC Lalitha, Sudheesh and characters like 'Alli' and 'Sreedevi'. All of this is done with minimum fuss. The sequence in which KPAC Lalitha is seemingly coming on to her husband character played by Innocent and both of them gets embarrassed when 'Sreedevi' enters the room is a case in point. That scene can be purely seen as a comedy one but it is a nice little detail that the spinster, Sreedevi, is the third person involved in it and it kind of adds to her status as a tragic figure in the family. Of course, we get more details regarding her relationship with Nakulan only later on in the film, but these are just nice little things that you notice on repeat watches regarding how intelligently this film was made.
The film won National Award for 'Best Popular Film for Providing Wholesome Entertainment' and Shobhana was awarded National Award for 'Best Actress'. It broke the record to become the Highest Grossing Malayalam film of all time then and I suspect if you adjust for inflation and calculate, it might still be holding that record. It is a really a worthy one to hold that record because I think no other films from Malayalam have managed such a fine balance when it comes to making a film that is so commercial yet so intelligent. I have embedded a youtube link for the film with English subtitles for those who are interested to watch it in all its glory.
Aadu Thoma (Mohanlal) is the village rowdy who is at odds with his very strict father, Chacko Master (Thilakan), a retired school headmaster. Over the course of the film we learn that his father, who believes that Mathematics is World's heartbeat, wanted him to be a genius in mathematics whereas his son's interest lied with practical science. The corporal punishment and constant discouragement forced him to leave the house as a teenager only to return 14 years later as the village rowdy. Film is basically about the relationship between the father-son duo and the title of the film translates as Prism, which is a metaphor for how differently humans can behave when faced with different kind of experiences in life.
These days we are not so blessed with a deluge of films that are classed as 'Mass', a word that I very much hate when used to describe a film or a scene. This film would qualify as such without even trying to be so and that makes it much more better when compared. In stead of having scenes that try to milk the audience for effect, this one is all about the character and so the scenes just comes naturally without feeling as if it is a set-piece. Film maker invests enough time in developing the character. Aadu Thoma is like a Christian version of Mangalassery Neelakandan from 'Devasuram' but while the latter mellows down very much after the first half of that film, Aadu Thoma is pretty much the rough guy the whole way through. I do think first halves of both these films are very much superior to their second halves since it is more interesting when we don't know much about the characters. I do rate both films overall around the same level and these two anti-hero characters are iconic when you talk about Mohanlal's filmography and it is precisely this anti-heroism that makes them so.
Overall it is a very good watch but there is an element of laziness when it comes to continuity in certain scenes. Also there are some scenes in which some characters just turn up conveniently for no apparent reason. The ending of the film seems very rushed and putting a time-bomb in a lorry doesn't seem that logical to take out a character as there is no guarantee that he will be in the lorry when it explodes, especially when timer is set for hours later. There is a unique visual tone to the film which gives it a Western feel sometimes and there are some great shots from under the lorry. Action sequences are very well done with a realness to it. Ending of the film have the protagonist getting arrested and you will really feel for the character in the same way that you felt for Mohanlal's character from 'Naduvazhikal'. A non-triumphant ending is something that you don't see nowadays in such kind of films and they always have laughably convoluted ways by which the hero escapes justice after killing dozens of people. Film was the highest grosser from 1995 and ran for a total of 225 days at the box office.
It is a cinematic adaptation of the Novella 'Bhaskara Pattelarum Ente Jeevithavum' by Malayalam writer Paul Zacharia and it explores the master-slave dialectic in Southern Karnataka settings. Thommy (M.R. Gopakumar) is a Christian migrant labourer from Kerala who is new to the Karnataka-Kerala border village in which Pattelar (Mammootty) is sort of the feudal overlord. When they first meet, Pattelar proceeds to humiliate the migrant and subsequently rapes his wife. Even though Thommy is enraged at first he is helpless to do anything about it. On top of that he is co-opted by Pattelar into his inner circle by offering him a job in the local toddy shop and makes him his trusted servant. The title of the film translates as 'The Servile' and is told from the perspective of Thommy.
