Traffic (2000)

Director: Steven Soderbergh
Writers: Stephen Gaghan, Simon Moore
DOP: Peter Andrews (Steven Soderbergh)
Cast: Michael Douglas, Benicio del Toro, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Don Cheadle, Erika Christensen

An intertwined drama about the United States' War on Drugs, seen through the eyes of a once conservative judge, now newly appointed drug Czar, his crack-addicted daughter, two DEA agents, a jailed- drug kingpin's wife, and a Mexican cop who begins to question his boss' motives.

There are three main storylines in three different geographical locations and the threy are differentiated for the audience by three different colour tones adopted by Steven Soderbergh, who himself handled the camera for the film. I had seen this film many years ago and was hugely impressed by it. I went in for rewatch with some premonition as every War on Drugs films/TV series suffer from post 'The Wire' syndrome as you tend to compare everything with this gold standard. Wire had 60 hours to develope its world and story while Soderbergh gets only less than three hours. Considering that, Traffic matches its ambition and still stands the test of time. Then again, you cannot really compare the two as Traffic is from a white perspective while Wire from a black.

The huge ensemble cast does a terrific job and Benicio del Toro got his Oscar for best supporting actor for this Spanish speaking role. Soderbergh also won the academy award for best director. Film is an adaptation of Channel Four Brirish drama 'Traffik'. Soderbergh cited 'All the President's Men' as an inspiration for the film and I also got reminded of Michael Mann's 'The Insider'. Multiple storyline were quite in vogue during those times and Soderbergh's effort is among the best if you consider it as a genre onto itself.

Rating: 5/5

Gosford Park (2001)

Director: Robert Altman
Writers:   Bob Balaban, Robert Altman, Julian Fellowes
Cast:       Michael Gambon, Maggie Smith, Helen Mirren

The lives of upstairs guests and downstairs servants at a party in 1932 in a country house in England as they investigate a murder involving one of them.

Apart from its period settings, I didn't know much about the film going into it. The murder happens only halfway through the film and this lack of knowledge about its plot made what came before even more enjoyable. It really looked as if a social studies kind of film with a 'Festen' twist to it. The behavioral examination of  decaying British aristocracy and the parallel world of their servants which also mimics the social hierarchy of their masters' were fascinating to look at  and the wise words of the Russian Duchess from the recently watched Peaky Blinders series three came in handy. Even though it takes a whodunit turn midway through the film, it doesn't toe the traditional lines as the investigating officer played by Stephen Fry is a bumbling idiot. We also don't care much about the whodunit aspect as we are interested much more in the way the characters behave rather than treating it as a puzzle that we should solve.

It is a great watch and all the films that I have seen of Robert Altman's have been great. Nashville is next on my list. The TV series 'Downtown Abbey' was initially  conceived as a spin-off show from this film and but later it ended up as a stand-alone one. Gosford Park has got a great ensemble cast and it must have been a big break for Clive Owen.

PS: British period drama are really a mystery to me. You just don't feel like watching them but if you can get past the first 15 minutes or so, it more often than not impresses you. Am not talking about shit like King's Speech but more in the vein of Atonement, Jane Eyre etc...

Rating: 4.5/5

Matchstick Men (2003)

Director: Ridley Scott
Writers:  Eric Garcia, Nicholas Griffin, Ted Grifiin
Cast:      Nicolas Cage, Alison Lohman, Sam Rockwell

A phobic con artist and his protege are on the verge of pulling off a lucrative swindle when the former's teenage daughter arrives unexpectedly.

Nicolas Cage's recent filmography can be described as a sea of shit. But in between he gives gems like Bad Lieutenant and Kick-Ass. Matchstick Men is one such turn even though some might find all his twitching and mannerisms to be bordering on ridiculousness. Sam Rockwell is playing a typical Sam Rockwell role (think Seven Psychopaths) and Alsion Lohman is excellent as the daughter. The twist in it can be pretty much guessed from the get-go but that is not a big problem because they don't play it up to that extent. The film is basically about humanizing Nicolas Cage's character with the introduction of a father-daughter relationship in his life. The humor helps in tiding over what can be deemed as sentimentality. 

It is a very good watch as long as you find Nicolas Cage's performance in it to be not very distracting. At first, I found it to be a bit irritating but wasn't a problem  as the film progressed. It is an adaptation of Eric Garcia's novel with the same name which came out in 2002. It is always good to see Ridley Scott doing a normal kind of film as we normally associate him with films of 'epic' nature. 

Rating: 3.5/5

Ghost World (2001)

Director: Terry Zwigoff
Writers:  Daniel Clowes, Terry Zwigoff
Cast:       Tora Birch, Scarlett Johansson, Steve Buscemi

With only the plan of moving together after high-school, two unusually devious friends seek direction in life. As a mere gag, they respond to a man's newspaper ad for a date, only to find that it will greatly complicate their lives and their relationship.

The film opens on an unexpected note with the opening credits featuring an yesteryear Bollywood disco song. The film is basically about friendship if you look from the perspective of the relationship between the two girls in it. Most of what we call as friends are merely acquaintances who become part of our lives for a brief while as we move across various stages of life. As we move from one stage to next, we lose them from our life in a conscious manner or just by not bothering to keep in touch. Finishing school and the time after that is the first time that we do this process and since it is first time, it happens over a longer period of time. By the time we finish graduation, it happens a lot quicker and after post-graduation it will be quite swift. Whoever that stay out of the cull list remain as friends for life, probably. It is a phenomenon that doesn't get looked at enough in films and Ghost World does essentially that even though it is not limited to that. Film is told mainly from the perspective of Thora Birch's character centering on her relationship with her best friend from school and the older Steve Buscemi character. Birch being the weirder one out of the two and Johansson is the more normal one who will go on to have a normal sort of life. That transition happens over the course of the film.

