The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)

Director: Joel Coen
Writers:  Ethan Coen, Joel Coen, Sam Raimi
Cast:       Tim Robbins, Paul Newman, Jennifer Jason Leigh

A naive business graduate is installed as president of a manufacturing company as part of a stock scam.

Hudsucker Proxy was Coen Borthers' first big budget film with it costing around $40 million including the marketing budget. It was a box office disaster grossing just over $2 million. It is a screwball comedy whose script was ready before 'Blood Simple' was even made. It is set in late 1950s New-York and contains references to many old films like Fritz Lang's 'Metropolis'. It also reminded me of Terry Gilliam's 'Brazil'. I had seen it some four years back and loved it. This time also I enjoyed it even though it is not consistently great. But the high points  of the film like the kid with the Hula Hoop scene and the climax fall scene are outrageously hilarious. Your enjoyment of the film will depend a lot on your reactions to the performances especially that of Jennifer Jason Leigh. Am neutral about her in the film. 

It is a great watch, especially for Coens fans.

Rating: 4/5

Big B (2007)

Director: Amal Neerad
Writers:  Amal Neerad, Unni R
Cast:       Mammootty, Nafisa Ali, Manoj K. Jayan, Vijayaraghavan
Language:Malayalam

After their foster mother was murdered in cold blood, four brothers try to find out the truth behind the death.

Film is an unofficial remake of Hollywood film 'Four Brothers' starring Mark Wahlberg, which was again loosely based on the American western 'Sons of Katie Elder'. It marked the directorial debut for Amal Neerad who made his name as cinematographer in several Ram Gopal Varma productions. However Samir Thahir handled the camera for 'Big B'. Like you expect from a film made by a technician like Amal Neerad, it is stylishly shot and technically very good. The background score (Gopi Sundar) is excellent and the music (Alphonse) is  used well to aid the storytelling. The story might not be original but unlike other Neerad films, there is at least some substance to all the stylishness. 

It was not a big success during its theatrical run but has went on to attain a cult status. The highlight of the film is the minimalist but characteristically great one-liners from the title character. It marked a welcome departure from other larger than life character films from those times which had tediously long speeches masquerading as dialogs. Mohanlal and Mammootty were guilty of making many such forgettable films which were kind of natural progression from Suresh Gopi's earlier Police roles in films like 'Ekalavyan' and 'Commissioner'. The filmmakers (Shaji Kailas, Renjith, Renji Panicker) were common in most of these films. So ' Big B' was a generational shift which was refreshing when it came out but then degenerated into spawning sub-genres like 'Fort Kochi' films, 'Heroes in leather jacket walking in slow-motion' films.

Anyways Big B is a great watch especially when it is on a big screen with good sound system. I was lucky to have seen it at cinemas when it was released.

Rating: 3.5/5

The Parallax View (1974)

Director: Alan J. Pakula
Writers:  David Giler, Lorenzo Semple Jr., Loren Singer
Cast:       Warren Beatty, Paula Prentiss, William Daniels

An ambitious reporter gets in way-over-his-head trouble while investigating a senator's assassination which leads to a vast conspiracy involving a multinational corporation behind every event in the world headlines.

America in the early 70s was a ripe place for Paranoia thrillers with the conspiracy theories behind JFK assassination and the Watergate scandal. This film is the second one of Pakula's 'Paranoia Trilogy' with 'Klute' preceding it and 'All the President's Men' coming next. All the President's Men is an all time classic and besides it I have seen Pakula's 'The Pelican Brief' which was rather forgettable. Parallax View reminded me of 'The Conversation' and 'The Chinatown' both of which were released the same year and are vastly superior films. Parralax View has its moments but overall it is kind of flawed and has not aged particularly well.

Rating: 3/5

Under the Skin (2013)

Director: Jonathan Glazer
Writers:  Michel Faber (Novel), Walter Campbell, Jonathan Glazer
Cast:       Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy McWilliams

A mysterious alien seductress preys upon the male population of Scotland.

The film starts with a tripping scene which would remind one of 2001: A Space Odyssey. It starts like a scene in space but ends up with shot of the eyes of Scarlett's character which could be an alien robot with artificial intelligence. She is under the command of another man who rides a sports bike. She is dressed up and send in a van to seduce her preys. Her victims are led by her into a room where they get naked and they get sunk into a black liquid upon following her. It can be seen subsequently that their bodies undergo some transformation and the plasma like residue is used by the aliens for some purpose unknown to us. She finally chooses a young man with disfigured face as her prey and after burying him she seems top have a change of heart, if that is the correct word. This is after she looks disturbed looking at her eyes in a mirror and previously in the film one of her victim had alluded to the fact that her eyes are special. She decides to drive away into Scottish wilderness even as her controller intensifies search for her. A slave robot going rogue is not an uncommon these kind of films but what makes the film special is the way it is presented. The imagery is stunning and soundtrack proper creepy. She tries in vain to behave like humans even though humanity is not shown in favorable light. 

