The Ruins

“Cannibalistic creepers atop a Mayan ruin amidst a remote Brazillian jungle your idea of a scary movie? Officially, this is the Descent of 2008 with nice performances, a great premise and gore that’s terrifically raw and impressionistic (yes, stabbing oneself repeatedly to get the living creepers out or cutting off an infected leg by stoning with a red hot aluminium pan is quite some stuff to stomach I must say. A big loud clap for the superb prosthetics and editing).The body count’s high, the characters behave with integrity-a rarity in the genre and its written well overall. The “intelligent” flowers making an uncannily perfect mobile tone plus taking on one of the girls’ characteristics and feeding her paranoia are plot-points that begged to be etched out, but are chilling nevertheless. Impressive!”

Movie reviews of the 0-9 titled brigade (2007 and 2008)

Movies seen in 2008:

21 (2008): §§§§§ (5 on 10)

 

Pretty much by-the-numbers but reasonably entertaining fare based on true events about a group of MIT geniuses with their teacher-cum-mastermind taking over Las Vegas casinos bigtime by counting cards at blackjack table. The main character’s (a supergeek >< close to getting into Harvard Med School but desperately short of booty) intentions, dilemmas, motivations and actions are painted with stark black and white hues with cliche after cliche piled to give a familiar cosy lesson of growing up and realisation of the-stuff-what-really-matters-in-life, but all of it somewhat works and although you pinch your bum gone numb after a 2 hour morality lecture, it makes for good natured, harmless popcorn-cola entertainment. And yes, it made me refresh another card game. Which is sort of handy. So no love lost.

 

 

12 Monkeys (1995): §§§§§§§ (7 on 10)

 

Though jaded and uninspiring visually (which is rather surprising considering it comes from Terry Gilliam), this is another worthy addition to cerebral science fiction which sports a cracker of a script, applaudable performances from Willis and Pitt and such intelligent dialogue as very seldom heard in movies now. Great characterisation and idea-wise some great sequences. A prisoner of a now-surviving-in-underground-humans in future being sent back in time to find the virus that wiped it all and led to dominion of chief cities by animals has its moments. After time-travelling first to 1990 in an asylum where a panel of psychiatrists disbelieve him (obviously) and meeting a scientist’s insane son (an uproarious Pitt) to then going back to WW1 times only to get shot and then finally to 1996 with his now-ex-psychiatrist lady who slowly gets convinced its not really all going on in Willis’ head and he really is someone from future, its convoluted because it should be, not because it can be. Its a pity that her timing coincides with Willis’ believing he’s nothing but a goner, and all this saving the world thing is going on in his head; anyways it finally turns out they are unable to stop the inevitable disaster (Willis’ was having pre-visions of the climactic airport scene throughout and besides being a brave denouement resolution wise for the genre, it also lays to rest any incongruities that could have been brought about by the Butterfly Effect). In film’s own words, its a depiction of what’s known as “Cassandra complex” in which sometimes knowledge of the future comes with the impotence of not being able to avert it. But yea, the lackadaisical visuals (its similar to the more recent Children of Men in that it reconstructs a grimy apocalyptic future but with near-zilch slickness) meant it took me many fragmented viewings to get into this, but am glad I pressed on. It is a quality film. 

 

2 Days in Paris (2007): §§§§§§§§§ (9 on 10)

 

An exceedingly assured, poignant and honest slice-of-life love story about a middle aged couple (a young French woman and an American guy) and what transpires in their 2 day detour to Paris which happens to be the girl’s home city. The slow revelations about her past relationships through walks and wine parties with bizarrely eccentric guys and the overall openness about sex and intimacy topics in family and in the French land freaks out the hypochondriac guy no end. To say nothing of putting up with the verbal duels that the girl keeps on having with mum, minicab drivers, exes who are almost-paedophiles and a dad who scratches cars parked on pavements with his keys, bathrooms with moulds, condoms that are too small, and organic French grocery markets where skinned piglets and rabbit tongues are in the open. Its not any surprise he gets a bit freaked out and a little paranoid about the girl’s proximity to the guys around as the language barrier and a diametrically opposite way of everyday social protocol make things really tough.

