Director: Claire Denis
Writers: Claire Denis, Christine Agnot
DOP: Agnès Godard
Cast: Juliette Binoche, Xavier Beauvois, Philippe Katerine
Language: French
Isabelle, a Parisian artist, divorced mother, is looking for love, true love at last.
It is the least Claire Denis film that I have watched of hers. She has never worked with Juliette Binoche before and you get the feeling that she is having fun with what you can call Binoche kind of films with this. It is an adaptation of Roland Barthes' 1977 text 'A lover's discourse: Fragments'. The takes are super long and camera dances between characters who are conversing, especially in that first one at the bar. Isabelle is middle aged and quite desperate to find the true love after divorcing the father of her daughter. She also come off as quite naive. Gerard Depardieu makes a cameo at the end as a heartbroken psychic who Isabelle consults instead of a therapist. It is probably Claire Denis making a point that there is no point at all.
It is a pretty good watch without being all that great. Claire Denis' next release is an English language science fiction film set in space. Can't wait!
Creators: Baran bo Odar, Jantje Friese
Cast: Too many in different versions
Language: German
I stumbled upon this Netflix original show after seeing it being described as 'Stranger Things' for adults. I haven't seen Stranger Things and not really planning to. Dark is so fucking good that I binged it twice within eight days. If you're planning to watch it, I can't recommend it highly enough, go ahead and do it. Plenty of spoilers ahead.
****************SPOILERS****************
I can best describe the show as 'Twin Peaks+Predestination', on steroids. Twin Peaks because of its small town industrial setting, family affairs, haunting atmosphere and music. Predestination reference is quite obvious due to the time travel factor. The way time travel works in the series so far is in the "Harry Potter: Prisoner of Azkaban" mode (the best Harry Potter book by the way). What has happened can't really be changed. Whenever someone from future tries to influence things, they only help in aiding what has already happened inadvertently. So it doesn't take anything goes approach which can be quite disengenous if time travel is your main theme.
Story begins in 2019, the present for all intends and purpose, with shots of Jonas' father committing suicide. It ends with a boy disappearing in the woods near the caves which is again near the nuclear power plant which dominates over the small town of Winden. Boy's father is the cop Uhlrich, who's having an affair with Jonas' mother, Hannah. Jonas, suffering from post traumatic stress, discovers cave maps drawn by his father in the attic. Different characters in the story discovers the time travel possibility over the course of first season.
The time travel jumps in it is 33 years, a span over which solar-lunar cycle sync happens. So the time periods the series jumps to are 1986, 1953 and for a brief final seconds to 2052. It also has plenty of philosophic references including Nietzsche's musings about eternal recurrence which has a big overhang over its plotline. There is a love triangle in each of the time period: Helge-Claudia-Tronte in 1953, Hannah-Uhlrich-Katharina in 1986 and Jonas-Martha-Bartosz in 2019. It doesn't make a big deal about the twists that come along the way, all of which are pretty much guessable before they are revealed mainly because of the good job they have done with the casting of same characters from different time periods.
Based on the missing pages in Claudia's diary, I have a theory that many of the characters in 2019 are different versions of same people from past and future. Noah is Bartosz grown up and there is some mystery left around from where/when Alexander turned up. His real name Boris suggests some Russian connection, probably Chernobyl, and his surname Niechwald could be a reference to his parents from Nielsen and Kahnwald families- Jonas & Martha? On first watch I ended up with the obvious conclusion that Noah is the villain/dark and Claudia is the light. But on re-watch, I am not that sure especially because of the reference to our propensity to think in terms of duallism. The re-watch is so rewarding and you can see how well the show is edited, with recurrences offering it ample scope to place scenes together. It is masterful storytelling and I can't wait for the second season, which is currently in production.
"You are free with regards to what you can do but you are not free with regards to what you can will"...
PS: I am now more familiar with the family trees in Winden than my own.
Created By: Joe Penhall
Directors: David Fincher, Asif Kapadia, Tobias Lindholm, Andrew Douglas
Cast: Jonathan Groff, Holt McCallany, Hannah Gross, Cotter Smith
Mindhunter is a Netflix original crime drama series based on the book 'Mindhunter: Inside the FBI's Elite Serial Crime Unit' by John E. Douglas and Mark Olshaker. The lead character played by Jonathan Groff is based on John Douglas and the first season is set in the late 70s. As they put it in one of the scenes, FBI is still under the influence of Hoover era good-bad binary thinking while the nascent behavioural science unit is trying to bring some grey perspective into it. What we now take for granted from the point of view of nature-nurture debate, psychological interrogation techniques etc were quite niche back then. I didn't know that the coining of the term serial killer was this recent and they dabble with sequence killer instead through much of the season one.
