More and more film-watching 2006 (6)

*Mammoth post warning*

Since my movie binging days are far from over, here’s another post reviewing half of my past month’s batch in descending order of admiration. The batch includes Schindler’s List, V for Vendetta, Pulp Fiction, The Constant Gardener, Mr and Mrs Smith, Good Will Hunting, Run Lola Run, Syriana, United 93 and The Interpreter

What follows is not the usual analytical thesis that I subject my readers to (however few you are out there, I really should say this — I love you guys and thanks for bearing whatever I write here), and have boiled it down to only the most praise-worthy and cuss-worthy aspects of every movie.

The one-line summaries are lifted from imdb.com as they get their point made about the plot like no other (which really is another way of saying that I suck at summary-writing and can’t be bothered about writing a synopsis myself).

 

Schindler’s List (1993): *****

Its about: Oskar Schindler who uses Jews to start a factory in Poland during the war. He witnesses the horrors endured by the Jews, and starts to save them.

What works: It has two things that matter– a soul and a very important, inspiring story to tell. What elevates it instantly are scintillating performances from Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes and Ben Kingsley and a very interesting choice of shooting it all in monochrome which from the very first shot, makes it as sombre as sombre could be. It also feels like this huge, important epic with the Holocaust atrocities always captured with hundreds of victims, faraway shots of whole ghettoes and the camera content with capturing from a distance. Which also retains the film’s sobreity throughout and refrains it from exploitative.

The chill factor is derived from always letting the viewer see the larger picture and also from a relaxed pace where you see thousands and thousands of people being victimised savagely on an everyday basis who somehow get on with it day after day, in absolute obedience. There’s something very deeply disturbing about watching so many humans rendered vulnerable to such a level, and so easily.

Unforgettable Sequences: There are innumerable scenes where you wish you could look away throughout the film, and then there are, surprisingly nuggets of dark humour; but the truly unforgettable bits are the scenes which capture the slow metamorphosis of Schindler from a selfish Nazi to this compassionate person who runs a failed factory just to keep the Jews employed (quoting him “Stern, if this factory ever produces a shell that can actually be fired, I’ll be very unhappy.”) the last half an hour when he breaks down amidst all the Jews he managed to save (”I didn’t do enough… This pin. Two people. This is gold. Two more people. He would have given me two for it, at least one.”), and finally as the actors in the film walk in with the real-life Jews they played in the film to pay respects to Oskar Schindler’s grave, you just know you have watched a masterpiece.

What doesn’t work: When seen in the context of movie, nothing!

My final word: Schindler’s List is just such a noble, magnanimous chronicle of what remains possibly one of the most loathsome epoches in human history (we are living through one now, but that’s another story), and its made with so much class and gravity, that you just can’t miss it. Its one of those movies that makes you fall in love with this powerful medium called cinema. All over again.

V for Vendetta (2006): **** and 1/2

Its about: A shadowy freedom fighter known only as “V” uses terrorist tactics to fight against his totalitarian society. Upon rescuing a girl from the secret police, he also finds his best chance at having an ally.

What works: The period its set in (sometime near 2035) and the relevance of its dominant issues (that of governments playing “scare the public” game to fill the pockets of pharmaceutical/oil/arms industry giants and the general public paying a heavy price for losing their freedom and rights to the politicians just because they needed to feel more secure) is what clinched it for me. And then there’s an even deeper layer of suppression fuelling revolution, which is where the masked messiah “V” enters the scene and awakens the general public to start thinking for themselves and take control.

The best part is that such persuasive ideas are mated to spellbinding lead performances. As a reluctant apprentice who morphs into a motivated ally of V, Natalie Portman’s spirited performance is soul-stirring. And I am still in awe of Hugo Weaving who took me on an emotional roller-coaster just on the strength of his awesome voice modulation. His “V”, the atrocities meted out to him in the past fuelling his vengeance and passion: everything is so convincing from the word go, you have little choice but to fall for this superbly sketched character. The action is also superbly woven into the plot and its a big relief to not witness overlong and overdrawn showy sequences just for the heck of it. The production values, the setting, the cinematography, the dialogues, the background score, the screenplay, the editing, the build-up… every bit of technicality complements and elevates the movie even further, which is actually quite a rarity nowadays.

Unforgettable sequences: V’s grand entry where he laces his introduction with a barrage of V-words in his dialogue with Evey is hilarious and jaw-dropping (quoted below), the flashback sequence where V’s past as a guinea pig in a government’s facility of biological weapon (a deadly virus) testing and the way the government masterminds a heinous bioterrorist attack on its own country to gain control over people is superb; the whole sequence where Evey is imprisoned in a cell and the bigger reason behind it all is awesome; the fight sequences towards the climax with V tackling chancellor and his henchmen alone with swords are masterfully done, and there just couldn’t have been a better climax.

