കമ്മട്ടിപ്പാടം (Kammatti Paadam) (2016)

Director: Rajeev Ravi
Writer:    P. Balachandran
Cast:      Dulquer Salman, Vinayakan, Manikandan
Language: Malayalam

Rajeev Ravi's third feature film tells the story of a bunch of boys from an area in Ernakulam called Kammatti Paadam. They grew up to be what is colloquially called as members of a 'Quotation Team', a euphemism for the low rung enforcers of local mafia.  The story follows them from their childhood to teenage years and then to mid-twenties and finally to when they are in their 40s. 

The title, Kammatti Paadam, refers to an area of Ernakulam which lies to the back of KSRTC Bus Stand. It is basically a tale of the growth of the city told from the perspective of its main protagonists, characters played by Dulquer and Vinayakan. Film begins in the present with Dulquer struggling to stay alive in a bus to Ernakulam with a stab wound. The backstory is told using a well-known concept of 'Life flashes before your eyes just about when you are about to die' and the recent Malayalam film, James & Alice, is another one which employed the same. The basic concept of the film can be summed up as a representation of 'Gentrification' of Ernakulam city told through a bunch of characters who get gentrified in their life due to it. They were part of it both as people who helped in displacing the original people to make way for high-rise buildings and also as victims who got nowhere in their lives even as they were just used up by their paymasters. 

A title of 'Once upon a time in Kammatti Paadam' would have been quite fitting for this film as it shares a lot with Sergio Leone's 'Once upon a time in America' in both its characterization and the way the story is told. It is also another film which begins its back-story through its main protagonist's memories as he lies in his deathbed. Only difference is that in Rajeev Ravi's film, the characters remain slumdogs. Another film that one would be reminded of is the Brazilian one- 'City of God' in terms of its rawness and the characters played by both Vinayakan and Manikandan, who revels in his role as the eldest gangster among them, would remind you of couple of characters from it. 

It is overall a great watch even though the strength of the central relationship between Krishnan (Dulquer Salman) and Ganga (Vinayakan) is not quite convincing. I also had issue with some of the lazy narration in it, especially during scenes where some of the characters in the present tell Krishnan about when they had last seen Ganga. These are some things you would never expect from a Rajeev Ravi film who is quite known for his aversion to traditional narrative techniques. I also felt the light-weightness of Dulquer's acting in many occasions. Rajeev Ravi is known for his tremendous casting of supporting characters and this one is no different with plenty of excellent new actors in it. One doesn't need to wax lyrical about cinematography in his films as it is quite understood how it is gonna be. Both his previous films, Annayum Rasoolum and Njan Steve Lopez, had quotation teams as characters and their influence in the films grew as he moved from former to latter. In his third film, they occupy almost the entire story. It is the least Rajeev Ravisque film out of the three and his weakest effort but it is still a great watch.

PS: It is quite ironic to see Dulquer Salman occupying almost all the space in its posters when it can be argued that Vinayakan is its central character. Maybe that is quite apt since the film is mainly about people who fall by the wayside.

Rating: 4/5

Er ist wieder da (Look Who's Back) (2015)

Director: David Wnendt
Writers:  David Wnenedt, Mizzi Meyer, Johannes Boss, Minna Fischgartl, Timur Vermes
Cast:       Oliver Masucci, Thomas M. Koppl, Marc-Marvin Israel
Language: German

Adolf Hitler wakes up in the 21st century. He quickly gains media attention, but whereas Germany finds him hilarious and charming, Hitler makes some serious observations about society.

The premise is that a struggling TV director finds him wandering the streets and thinks of making a show where, what he thinks of as a very good Hitler impersonator, will interact with German people. Hitler finally gets a show for himself where he is making his own honest observations which strikes a chord with the German people considering the migrant situation that Germany is facing today. The film was released in October 2015, just about the time migrant crisis was getting worse. So, the film is very effective in holding a mirror to the current German attitude and points out how easily it can degenerate into fascism. 

It is a very funny film and I guess some of the laughter it will generate in Europe will be the nervous kind. It is filmed in 'Borat' style and there are plenty of other cinematic references as well. There is one scene which reminded me of 12 Monkeys and it even got a Western themed and styled sequence. There is also this inevitable 'Donwfall' parody scene which I think almost everyone has seen on YouTube in one form or the other. The whole thing about the ambitious female TV programming head championing the totally questionable show is a play on Sidney Lumet's 'Network' as well.