Overall, it is a very good watch and is like 'Napoleon Dynamite' with girl characters. Which reminds me that I should watch that film again (Vote for Pedro!!!). Thora Birch already had her big break with 'American Beauty' while this one came before Scarlett Johansson's breakout role in 'Lost in Translation'. Steve Buscemi is someone who is famous for playing type cast kind of roles and it was good to see him playing a character which was very much against his type. I haven't seen any other film of Terry Zwigoff's who hasn't really made too many films.  

Rating: 3.5/5    

Reprise (2006)

Director: Joachim Trier
Writers:  Joachim Trier, Eskil Vogt
Cast:      Anders Danielsen Lie, Espen Klouman Hoiner, Viktoria Winge
Language: Norwegian

Two competitive friends- Philip & Erik, fueled by literary aspirations and youthful exuberance, endure the pangs of love, depression and burgeoning careers. Philip gets his novel published first but suffers from a psychosis which hinders his writing. Erik is still waiting for his first book to be published. They have a circle of friends, mostly from 'other' part of Oslo, whom doesn't share many of their interests particularly but all of them still hang out together signifying that they are still finding their feet in the world ahead of settling down.

It is unique film that deals with something that should be relatable to all. Event though it is told from the perspective of the two young writers and seem like a film about writing and success, it is actually about friendship. Most films, dealing with such a subject, have a tendency to show a higher degree of friendship between all members of the group. This one doesn't do so as the two central characters have the deepest friendship and with the rest, they have varying degrees of depth of relationship, as all of them don't have much in common. Most of us acquire different sets of friends/acquaintances in each stage of our life- one set from school/neighborhood, another one during college and another one from work. If you go by the personalities of people in each set, it will differ based on where you are at in terms of your own personality at that point of time in your life. The former most set, from school/neighborhood, will mostly have the most diverse set of personalities as they were acquired at a time when you have not figured yourself out yet and there is a sense of default aspect to it since you didn't have much choice regarding the geographic location of your home. The set of people in this film is also one like that as it conveys Oslo's small-town nature.

It does have a slightly complex and quirky narrative with multiple characters. You get seamless time-jumps and narration over imagined sequences, which reminded me very much of Spike Lee's '25th Hour'. There is a lengthy such sequence towards the end of the film which we are not sure whether it was just imaginary or whether all the characters in it did have a happy ending. The central characters are portrayed in such a way that we are not sure whether they are really happy when good things happen to the other. It is really a adult way of handling such friendships on screen, a rare thing to see in films as people have a tendency to take it to 11, unnecessarily. 

Overall it is a great watch and was Norway's official submission for the Academy Awards. It won't be up everyone's alley and one's level of enjoyment will very much depend on what it evokes in you. Jaochim Trier made his directorial debut with this film and am gonna check out his other films, if I can actually obtain them. I haven't seen many films from Norway as it looks like the least prolific when compared to the other two Scandinavian countries- Sweden and Denmark. That said, 'Kraftidioten' from last year was indeed a great one from Norway.

Rating: 4/5

                                                                       

Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005)

Director: George Clooney
Writers:  George Clooney, Grant Heslov
Cast:       David Strathairn, George Clooney, Robert Downey Jr.

Film is an historical drama portraying the conflict between veteran radio and television journalist Edward R. Murrow and US senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, especially relating to the anti-communist Senator's actions with the Senate Permanent Committee on Investigations. It focuses on the theme of media responsibility and also addresses what occurs when the media offer a voice of dissent against Government policy. 

2005 was a good time for the film to get released because the media in US, now fully corporatised, didn't do his job post 9-11 as terrorist scare was used to push through all sorts of questionable legislations like 'Patriot Act' and conduct some dubious wars. Red Scare was something similar that happened in US after the second world war, whipped up by the likes of J. Edgar Hoover & Senator McCarthy. The communist bogey was used to infringe upon civil rights and liberties, and the activities that they did on its name look totally ridiculous when looked back upon. But you have to be mindful of the cold war context and the nuclear threat to realize how they got support/silent approval to do so. The film will also be very relatable to us Indians, who are going through a similar state of affairs under a right-wing government. Accusations of being commie naxals/Maoists and an order to go to Pakistan is something that is hurled at dissenting voices these days in Modi's India. 

The film is in black and white and features an excellent central performance from David Strathairn capturing subtle mannerisms. The title of the film comes from Murrow's signature parting line in his show. Film uses archive footage of McCarthy and so he plays himself in it. I has recently read a NYT piece which cited the questionable practice of Ed Murrow in which he uses his show to promote a cigarette brand by having a smoke. That does look shocking when looked from a modern context, especially as we don't see people smoking on TV in a non-entertainment program these days. But I have to say that, I did see David Lynch on Charlie Rose show, in the 90s, having a smoke and looking cool while doing that. George Clooney manages to convey a sense of somberness throughout the film and it works as a good docu-drama. But, I think, I would have preferred to see it as a straight-up documentary. At the end of it, you do go: 'Is that it?'. Still it is quaint to see them, during the early days of TV journalism, worry about the influence of corporate side influencing journalism, while these days we are taking it as a given and always look at who owns the outlet and assume some bias.

PS: If you hear about McCarthyism, as I have been these days with increasing frequency, then it refers to accusation of treason or subversion without proper regard for evidence.

Rating: 3.5/5

                                                                      

Polytechnique (2009)

Director: Denis Villeneuve
Writers:  Jacques Davidts, Denis Villeneuve
Cast:       Maxim Gaudette, Sebastian Huberdeau, Karin Vanasse
Language: French

A dramatization of the Montreal massacre of 1989 where several female engineering students were murdered by an unstable misogynist. The film is shot in Black and White and the version that I saw was the French one. It is said to be a fictional dramatization of the massacre in which 28 people were shot at with 14 women dying. The massacre was a major spur for Canadian gun control movement.