V’s terrific introductory dialogue without which no review of this movie is complete:

“Voila! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it’s my very good honour to meet you and you may call me V.”

What doesn’t work: A film as cynical (and to top that, as believable) as this does add fuel to all those conspiracy theories about 9/11 and the barrage of terrorist activities post Y2K.

My final word: One of the best movies to come out of late, for me V for Vendetta is as much a cult classic as the original Matrix was. What makes this even better is that it manages to comment honestly and unambiguously on real issues that surround today’s human condition and paints a compelling tomorrow in a supremely convincing sweep of narrative with a liberal helping of relishingly weighty dialogue and clapworthy performances. Not to be missed!

Pulp Fiction (1994): ****

What’s it about: The lives of two mob hit men, a boxer, a gangster’s wife, and a pair of diner bandits intertwine in four tales of violence and redemption.

What works: Samuel Jackson is God. He’s got the best lines and the guy just completely loses himself to the character and plays to the gallery. Plus it feels like a proper gangsta movie with all that swearing and bumping off. All those cuss words and expletives have been used expertfully to add more spice to the dark humour. And then there’s the structure, which without getting in too many knots is still shuffled enough to render the movie even more style than it has. Not to forget Uma Thurman who’s an absolute hoot as Mia Wallace and a thumping background score.

Unforgettable sequences: The scene where Mia springs back to life (literally) after a stab of adrenaline is howlarious, and I wasn’t expecting an otherwise kingpin-esque character like Marsellus Wallace getting brutally sodomized. Also the way Vincent (John Travolta) is bumped off is quite funny and the whole “Bonnie Situation” where Vincent accidently fires away at the guy in the backseat splattering his brain all over in the process only to be instructed to wipe it clean afterwards had me in stitches. Mia’s ketchup joke is funny too.

What doesn’t work: Well its Pulp Fiction. So other than the fun one has, there’s nothing more to it really.

Final word: A gangster film which really has so much fun while being what it is, that even the thought of it makes me grin. Very entertaining stuff although its a cult classic for absolutely different reasons (endless references and its structure etc).

The Constant Gardener (2005): *** and 1/2

Its about: A widower who is determined to get to the bottom of a potentially explosive secret involving his wife’s murder, big business, and corporate corruption.

What works: A gorgeous performance by Rachel Weisz and an even more gorgeous cinematography, both of which, with some help from Ralph Fiennes’ heartfelt portrayal of a troubled widower whose quest behind his wife’s murder takes him deeper and deeper into the web of rampant abuse in Africa by American pharmaceutical giants, uplift this otherwise routine medical thriller to something worth adding to your DVD library.

Unforgettable sequences: There’s a lot of spontaneity and care that’s gone in capturing the love between the husband and wife. Thanks to the excellently nuanced performances and some splendid on-screen chemistry between Weisz and Fiennes, every scene they’re in together is an honest moment witnessed, and every moment they aren’t, pregnant with anxiety. Which makes the death scenes quite horrifying, and unforgettable. Brilliant climax too.

What doesn’t work: For the genre that the film is in, the core story is pretty run of the mill. Its got one of those basic plots that spring to mind everytime the two words “medical thriller” are uttered.

My final word: I have never quite used the two words “moving” and “thriller” in the same sentence without the word “not”. What makes Constant Gardener special is just that—it’s a moving thriller. Let’s thank the writers and the director for giving so much flesh and blood to the characters, to Ralph Fiennes’ mature, classy performance and (I repeat) to Rachel Weisz’s phenomenally convincing portrayal of head-strong Tessa.

Mr and Mrs Smith (2005): *** and 1/2

Its about: A bored married couple that is surprised to learn that they are both assassins hired by competing agencies to kill each other.

What works: Angelina Jolie, Angelina Jolie and then some more. This female “sex on legs” has such a charismatic screen presence, I could watch this movie a 100 times just to watch her kick ass the way she does it here. The lady’s lethal, I kid you not.

Also, I have to (reluctantly) admit that its all thanks to her superb chemistry with Brad Pitt that the minimal verbal exchanges and looks that the Smiths share, are clever and sometimes, shockingly enough, poignant. And yes, the film’s choc-a-block filled with brilliantly choreographed action sequences.

Unforgettable sequences: There’s this lengthy sequence after the husband and the wife have learnt the truth about their partners’ vocation which starts off with them staring knowingly from opposite ends of the dining table and ending in a full-blown action sequence. To see Ms Jolie give that delicious pout and her smart-ass smile all that while is highly amusing. Given they were under the obligation of profession, its also hilarious how both of them find out (amidst a 300 mph chase sequence) that everything they knew about each other, uptil then, was a lie. Their camaraderie is a treat with a T and finally when they collaborate, the twosome are given such an insanely well choreographed action sequence, you literally jump out of your chair to cheer them on. And then there’s Vince Vaughn’s motormouth of a character who’s so eccentric and just such a drama queen, that you can’t help cracking up everytime he starts his whine-a-thon.