Overall it is a great watch with a tremendous central performance from Oliver Masucci. They could have easily played it safe by making Hitler a totally ridiculous character. The film was a big box office success in Germany, surprising many, and one could say that Germany has matured enough to be self-critical using Hitler as a very relatable character. I don't know if the film was made in a social experimental semi-documentary manner, like 'Under the Skin', because there are many faces from the streets which are blacked out. Wouldn't surprise me if many of the characters shown in the film are their real selves. The funniest sequence in the film is Hitler getting beaten up by Neo-Nazis. The subtitles that I had was not the best and so some of the jokes might have been lost in translation.

Rating: 4/5 

10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)

Director: Dan Trachtenberg
Writers:  Josh Campbell, Matthew Stuecken, Damien Chazelle
Cast:       John Goodman, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, John Gallaghar Jr.

After getting in a car accident, a woman  is held in a shelter with two men, who claim the outside world is affected by a widespread chemical attack. 

It is a very enjoyable genre-bender of a film which doesn't take itself too seriously. There is an element of misdirection running throughout it as the director wants the audience to expect it to be one thing and pulling the rug out from underneath them quite often. It is not done in a disingenuous fashion as the clues given from the beginning itself are quite consistent. So the less watchful ones among the audience might think of what happens towards the end as a big twist when it was quite obviously not. If it didn't head in that direction then the film would have quite easily fallen off a cliff reminding one of a certain Manoj Night Shyamalan film. The reaction from the protagonist during those sequences are done in a way to mirror the audience's who didn't see it all coming. 

Overall, it is a very good watch and John Goodman is always ace. One criticism that one could make is that the character of John Gallaghar Jr. is quite poorly and lazily constructed and the interactions between the three characters in the claustrophobic environment doesn't develop any sort of complexity. Good thing about the film is that it doesn't stop itself to explain everything for the audience, especially towards the end. It ends in a  manner which sets up possible sequels to it (hopefully won't end up happening). I haven't seen the original Cloverfield film to make any comparisons but from what I have heard this one is supposedly superior. Damien Chazelle was supposed to direct it but he got himself the funding for 'Whiplash' and dropped out. Those who liked this film should also check-out 'Daybreakers', from the makers of 'Predestination'. 

Rating: 3.5/5

Son of Saul (2015)

Director: Laszlo Nemes
Writers:  Laszlo Nemes, Clara Royer
Cast:       Geza Rohrig, Levente Molnar, Urs Rechin
Language: Hungarian

In the horror of 1944 Auschwitz, a prisoner forced to burn the corpses of his own people finds moral survival upon trying to salvage from the flames the body of a boy he takes for his son. It is quite obvious that he knows that it is not really his son, if at all he had a son to begin with, and it is a coping mechanism for the guilt that he has for having his life spared for now by taking up a role as a 'Sonderkommando'. He insists on finding a Rabbi to give a proper burial for what he presumes to be his son.

The film tells the story from a point of view, I think, has not been previously explored in films about Holocaust. It is filmed in an extreme closeup fashion, maybe due to budgetary constraints and as a way to not overly concentrate on the grimness of his surroundings in a manipulative manner. Make no mistake, the film is a good watch, but comes with an overratedness factor that is quite common for Holocaust films. It is second year in a row that a Holocaust film has won the Academy award in the Best Foreign Film category, with the last one being Ida- a patently undeserved choice considering the strong competition that it had. One can't help but think about that Extras episode in which Ricky Gervais advises Kate Winslet to do a Holocaust film to finally win an Oscar. 2015 has been quite an average year and I haven't seen any of the other competing films in this category, except for Mustang, to authentically commend on whether 'Son of Saul' deserved the award. 

Son a Saul is a good watch but I really don't get the near perfect rating that it seems to be getting from almost all the critics. It took me three sittings to finish the film and I didn't watch it in a tired sleepy manner. Don't know if that is my fault or the film's. I didn't care that much for the central performance and the whole Rabbi thing didn't convince me either. 

Rating: 3/5

James & Alice (2016)

Director: Sujith Vasudev
Writer:    Dr. S. Janardhanan
Cast:       Prithviraj, Vedhika
Language: Malayalam

James is an orphan and an artist without a steady job. Alice belongs to a wealthy family and whose father objected to his daughter getting married to a person without, what society considers as, stability. They decide to get married anyway and the marriage ends up compromising both of them as James have to settle for directing low grade commercials while being not all that happy with his life overall. The film begins in the present with them having a kid aged 6 years and their marriage in crisis. The backstory is told through flashbacks during the first half.