I didn't know the exact premise of the film going into it and the film makes it clear from the first scene itself with a gunfire at a photocopying booth. Film is told mainly from three perspectives-that of the killer, a male student and a female mechanical engineering student. Director jumps through timelines and gives a dispassionate account without feeling the need to make it as if it is a big social message. Since I didn't know about the real life background of the event, I was bemused by the premise that someone will do a massacre targeting what he sees as 'Feminists'. In India also, if you go by twitter, there is a tendency to blame 'Femi-Nazis' (their term for feminists) for all sorts of things and it is not surprising coming from people who are opposed to reservation (Indian version of affirmative action to combat caste based discrimination). Many don't realize the default privileges that they enjoy and have a notion that they get to where they are through their own 'hard work' entirely.

It was interesting to see that in the developed world also, females taking up mechanical engineering would raise eyebrows, at least in 1989. In India, it is very common to have male only mechanical engineering batches. The killing spree in the film starts in a mechanical engineering class where the killer asks the female students and male students to split up. He then accuses female students of being feminists for taking up the course they did and starts the shooting. He commits suicide after the killing spree and the cause that he took up was identified as anti-feminism based on his own oral statements during the killing and targeting of females during the shooting. The massacre also sparked off controversies, as initially the male students were criticized for not intervening and later on feminists were criticized for using the murder to promote their cause.

Overall it is a great watch and it being in black and white affords the director an opportunity to show the gruesomeness. A droning sound is used as BGM when the story is shown from the perspective of the killer, which reminded me of 'Under the Skin'. Despite the subject matter, it is an exquisite film visually. The fact that the killer had a motive makes the film more interesting to watch. Denis Villeneuve is a very promising director even though the film for which he got all the acclaim, 'Prisoners', is hugely overrated. If I were to rank his films, it would be like:

1) Enemy

2) Polytechnique

3) Incendies

4) Prisoners

His latest film. Sicario, has been very well received by the critics and I can't wait to watch it. He is also slated to direct the upcoming Blade Runner project as well.

Rating: 4/5   

                                                                       

The Bridge (2006)

Director: Eric Steel
Writer:   Tad Friend

This is a documentary exploration about the mythic beauty of the Golden Gate Bridge, the most popular suicide destination in the world, and those drawn by its call. Steel and his crew filmed the bridge from two separate locations during daylight hours for all of 2004 and thereby recording most of the two dozen deaths in that year (and preventing several others). They also taped interviews with friends, families and witnesses, who recounts stories of struggles with depression, substance abuse and mental illness. 

Before watching this, the thing that I remember foremost about Golden Gate Bridge in San Fransisco would be that scene from the film 'Vertigo'. The bridge was opened in 1937 and recorded approximately 1200 deaths by 2003. Apparently its death toll has since been surpassed by Nanjing Yangtze river bridge with more than 2000 deaths by 2006. For Golden Gate Bridge, the fall is around four seconds long and you will reach 120 miles per hour by the time you hit water after the 245 feet fall and is equivalent to the force of a speeding truck hitting a concrete wall. It holds a fatality rate of 98% which makes it attractive for those want to commit suicide. 

Some of the people, who were filmed jumping by the makers and died, were with mental problems and others were dealing with things like depression, alienation and just plain desire to die. There is one guy whose life is recounted by a family friend. His single-mother had contemplated abortion when she had him but decides against it since she thought that the kid will tide her over her own depression. When the mother died after suffering from cancer, this guy saw it pointless to continue with his life and communicates the same to their family friend who is recounting this. This is the only instance in the film where there is matter-of-factness about the whole thing and rest of the stories are the typical ones you hear. There is stigma attached to suicide in the society and a sense of bitterness by surviving acquaintances as if it is a crime against them. It is an extremely predictable reaction because all these feelings come up because you tend to empathize, sympathize, get angry, guilty etc from a selfish point of view. You feel pain when you see someone suffering because you put yourself in that position. Most things happen from a selfish point of view. 

Overall the documentary is a very good watch in the surreal sort of sense. I found the first half of it more interesting as I wasn't sure about the theme of the documentary. The second half features story of someone surviving the fall and also some garden variety suicidal stories which I didn't find that interesting. The last sequence of the film is the one they captured best on film and also the coolest jump out of the lot. This guy with long hair is featured through out the film with him walking on the bridge. Some have criticized the film for its snuff factor but I don't think it is a valid criticism. The crew had made their motivation for filming a secret from the officials and avoided any sort of publicity. You have the freedom to make art out of anything and the film is poetic and disturbing at the same time and makes for a very surreal watch. I have always felt that jumping out of heights is a good way to die as you do enjoy an exhilarating free-fall as a bonus feature.

“	Why he chose the bridge? I don't know… Maybe he just wanted to fly one time.	”
—Caroline Pressley, Gene's friend

Rating: 3.5/5 

                                                                              

Burn After Reading (2008)

Directors: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
Writers:   Ethan Coen, Joel Coen
Cast:        Brad Pitt, Frances McDormand, George Clooney, Tilda Swinton, John Malkovich

A disk containing the memoirs of a CIA agent ends up in the hands of two unscrupulous gym employees who attempts to sell it, first to the CIA agent and then to Russians. 