Charlize Theron serves as an executive producer for the series and David Fincher directed four episodes in total, a couple each at the beginning and end. A usual season for American TV drama series proceeds like a 50 over ODI innings, with fast paced beginning and end, and the middle can be a phase of consolidation. They have you hooked with the big hitters Fincher and Asif Kapadia directing the first four episodes. TV is kind of seen as a writer's medium but you do see the difference in style when it is Fincher and Kapadia directing it as opposed to Lindholm and Andrew Douglas.
Se7en is seen as the first big break for David Fincher as a director and had, *Spoiler Alert*, Kevin Spacey playing God as the serial killer in it. He again had a go at this genre with 'Zodiac', which I reckon is the high watermark for it. Many of these films have super intelligent evil genius characters, like Hannibal Lecter, as serial killers and with Mindhunter, Fincher supposedly wanted a more realistic portrayal. Ed Kemper, the coed killer, features heavily in season one. Fincher has supposedly cast for season two the same actor Quentin Tarantino has cast as Manson for Once Upon A Time in Hollywood. I truly binged it by basically watching all episodes back to back over a nine hour period. Really looking forward to season two.
Director: Lynne Ramsay
Writer: Lynne Ramsay, Jonathan Ames
DOP: Thomas Townend
Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Ekaterina Samsonov, Judith Roberts, John Doman
A traumatized veteran, unafraid of violence, tracks down missing girls for a living. When a job spins out of control, Joe's nightmares overtake him as a conspiracy is uncovered.
It is Lynne Ramsay's take on the hit man genre and it is a genre-bender. It is brutal at times and the body-count is high but the focus is not much on the violence. We piece together through several flashes that happen over the course of the film that he had an abusive father, suffers from PTSD due to his involvement in gulf war and the FBI job that he took after also only added to his nightmares. He's on the edge and quite suicidal. Choices that he makes as an adult is because of the abuse he suffered as a kid but they don't really help him to overcome it.
Lynne Ramsay confirmed that the use of Psycho and Shawshank Redemption on the film was totally off-the-cuff but they do perfectly suit the film. Then again, it doesn't really matter whether the director intended or not, it is what you make of it that counts. Kevin Spacey is supposed to have been sexually abused as a child by his father and he kind of repeated the same, if the allegations are true. I do think something like that is going on in this as well. The first time rescue of the girl gave that vibe and he seems to be fighting against it.
Music for the film was done by Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood and it is an integral part of the film. It gives such a cool vibe to the film in some places. I've only seen one other film in Lynne Ramsay's short but long-spanning filmography and that was 'We need to talk about Kevin', which was quite excellent and fucked up. This is much more of a fun watch, relatively.
Director: Ridley Scott
Writer: David Scarpa
DOP: Dariusz Wolski
Cast: Michelle Williams, Christopher Plummer, Mark Wahlberg
The story of the kidnapping of 16-year-old John Paul Getty lll and the desperate attempt by his mother to convince his billionaire grandfather Jean Paul Getty to pay the ransom.
I had no idea that the film was based on real events and it was quite strange that I wasn't aware of the name Getty, considering the fact that he was the first person to become a dollar billionaire. He had made his money by building oil tankers that are used to bring oil from Saudi Arabia to the West. He had married five times and had maintained a harem. He was into his 80s when the events depicted in the film happened. I sussed out the basic premise of the film from the trailer and since I didn't know it was based on true events, had no idea how it was going to play out which is always good.
The film made news when Ridley Scott decided to recast Christopher Plummer as Jean Paul Getty in the aftermath of Kevin Spacey allegations, after having almost finished post-production. Plummer was the original choice for Ridley but had cast Spacey due to his marketability, ha ha. I'm glad he made the change because Spacey as the character in his 80s with prosthetics didn't look good at all. Christopher Plummer is amazing in the role as is Michelle Williams as the distressed but strong mother.
The only complaint I've about the film is its dull look due to the colour choices. The opening scenes of it is like a homage to Fellini films. Ridley started directing films late, as a 40-year-old, and it is ridiculous how hard he is working in his late 70s. He is kind of hit and miss in terms of conversion and this one is a hit.
