Quick Reviews - Raavanan

Raavanan released worldwide on June 18. 5 watched Raavanan on the 19th and Raavan on 21st.

Some of the thoughts I've penned below were written soon after on a word document.

Today I finally found the time to publish it here.

Raavanan

One of the few Indian movies which I’ve eagerly awaited in a long time. And for good reason(s) – Well for one, any Mani Ratnam production is an event in itself, but this had the added bonus of featuring Vikram in a challenging role.

The presence of A R Rahman didn’t hurt either. The premise looked interesting. Ratnam’s re-telling of the Ramayan and specifically focusing on Raavan’s side of the story. The previews were just right and kept me hooked on for more. Pains me to say I checked Sify.com religiously (almost every other day) to track the latest news related to this movie. Ahem.That being said..

Having watched both versions, the Hindi version twice, my personal and hopefully objective opinion is that this a noble effort.

Mani Ratnam experiments with the presentation, heavy emphasis on conceptualizing and creating beautiful images, ably supported in his efforts by Santosh Sivan and Sreekar Prasad. This could arguably be the finest technical product to come out of India in a long time.

I won’t go into too much detail about the story which is threadbare at best. Ratnam takes an interesting concept and tries to weave some semblance of a narrative around it but falters. It is as if he visioned a high level road map in terms of plot structure and scene creation but just couldnt translate it to character development and dialogues. And this would rile even the most ardent Ratnam fan boys since the generic, card board cut out characterization and cliched dialogue makes it difficult for the audience to establish any sort of emotional rapport with the characters.

It is only the individual brilliance of Vikram and Prithviraj, who despite being let down by Mani’s script, who carry the movie. It seems as if they had to dig deep into their thinly sketched caricatures and add layers and emotional resonance into their characters.

Vikram scores in most scenes where he gets to display his softer, understated acting. Take all his interactions with Aishwarya Rai, especially the scene next to the Statue of God in the forest and the climax. A True genius.
Prithvi has comparatively lesser screen time than Vikram and Aishwarya Rai but shines as the suave, cool super cop modeling his Ray-Ban aviators. His characterization allows a dynamic counterpoint to Vikram more rustic, roguish portrayal.

Aishwarya does a credible job in physically and emotionally demanding role although post intermission her role reduces significantly which is a pity since her character was shaping up quite well – A woman caught in between the war of men.

You need only look at Vikram’s performance to understand the wave of negative reviews and comments about the Hindi version and Abhishek’s performance in particular.

AB Jr is best suited to limited type of roles and this movie requires him to improvise and perform outside of his comfort zone. And he fails to connect with his character.

While Vikram channels an un-educated, backward person, AB Jr brings a more manic, off-kilter energy to the screen which seems inconsistent and just a little off the mark.

On the music department A.R Rahman’s back ground score is haunting. And I mention haunting in its most positive way. You can read more my thoughts on the back ground score here

But the songs themselves are mostly situational based and save for the Raavanan's theme song 'Beera Beera' and perhaps 'Usire Poguthey' (Behne de in Hindi) none of the others hold up on repeat listening.

Karthik, Prabhu and PriyaMani have minor roles. Karthik makes the most of it, despite Mani Ratnam having him jump around like a monkey to nail in the Hanuman comparison. Unnecessary but Karthik shows glimpses of his old self.
Govinda is wasted in the Hindi version of Hanuman.

Raavanan - Mani's version of a masala movie. Worth a watch. But don't take it too seriously.

Nav

Aayarthil Oruvan

AO

While watching AO this past week, the one thing which kept running in my head, was how far Tamil cinema has aged. And I deliberately chose the word aged rather than progress, cos progress seems to somehow puts a positive spin/connotation to it.

AO is unconventional. Some may decry it, some may proclaim it as the best of the year, and others like me may just go – “what the hell is going on here” right through the movie yet remain glued to the proceedings on the screen.

Cos not a lot of it makes a whole lot of sense, but there is a definite a new-ness to the visuals, the story lines and the characters, both in depiction and approach.

AO continues the trend of new age Tamil directors defying conventional cinema and not being afraid of taking it to outer reaches, darker places.

And Selvaraghavan (SR), after this monumental efforts will join the league of directors like Bala, Ameer, Gautham Menon, SasiKumar who have slowly but surely transformed the landscape of Tamil cinema, which has always worked well within the boundaries of populist entertainment. Even those handful of film makers who have attempted to shed the weight of commercialism (like Mani Ratnam, K Balachander, Balu Mahendra) have never really strayed too far away from the brahamanical , puranitcal framework of story-telling. In comparison we have the world of neo-realistic, raw & gritty cinema which new age directors revel in.

I wont dwell too long on AO's plot. A quick search in Wikipedia shall tell the readers all they need to know about the film.

But what I will try to attempt is to grade AO. And in order to do so, I would look at the intent and execution.