Coming immediately after the universally acclaimed 'No Country For Old Men', Burn After Reading kind of received a critical backlash at the time of its release which was more of a reaction based on what people expected from the film rather than an objective assessment based on its merits. It is not a great film by any means but is nevertheless a very good watch with so many funny moments. We are used to sophisticated intelligence community films and also films where they are shown as bumbling fools. This kind of treads the middle path with those from CIA trying to get their heads around what is happening which is very much like how the audience is also reacting even though we are privy to more information. 

It is as star-studded as it can get in a Coens film. Performances are very good with many of them playing against type. It is one of those films with plenty of chance encounters connecting all the various characters and driving the film forward. But one does feel the connection between Frances McDormand and George Clooeny's character is a bit too convoluted and unnecessary in the large scheme of things. It was interesting to see some of the actors from Veep showing up in the film. I had seen it several years back close to  its release and was pleasantly surprised by it because of low expectations. It held up well on re-watch and is an underrated gem in the Coens' filmography. Camera was handled by Emmanuel Lubezki rather than their usual collaborator Roger Deakins.

Rating: 3.5/5

                                                                       

แสงศตวรรษ (Syndromes and a Century) (2006)

Director: Apichatpong Weerasethakul
Writer:    Apichatpong Weerasethakul
Cast:       Nantarat Sawaddikul, Jaruchai Iamaram, Sophon Pukanok
Language: Thai

Story about director Apichatpong Weerasethakul's parents who were both doctors, and director's memories about growing up in the hospital environment. I didn't know anything about the film going into it and this semi-autobiographical aspect was lost on me. I had seen 'Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives' from this director and saw this film as part of catching up with other films in his repertoire. 

The film shows two doctors both of whom are serving in an army hospital 40 years apart. The dialog and events in first part of the film are repeated again 40 years later in contemporary settings but with slightly different outcomes. Concept of reincarnation is again a theme in this film but I don't care much for it. The film is technically sound and the interaction between the characters are interesting enough to make it a good watch. There isn't much of a narrative or any sort of continuity to follow and I didn't get much meaning out of it. You do have the change in human interactions with modernity as people become more and more impersonal. There is a scene towards the end where people are engaging in a public aerobics exercise and that scene is very funny. The first half of the film doesn't have any background music while there is some in the second half. 

To sum up, it is a good enough watch mainly due to the random dialog and its technical aspects but I didn't really understand the film. The sets are exquisite and I might have got more out of the film if I was in a different mood without any distractions but as it stands, it just went over my head. Maybe there is nothing to actually get and that's the point. Open to stand corrected on re-watch but I don't think I will ever get round to  it. Uncle Boonmee was fantastic in an Ozu meets David Lynch kind of way.

Rating: 3/5

                                                                         

Bamako (2006)

Director: Abderrahmane Sissako
Writer:    Abderrahmane Sissako
Cast:       Aissa Maiga, Tiecoura Traore, Maimouna Helene
Language: French, Bambara, English

The film depicts a trial taking place in Bamako,  the capital of Mali, amid the daily life that is going on in the city. The two sides argue whether the World Bank and IMF are guided by special interest of developed nations, or whether it is corruption and the individual nations' mismanagement, that is guilty of the current financial states of many poverty-stricken African countries as well as the rest of the poor underdeveloped world.

The central idea of the film, aid given to African countries which end up as debt in their balance sheet does more harm to these countries and their people than good, has been tackled in mainstream media prior to this and there have been books devoted to the same. The film conveys this idea in a play like fashion with the fake court procedure. It doesn't quite descend into the age old debate of Capitalism Vs Socialism and those who are making the case against the banks states the importance of public institutions like schools, hospitals, transportation etc for the prosperity of their people. Giving them loans and insisting on privatization of these things do more harm than good. 

The book 'Why Nations Fail' provides the best explanation for why many of the poor nations remain poor. It states that capitalism is indeed the best solution but for it to succeed, you need strong institutions and property reforms to ensure that there is enough at stake for the people to make democracy work. If that is not the case, then whatever the development banks try to push through as structural reforms will end up enriching the private contractors from developed world and the elite of the poor countries. It will do fuck all good for the people. I am not in the camp which states that IMF, World Bank etc are pursuing this as an agenda but this is how it ends up and you have decades of evidence for the same. What you see looking from outside is continuation of imperialism but this time in the financial form and you end up with issues like terrorism and immigration. It is a bit rich of developed countries to complain about these issues when they have a very big hand in the creation of the same. If you are so adamant about globalization with free movement of capital, then why balk at the prospect of immigration which is essentially free movement of labor.

Overall the film is a good watch but I didn't care much for the non-court scenes in the film and its symbolism which included a Western genre film within the film. There are better documentaries dealing with the same issue and one episode in Adam Curtis' 'Pandora's Box' which essentially deals with the same topic in a more informed manner. But a feature film will always attract more attention if done well and this managed to do so by getting released at Cannes film festival. 

Rating: 3/5

                                                                       

Intolerable Cruelty (2003)

Director: Joel Coen
Writers:  Robert Ramsey, Matthew Stone, Ethan Coen, Joel Coen
Cast:       George Clooney, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Billy Bob Thornton

A revenge-seeking gold digger (Catherine Zeta-Jones) marries a womanizing Beverley Hills lawyer (George Clooney) with the intention of making a killing in the divorce.

It is the first film from Coens that is not set in a period of sorts. Even Big Lebowski was set in 1990 making it not exactly a contemporary set film on its release year 1998. Since Intolerable Cruelty, they have made Burn After Reading, an underrated film of theirs, which was also set in contemporary times. This aspect certainly gives it a different feel, at least initially, to the film when compared to typical Coens film and another novelty was that it was not an original screenplay from them. Film is not looked favorably now even though upon its release it was very well received by the critics. After watching this, it makes 'The Ladykillers' to be the only film from Coens that I have not watched and am not planning to watch that anyway.