Director: Joe Wright
Writer: Anthony McCarten
DOP: Bruno Delbonnel
Cast: Gary Oldman, Kristin Scott Thomas, Lily James, Ben Mendelsohn
During the early days of World War 2, the fate of the Western Europe hangs on the newly-appointed British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who must decide whether to negotiate with Adolf Hitler, or fight on against incredible odds.
The timeline shown in the films is roughly the same as Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk, which ditched all the political moves and took you straight to the battlefront. So this film can be basically seen as a side-piece to that showing the decision making process that was involved leading up to the retreat from Dunkirk. The Conservative party was not that keen on electing Churchill as their PM but there was pressure from Labor to ditch Chamberlain after his appeasement steps towards Hitler was deemed a historical mistake. Even after getting elected as PM, he was under pressure from Chamberlain and his cohorts who were still trying to get him to negotiate instead of a confrontation. The film is basically about Churchill coming to the decision of not to negotiate with Hitler culminating in that famous speech at the Parliament.
Indians do have a special hatred for Churchill often citing his racism and his mishandling of Bengal famine as reasons for it. They tend to view this film through that prism, criticizing it for lionising Churchill. These are the same people who crib about Dunkirk for it not having any Indian soldier on the beach. I wonder whether they also buy tickets for 'Tiger Zinda Hein'. The film doesn't portray Churchill as someone who got everything right. There is reference to his mishandling of famine and Gallipoli setback during first world war. He got Hitler right but many things wrong. A film set in that time period is obviously gonna concentrate on the war angle.
Not saying it is without faults. There is a London tube scene towards the end which is gonna make or break the movie for many. I just cringed through it. It is well worth a watch overall with an amazing central performance from Gary Oldman who is totally unrecognisable. I still would've given the award to Timothée Chalamet as I prefer performances that don't rely on makeups or body transformations. I'm a fan of Joe Wright's 'Atonement' which also had that stunning Dunkirk tracking shot.
Director: Guillermo del Toro
Writers: Guillermo del Toro, Vanessa Taylor
DOP: Dan Laustsen
Cast: Sally Hawkins, Michael Shannon, Richard Jenkins, Doug Jones, Michael Stuhlbarg, Octavia Spencer
At a top secret research facility in the 1960s, a lonely and mute janitor forms a unique relationship with an amphibious creature that is being held in captivity.
Guillermo del Toro made his mark initially with the Spanish horror films that he made which culminated with Pan's Labyrinth, which was more like a horror film masquerading as a children's fantasy, that made him known to the wider audience after its success at the Oscars. I haven't actually seen any of his films post that which are more known for their production design. The shape of water is no different and it has got a pretty basic plot to go with it but through some really established characters. What makes it interesting is the genres that it touches on and del Toro's brief but bloody and brutal flourishes. Michael Shannon is playing a typical Michael Shannon role but that doesn't matter because he is so good at it. Rest of the cast does a great job including Doug Jones, who also played that dude from Pan's Labyrinth. They didn't go Dr. Manhattan with him though even though it is R-Rated and they had a convenient biological excuse for it which they address. It is set in a Cold War 60s research facility and it is highly recommended that you watch with the best possible print that you can get. It reminded me of Predestination's retro and clean look.
Overall it is a great watch even though it is not as affecting as 'Pan's Labyrinth'. It has received 13 Oscar nominations and is one of the favorites for winning Best Picture. I am rooting for 'Get Out' and 'Three Billboards', both of which I enjoyed more and has more of a rewatch value. Guillermo del Toro's films are generally ones that you wouldn't be that keen to revisit even though you enjoy them.
Director: Dee Rees
Writers: Dee Rees, Virgil Williams, Hillary Jordan
DOP: Rachel Morrison
Cast: Carey Mulligan, Jason Clarke, Jason Mitchell, Mary J. Bilge, Jonathan Banks, Rob Morgan
Two men, one black and one white, return from home after world war two to work on a farm in rural Mississippi, where they struggle to deal with racism and adjusting to life after war.
It is basically centred around two families, one land owning white one with a full blown racist grandfather and a black family with aspirations to buy some land so that their kids won't have the same fate as theirs. It is based on the novel with the same name from Hillary Jordan and is told from multiple perspectives with many of its characters taking turns to do narrations. Novel as a medium allows for internal monologues and it is something that is not viable in films. Use of narration is generally considered as a sign of weak storytelling in films but I didn't have a problem with it in Mudbound because of the multiple perspectives that it is going for. Netflix picked up the film for distribution and I wonder whether they insisted on the narration.