But since, its a slice of life dramedy, the differences the couple have, the misunderstandings and all–they get resolved like they always do; when you have two people with a same world view, sense of humour, who’re all heart and who’re genuinely exasperated by the whole shabang of the “break-up”, it does come together in the end, or does it? Eternal Love or compromise in the end then?

There’s Delpy’s awesomely sincere monologue with all things that exasperate her-from the endless photo-clicking on night outs and sightseeing (is that jibe timely or what for us facebook addicts!) to when she confesses to the audience how there comes a point in time when you don’t want to start all over again, and how she’s still puzzled by how people can go from loving each other madly to nothing at all. Midway through, her difference of opinion with Jack about how she’s friends with her ex-es play on the same note, the neuroticism of this character resonated resoundingly with me. It is immensely sincere and as I said before, very assured a debut where the director has the audience by the collar and knows her characters inside out. Delpy’s totally adorable and so caring, so unpretentious and so unflinchingly French, your heart goes out to her despite all her eccentricities. The conversation romcom is  cute, keenly observed, and the lead characters are consistently spontaneous. The most interesting part is, even though you as a viewer hear Delpy’s monologue all the way through and the perspective totally switch to her in the final pivotal scene, it is as much an Adam Goldberg’s movie as besides everything else, it is a movie about cross-cultural relationships and unsubtitled, your identification to his viewpoint and the stuff that ticks him off as an English-speaking person is instant. Its a little gem of a movie, totally in line with Before Sunrise and Before Sunset about what its really like to be in a relationship. Atleast for me. 

 

3:10 to Yuma (2007): §§§§§§§§§ (9.5 on 10)

 

Never in this lifetime would I have believed to like a Western so much, until I watched this one. Its an absolutely fantastic Western drama with a bewitching background score and supremo performances by Bale, Crowe and the whole ensemble. It works so well because its more of a character driven drama where a prisoner plays off his captors by more of his verbal acrobatics and smooth tongue than his christ-engraved pistol. He would probe where they stand, try to buy them off, and then in the final act, give in to the bond shared by a family-man-but-no-hero rancher and his eager-for-a-role-model elder son. Or does he? The final act absolutely seals it in my all time favourites, as Crowe performs with class, wit and totally tuned-in emotion. And no-one does the quiet suffering and pent-up angry male as Bale. Very interesting supporting characters too (Ben Foster in the career-defining sidekick role) , and just overall, a very mobile movie that doesn’t bore for a second (this whole trek to catch the 3:10 to Yuma really keeps things going and simmering). Fabulous morality play that totally redeemed Mangold as a director for me. Very enjoyable and not at all disposable. Compulsive viewing.

 

4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days (Romanian) (2008): §§§§§§§§ (8.5 on 10)

I watched this one back in January with crappy subtitles and despite the fact that I was still absolutely able to tap into this story of two friends, one of whom is raring to have an abortion, in late 80s Romania, means somewhere someone got a lot of things right. And that someone is the director and the casting director who cast Anamaria-the girl who gives an absolutely winning performance as a wholly sacrificing friend who arranges and does everything for her friend’s abortion. The everyman heroism that her character has, and the values that it embodies-of friendship, trust, compassion, and most of all sacrifice at the cost of her own life is very heart-wrenching, and hits you much after the movie’s ended. Soon after her character is raped (to make up for the total sum of money for the abortionist), she has to hurry to her boyfriend’s mother’s birthday party, and there’s this one scene where she sits at the dining table with all the “educated” and classist elders who, like most elders invariably do, chide away her generation as being pampered, and how people from simple families don’t deserve allotments etc, and this girl’s stoic composure even as her eyes sway with frustration, anger and shock of what transpired barely an hour back, is a scene to behold. And then there’s the whole sequence with the abortionist itself, its a winningly written, directed and performed scene where the 2 hapless girls try to convince the abortionist they’ll pay the full dues for the abortion. Its probably one of the most tension filled, personal conversation I’ve seen, and the movie’s ability to capture the human pathos in so much honesty makes it worthy of all the accolades. The style is very minimalist and realistic and in noway does the extraneous setting of Romania intrudes overtly (except for every official’s callous attitude and obsession with IDs–both very Indian attitudes). But a very humane movie, all in all. A grim and unflinching watch!