In terms of intent, a big kudos to SR and all the people involved behind the scenes who had the gumption (read Balls) to produce and create this epic. I praise the boldness.

In terms of execution although great strides have been made in the realm of story-telling, acting & cinematography, the special effects/visual effects domain continue to be stuck in the 90’s which is a big letdown. There is nothing more distracting then seeing a good idea on paper fail completely cos the special effects on screen look like a hand-drawn cartoon. And for audiences who are lapping up the wonders of Avatar, the f/x in AO will look clumsy and amateurish.

The story overall seems to suffer from SR's over-ambition. The tone and pace of the first half does not gell well with second half which takes a turn for the serious. The last 15-20 minutes detailing the torture and cruel treatment meted out to the captured cholas – Is this some allegorical references to treatment of Srilankan tamils? If so then it deserves to be in a different movie. In fact the entire second half deserves a movie of its own.

Credit to SR who at time seems to be chanelling either Quentin Tarantino (the F-bombs flying between Reema Sen & Andrea), Francis Ford Coppola (the Jungle sequences and the second half reminded me of Apocalyse now) or Peter Jackson and who has also liberally drawn ideas from King Kong & Gladiator and others and yet managing to ensure AO retains its own unique flavor.

At the onset Karthi seems to be stuck in Paruthiveeran mode, then disappears, and towards the end changes gears and becomes the reclusive hero. Reema Sen seems to be out of sync with her dialogue through most of the movie, but makes up for it through dynamic physical acting & body language. Andrea's character is too thinly sketched to work with. Parthiban brings an imposing physical presence as the towering Chola King. His introduction scene is well executed.

Definitely worth a watch. But go in with an open mind.

Nav

Quick Reviews - Public Enemies

Most Micheal Mann movies are visual treats punctuated with tense action sequences and gritty drama. Watch Heat or Collateral or Miami Vice and you'll get a fair sense of Mann's directing style. Comparisons with fellow visual masters such Brian De Palma and Steven Soderbergh are inevitable, but Mann has risen above particularly since both De Palma and Soderbergh have mostly been pissing away their name recognition by making boring movies in the recent past.
Mann's best movies thus far are those which explore his penchant for the cops and robbers dynamic. But when he has dealt with other subjects such as Ali and The Insider they have proved to be engaging and compelling.

Public Enemies is a mixed bag. Mann seems intent on a faithful re-telling of the John Dillinger story that it feels like docu-drama with A+ acting. Which is not to say its a bad movie. It is wonderfully constructed and Mann's maximizes the scope of his hand held camera to capture the landscape of 1930's America as well probe into the psyche of John Dillinger. But Mann deliberately choose drama over thrill and that may ultimately be the movie's undoing.
The movie lacks a grand, stand-out sequence which the audience usually take away from his movies.
Public Enemies falls well short of other period gangster flicks such The Untouchables, Bonnie and Clyde and Bugsy despite Mann's competent direction.

Johnny Depp dominates the screen and is charismatic as ever. Christian Bale is effective but I think he's over-exposing himself this year by portraying similar sort of roles which undo his work leading up to the Dark Knight. He should take a leaf out of Depp's book - Less is more and Diversity is King. Billy Cudrup shines in a supporting role bringing out the essence and idiosyncrasies of J.Edgar Hoover. Last year Oscar winner Marion Cotillard completes the casting coup of the year with a forceful performance.

Nav

Quick Reviews - 99

Bollywood gets it right.AGAIN. 99 is set to just the right tempo, pace and contains adequate amount of zany, tongue-in-cheek humor to keep it entertaining for over 2+ hours.
Coupled with breezy dialogues and chutzpah performances by Boman Irani, Cyrus Broacha and Mahesh Manjrekar, the story keeps you perpetually amused. And surprisingly a lot of attention has been given to the little details in this period movie (set 1999-2000) with clever references surrounding that time period.

Kunal Khemu and Soha Ali Khan have their moments. Vinod Khanna makes a pleasant comeback to the big screen.

The plot is threadbare at best, so I wont go into any great details, but suffice to say there are no major logical goof-ups and the director duo keep it chugging along, avoiding lengthy song and dance routines. Best to watch the movie with limited expectations and without reading too many reviews and plot discussions.

99 - Good effort.

Nav

Quick Reviews - Summer Hours

After having seen my fair share of European movies, I have to comment that french movies are probably the most subjective of the lot. Which is a good reason why they draw such diverse (extreme even) reactions. Unlike Hollywood where the focus is on the bottom line, driven by the Dollars, Profitability, Marketability & Merchandising most French directors, like true artistes, are concerned only with the story and the characters who inhabit its frames. They set aside cost-revenue models outside the production house and leave the judging to the audiences.

Which is why for some Summer hours (L'Heure d'ete) will be seen as nothing more than a clinical detailing of death and its aftermath. But for me it shall remain a top class movie. Like those several other movies which seem infinitely better only cos I was fortunate to see it at the right time, at the right place where it would create the most impact. Movies such as Jerry Macguire, Signs, Meet Joe Black.