World wars brought about significant social changes in Europe. Increased participation of women in workforce was as a result of first world war and the German air raids of England and the consequent state of mind of the people, where any day could be their last, and staying in closed quarters during the raids have said to have influenced the change in sexual norms of the society. The United States, which was quite far removed from the battlefront, didn't experience the same changes and the black soldier is returning back to the racist hellhole that is American South. The white soldier, an airforce pilot, is retuning to stay with his brother's family who have bought this farmland recently. There is this 'Iyobinte Pusthakam', which again was influenced by 'Irakal', vibe to their storyline. Overall, Mudbound is a stunning watch and hits you hard. Rachel Morrison has become the first woman cinematographer to be nominated for the academy awards. But Roger Deakins seems to be a lock for his work in Blade Runner 2049.
Director: James Franco
Writers: Scott Neustadter, Michael H. Weber
DOP: Brandon Trost
Cast: James Franco, Dave Franco, Seth Rogen
When Greg Sestero (Dave Franco), an aspiring film actor, meets the weird and mysterious Tommy Wiseau (James Franco) in an acting class, they form a unique friendship and travel to Hollywood to make their dream come true. Faced by rejections, Wiseau decides to make a film with his own money. The result is the so bad its good cult classic 'The Room', which he wrote, directed, produced and starred.
I haven't actually seen The Room in full but have seen its famous sequences like 'Oh, hi Mark', 'You're tearing me apart' and 'You're my favourite customer'. You don't really need to see it to actually enjoy this film. It is adapted from book written by Greg and Tom Bissell, a journalist, on the making of 'The Room', which James Franco first read before actually watching the film. Seth Rogen was already a fan of the film and co-produced the adaptation. When James first approached Wiseau to buy the rights, he was asked to approach Johnny Depp to play the titular role which would have been curious as he has already made a similar kind of film in 'Ed Wood'.
I was initially put off thinking it was James Franco playing a double role. I actually binned watching David Simon TV Series 'Deuce' because of the same factor. Anyway, James Franco is unrecognisable playing Tommy Wiseau and he apparently stayed in character while directing it. Film grows on you gradually as it is not clearly a spoof but quite a sympathetic portrayal. Visually it is quite bland like typical Seth Rogen LA films. They've recreated the scenes from the original film in spectacular detail and they are displayed side by side during the end credits. It doesn't resolve the questions like how old Wiseau is, where he is from originally and how did he get the money to make the film. Sexual allegations against James Franco have taken the wind out of its sail during the awards season after him winning the golden globes award. Do wait for the post credits scene.
Director: Greta Gerwig
Writer: Greta Gerwig
DOP: Sam Levy
Cast: Saoirse Ronan, Laurie Metcalf, Tracy Letts
In 2002, an artistically inclined (self-declared) seventeen-year-old girl comes of age in Sacramento, California. She has a very difficult relationship, typical teenage kind, with her mother who wants her to pursue her college studies in Sacramento itself while she wants to go to a college in New-York, which is apparently the place for artsy fartsy kind of people. She is currently studying in a catholic school and is also going through friendship and relationship struggles that are typically associated with the age.
The film is kind of semi-autobiographical in mood and tone rather than events wise. I was predisposed to dislike the film because of the Oscar buzz associated with it and has never been a big fan of actor-turned directors. It won me over by the 30-minute mark and is a fine watch. There are portions where you think it is doing the typical teenage coming of age tropes but remains somehow fresh in its treatment. That is probably because it never stresses too much on one aspect of her life- her friendships, romantic relationships or her relationship with her family members. Ultimately, the film is about her relationship with her mother but both of them are portrayed as quite flawed. Have seen some people complaining about hers being an unlikable character which is something I don't really get. Films are not meant to have you follow a protagonist that can only be likable. It is only about 90 minutes long and leave you wanting more which is always a good thing.
There have been some comparisons with 'The Edge of Seventeen' but Lady Bird is even more rawer and thus less cinematic. Even more apt comparison would be with this year's 'Columbus', which was another coming of age drama where the protagonist is contemplating leaving her hometown to pursue studies/career. In Columbus, she doesn't want to leave the hometown in order to take care of her mother while in Lady Bird it is just the opposite. Both of them are great watches, filmed in contrasting styles and moods. I have been a great fan of Greta Gerwig's collaborations with Noah Baumbach and it is good to see her jump seamlessly into directing. The film has earned five nominations: Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Director, Best Supporting Actress and Best Original screenplay. It wouldn't be surprising if it wins Best Picture since the others involved are not that universally liked (Three Billboards & Shape of Water).