 

Movies I saw in 2007 titled 0-9:

 

300 (2007): §§§§§§§§ (8 on 10)

What happens when you mate contemporary video-game production design with swords, shields, crowns, sandals, kings and wars? You have something as thrilling and as sensorily overwhelming as 300. Stylish to the core, bordering on homoeroticism and sporting a thumping score, the movie’s charm is in the combat scenes where every move of the choreographed action can be enjoyed in slow motion. Besides being ultrastylish, the two plus two storyline is equally compelling to watch for its simplicity and unambiguity, something of a rarity in these post-modern times. The preposterousness of the politics of the “committee of the wizened and the learned” who wouldn’t send backup to its courageous ruler simply because he’s taken 300 of the best human killing machines as the queen struggles to get her point across in that uproariously written speech has a deft contemporary sensibility about it and the delineation of black and white is so clear and powerful, it has your attention. Its filled with those old-school scenes of unambiguous emotions when courageous people are fighting in outworldly circumstances: like that somewhat cliched wail of a mighty old warrior who sees his son decapitated in plain sight–its wonderfully simple in its virtuosity. But perhaps more than anything else, its the no-holds-barred and fight-till-I-drop spirit of the brave Spartans that you take away long after the movie’s finished. Honour and valour never had such an unquestioning ode from the otherwise bloated, tired war movie genre where attention to detail usually detracts from the heart and core. Let’s thank Zack Snyder for making us all feel like we were holding shields and spears ourselves when it was only popcorn and coke. And Gerald Butler too, for making us believe in every syllable of “Hail Sparta!” 

 

25th Hour (2002): §§§§§§§§§ (9 on 10)

Simply put, this is Spike Lee at his best. The director turns even a seemingly turgid premise of a drug addict gone introspective on his last day of freedom before a seven year jail term into a story that’s so sincere and so humane, its spell-binding. Boasting of virtuoso performances from Edward Norton (watch him swear at everything that New York stands for in front of a mirror or pleading his best mates to pulp his face or the final 30 minutes as he drives away with his dad to the prison is the stuff great cinema’s made of), Barry Pepper, Brian Cox and Philip Seymour Hoffman, a background score that’s fresh and haunting and characterisations plus sequences so sincere and real, you can’t get them out of your head. Manipulativeness is replaced by languid geniality which might make the first half a tad difficult to get into, but stay put and if you are a sucker for nostalgia in real life, you’d be rooting for everyone and everything this movie stands for. The story arc is fantastic, you won’t be able to guess the next thing happening and you’d be surprised how honestly it captures a man’s desire for redemption and that “one more chance” in life. 

My commentary hasn’t finished yet, by the looks of my log though,

Scenes that stood out for me: 4 most noteworthy:

1. Ed’s outburst in the bathroom mirror where he monologues away to his reflection how pissed he really is with everyone and everything that’s New York.

2. Then, the scene where Ed demands his friend Barry to make him ugly. The whole unflinching sequence right from he’s pulped by his friend, to the way he swaggers away into his girlfriend’s arms, l remember secretly sobbing through it all. Just thereafter, his dad Brian Cox telling him to drive away to prison while his girlfriend goes to the fridge for ice cubes-it felt REAL, so real I thought I was hallucinating.

3. Finally, his dad’s monologue of how Ed could just run away and start afresh (which is very interesting a tag-on because without it the movie would have been very visceral if a tad too depressing. With that monologue and Ed’s dream tagged on, the picture of hope painted towards the really emotionally heavy fag-end of the movie really turns up the mood and yes, the final shot of ed sleeping on his windscreen is open to interpretation (are they actually making a run? Is he dreaming?). Any which way, its an inspiring and deeply affecting movie (90% so because the characters are so lovingly sketched).. its almost like you become one with ed’s character towards the latter half (since he really is a good man) and you really don’t want him behind the bars and you’ve so enjoyed every moment on screen with him.