It is a pretty good watch overall even though it is not up to their usual standards. George Clooney's role and the story arc is very similar to his character in the film 'Up In The Air' which came much later. There are enough laughs in it till the midway mark and by then you figure out where it is going. Still, the way it gets there is a bit surprising, without going all melodramatic on us, and the killer at the house scene is hilarious. It goes more and more slapstick as it goes on and you could see a bit of 'O Brother' creeping into George Clooney. Film is essentially about cynicism behind pre-nup agreements and I think it should be made mandatory for all marriages so that people don't have to be guilty about demanding it. Guess rationalism is not something you associate with the institution of marriage.

Rating: 3/5

                                                                       

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)

Directors: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
Writers:    Ethan Coen, Joel Coen, Homer (poem Odyssey)
Cast:         George Clooney, John Turturro, Tim Blake Nelson

In the deep south during the 1930s. three escaped convicts search for a hidden treasure while a relentless lawman pursues them. 

O Brother is an overlooked film by many when they talk about Coen brothers' filmography and the period after Big Lebowski from 1998 up to release of No Country for Old Men in 2007 is often considered as a lean period for them. Apart from O Brother, they made The Man Who Wasn't There, Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers during that period out of which I haven't seen the latter two making them the only Coens films that I haven't seen yet. I saw O Brother some four or so years back and thoroughly enjoyed it. The print that I saw was a shitty one which didn't do justice to the Sepia-toned cinematography done by Roger Deakins and it was quite appropriate for me to revisit it in 720p.  It was the first film to extensively use digital color correction giving it, what fuckwits calls these days, an instagrammed look. 

The less than intellectual characters headed by rationalist played by George Clooney, who is a Dapper Dan man,  is at the center of it and I found them very funny. The level of enjoyments you get out of the film will very much depend on whether you buy George Clooney in his role and I didn't have any problems with it. There is a Forrest Gump feel to the whole thing with it touching upon features of the era it is set in like KKK, depression era politics, radio broadcasts, commercialization of music etc. It is really a charming film and the comedy is not as dark as they are in a typical Coens film. 

Film was quite successful at box office but its soundtrack was a blockbuster spawning a documentary and three follow-up albums. Noted musician and producer T-Bone Burnett, who is familiar for me from his work in True Detective, worked with Coens during the production stage itself. Even though George Clooney practiced his singing for the film, his part was dubbed over using the voice of Dan Tyminski. 

Overall it is great watch and might be up the ale of even those who are not quite fond of Coens. For me, they are in my top five three directors of all time and even possibly by most favorite period. They have tried out almost all the genres out there creating what can be described as classics in those and their broadness in range can be summed up by pointing out that they were behind 'The Big Lebowski' and 'No Country For Old Men'. 

Rating: 4/5

                                                                       

Superbad (2007)

Director: Greg Mottola
Writers:  Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg
Cast:       Jonah Hill, Michael Cera, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Emma Stone

Two co-dependent high school seniors are forced to deal with separation anxiety after their plan to stage a booze-soaked party goes awry. Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg began working on the script when they were 13 years old and finished the first draft by the time they were 15. The characters played by Jonah Hill and Michael Cera are named after Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg respectively.

I had seen it some 6-7 years back and is my favorite out of the frat-pack films by a big margin even though it is an uneven film. The first half of the film is great and is laugh a minute but the second half kind of peters out after the introduction of Seth Rogan and Bill Hader as two cops. Micahel Cera as Seth and Christopher Mintz-Plasse as McLovin are excellent while Jonah Hill is bit of a hit and miss and annoying just like the mood of the character he plays. For Cera, it is basically a reprisal of his role as George Michael from 'Arrested Development'. Both Emma Stone and McLovin were making their debuts with this film.

Overall it is a great watch even though I didn't care much for the latter half of the film. McLovin is the most Memefied character out of the film and he is certainly the most memorable. Micheal Cera's character is the most intelligently written. It is interesting how Jonah Hill's career has panned out from there with him getting some very good and meaty roles lately. Many wouldn't have foresaw 'Academy Award Nominee Jonah Hill' appearing in posters of '22 Jump Street'.

Rating: 3.5/5

                                                                              

Daybreakers (2009)

Directors: Michael Spierig, Peter Spierig
Writers:    Michael Spierig, Peter Spierig
Cast:        Ethan Hawke, Willem Dafoe, Sam Neill

In the year 2019, a plague has transformed almost every human into vampires. Faced with a dwindling supply of human blood, the fractured dominant race plots their survival; meanwhile, a researcher (Ethan Hawke) works with a covert band of humans survivors led by a former vampire (Willem Dafoe) on way to save mankind. 

The film came at a time when there were numerous vampire films getting released along with the 'Twilight' films. I don't know whether that would have helped or hindered the prospects of this film, nevertheless,  it made a very decent $50 million at the box office on a budget of $20 million. Like Spierig Bros' 2014 film, 'Predestination', this one was also made in Australia. Last year we had three great vampire films which did interesting things with the genre through subversion-Only Lovers Left Alive, A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night and What We Do In The Shadows. Daybreakers also subvert the genre conventions by setting it at a time when vampires are dominating humans and they themselves are on the brink of collapse due to human extinction. The most valuable resource in this world is human blood and there are firms who farm humans in a very 'Matrix' like fashion and the Pharmaceutical company the researcher works for offers blood substitute. Many directors would have taken the lazy route of explaining this cinematic universe through narration but in Daybreakers things are revealed in a gradual manner, trusting the intelligence of the audience, and this keeps the first hour of the film very interesting. After that it kind of descends into a typical genre film with lots of gore and action sequences. The vampire society is also very much like human society that it replaces, with class stratification, similar kind of blood-sucking corporations etc. 