Director: Armando Ianucci
Writers: Armando Ianucci, David Schneider, Ian Martin, Peter Fellows
DOP: Zac Nicholson
Cast: Steve Buscemi, Simon Russell Beale, Jeffrey Tambour, Michael Palin, Paddy Considine
Follows the Soviet dictator's last days and depicts the chaos of the regime after his death.
I had recently watched the BBC series on Cold War and thus was familiar with most of the names and their fates in this film. Not having any idea will also work because you won't know who will come on top at the end. Beria (Beale), the torture minister/NKVD head, was the one to take all the initiatives immediately after Stalin's death. He cuts off Moscow from rest of Russia and hand it to NKVD instead of the red army. The politburo is still coping with Stalin's absence and Khrushchev (Buscemi) starts to exert pressure gradually on the acting successor, Malenkov (Tambor), by influencing the likes of Molotov (Palin). The chief of the red army, Zhukov (Jason Isaacs), also makes a grand entry with his zillion medals in the second half of the film.
The first half of the film works pretty much like an absurd comedy but many of the things that is shown actually happened. The guards manning Stalin's bedroom don't check up on him after hearing him collapse because there is a Stalin diktat refraining anyone from disturbing him while sleeping. Central committee has to discuss before calling up on a doctor, a hard task considering that the good ones have been already sent to the Gulags. A respirator from USA was available but wasn't used because of fear of how will Stalin respond if he recovers. The events shown in the film are compressed to happen over by the time of Stalin's funeral when in real life it happened over a period of one year. The second half of the film is much more darker, culminating with Khrushchev becoming more like the Buscemi we know.
It is a great watch overall and one of the best from last year. The film is an adaptation of a French graphic novel. Political incompetence is familiar area for Ianucci. Thankfully, he doesn't use fake Russian accents in the film and each of the actors uses their own English accent, which makes sense as Soviet Union was pretty big in size. Some of the outdoor scenes have a cheap feel because of budgetary constraints but it kind of works because that is how it is in those shitty History Channel documentaries. The film has been banned in Russia.
PS: Modi ministers will relate a lot to it if they watch this film.
Director: Luca Guadagnino
Writers: James Ivory, André Aciman
DOP: Sayombhu Mukdeeprom
Cast: Timothée Chalamet, Arnie Hammer, Michael Stuhlbarg
Language: English, Italian
In Northern Italy in 1983, seventeen year-old Elio begins a relationship with visiting Oliver, his father's research assistant, with whom he bonds over his emerging sexuality, their Jewish heritage and the beguiling Italian landscape.
Film reminded me of Eric Rohmer films that are set in countryside with characters lazing about during summer. It is billed as the third one in Luca Guadagnino's thematic 'Desire' Trilogy with 'I'm Love' and 'A Bigger Splash' being the other two. I've only seen the latter and stylistically both films couldn't be more apart. A Bigger Splash was shot in a very pulpy manner with some curious but great camera moves and zooms. Pace wise, it was leisurely at the beginning and quite frenzied towards the end. Call me by your name has a lazy vibe throughout keeping in with its summer settings and is purely European in its approach. It leaves you with the feeling that you get after reading a great novel. That is quite an achievement since it is an adaptation of André Aciman's novel with the same name.
Film can be described as a coming of age story and is basically 'Moonlight', but in a very supportive environment. Central performance from Timothée Chalamet is out of this world as things are conveyed more through looks and mannerisms rather than dialogue. At no point you are confused about what is going on. Only minor gripe I've with the film is the flawless English that he is speaking but he is anyway portrayed as quite an expert in almost everything he is doing. Luca Guadagnino's next project is supposed to be a remake of Dario Argento's 'Suspiria' which reunites him with the cast from 'A Bigger Splash'.
Director: Martin McDonagh
Writer: Martin McDonagh
DOP: Ben Davis
Cast: Frances McDormand, Sam Rockwell, Woody Harrelson, Abbie Cornish, Peter Dinklage
A mother (Frances McDormand) personally challenges the local authorities to solve her daughter's murder by putting up three billboards questioning them when they fail to catch the culprit. Her logic is that it would keep the case in people's mind and she calls out the local police chief (Woody Harrelson) in one of them billboards.