I don't think Scarlett Johnson has appeared in any films naked before and in this one when she does, it is portrayed in a very unsexy way.  The whole film can be seen as a metaphor of what would happen when a Hollywood star(alien) have encounters with ordinary people. The whole film is shown from the alien perspective and unlike the usual Hollywood films, everything here is deliberately unsexy and awkward. Many of the co-actors are non-actors and the lines are largely improvised with them being given just an idea about the scene and to what extent they should be willing to go. Having a fling with Scarlett would be among most people's wet dreams and when it actually occurs here in the film for some, it doesn't turn out to be how they imagined. The film is an adaptation of Michel Faber's novel of the same name and I am not in a position to say whether it is a straight interpretation of it.

The other Jonathan Glazer film that I have seen is 'Sexy Beast', which enjoys a cult following. That film and this is like chalk and cheese. The film is cold and creepily beautiful like Scotland it is set in. It will divide the audience but watch it if you are a fan of the surreal stuff.

Rating: 4.5/5

Drishyam (2013)

Director: Jeethu Joseph
Writer:    Jeethu Joseph
Cast:       Mohanlal, Meena, Ansiba, Kalabhavan Shajohn
Language:Malayalam

Desperate measures are taken by a man who tries to save his family from the dark side of the law, after they commit an unexpected crime.

The film has smashed all box office records in Malayalam cinema history with the total take including box office, satellite rights and remake rights standing at around Rs. 65 Crores which is a big deal for a Malayalam film. Unlike in Hollywood where the financial success of a film from different eras could be compared by adjusting for inflation, in Indian film industry it cannot be done. One reason is that like all aspects of Indian economy, film industry is also under the influence of black economy and so, especially for older films, you don't have accurate data. Even now there is a significant influence of black money in the film industry and prime example for this is the producer of this film, Mr. Antony Perumbavoor, who used to work as a driver for Mohanlal and now he produces his master's films. He also makes a cameo appearance in this film which is not as cringey as the one he did in the 'Irupatham Noottand' sequel, the atrocious 'Sagar alias Jackey reloaded'. With the advent of multiplexes a major portion of total gross is contributed by them and more accurate data is available. Hopefully it will also improve the standard of films also because one could cater to a niche audience and still make profitable films. So if you cannot compare films  from different era based on their gross maybe one could compare based on theatrical days it ran. That is also problematic because when films were made in films and projected from films, they were initially released in A class cinemas and once that run is over, it would be released subsequently in B class and C class cinemas. The digital technology and internet has made that model obsolete and now the idea is to release films in maximum number of screens and try to get maximum initial collection. So successful film that ran for 100 days in the 90s could be comparable to a film that ran for a month these days. In that context the more than 100 days run that Drishyam managed is quite huge even though the  number of screens after the first two months maybe limited to major cities only. 

Enough about financials. The film can be classed as a family thriller. The first half of the film tries to establish the characters of the family, their environment and social standing. This part of the film is its weaker part with the script feeling clunky and Mohanlal in his cringy preachy mode that is now very common in his films these days. Films like 'Ivide Swargamaanu' and whatever little I have seen of 'Spirit' are examples for this. I am not criticizing the first half for being slow because it is essential as a foreplay for the second half of the film. Just that script is not very good. Many films that have been big hits in Malayalam lately are usually great in first half and then loses steam as it progresses. This is not a problem with Drishyam because for quite a long period of time it keeps the audience guessing and even as we try to pick holes in the plot, slowly and steadily it reveals its secrets. The exposition scenes are also done pretty decently and the victim's mother being the Police Officer trying to solve the case helps in that regard. The initial disclaimer that no animals were harmed during the production is a big clue for the twist that occurs towards the end. I just wish they hadn't so explicitly revealed where the body was hidden. They could have even just stopped with his line that he feels the Police and Police station will protect him. I would also say that the first scene of the film is very important for the film since it puts us in constant state of dread.

The director had initially approached Mammooty to do the main role and because of date clashes Mohanlal was chosen. He claims that no change in script was made subsequently and if so I am glad it was not Mammooty just for the fact that him doing the sensitivity dialog would have been totally unbearable. With Mohanlal doing it there was some comic value to the whole scene. Overall the film has its flaws but is a great one time watch.