Overall it is a great watch even though it is not a perfect film. Surprisingly enough, Willem Dafoe was quite underwhelming in this film, and you don't say that about him in almost any other film. It was good to see Sam Neill playing the antagonist role in his typical screen-chewy fashion that I am familiar with from 'Peaky Blinders'. Makeups and effects were quite good and the production value is great considering the budget. It is not as good as Predestination but is still a great watch.

Rating: 4/5

                                                                            

The Proposition (2005)

Director: John Hillcoat
Writer:    Nick Cave
Cast:       Ray Winstone, Guy Pearce, Emily Watson

A lawman (Ray Winstone) apprehends a notorious outlaw (Guy Pearce) and gives him nine days to kill his elder brother, or else they'll execute his younger brother. Film is set in Australian outback of the 1880s. 

Both the director and screenwriter are known for their involvement with Western films and this one is another one of those. Nick Cave is a man of many talents and have been involved in various films as musician, composer, screenwriter and actor. As far as moderns films in western genre goes, Andrew Dominik's 'Assassination of Jesse James by the coward Robert Ford' is the standout film along with Coens' 'True Grit'. One could consider Tarantino's last two films as Westerns but they are also many other things to be truly considered as a genre film. His next one, 'Hateful Eight', will be a typical Western film and when it comes out we can compare it with the other two I have mentioned earlier so as to ascertain where it stands in comparison. Knowing Tarantino these days, he might self indulge the shit out of it.

As for 'The Proposition', one can deduce from the plot synopsis itself that the story is pretty basic and it is all about the grittiness of the setting and the performances from the excellent cast that it has got. I am a huge fan of Guy Pearce and have always felt that he is quite underrated. He should have been in more films and maybe it is a choice that he is making from his part by opting out of shitty money-grab films. John Hurt plays a cameo in it and  is among the more interesting of characters from the film. The elder brother character played by Danny Huston was quite underwhelming. Film is largely told through the POV of the lawman character played by Ray Winstone.

Overall it is a great watch without being compelling enough to be termed as a great one. Maybe it was an intentional subversion of genre by taking away any humor, set-piece scenes or larger than life characters from it. The songs that are used in the film are like ballads and the film was commended for highly accurate portrayal of its aboriginal characters. Australia really did seem like a hellhole and the outbacks maybe still is. It was shot in Queensland. Guy Pearce starrer 'The Rover', which can be called a post-apocalyptic Western, is a better film than this and is highly recommended.

Rating: 3.5/5

                                                                       

La grande bellezza (The Great Beauty) (2013)

Director: Paolo Sorrentino
Writers:  Paolo Sorrentino, Umberto Contarello
Cast:       Toni Servillo, Carlo Verdone, Sabrina Ferilli
Language: Italian

Jep Gambardella has seduced his way through the lavish nightlife of Rome for decades, but after his 65th birthday and a shock from the past, Jep looks past the nightclubs and parties to find a timeless landscape of absurd, exquisite beauty- i.e. underneath all the blah, blah, blah....

Jep moved to Rome after writing his first and only novel, Human Apparatus, which is considered as a masterpiece. Since then he has lived the high society life in a prolonged semi-retired state writing cultural columns and interviewing arty-farty people for a lifestyle magazine. You can obviously draw comparisons with the Fellini masterpiece 'La Dolce Vita', but Jep is someone who is much higher in the food chain when it comes to Roman socialites. As he states in the film, he didn't just want to attend parties but wanted the power to make them fail. The shock from the past comes when a man, who was his first love's husband, comes to him and informs him of her death. He also tells him that Jep was her only true lover and she considered her husband just as a great companion. The incident serves him to reflect on his own life which seems unfulfilled. Being a self-aware person, one would think that it is something that he would have already thought of but it does seem to trigger something more. 

Sorrentino gives us a series of scenes through which we get a glimpse of Jep's lifestyle, which very much involves him attending many art events most of which are pretentious and hollow. Jep is at a stage in his life where he can see through all the bullshit. In a scene where he verbally undresses a socialite who masquerades as a writer, he states:

"We're all on the brink of despair, all we can do is look each other in the face, keep each other company, joke a little... Don't you agree? "

He is also contemptuous of people around him including himself and he sees things like funerals as a high society event where you need to hit all the right notes to appear nobly sorrowful without stealing the bereaved's thunder. He also proceeds to quiz people from religious institutions but one senses that he already know that they are also similar to how his friends are.The final encounter is with a Mother Teresa like nun who celebrates poverty which her PR bandwagon amplifies tenfold. She is 104 years old, the same age Mother Teresa would have been if she was alive at the time when  this film came out. She is also portrayed as someone who pushes the agenda of institution she belongs to and is evident when she claims to know the Christian names of migrating birds who are taking a rest in Jep's balcony. That said, she is not put down to the extent that others were. There is no big epiphany for Jep, but a gradual sense of enlightenment as he reflects on things. He tells her that he didn't write a second novel because he was looking for the great beauty which he was not able to find. The film ends with him reminiscing about the first sex he had with his only true lover and stating:

"This is how it always ends. With death. But first there was life, hidden beneath the blah, blah, blah... It's all settled beneath the chitter chatter and the noise, silence and sentiment, emotion and fear. The haggard, inconstant flashes of beauty. And then the wretched squalor and miserable humanity. All buried under the cover of the embarrassment of being in the world, blah, blah, blah... Beyond there is what lies beyond. And I don't deal with what lies beyond. Therefore... let this novel begin. After all... it's just a trick. Yes, it's just a trick. "

This was my second viewing of this film which I considers as the best one from 2013. You do get the feel that director is taking us into Jep's shoes, who is basically the director himself, and see the world through his eyes. So it is basically an observational film with an anthological feel rather than one with some plot revolving around a protagonist. Stunning visuals/cinematography and soundtrack are a given in Sorrentino films and Tony Servillo is great as always. Sorrentino can really film a party scene with the first one in the film lasting close to eight minutes or so. I have't seen the Sean Penn starring 'This Must be the Place' and didn't enjoy 'Il Divo' that much. 'Consequences of Love' and 'Family Friend' were both excellent but 'The Great Beauty' is indeed my favorite Sorrentino film.