When a girl is brutally raped and murdered, you would expect her mother to receive wider support from the community when she is persistent even almost a year after the event. But the reaction she gets for the billboards is mixed as there is some extenuating circumstance around the Police Chief. We learn over the course of the film that she is doing her actions out of both grief and guilt and these actions become more and more questionable as the film progresses. The film is set in rural Missouri and the characters in it don't have much of a filter when they talk, which is perfect for a Martin McDonagh film as they tend to quite sweary anyway. It is centered around three characters- the mother, the Police Chief and a racist Mamma's boy police officer played by Sam Rockwell. What is so refreshing about films from McDonaghs, both the brothers, is that they are very unpredictable and this one is no different. As soon as we start to think that the film is going this way, it takes an unexpected turn- be it plot-wise or character-wise.
The other two Martin McDonagh (In Bruges, Seven Psychopaths) films can also be described as tragicomedies with the degree of tragic part varying and timing of it tending to be towards the latter part of the film.In contrast, three billboards have a tragic thread running throughout even though the trailer suggests it as an out and out comedy with Frances McDormand playing the female version of Harry (Ralph Fiennes) from In Bruges. It works really well with the great actors delivering great lines from the script and several scenes suddenly turning from tragedy to comedy and vice-versa. One could say that it deals with similar themes like anger, guilt, damnation, midgets and justice that is there in other two films of his as well. It is a favorite for getting the Best Picture award at the Oscars. It is almost a certainty that Frances McDormand will win her second best actress award (first one of course for Fargo) at the Oscars. Both Woody Harrelson and Sam Rockwell have been nominated in the supporting actor category as well.
There have been some recent controversy about the redemptive nature of Sam Rockwell's racist police officer's character arc and it is a load of bullshit. Almost all the characters in it are dealt in grey and fucking deal with it. After the most recent US mass shooting in a school at Florida, was it, three billboards style protest was done outside Marco Rubio's office. One minor quibble one might have with the film is the arbitrary nature of introduction and convenience of a character who is there only in two scenes. The ambiguous ending that the film goes for makes it alright though in my eyes. The film has done extremely well at the box office grossing around $100 million on its $12 million budget and is certainly one of the best film from last year.
Director: Sean Baker
Writers: Sean Baker, Chris Bergoch
DOP: Alexis Sabe
Cast: Brooklyn Prince, Willem Dafoe, Bria Vinaite
Set over one summer, the film follows precocious six-year-old Moonee as she courts mischief and adventure with her ragtag playmates and bonds with her rebellious but caring mother, all while living in the shadows of Walt Disney World.
Films with kids as protagonists are very hard to get right. It is a delicate balance between coming across as too cute or too brat like. My favourite Malayalam kids film is 'Manu Uncle' and it works because the balance is right and the grown up characters in it behaves around kids in a realistic manner, except for a few cartoonish characters. It is a film which works really well for grownups as well.
Florida Project is another film which deals with poverty in USA and can also be classed into post-Subprime crisis genre. Many have lost their homes and are staying in motels on an extended basis with whole families staying in single rooms. Willem Dafoe plays the kind manager of one such motel and it was quite strange to see him play a normal sort of character. Moonee stays with her mum, a white thrash character struggling to make ends meet, in his motel. Her financial situation deteriorates over the course of the summer and this is not portrayed in a melodramatic manner but rather in a matter of fact manner with plenty of humour. What happens at the end is what you're willing to happen as it is the best for all concerned but it still left me quite teary eyed.
Sean Baker got his break with 'Tangerine' which was shot entirely using an i-phone. I only managed to sit through 5 minutes of it. He has got a mixture of experienced and non-experienced actors for this film and quite a bit of street-casting. Juxtaposition of American poverty against the Disney world is something that the director is going for. It took me some time to realise the proximity of Disney World in the film but I guess it was obvious with the funny looking shops and constant takeoffs and landings of helicopters. Kids in the film are just great but their energy levels throughout the film are a tad high. Brooklyn Prince just steals the show. Bria Vinaite, who was cast based on her Instagram profile, is also great as the thoroughly unlikeable single mother.
PS: You can also see the phenomenon of motel owning Patels in the film.
Director: Ruben Östlund
Writer: Ruben Östlund
DOP: Fredrik Wenzel
Cast: Claes Bang, Elisabeth Moss, Dominic West
Language: Swedish, English
A prestigious Stockholm museum's chief art curator finds himself in times of both professional and personal crisis as he attempts to set up a non-controversial new exhibit.