What doesn’t work: Well, its your staple Hollywood blockbuster, so if you think about it too hard, it really does fall flat. I’d rather keep my over-analysis away from movies like these.

My final word: Its every bit as slick, delicious and dripping with attitude as I had anticipated it to be. What I hadn’t anticipated and still got was a lot of subtle wit and honest moments between the Smiths literally amidst all the noisy wham-bam. Quite a movie, this!

Good Will Hunting (1997): *** and 1/2

Its about: Will Hunting, a janitor at MIT, who has a gift for mathematics which is discovered, and a psychologist tries to help him with his gift and the rest of his life.

What works: All you really take home from the movie are the powerhouse performances from the male trio of Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Robin Williams. Brilliant dialogues too.

Unforgettable sequences: Robin William’s performance in each of the scenes where he confronts this bitter and hostile Will one session after another is to be seen to be appreciated. The wordplay, the psychologist-patient dynamics, the breaking-the-ice and the final denouement are exceedingly well written and well performed too. And then there’s this sequence where Affleck’s character gives his piece of mind to Matt Damon’s Will for waking up and making the most of his inherent genius. He says something on the lines of wishing everyday while picking Will up that Will’d be gone from the hell-hole they dwell in without letting them all know and “It’d be an insult to us if you’re still here in 20 years. Hangin’ around here is a fuckin’ waste of your time.”

Last, but in noway the least, are the showdowns between Will’s psychiatrist and the mathematics professor who thinks Will’s got it in him to get the Field’s medal. Their conflicts of interest clashing, with either one pitting academic success and inherent ambition is an absolute genius from both the writing and acting point of view.

What doesn’t work: Surprisingly, there’s not much new to why Will doesn’t want to realise his full potential, academically and his relationships. He has a messed up childhood and I guess in a brutal world we inhabit, the oft-repeated Freudian concept, for all its relevance and validity, isn’t quite as shocking or profound as the film would have you believe. Ditto for the film’s definition of a genius, which is conveniently over-the-top.

Final word: Just to acknowledge the acting genius of the lead performers and writing talents of Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, the film’s well worth your time. Its slightly over-rated, but a well intentioned piece of movie-making.

United 93 (2006): *** and 1/2

Its about: A real time account of the events on United Flight 93, one of the planes hijacked on 9/11 that crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania when passengers foiled the terrorist plot.

What works: The documentary format and the handheld camera retains the chaos of the air-traffic control rooms on Sept.11 and logistical, communication bottlenecks in face of this sudden, incomprehensibly unrelenting attack. That, and the intensity in the key final moments is exceedingly well captured. Plus its just a non-judgemental well-conceptualised re-telling of what happened on-board the fourth plane.

Unforgettable sequences: Just when the first plane crashes into the world trade center, the immediate hush that silences everything in an otherwise live-with-ruckus-and-noise air traffic control center is very sombering. And who can ever forget the final 15 minutes of this movie when the passengers aboard fight back with fire extinguishers and all until the aircraft nosedives into this remote field. The whole sequence, thanks to the perennially shaky handheld camera, has this surrealistic, lucid dream feel to it. Oh, that cockpit view in those last few seconds almost paralysed me. Its exceptionally well done.

What doesn’t work: In the context of the movie, nothing. Yet, just like any other documentary made, I wouldn’t watch this again. And its non-judgemental neutrality has got a lot to do with it. Ultimately, for me its just a well-staged piece which besides making me feel sorry for all the innocent people who braved their way in-flight, did little else. Nothing new in that and also, the first half which is largely shot within the air traffic control center, is quite a tedious one to watch (its realistic, yes, but all that endless co-ordinate talk was quite a put-off after half an hour or so).

Also, one enters the cinema to have more of the in-flight drama (its called United 93, right?) but the measly half an hour that’s spent in the flight has the cameraman having an epileptic fit while shooting (the picture was so shaky at times, it sent my head reeling). Pity about all those anonymous actors who were cherry-picked to be as close as possible to those who lost their lives aboard, for the wobbly lens seldom captures a face intact. There are no characters to speak of and in a way, the film’s own detachment to the whole event works a little against it.

Final word: Its a moving motion picture that re-enacts a quarter of 9/11 with often disturbing results. Ultimately though, its just a re-enactment. Nothing more, nothing less.

Run Lola Run (1999): ***

What’s it about: A young woman in Germany has twenty minutes to find and bring 100,000 Deutschmarks to her boyfriend before he robs a grocery store. These twenty minutes are captured three times over, with small differences that lead up to totally different conclusions.