4. The random subplot of Hoffman’s character’s affair with a student, not only is a fab attention diverter and relief tactic, but also makes the whole movie filled with one more old-school home truth- a geeky friend who accompanies them to the bar, is the butt of most of their jokes but is the 1st one to shoulder his pulped friend on a shoulder, this movie really is just all heart. 

Loved the background score throughout (Spike’s got an achilles heel for Indian music–I like that, even though at times it sits awkwardly for me atleast, but overall, the experiment pays off where the score never intrudes/manipulates the viewer. And it is a film that’s going to shine brighter with a second viewing as u then for sure know what’s going to happen to Ed. Its his last day before he goes to prison (boy, the scene in the bar where he breaks down in front of his best mate is class), there’ll be nostalgia for 1st-time suckers of this movie like me, and boy its gonna be worth it. So looking forward to another watch.

Probably the best book adaptation I have seen and a resounding reminder that Spike Lee really knows his movies, his humour and his action. Class! 

 

 

13 Conversations about One Thing (2001): §§§§§§ (6 on 10)

 

A drifting, maudlin, multiple-stories-interjecting around a common theme movie that supposedly talks about happiness. Supposedly being the operative word. The soporific and sleep-inducing background score aside, it is a very organic and real movie with some really believable performances (Especially Alan Arkin who rocks as the boss who’s pissed at an employee with a perpetual smile on face…haha). Only problem being that it probably takes itself a little too seriously and there’s a slight stink of pretension in one of the story arcs of this girl who breaks into a moronic lecture about looking at the life’s bright side even in the face of cold unpredictability (she’s just been bumped by a car when she was walking down the road holding the ironed shirt of an architect she works for and even after the accident, she buys a new shirt and goes back to return it only to be confronted by the sod who suspects she’s stolen his watch).

And then there’s Matthew McCaunahey’s character who in his sanctimonious mode after winning a case is lecturing everyone how he’s worked it all out and he’s so lucky and more such blah blah to Arkin and then just when he thinks he rules the world he bumps a girl on the road. And his world falls apart as he hides his crime and his whole belief on how justice prevails in the world is shaken. Its reasonably well done.

The last story arc is about this professor who enters an affair with a fellow teacher but on the day when he gets to know that its going nowhere since the hubby’s found out, his rebuking a keen student sends the latter off the rooftop really amplifies how even the littlest things we do or say can have such an effect on another person’s state of mind. Actually I like this movie more as I write about it but then some movies are deceptive like that. Awesome on paper, mediocre on screen. Still, its a middlingly atmospheric movie with good performances that says nothing exceptionally new but for its believability begs one watch maybe.

 

28 Weeks Later (2007):§§§§§§§ (7 on 10) 

 

I had absolutely given up on zombie movies now. Until this movie. It managed to somewhat freak even a zombie-immunised soul like me with some nicely staged action sequences, good quality acting, exhaustingly different camera techniques to spook one out (the torchlight, the night camera, the tracker… hell every camera and lens kind is experimented with), its pretty ambitious, but really the storyline’s got zero credibility (oh stop the moaning I should!) and what spirals the whole movie off is two kids purposely doing a stupid thing (like they do in these horror flicks, it is such a regular thing, I should stop bemoaning its existence as well. Bah!). 

 

Scenes that rocked it: The helicopter-chopping-zombie scene, the chase sequence where the people are chased trapped in a volvo through increasingly smoke-infested london streets, then the scene where all the mortals are trapped in the parking lot and a zombie enters and starts off a snowball of biting each other… quickly thereafter the orders for military to eliminate everyone-zombie or not.

So yea, its a stretch, but the one time watch was quite entertaining and the attention to detail in creating a mood was laudable at times. And more than anything, it was good enough to be one of the few creditworthy sequels that lived up to the now-modern-cult-classic original (Boyle’s 28 Days Later), and I am waiting for the sequel in the making. Hail the big studios turning every little germ of an idea that gets their money back into a money-milking franchise of diminishing creative returns. I hope this one-in-the-making proves me wrong, although I highly doubt it.