Sujith Vasudev is the latest in following the Malayalam cinema trend of cinematographers becoming directors. Usually they follow a visual way of telling a story and gives less importance to script. James and Alice is not such a case as, even though the visuals are striking, the story is largely told through the spoken language. Film deals with a subject and is presented in a style that is quite hard normally to pull off but it manages to do so quite effectively. There is enough clues in the trailer to suggest that an accident is involved as a pivotal point  and it happens just before the interval. This is where Sujith Vasudev, the cinematographer, shows off his skills. The second half of the film takes a turn which is quite familiar for Malayalees now after the success of Renjith's 'Pranchiyettan & the Saint'. It is then a look back at their life and how things could have been.

The best thing about the film is that you don't get a binary portrayal of the chief protagonists like in most Malayalam/Indian films. The first half is done in such a style that audience will find both James and Alice to be quite culpable for the state their marriage is in. Since it is told largely from the perspective of James, we might feel that he is quite hard done by Alice. But this works well in the second half as it is kind of told from the other side even though we still see it through James' eyes albeit with the intervention of a third person. The accident takes place while they are on the verge of a divorce and even during the divorce proceedings it is as if James is willing it to happen even though it is Alice who is taking the initiative.    

Overall it is a very good watch which deals with a subject matter that is very less dealt with well by Malayalam films. There is enough complexity to it characters to make them appear three-dimensional. The second half of the film could have very well turned out to be very preachy but there is enough cynicism from James to make it appear as if it is not. At close to 165 minutes, it is quite longer than it should be by about 20 minutes. The first two or three songs in it were helpful in moving the story forward but the ones that follow are quite problematic during the second half as we start to feel the length of the film. The background music is also quite overbearing at times but the theme music used in the trailer is quite good. The performances from all concerned are surprisingly excellent even though Prithviraj is still playing his normal smug mode in the first half. It will be box office success if the family audience takes to it which they should do, ideally. 

Rating: 3.5/5

കിരീടം (Kireedam) (1989)

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

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

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

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

Rating: 4/5

ലീല (Leela) (2016)

Director: Renjith
Writer:    Unni R
Cast:         Biju Menon, Vijayaraghavan, Indrans
Language: Malayalam

Kuttiyappan (Biju Menon) is a middle aged bachelor who is seemingly following a Bohemian lifestyle. The very first scene of the film establishes his infatuation with prostitutes even though he is shown as someone who acts as a 'saviour' for them, who are always portrayed as a victim. The film follows Kuttiyappan and his friend (Vijayaraghavan) looking for an elephant and a very young girl but the purpose of this combination is revealed only later.

The first half of the film works out pretty much like a poor man's 'Thoovanathumbikal'. The humor in it seems a bit forced and you don't feel the complexity that was there for Mohanlal's character. The goodness of Kuttiyappan's character is established in the first scene itself and that takes away any ambiguity that would have come in handy to keep the audience not sure of his intentions. That said, without the first scene, his actions towards the end would have come off as a cheap twist. During the second half, the film takes a darker turn and it can be really described as a film of two halves. You are guaranteed to like at least on half and I preferred second to the first.

An obvious comparison could be made with Renjith's 'Njan'. Both deals with the hypocrisies of its protagonists. In Njan, Dulquer Salman played a character who is very idealistic when it comes to preaching the society while being a big hypocrite when it comes to his personal life and people around him. Kuttiyappan was born into a rich life and both his parents are dead. He is living off their wealth and has got an old domestic help to take care of things. He has taken her for granted among other things. There is a sequence near the interval of the film where he is organising a felicitation for old, and now retired, prostitutes. One of them confronts him about his hypocrisy and general male attitude towards such things.

The second half starts off with him acting as if he needs to prove her wrong but the ending of the film just proves her to be right. He acts as if he is saving the life of a very young girl from prostitution but all the decisions are made by him. It is as if the young lady has no agency on deciding things about her life. The elephant decides to intervene as a slap for his male chauvinistic hypocrisies. One could also say that his so called sacrifice of deciding to marry a prostitute, is also out of convenience as his domestic help is in a bad state and possibly already dead.

Overall, the film is a very good watch with good performances all round. Renjith had reportedly pursued both Mammootty and Mohanlal to play the role of Kuttiyappan, but Biju Menon was quite perfect for the role. When it comes to leery characters, Mammootty's Kuttettan remains to be one of Malayalam's best ones as it remained quite unapologetic throughout. Jagadeesh plays a very against the type character to very good effect. Cinematography is stunning during the first half but was a bit of a letdown during those 'Thamarassery Churam' scenes in the second half. The only song in it is during the opening credits. The film could do well at the box office as almost all should like at least one half of it depending on their taste. It is not done perfectly but is a very worthy effort depending on your interpretation of it.

Rating: 3.5/5