Rating: 5/5

                                                                    

Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

Director: Ridley Scott
Writer:    William Monahan
Cast:       Orlando Bloom, Eva Green, Jeremy Irons, Edward Norton, Liam Neeson

Balian of Ibelin, travels to Jerusalem during the crusades of the 12th century, and there he finds himself as the defender of the city and its people. In the beginning of the film, Balian (Orlando Bloom) is a blacksmith, in a French village, grieving after his wife's suicide. He meets Lord of Ibelin- Godfrey (Liam Neeson) who tells him that Balian is his bastard son and invites him to the Holy Land. Godfrey dies on the way and Balian becomes Lord of Ibelin. Jerusalem is under the rule of the leper king, Baldwin (Edward Norton), who doesn't have any direct descendants and is about to die. When he dies, the kingdom will pass to his nephew, whose mother (Eva Green) has romantically fallen for Balian. Her husband is baying for a war with the Muslim king Saladin- with whom Baldwin has a truce as long as the Muslim pilgrims are protected. Everything comes to a head when the leper king dies.

The characters in the film are fictionalized versions of their Historical counterparts. The first time I watched it some years back, I wasn't that aware about the intricacies concerning crusades, and since then I have watched the BBC series-Crusades which was presented in a comical manner by Terry Jones (of Monty Python). It certainly helps in appreciating the film more in terms of understanding the negative light it casts on the fanatical Christians. It was those times when Europe was largely under the influence of Roman Catholic Church and was going through what we now call as the Dark Ages. The misguided missions of Crusades were representative of the European decline with it being an exercise that put barbaric European Christians against  the Islamic empire in its glory years. One could criticize the film for the extremely binary nature of its character portrayal. The actions taken by the negative Christian characters are extremely irrational and suicidal which would have made more sense if they were seen to be doing it because of religious reasons. I guess it is understandable because to have a much more nuanced story would be extremely difficult within the scope of a feature film when the scale is this big. Another big millstone for the film is of course its lead actor, Orlando Bland (© Mark Kermode), and I don't know how he was trusted with such a big role. He is surrounded by such good actors in this film that it really felt like giving Roy Hodgson the responsibility to manage an all star football eleven. 

Got to say that, despite all this, film is still a great watch. At least the director's cut version of it which I watched. It was released in a 144 minutes version which received only a mixed response from critics and general audience. The reaction to the DC, which is forty five minutes longer, was much better and this is another one of those Ridley Scott films that got mishandled by the studios. The film didn't do well in North America but got good response from rest of the world and particularly from Muslim countries. It came out in 2005, a post 9-11 world which was again going through turbulence which was again dangerously described as a clash of civilizations, compounded by Bush's crusades comment. Some took exception to how negatively Christians were portrayed in the film relative to Muslims, but I guess it was justified since it is much more intended towards western audience. Cinematography is absolutely stunning and the battle scenes were breathtaking. Soundtrack was also memorable and the performances from Edward Norton, a masked one, and Jeremy Irons were particularly excellent. It would have been even greater if they had cast someone good instead of Orlando Bloom as its lead. It is a much more memorable film than Gladiator, which is much more acclaimed.

Rating: 4/5

                                                                       

Napoleon (2000)

Four part PBS documentary series, part of their Empires series, about the rise and fall of one of the greatest military geniuses of modern times, from his Corsican childhood to final exile in St. Helena. 

I was curious about how Napoleon ended up being emperor of France since he came after the French revolution. I didn't have much knowledge about his story apart from his defeats against Russia and against England in Waterloo. So I ended up watching this documentary series as a learning process. He was actually a person from ordinary background who rose through the military ranks to become the emperor of France. He was born in 1769 and the French revolution lasted from 1789 till 1799. Napoleon was sympathetic towards the revolution's cause and he gained popularity through his military conquests which are explained in the documentary. In 1799, he staged a coup and declared: 'The revolution is over, I am the revolution'. He ruled like a dictator without much regard to liberty but he held the concept of equality close to his heart. The French Revolution was a watershed in Europe as all other monarchs in mainland Europe were threatened by it. Napoleon declared that he will support the cause of revolution if they were to arise in any other parts of Europe. The whole of  monarchy ruled Europe, facing an existential threat, united against him and declared war on France.

French Revolution also marked a big change in how military personnel were recruited. Before that, monarchs used to have a standing army of professionals whose numbers were quite limited because of the cost of maintaining them. French Revolution meant that it was left for the ordinary people to defend themselves against all the monarchs of Europe. This helped Napoleon to recruit in large numbers from ordinary folks, through mass conscription, and they had a higher cause to fight for. By 1803, Napoleon had declared himself to be emperor of France and the period of 1803-1815 was marked by a series of wars pitting Napoleon against an array of European powers formed into various coalitions. He declared and economic blockade against Britain which he tried to implement across whole Europe he conquered most of it. Britain was irritated by the reordering of international system by Napoleon in Europe and fearing being sidelined they declared war against him in 1803. Nothing much happened as French couldn't overcome British navy to conquer England. Meanwhile the Austrians were planning an attack against the Austrians with a pending support from the Russians. Napoleon preempted the attack and achieved a swift victory against Austrians through Italy.  This was followed up with victory against the Prussians and Napoleon entered into a treaty with Russian Czar after marching his army into the border with Russia. Russia agreed to participate in the economic blockade against Britain.