36 Chowringhee Lane (Bengali) (1981): §§§§§ (5 on 10)

 

 

An Aparna Sen-directed movie of which I really had heard about quite a lot. Underwhelming and ho-hum by the end of it all I have to say. So an old teacher in an old-age home has been estranged by her daughters (married and gone off abroad) and an erstwhile student who bumps into her takes advantage of her by using her home as a sod-pad tricking all the way through the poor lady into thinking that him and his partner really care for her. By the end of it, the couple move on to better pastures forgetting about the old lady (as it happens in life). I won’t deny that the issues handled here are real (the loneliness that envelopes the old age, of people moving on and the place of the spoken word in the contemporary sensibility) but somehow I wasn’t impressed by the Shakespearen style acting and the bookish dialogue. The dialogue and the acting’s very mannered, almost as if every actor’s learned the British and Scottish colloquialisms and figure of speeches the day before. I also thought the whole movie was ham-handed, patronising and manipulative, which is a surprise since its an arthouse classic; but it is what it is: too theatrical to touch me in any way.  

 

Moving on to the first alphabet now!

Pathology

 

“Utterly gratuitous slasher movie with abysmal characterisation and belief-defying leaps in the power of a small gang of perverted medics going mad in the mortuary. But its salvaged by slick production values, some awesome prosthetics and bloodwork that make some of the psycho-butchering a guilty watch (especially that final scene where one of the main characters is relishingly slipping and dancing away in blood as his latest handiwork of 3 victims lie about carelessly in the room). For people who find themselves in a fix over what movie to watch before the next sequel of Saw or Hostel comes out, this one should prove to be a satiating filler.”

Back to more film-watching 2006 (5)

Yes, I am back to what I do on this blog. Reviewing movies. For a change, all three movies below were experimental, fresh in one way or the other and each one of these had a powerhouse performance by a female artiste.

Garden State (2004): ****

I can’t remember the last time I did not cringe when one of the lovers went through a heart change towards the climax and finally did the inevitable kiss as the credits waited to roll. One of those generic things that’s written in stone as a formula for the perfect romcom, in Garden State, it comes across so convincingly that it leaves you all warm and fuzzy. And that’s because the film does what is actually quite a rare sight- capturing every moment of companionship with absolute honesty. No matter how flawed and over-written it remains in places, its the masterful romance at the film’s heart that haunts you long after the film’s over. Chronicling the life of a troubled twentysomething TV actor in LA, who comes home to Garden State for his mother’s funeral, the movie follows him as he meets up with his acquaintances and chances upon the quirky girl-next-door Sam while waiting outside a neurologist’s clinic. Funnily enough, Sam’s a motormouth with a gift to lie for no apparent reason. How slowly their relationship blossoms and their realisation of how right they are for each other is the stuff great romances are made of. Replace great with real-life in the last sentence and you’ll know the inspiration for all my ga-ga over this movie.Garden State wouldn’t be anywhere as good as it is had Natalie Portman, Zach Braff and Peter Sarsgaard didn’t perform the way they have. Portman is an actress to behold. Seldom do you get to see such self-aware characters played so uninhibitedly that they become a real blast to watch. Quoting her one line which really hit home with me bigtime: “OK, so… so… sometimes I lie. I mean, I’m weird, man. About random stuff too, I don’t even know why I do it. It’s like… it’s like a tick, I mean sometimes I hear myself say something and think, Wow, that wasn’t even remotely true”. And the character’s always mouthing such refreshingly real lines, and you just can’t help but fall in love with Sam. When she’s not busy lying or accusing herself of ruining some moment or wondering if Braff’s character is totally freaked out with her, she’s doing this cute and weird stuff like standing all of a sudden in her room and do these funny actions and noises (according to her, she’s creating an “original moment”). And though Sam looks forward to a good cry by laughing more on the life’s ironies, you secretly wish that she doesn’t. I can’t remember the last time (yes, this is the second time I am saying this in a review) I have cared so much for a character.

And then there’s the little master Zach Braff, who trebles here as the actor, writer and director. And for someone who’s accustomed to his over-the-top slapstick in Scrubs, his underplay in Garden State is genuinely surprising. Nonetheless, it is this very subtlity that lends immense poignance and dignity to the film’s energy. Cossetted inside the quitely troubled Andrew Largeman, the protagonist, its a performance standing on meaningful glances and commonplace lines delivered the way only a collected, deeply perceptive actor can manage. The film’s pure magic when he’s sharing the space with Portman’s Sam and their heart-to-hearts are so spontaneous and bereft of cheese, you practically wince in your couch the time when Braff decides to sort his life out and leaves Portman stranded on the airport (and no this isn’t the end).