Going by the above synopsis some would presume that the film is a tale of cruelty told in a very serious fashion. My memory of it from watching bits and pieces of it when I was very young was also like that. But it is told with plenty of black humor with minimal dialog. Pattelar is not portrayed as the uber bad guy and is someone with his own insecurities and vulnerabilities. When he asks Thommy's help to kill his wife and make it look like an accident, he quips that her brothers can be a troublesome if it is not done properly. The feudal master-slave dynamics still exist in many rural parts of India but is extinct in Kerala. The time period that the film is set in is not mentioned explicitly and I would guess it to be mid 70s or something like that. The character Pattelar speaks Kannada as his mother tongue and delivers Malayalam in a very odd manner when he speaks to Thommy. It was off-putting initially as it also sounded different to Mammootty's normal voice and we are so used to how he speaks. M.R. Gopakumar is amazing in his role as Thommy but it was Mammootty who got the national award for his role in this film. On balance, I think the former was more deserving to win but one should praise the latter for accepting such a role that would be considered by many to be very negative. Trivia: Steven Spielberg wanted to work with Indian actor M.R. Gopakumar in the movie, but due to his passport traveling issues he was unable to accept that offer to act in Lost World: Jurassic Park.
I hadn't seen any of the Adoor Gopalakrishnan films in its entirety prior to watching this and Vidheyan was indeed a great watch. The recent Malayalam films from him doesn't look very interesting and I don't know whether it is due to the fact that he is hamstrung by limited actors from this generation. In Vidheyan, the dialog delivery in the able shoulders of its two leads is quite safe but lesser actors can certainly make it quite grating to watch. There is one scene towards the end when Pattelar and Thommy decides to go into hiding and we see Thommy's wife crying and approaching someone. You expect that she is actually approaching Pattelar to complete Thommy's emasculation but instead she goes to Thommy. Then Thommy consoles her that he will take care of Pattelar as if that is top of her worries and that was amazingly funny and sums up the film as a tragi-comedy. As far as technical things go, I watched a really shite youtube print of the film and it is not fair to comment based on that. Anyway it is shot in a very raw manner and the approach is that of realism. I guess if you are looking into Adoor Gopalakrishnan's filmography, Vidheyan will be a very good film to start with.
Director: Barry Levinson Writers: Larry Beinhart, Hilary Henkin, David Marnet Cast: Dustin Hoffman, Robert De Niro, Anne Heche
Shortly before an election, a spin-doctor and a Hollywood producer join efforts to fabricate a war in order to cover up a presidential sex scandal. Robert De Niro plays the role of spin-doctor while Dustin Hoffman is the Hollywood producer. The film was released one month before the outbreak of the Clinton-Monica Lewinsky sex scandal and the subsequent bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan by the Clinton administration prompted the media to draw comparisons between the film and reality. It is a loose adaptation of Larry Beinhart's novel 'American Hero'.
I read somewhere that when Tarantino screened Reservoir Dogs somewhere, he warned the audience that those who enjoyed Rain Man among them are advised to leave since his film is not for them. I don't know if there is any truth to that story but I do enjoy Tarantino films and I did enjoy Rain Man when I saw it some years back. That one was also directed by Barry Levinson and is the right kind of feel-good film that I actually enjoyed watching. He had also directed Sleepers which also featured both Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro and was a decent watch. But I found it really difficult to finish this film of his which was quite well-received upon its release. It did have a fortunate timing due to the events after its release. The film is like a cynical take on how things are spun and presented in American politics and it does so with the subtlety of bashing someone's head repeatedly with a baseball bat. It is like Disney version of 'In The Loop'. It got academy awards nomination for its screenplay and maybe the element of it being a film depicting some Hollywood producer swung it for them. They do have a habit of conferring things on such kind of films and films like Argo and The Artist are examples for the same. Dustin Hoffman also got nominated and it must have been a poor year. Then again, one shouldn't take academy awards too seriously.
To sum up, the film is a terrible watch despite boasting a stellar cast list. It did have an interesting theme which should resonate because of things like how consensus was built for Iraq-War but the whole planned thing of planting stories with great perfection didn't really do it for me. The humor in it is also not the kind I like and I prefer much more of sweary darkness. The film's success proves that there are plenty of people who enjoy the kind of humor that is there in this film. The performances from the cast are nothing spectacular to write home about and it is filmed in a very 90s Hollywood style (Think Natural Born Killers, JFK etc) of which I am not a big fan of.