What all things that you can think of to be in the European news cycle over the past few years, all of them are in here; the refugee crisis, political correctness gone mad, debate around freedom of speech and expression, #MeToo, so-called Islamophobia, social contract etc. All of this is expressed by different sequences which put either the protagonist or other characters in it in not so normal kind of situations where things are quite unpredictable. Normal reaction of the viewer will be what you will do if you are in such a situation. Östlund goes for the squirmy kind of humor that he is known for and you are just glad that you have not faced these situations in real life, yet. A significant numbers of us are the kind who would feel uncomfortable about asking for extra pappadams during wedding sadhyas and won't know how to react if you are in the process of being pick-pocketed.
His other films like Play and Involuntary were both with parallel kind of sequences and explored similar kind of themes but with a more singular focus. Play was about the timidness of Swedish/Western European societies, especially from the liberal left, while discussing the topic of immigration by putting a situation of a group of black boys bullying a group of white boys. Involuntary was about group behavior and conformity. The Square, which premiered at Cannes and won the Palme d'Or, has a single protagonist whole way through but overall has a collection of sketches feel to it. Don't know whether it started off as a multiple story-line feature but was later condensed to this current form. Sequences do work spectacularly well but the seemingly scatter-gun sort of approach to the topics that it touches make you feel that overall it is less than sum of its parts. Conclusion if to be drawn at all out of the film would be that there is no correct way to respond to these topics. Perfect example for it would be the press conference sequence where you are damned either way. It reminded me of the predicament faced by the makers of the film Padmavati.
Film is stunning visually and the unusual soundtrack also works very well. The poster that I saw initially of the film made me think it was a period piece but was pleasantly surprised to see that it was very much contemporary. If I were to rank his films, the order would be:
Director: Taika Waititi
Writers: Eric Pearson, Craig Kyle, Christopher Yost, Stan Lee
DOP: Javier Aguirresarobe
Cast: Chris Helmsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Jeff Goldblum, Mark Ruffalo, Tessa Thompson
Thor is imprisoned in a random planet, ruled by a Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum), and he has to engage with the Hulk in a gladiatorial fight there. His sister, the Goddess of death, Hela (Cate Blanchett) has taken over Asgard and Thor must race against time to prevent her from destroying Asgard and all his people.
I'm so proudly ignorant about these superheroes and their backstories that the superhero films that I enjoy tend to be origin stories (Batman Begins, Deadpool, Kick-Ass). The only exception I could think of is 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' which was more like a time travel film that worked pretty well as a standalone entity. I only decided to check this one out because of the good reviews it got and it is directed by Taika Waititi. I was quite underwhelmed by it till about one-third into it, only silverlining being the use of Led Zeppelin's 'Immigrant Song'. I'm so well versed with these Norse Gods that I thought Ragnarok was like second name of Thor. Things began to pickup with the introduction of Jeff Goldblum's character and the film is at its best after Mark Ruffalo version of Hulk makes its introduction. I didn't recognize it was Cate Blanchett who was chewing up the scenery as Hela.
Overall, it is a pretty good watch even if you don't give a rat's arse about Marvel Cinematic Universe or its characters. Taika Waititi doesn't take things seriously at all and it is good fun. They've supposedly improvised a lot of lines while shooting and that is quite surprising. Apart from Immigrant Song, some of the music reminded me of the Matrix series.
Director: Yorgos Lanthimos
Writer: Yorgos Lanthimos, Efthymis Fillipou
DOP: Thimios Bakatakis
Cast: Colin Farrell, Nicole Kidman, Barry Keoghan
Steven, a cardiologist, is forced to make an unthinkable sacrifice after his life starts to fall apart, when the behaviour of a teenage boy who he has taken under his wings turn sinister.
It is better to watch the film without knowing anything about it, which is always the case for most films but especially in these kind of films from interesting directors like Yorgos Lanthimos. 'Dogtooth' was told in a matter of fact manner while 'The Lobster' was quite a comedy. His films can generally be described as dark comedies set to interesting situations and the degree of darkness can vary. This outing of his is the darkest of the lot and works more like a horror film by the end, especially if you are lulled into a comfortable state with a lobster hangover.