As a second lead, Peter Sarsgaard, like a true blue thesp at his craft, manages to do his badmouthing, soft-hearted chum routine with a charm and deadpan style that’s sure to make you grin. His part is a tad over-written in the initial reels with scenes like Braff’s meeting with his old buddies stretched for no reason (or so it appears on the first viewing), but still in such a charming film, these are minor glitches you learn to like on subsequent viewings. Likewise Braff’s relationship with his psychologist cum dad doesn’t really strike the right note (that, or because its such a dysfunctional one that the lack of any seeking-out-to-each-other is deliberate).

The word note reminds me of the film’s fantabulous soundtrack that’s choc-a-block with one lilting pop ditty on another. Braff’s cherry picked some of the most moving and lyrically sound contemporary tracks and tunes and used them to splendid effect.

On the whole, even though people like to remember Garden State as a superb chronicle of a twentysomething’s angst, for me its a cheerful little tale of how uplifting true love can be. Sunshine stuff!

Closer (2004): ***

The Graduate’s director makes a comeback with this decidedly pessimistic whine-a-thon on relationships in the new millenium. By the end of it all, two of the four lead people have cheated on their partners, one of them has manipulated his partner back with him and the remaining one is revealed to have gone through the whole drama of being loved and dumped under a pseudonym. Save for two-three minor scenes, the film’s obsessed with amplifying the worst in every character which does make for an occasional uncomfortable (but interesting) viewing.

A minor road-accident acts as a starting point for a London-based obituary writer Dan (Jude Law) and an American stripper Alice (Natalie Portman). The dormant writer in Dan finally finds in Alice a muse for his first book. One year on–they are a couple but Dan starts to randomly flirt and then have a serious affair with Anna (Julia Roberts), his photographer. In some weird mindframe, an year later, Dan enters a cybersex chatroom pretending to be this hot babe called Anna, making a doc (Clive Owen) literally wet in his pants (yea, I know you got it) and alluring him into meeting at the London Aquarium. Little realising that he played the perfect cupid for the doc (Larry) and the real Anna. Anna and Larry become a couple, but not without Anna secretly dating Dan. The scene is set for some serious, expletive-filled showdowns. And the spoils are for everyone to live with.

In this cyber age when we are bombarded with people ready for a no-strings-attached physical relationships and one night stands, monogamy does seem a suffocating concept. To add to the fun, there’s always the one-look-and-you-are-wiped-off-your-feet kind of infatuation which, married or otherwise, just has to be answered to. So how the hell does one expect an institution like marriage to work? Its a brave statement to make, but Closer’s gung-ho about forcing this bitter syrup down your throat.

The characters are quite a mixed bag with Natalie Portman’s Alice having to do with the clunkiest of lines and a love-story with Jude Law’s Dan that even at its lightest moments feel rehearsed (which makes it quite a pain to sit through the time when they cry, scream and pout dialogues like “you don’t love me”). To give credit where its due, Portman does make a credible stripper and her interaction with Owen at the strip club is quite a sight. The true stars of the enterprise however are Clive Owen and Julia Roberts. Owen’s totally convincing as the self-confessed hypersexual Larry whose first concern when her wife reveals her extra-marital affair is whether the guy she’s dating is a good f*ck. This very scene where the husband and wife spit venom on each other is one of the best confrontational sequences I have seen in a film. Julia Roberts, as the depressive, confused wife Anna gives the film the only bit of warmth it has.

Its hard to take in anything positive from a film that resolves itself as cynically as Closer does. But in a weird reverse-psychologically-kind-of way watching so much going wrong does bore in two-or three things one ought to do right when in a relationship. Its also not a film that everyone’d easily take to (my friend who watched this with me halfway through pleaded me to see the DVD on my laptop and free up his TV) so watch this at your own risk.