Rating: 3.5/5

24 Hour Party People (2002)

Director: Michael Winterbottom
Writer:    Frank Cottrell Boyce
Cast:       Steve Coogan, Lennie James, John Thomson

In 1976, Tony Wilson (Steve Coogan) sets up Factory Records and brings Manchester's music to the world.

Tony Wilson was a news reporter for Granada television and the film begins with the punk rock era of late 70s and moves through the 1980s into the 'Madchester' scene of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The bands that are covered are Joy Division, New Order, A Certain Ratio, The Durutti Column and the Happy Mondays. Tony Wilson breaks the fourth wall with the audience throughout the film as an exposition technique but it is done with so much wit that you don't mind it one bit. At one point he goes that 'I am being post modern before it became fashionable'.  He explains to us that it is not about him but the artists and other recording people. But it is really about him who can be summed up by the only contract he had with the artists written in his own blood which essentially said that the artists are in full control and they can choose to fuck off whenever they want.

In his own words he wanted his epitaph to read: 'Here lies Tony Wilson who never sold out...err...because he never had anything to sell'. The expensive club 'Hacienda' he started took some time to get popular but even when it got popular it struggled to make money due to the fact that people who turned up were more interested to get their hands on Ecstasy and not the alcohols they were selling legally.

The film is based on a combination of rumors, real events, urban legends and imaginations of script writer. Both the Hacienda and Factory Records were closed down in the late 90s. 24 Hour Party People is one of the best film on music scene. It stands out because it does not focus much on the artists but more on people behind it and does not have a cliched cathartic moment. Everything is done in a matter of fact way. Good Vibrations is another such film.

Rating: 5/5

Fight Club (1999)

Director: David Fincher
Writers:  Chuck Palahnuik (Novel), Jim Uhls
Cast:      Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, Helena Bonham Carter

An insomniac office worker (Edward Norton) looking for a a way to change his life crosses path with a devil-may-care soap maker (Brad Pitt's Tyler Durden) and they form an underground fight club that evolves into something much, much more...

This was my third watch of this Fincher film and I had never found it to be all that great in my first two watches. First time I saw it was before I joined for my first job and the second time was after I quit that job to pursue higher education. On first watch I was kind of feeling clever for working out the twist much before we are supposed to get it. Second time, I liked the film but was not really enamored by the central idea of fight club. This time round I realized that I  had missed the point in my previous two watches. The film is not really meant to bamboozle the audience with the split personality twist and the fight club and the fights are only minor part of the story. It is really about the disillusionment with the materialistic nature of today's white collar workers where they are in constant race to own things that they really don't need. As Tyler Durden says things you own ends up owning you. This is one thing majority of the World would realize is happening to their sad lives. Film got plenty of criticism for glorifying the fight club part of the story and some real clubs had spawned after the release of the film. In the film the portrayal of fight club and its members is anything but glorifying. The members who wanted to get freedom from their jobs ends up being Space Monkeys for Tyler Durden's project ready to be sacrificed for the greater good. The film is really making fun of these people especially at their gullibility and inability to think for themselves. What I mean to say is that whilst the film is correct in terms of conveying the feeling and philosophy behind their actions it is not essentially justifying it.

It is really a film that demands to be viewed multiple times. Plenty of clues are there from the beginning for the split personality twist. In the first scene with Edward Norton, where he describes his insomniac conditions, Tyler Durden flashes before his eyes twice. Plenty of other clues are there like the narrator saying all three of Durden, Marla and himself are never in the same room. Only minor gripe is that we shouldn't be seeing Durden when Norton himself is not seeing him when both of them are in the same scene. At the airport scene Durden is seen stealing a sports car when narrator is looking the other way. There are also plenty of subtle references to it being a film. When the Police investigator calls the narrator and informs him that his flat's explosion was due to arson and implies he is a suspect, he goes on a passionate speech about how that flat and its furniture meant so much to him and it was essentially him that got destroyed. He then ends it with a line 'I'd like to thank the academy...'. Also look out for the cock just before the end credits which was inevitable after the explanation of Tyler splicing porno frames into family films. 

I am not a huge fan of David Fincher and this is the only film of his that I think is worth rewatching. I have seen Zodiac once and thought it was his best work but I think I need to watch it again to properly judge. It is a shame that Fight Club bombed at the box office and one major reason for that it was marketed targeting the wrong audience by giving prominence to the fight scenes in the trailer. So it ended up being a favorite for those who didn't realize that it was really making fun of them.

Tyler Durden: Man, I see in fight club the strongest and smartest men who've ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off.

Rating: 5/5