Colin Farrell teams up again with the director and Nicole Kidman, in an Eyes Wide Shut look, plays the role of wife who is also a doctor. They got two children and the interactions between all of them are quite modern and robotic. Barry Keoghan, whom we have seen in Dunkirk, plays the role of sinister teen-ager. It is the Haneke films like 'The Seventh Continent' and 'Funny Games' and Kubrick films like the one mentioned before and 'The Shining' that it reminded me of. I was slightly taken aback by the straight forwardness of its ending without a twist or anything. It is a great watch with some hard to stomach scenes and situations.
Director: David Leitch
Writers: Kurt Johnstad, Antony Johnston, Sam Hart
DOP: Jonathan Sela
Cast: Charlize Theron, James McAvoy, John Goodman, Toby Jones
An undercover MI6 agent is sent to Berlin during the tail end of the Cold War to investigate the murder of a fellow agent and recover a missing list of double agents.
David Leitch was a co-director and producer of John Wick. That and the hand to hand combat nature of stunts with long takes had people thinking of this film as a female version of John Wick. That won't be a correct statement because the tone of the film is entirely different as it is essentially a spy movie with some spectacular stunts in it. What is also different is that the action sequences have consequences on the body which is shown in the beginning itself with a heavily bruised Charlize Theron taking an ice-bath. Film is based on the graphic novel with the title 'The Coldest City' and the success of Charlize Theron in Mad Max: Fury Road as Imperator Furiosa helped in getting the film made. She will now definitively go down as an action star with her set to reprise her role as Imperator Furiosa in the next installment of the Mad Max series. Atomic Blonde was also successful enough at box office to warrant a sequel/prequel.
While most people really did dig the action sequences, the plot in itself can be a little too confusing with motivations of the various characters not very clear. But I do think it was intended that way as it is essentially a spy movie involving double agents. It did remind me of Paul Thomas Anderson's 'Inherent Vice', in which it was impossible to figure out the plot. James McAvoy was excellent as usual and it's good that he is generous enough to take a supporting, albeit meaty enough, character. The highlight stunt piece is basically the one which moves to a marble stairway and seem like a single ten minute take, but apparently had 40 cuts. Still very impressive. Soundtrack is also pretty cool with some David Bowie tracks thrown in. He was approached for a role but had turned it down shortly before his death. Atomic Blonde works really well because it is an original film with its own identity rather than being the female version of a previously successful film.
Director: Denis Villeneuve
Writers: Hampton Fancher, Michael Green
DOP: Roger Deakins
Cast: Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Ana de Armas, Jared Leto, Robin Wright, Sylvia Hoeks
A young blade runner's discovery of a long-buried secret leads him to track down former blade runner Rick Deckard, who's been missing for thirty years.
The original blade runner was notorious for its post production difficulties with the studio insisting on a narration from Harrison Ford so that audience could understand it and Ridley Scott not having total control over the cut that was released. Since then it had many cuts released including a director's cut and final cut, like the way we name our assignments. I've seen only the final cut and the ambiguity around Deckard's nature is more or less settled.
Replicants are 'human' robots built to be used as slave labour for various purposes including off-world assignments. Blade Runners are detectives/assassins who 'retires' rogue replicants. Blade Runner was a film in which the characters were struggling with existential questions and this sequel, set 30 years later, is also in similar vein. It is a film that is purely made for big screens and great sound systems and I missed out on that experience since it ran very briefly here and that too in 3-D. It is a technical marvel with gorgeous frames from Roger Deakins and a soundtrack that evokes Vangelis' work from the original. It was largely shot in practical sets, like Arrival. Almost all the characters in 2049 are replicants and the few 'human' ones behave like robots. This makes it less interesting as you end up exasperating over the fact that we have to put up with existential issues faced by robots when we already know that, as humans, we don't have a fucking purpose anyway. It also reminds one of Matrix series in several instances and not in a good way. Audience is ahead of the protagonist in figuring out what is going on for majority of the film. I do think you have to watch Blade Runner before going for the sequel even though it can work as a standalone film.
Ultimately, it is another film that has bawled the critics over almost universally but I was slightly underwhelmed by it, like Baby Driver. I think all the big budget studio films being generally shit these days have got something to do with that and anything remotely interesting, original and adult tend to get gushed over by critics. Denis Villeneuve's big budget sci-fi films, Arrival and Blade Runner 2049, have been interesting watches and technically stunning, but quite underwhelming compared to his other films. He is slated to reboot 'Dune' next. I haven't seen the one directed by David Lynch and the documentary 'Jodorowsky's Dune' is a very good watch.