What works: The basic premise of the butterfly effect (or chaos theory) is as amusing as it is valid. In fact, what is very intriguing about this flick is that it really tunnels the repurcussions of even the minutest of chances taken/not taken in everyday life and depicts how even they can drastically change the course of one’s life. In its own weird way, this sets you thinking about how much in life one takes for granted.

What doesn’t work: The godawful English dubbing which can give even porn movies some competition. Corny and clumsily delivered, there simply isn’t the sense of urgency that the film’s 80 minutes and three timelines demand. If only I had the ability to bear reading English subtitles with German spat in my ears (I just can’t do that!), I wouldn’t have to put up with the terrible English dialogues. This, and the whys and hows of different timelines are left bizarrely unanswered. Unlike in The Butterfly Effect, where Kutcher had the way to portal through a diary into his most unpleasant memories and change them, here, the different timelines are stand-alone manipulations of the writers. There are hints of residual memory in Lola thrown about, which makes matters even worse.

Final word: An amusing little piece of work well worth one’s time for its ever-intriguing premise.

The Interpreter (2005): ***

What’s it about: Political intrigue and deception unfold inside the United Nations, where a US Secret Service agent (Penn) is assigned to investigate an interpreter (Kidman) who overhears an assassination plot.

What works: The not-so-subtle parallels between the movie’s fictional country of Matobo and its president Zuwanie to the real state-of-affairs in Zimbabwe which is governed (read dictated) by its president Mugabe. The movie actually takes the issue of honest visionaries turning into tyrannical dictators very seriously, and manages to hit home with that very convincingly. Sean Penn is his usual efficient self and so is Kidman. Its very densely plotted and the way Kidman’s past and connections with the Republic of Matobo are revealed slowly, one layer at a time, makes for an intriguing watch. Much of my respect for the movie though, came after watching it, when I realised they actually constructed a whole new African language (”Ku”) for the movie, not to forget its deliberate references.

What doesn’t work: Its so overtly plotted that there were a few times I had to pause it for 2-3 seconds just to work out exactly who was trying to find out what in that scene. Either that or I watched this when I should have been in bed. And yes, its grim and serious from the opening to the closing credits.

Final word: Its a decent enough thriller, where lack of energy and relief is well compensated for by an intriguing and topical plotline.

Syriana (2005): ***

What’s it about: A politically-charged epic about the state of the oil industry in the hands of those personally involved and affected by it.

What works: Of the four parallel stories, two work bigtime. One is that of an energy analyst (played by Matt Damon) who attends an emir’s private party in Spain and advises Prince Nasir there to put all the money towards consolidating country’s infrastructure, women’s upliftment etc rather than squander away on useless luxuries really gets to the heart of the theme of US suppressing any kind of middle-east upheaval or reform so as to continue with its patron-like stance to acquire more and more oil, like no other movie I have watched.

This, and there’s another thread where a merger between two oil firms renders many Pakistani migrant workers redundant in the Middle-East. Jobless and waiting to be deported back, one of the younger workers falls prey to the (what else but) a Muslim fundamentalist group and slowly turns into a suicide bomber. A spine-chilling thread, its climax really makes Syriana worth watching.

For that matter, despite being a little too cryptic, the other two threads… that of a CIA operative (played by George Clooney) made scapegoat by the CIA when their plot to assassinate Prince Nasir fails and of the Departments of Justice suspecting bribery when there’s a merger between an American energy giant and a small oil company, are immensely interesting. And there’s this rawness and a very acute sense of place and time and urgency (what with the oil fields running dry one after the other), which makes Syriana so believable a movie, its quite impressive. And yes, a very shocking climax when three of the four stories get enmeshed really endows the film with the much needed shock value and drama.

Its also laced with some of the most real and most compelling performances I have seen from the ensemble. Scenes like where Matt Damon’s on-screen wife blames him for taking advantage of their son’s death, where Clooney’s tactics to assassinate Prince Nasir misfire and he’s tortured ruthlessly (nails teared out with pliers and all), or where Wasim, the naive kid-turned suicide bomber hugs his father Saleem before driving away in a motorised, missile-laden dinghy into an oil tanker are haunting.

What doesn’t work: How I wish it was just a little less heavy-handed than it is. For however much impressive its complex plot and its terrific topicality is, on paper… on screen it never quite reaches the dramatic peak or involve the viewers totally as much it had the potential to. End result–its a tad boring and atleast two of the four stories are a chore to sit through. This is what bad execution does to a movie.

Final word: Its a very important, grim, cerebral, thoroughly well-acted and raw, if a somewhat dull account of the New Age Blood-for-Oil Imperialism. The film’s modern-day relevance and repeated jolts in the second half should be enough for you to look beyond the untolerably dragging bits.

Phew! That, I have to admit, was exhausting. I’d post the other half of the batch soon.