PS: On a sidenote, I had always found the film’s publicity design to be quite something. After watching the movie I realised how misleading all that serenity and whiteness really was. The tagline “if you believe in love at first sight, you never stop looking” still manages to sum up one of the themes succinctly though.
Hard Candy (2006): ***

I have lost count of the number of times I have found myself flipping through the newspaper pages, coming across some headline on the lines of “paedophile filming young girls jailed for 13 1/2 years” and then thinking out loud “these b*stards should all be made to stand in a line and have their balls slashed off”. And here is a film that goes straight after the balls of one such sexually depraved character. Yes, you can’t get more direct and literal than Hard Candy (web-slang term for an underage girl) which tells the story of a14 year old girl out on a daredevil mission to teach a fashion photographer cum web-chatting paedophile the lesson of his life by castrating him with a pack of ice (as local anaesthesia for the genitalia), some sharp instruments, cotton bandage and her untrained hands. The whys and the hows of this girl’s actions never quite filter through convincingly (read this as “are not bothered to explain”) which means that within 30 minutes she descends from an unusually brave girl to a sociopath in your eyes, and there really does come a point when you are forced to think where exactly your loyalties lie. With this horrendously sicko teenager or the now-suffering paedophile. Just for this intelligent and seldom used style of manipulation, Hard Candy deserves a pat.

This, plus the fact that its made with such queasily close shots of characters (more like demons) and some amazingly unpredictable sequences–you’ll wince and twitch to the point of even wondering why you spent your money on the ticket. As a debut work by a music video director, a hell lot of suggestive imagery and sounds are used to mess up with your mind and one look at the performances by the leading two actors and you know this man is talented. The actors playing the two principal characters (Ellen Page and Patrick Wilson) might be lesser known, but deliver gut-wrenchingly real and nuanced performances. The camera loves them to the point of never leaving their visages for a single second and despite that, the experience of watching these two monsters interact for a good two hours is quite overwhelming. More than half of film’s tension and unpredictability is thanks to Page’s ability to do a split-second whirlwind in her voice and expressions. And Wilson’s character graph is so masterfully done up that you’ll be finding yourself changing your opinion more than once every thirty minutes. Kudos to this actor for bringing up every single layer of his character’s vulnerability and deception to the surface. Add to all this the crackling dialogues throughout.

And yet, its not quite the ultimate movie as somewhere down the lane you realise that its actually too much of the same thing after a good one hour. Its different and its shocking yes, but the second half and the climax do a grave disservice to Wilson’s character. His giving in to Page’s threats about exposing him to his girlfriend is a tad quick and quite out-of-sync with his ultra-cautious and hideous nature. The castration scene is one brilliant sequence alright but there’s a twist immediately after that which kind of ruined it a bit for me. And as there really never was any buildup plus the attempt to explain the motivation for such extreme action by Page’s character isn’t convincing enough, after a point of time you detach quite easily from the characters. Which is always a bad thing.

Still, give it a try if you are hunting for something experimental and uncomfortable with some sensational acting.

Until my next batch of reviews, ciao!

Some more film-watching 2006 (4)

Never expected the Match Point review to end up as big as it finally did. Hence this separate post for random films I caught on the big screen in the past month. Hope you enjoy these mini-ops!

When A Stranger Calls (2006): ** and 1/2

Blame it on my impatience. A wait of a mere 30 minutes more and I could have watched the French thriller Hidden (Cache). But my attitude of barging into the cinema and into the screening straightaway meant I ended up with this teenybopper horror-lite. As if the title couldn't be any longer and self-explanatory, its about a high school girl getting harassed by a prank caller (read serial killer) one night when she's baby-sitting at a posh and sprawling riverside mansion.

Its more generic and predictable than the words themselves convey but somehow the formula concocted doesn't end up being an absolute disaster. The menace in the atmosphere is well maintained by clever lighting techniques (stepping into every room switches on the room's lights–works bigtime in chase sequences) and the opening sequence where a lonely woman (living next to a local fun fair) gets called and then killed manages to terrify thanks to inventive camera and sound design. But then these plusses are never quite equalled by a screenplay which is ridden with stupid sequences, characters that behave less logically than kindergarten children and a lead actress that pitches in a consistently pale performance. The end product isn't even a patch on Panic Room but thankfully doesn't bore either.

