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   

                                                                       

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

                                                                            

(500) Days of Summer (2009)

Director: Marc Webb
Writers:  Scott Neustadter, Michael H. Weber
Cast:       Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel, Geoffrey Arend

An offbeat romantic comedy about a woman who doesn't believe true love exists, and a young man who thinks the opposite and falls for her. 'Summer' in the title is the name of the girl and the film follows a non-linear narrative as it jumps from various days within 500-day span of Tom and Summer's relationship. Each of these jumps are indicated by a title card with day numbered & picture in it conveying the mood of the protagonist.

The entire film is based on Tom's perspective of the relationship and we don't get much insight into Summer in terms of her view of their relationship. The tone of the film is set with the following disclaimer:

AUTHOR'S NOTE: The following is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to any persons living or dead is purely coincidental. 

Especially you Jenny Beckman. 

 Bitch.

It is essentially about a guy who is finding it very hard to get over the girl who he thinks is the one, his only and true soul-mate. The relation starts off with the disclaimer from Summer that she in not looking for anything serious as she doesn't believe in the concept of love. Their first night spend together is followed up with an elated Tom breaking out into a dance routine as he go to the office. There is a sense of perfection to how Summer is portrayed and the same can be said about all other characters who are part of Tom's life, especially his much younger sister (Chloe Grace Moretz) who serves as a relationship adviser for him. This could be used as a point to criticize the film for its shallowness but it is a deliberate choice and it does not claim to be anything more than what it essentially is. Yeah, it is style over substance, but is  a very good watch belonging to a genre that is very hard to get right and one that you can enjoy a great number of times. The obvious comparison is to be made with 'Annie Hall' and 'High Fidelity' and for me it falls somewhere in between those two films in terms of greatness. High Fidelity is of course a more mature look with a much more cynical protagonist than in Days of Summer but latter is much more enjoyable to watch. 

This was my second viewing of the film and it was as much of a joy to watch as it was the first time round even though its shallowness is much more apparent. Alas, the entire point of the film is its protagonist making too much of the situation borne out of him choosing to see only one side of their relationship. Film ends with Tom meeting another woman, Autumn, through a chance encounter and you question whether the coming of age element in the film was more for Summer than him. The director, Marc Webb, who made a promising debut with this film was signed up for the shitty Spider Man franchise which was really a shame. 

Rating: 4.5/5

                                                                     

Whatever Works (2009)

Director: Woody Allen
Writer:    Woody Allen
Cast:       Larry David, Evan Rachel Wood, Henry Cavill

A middle-aged, misanthropic divorcee from New-York city surprisingly enters a fulfilling, Pygmalion-type relationship with a much younger, unsophisticated southern girl. He is a physicist who almost won a Nobel prize while she is the stereotypical blonde and dumb catholic bombshell from mid-west. 

Larry David in a Woody Allen film should be quite something right? I cannot really tell whether it is more of the typical Larry David from Curbs or is him acting as the alter-ego for Woody Allen in this film. Maybe both of them are one and the same, sharing a similar world-view and neurosis only varying in the intensity of it.  I am a fan of both of them and Seinfeld is among my favorite television shows with Curbs falling not far behind. In Seinfeld we had George Costanza as Larry's alter-ego while in Curbs he plays himself in a largely improvised fashion. The screenplay for Whatever Works was written by Allen in the 70s originally for Zero Mostel and with the actor's death the project was shelved. Allen dusted off his old script when Hollywood was facing the Writer's strike and cast Larry David who was initially a bit apprehensive since he had done largely improvisational style work. 

It is essentially another version of 'Magic in the Moonlight' or rather vice versa to make chronological sense. Both of them have protagonists with a very pessimistic but realistic outlook to life. Their first relationship shown in the films were with partners that made all the logical sense. Both of them then gets smitten by someone who is just the exact opposite of themselves and thus being a totally illogical match. Woody Allen is trying to emphasize the fact that when it comes to love, luck and pure chance plays a bigger role compared to logic. As Boris (Larry David) puts it, since we live in an indifferent world without any purpose to our lives, try to get whatever joy you can derive out of it and choose whatever works. 

Overall it is a good watch without being anything more than that. Some of the characters are intentionally cartoonish and maybe the script being from the 70s contributed to it in terms of the portrayal of both red-neck as well liberal characters. It marked a return to New-York for Woody Allen after making four films in Europe. The way he shot New-York is more like Kubrick's 'Eyes Wide Shut' style rather than his own characteristic 'Annie Hall' like look. Boris breaks the fourth wall quite a number of times and there are plenty of jokes that you might miss if you don't pay attention (Abyss one for eg). If you are fan of Woody Allen or Larry David, then you will certainly enjoy it as long as expectations are a bit toned down.

Rating: 3/5