Napoleon's downfall started when he tried to conquer Spain, the only country in Europe who was participating in trade with Britain. He miscalculated that Spanish people will treat him and the French as liberators and as they rose up against him, he couldn't establish order in Spain the five years his army was there. By then Russians were struggling economically due to the blockade they were engaging in and declared war with Napoleon. Napoleon amassed an army of 600,000 men and marched to Russia. The decisive battle took place near Moscow which he won but the retreating Russians burned Moscow as they left. This made Napoleon's position untenable and he decided to go back with his army even as the Russian winter set in. Napoleon found out, as Hitler did later in second world war, that the vast Russian space is a big issue for any invading force. Only about 93,000 of his men survived out of his 600,000 men. By then a big coalition was set up against Napoleon and he abdicated his empire. He was exiled to the island of Elba, which he was allowed to rule. The coalition had appointed another king in France who was very weak and Napoleon managed to land in France in 1815 with a band of his followers and marched to France. The king ordered troops to intercept him and when one of those encountered his band, Napoleon proceeded to them and said: 'Soldiers, I am your emperor.  Know me!  If there is one of you who would kill his Emperor, here I am'. They abandoned their weapons and shouted:  ‘Vive l’Empereur!’ He got support from the army and the French people and ascended to his throne once again as the installed king fled. Again the whole of Europe and Britain united against him and the decisive battled took place in Waterloo, where he was defeated in what is described as a 'Close run thing'. He was exiled to the island of St. Helena where he was a prisoner. He lived there for five years before dying at the age of 51. Before his death he dictated his memoirs to his assistant which helped him in sealing his legendary status in the eyes of History.

The documentary is a good watch but it reminded me of why I don' generally prefer American produced documentaries with their over-enthusiastic narration and cringe-worthy reenactments. It doesn't go into details regarding the economic reasons behind the Napoleonic wars and works more like a Wikipedia page retelling of history. Arguably the greatest director of all time, Stanley Kubrick, had done research and worked on an ultimately futile Napoleon project. Napoleon is really a giant of History with av fascinating story and it is a shame that the project fell through.

Rating: 3/5

                                                                   

Band of Brothers (2001)

Based on: 'Band of Brothers' by Stephen E. Ambrose
Cast:         Damian Lewis, Ron Livingston, Matthew Settle, Scott Grimes, Donnie Wahlberg

The story of Easy Company of the US Army 101st Airborne division and their mission in WW2 Europe from operation Overlord through V-J Day. It consist of ten episodes and was an HBO DreamWorks production . Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg served as executive producers with the former directing one episode as well. With a budget of $125 million, it was the highest budgeted TV show at that point of time.

I had obtained 1080p print of Band of Brothers some time back (joys of ultra-fast XIMB broadband) but had postponed watching it primarily due to the involvement of Steven Spielberg. I am not really a fan of his and the fact that Saving Private Ryan played some part in the production of this series didn't really fill me with a great deal of confidence despite the great reviews that it got. My skepticism could be justified because SPR also got similar reviews when in fact it was a thoroughly average film after the first thirty or so minutes. It turns out that Spielberg was involved late in the production only, to serve as a final eye on the project, and it was largely developed by Tom Hanks and Erik Jendersen. My fears about it were thoroughly misplaced and Band of Brothers was a fucking great watch like everyone said it would be.

The entire story is based on the war efforts of Easy Company and therefore what we are getting is as much of an authentic account that we could possibly get in this format of what it was like for them. By the same token we don't get a strategic account of what really happened during the war and so it is more of a micro look as opposed to a macro one. The main advantage that BoB had over the SPR is the length with which it can work and they were not really under pressure to establish the main characters in the story immediately. In fact I actually started recognizing most of the characters by around fifth episode only. The first episode have them getting trained in USA first and then in England in preparation for D-Day while the second episode depicts their actions on D-Day. I found the third and fourth episodes to be like the low points of the series as they served more as disjointed accounts of some operations that they did. The fact that we don't have any protagonists as such made those episodes quite uninteresting for me but for people who like seeing army maneuvers and such it should still be enjoyable. After that, each of the episodes are told from the perspective of a particular protagonist and it gets better and better. The best two episodes of the entire series are the sixth one (Bastogne) and the seventh (The Breaking Point), both of which are set in Belgium during the brutal winter. By the end of seventh episode we are involved so much into the series that we don't mind the low key nature of the later episodes as the series stay true to what really happened with the war winding down. That said the ninth episode had a brutal depiction of them discovering a concentration camp for the first time. I got to say even though it was quite harrowing, I was affected much more when I saw the concentration camp episode from the documentary series 'World At War', which is also a must watch. 

Like many I guess, the favorite character from the show is the bad-ass Captain Ronald Speirs and the favorite scene would be his mad run in 'The Breaking Point'. I think my opinion of third and fourth episodes will change if I re-watch them because the fact that I know the characters now might alter my perception of it. The series was filmed largely in England and the snow filled Belgium episodes were done inside a hangar. The production quality of it is something else and at around 12 million per episode you can see how it managed to beat films of this genre. If you are hell-bent on finding faults with it, you can maybe criticize for the binary portrayal of most of its protagonists. It is understandable since most of these details are gleaned from the real life characters involved. Each episodes contain several brief interviews with real-life counterparts but their identities are only revealed at the end of tenth episode. Overall it is must watch and I would say the best TV series that I have seen in terms of the overall production quality. As far as favorites in TV drama series go, I think it will be third after 'The Wire' and 'True Detective'.

Rating: 4.5/5