Silent Hill (2006): **

You can count the pigeon-holes into which the contemporary horror films broadly fall into– Grimy Gore fest (Saw, Hostel, Wolf Creek), Supernatural Thriller (Sixth Sense, Others), Costume-n-Mask Horror Dramas (Ghost Ship, Exorcist, Descent, Evil Dead) and lastly fantasy horror (Constantine, Silent Hill). I normally try to avoid the last group like plague, but somehow landed up watching this.

Though the basic premise in this case–a concerned mother takes her daughter to the demonic place that haunts and possesses the latter while sleepwalking-does elicit some reaction, the actual film simply fails. And there are many reasons for this–first, there's absolutely no warming up to the characters. You have barely found your seat and bang! you see the possessed daughter standing at the edge of a cliff while her mom shouts off in the background. Barely 5 minutes after that, both mom and daughter are on the trip to the godforsaken place called Silent Hill. A crash later… mom finds herself amidst a foggy, snowing with ashes, town of yore replete with dilapadated buildings, empty streets. The daughter's gone but can be heard running. Mom (Rose) follows the sound, and suddenly a loud siren starts firing away. Mom continues walking down the stairs of a huge building and suddenly a huge black mass starts to entangle and numerous blackfleshed screaming children mutants start to materialise.

As the film unfolds, one comes to know that the siren represents the falling of "darkness"–a sign of evil that resides in the limbo land of Silent Hill alongwith the godfearing fanatical Catholics. But how clear the line really is, between the good and evil, is the premise for the remaining film as Rose unearths the dark secrets of the Silent Hill. Problem is, there's too much of such gibberish and it takes itself way too seriously.

The film is filled to brim with conflicts and showdowns between cacophonic characters who, because we don't know about, we just don't care about. Making it all just a pile of nonsense and in the process, boring us to death (a cardinal sin for any film). The only highlights being the two-three sequences of "darkness falling" which sees the otherwise unsuspectingly falling-to-pieces walls and floors transform into a network of blood vessels and inaninmate objects turning into yucky creatures like human sized roaches etc. A flashback sequence done in grainy film about witch-hunting towards the climax is a valiant attempt to unlock this puzzle of a film but just succeeding that is a so-bizarre-it-cracks-you-up vengeance episode of the devil which really makes you wince and wonder how you ended up watching this.

I can fill up paras on how tacky the CGI was but just to summarise my experience–I was laughing my humble a*se off everytime the crafted monsters (a plastic-pyramid headed devil or a team of zombie nurses that go on a twitching frenzy..LOL) came on the screen.

Please don't waste your time and money on this tripe unless you still haven't been spoonfed the message of being judged after death.

Ice Age 2: The Meltdown (2006): ** and 1/2

Though never quite as ambitious as Pixar's or Dreamworks' animated ventures, of late Blue Sky Studios have set about a good account for themselves with gorgeous looking but simple feel-good animations like Ice Age and Robots. Surprisingly enough, Ice Age 2 as a sequel doesn't quite entertain on the same level as Shrek 2 did. Simply because its just more of the same old thing. The principal characters still carry on walking and meeting more silly characters en-route, and a love story and a predictable conflict later its all over and they continue walking happily ever after. Don't get me wrong–it really is an enjoyable fare with two things working bigtime in its favour-Scrat (the acorn-obsessed squirrel who'll go down the annals of animation as the best character ever) and the wit in the dialogues, but one only wishes they hadn't rushed the scriptwriter quite so much as to pen such a wafer-thin, predictable plot that ends up boring us of characters we had come to adore in Ice Age.

Still, I know I am repeating myself (but what the heck), just watching Scrat struggling to keep up with the forever slipping and out-of-reach acorn through half-liquid peaks and half-frozen water bodies will have you rolling in an un-abating laughing fit. This is one amazingly conceptualised character and hopefully, Blue Sky would release the next Ice Age sequel with only 90 minutes of Scrat and his acorn. Now that'd be something!

More Later,

Karan!