Why do we mourn when somebody dies? Why do we hold sacred their possessions? Why do we hold on to the memories of those who were dear to us? Are we afraid that by letting go of the possessions, we would lose all memory of their existence? How would I feel if I had to sell the house I grew up in? Its like a large part of my life will disappear.

The story for Summer Hours is quite simple. The matriarch of a family consisting of three adult children Frederic (Charles Berling), Jeremie (Jeremie Renier) and Adrienne (Juliette Binoche) dies shortly after her 75th birthday, leaving her considerable estate comprising a large house in the village, and several considerable assets - art collection, furniture and the valuable personal effects belonging to a great uncle who was a fairly well regarded French artist. The mother had spend most of her lifetime safeguarding the house and its assets given her closeness to her uncle.

The eldest, Frederic, shares his mom's devotion to the estate and wishes it remain within the family. I suppose, he hopes his children and grandchildren could also enjoy/experience the same idyllic childhood, all those summer hours, spent in the vast gardens of the house. But Jeremie and Adrienne don't share such idealistic notions. They have their own lives and plans, blossoming careers living abroad in China and NY respectively and they cant quite see the value in keeping the house. Despite the sense of loss they only wish to move on, trying to dispose off the house and its belongings as quickly as possible and use the cash to fortify their dreams.

Director Olivier Assayas unfolds the drama with minimal fuss and he never over-reaches or attempts to manipulate the audience into false sentimentality. And his approach is spot on. He presents the practical difficulties of idealism in a world of constant change. He presents the truth as it stands without embellishments. Where does idealism stand in the world of logical decisions?

I was able to relate most closely with Frederic's character. He holds on to the hope that by preserving the house, the paintings, the garden, he could not only hold on to the memories of his childhood but also preserve its integrity and pass it on to his kids. But there is a big generational gap as Assayas portrays in the final 15 minutes. The kids of today have their own definition of fun.
The movie is never heavy-handed or overly preachy. But uses wonderful subtlety to underscore many of the sad truths of life. Like how we have do not have the time for the elderly. No matter our good intentions and attempts to stay in touch and be there for them, we're too often caught up in our daily lives, our dreams and plans, that we forget.
Like how we attach precious memories with certain objects. And how those objects therefore hold more value to us than to others.
There is a scene in the movie which highlights this where Frederic and his wife see his mother's desk in a museum and it somehow doesn't feel right.
"It looks caged" he remarks
I wont go about describing my emotions in this scene. But it was very touching.

The movie also provides a side commentary on the decline of France with many of its citizens leaving the nation looking for opportunities elsewhere, thereby leading to an erosion of French tradition and culture.

And what about the house maid Eloise? She has spend a good portion of her life taking care of the house and its members? What ever will she do now.

And of course there is the curious case of Frederic's daughter who was caught doing weed and who exhibits rebellious behavior against her parents. Is she disappointed that the adults took the decision of selling the house without consulting the kids? I mean after all her grandmother had once told her lovingly that she would one day walk with her kids down the same garden she once played.

"But the house is now sold" the daughter tells her boyfriend matter-of-factly in the final scene of the movie.

Another hidden layer of truth. Beautiful. For those who can relate this is a deeply contemplative movie.

Nav

Quick Reviews - Terminator Salvation

* Spoilers follow. Proceed with caution

For all its talk about the power of the human heart Terminator Salvation showed very little when of it when it came to the stuff that really made Terminator 1 and Terminator 2 such great movies.

I feared as much when I saw McG's name came up as director in the opening credits. He is at best a POPCORN director, in the mould of a Tony Scott or a Michael Bay who have the god given ability to craft and bring to life fantastical action sequences and integrate the power of sound, visuals and effects with explosive results but at the same time suck the emotional resonance of a movie with equal aplomb. His earlier works such as Charlies Angels (and sequel) prove as much.

Though to be fair some of the blame should be attributed to the writers, but somehow I feel a lot of the good stuff from the script must have been either left out by the director or got cut in the editing room, especially in terms of character building and exposition.
For instance I'm confident there was a good reason the movie was titled Terminator Salvation? Surely for all the emphasis on John Conner and the resistance, the only character who qualifies for any form of Salvation is Marcus, the half-human, half-machine, confused wanderer, a man who in a prior life had committed some grave sin worthy of a death sentence but to which we're given no details or back-story.
How does this individual go from a death row convict to a hero sacrificing his heart to save the life of John Conner is never fully explained. Marcus's character is only half developed and all the we're led to feel is his overwhelming 'need to be human'. Probably McG may address in a future installment. Sam Worthington does what little he can with his half-baked character but comes across as a force to reckon with.

John Conner exists as a fully grown person showing no signs or reference to the kid who once was. And Christian Bale carries his role with such amazing conviction and charisma, you can't but help admire his character. But when Conner comes face-to-face with Marcus (the human but who for all scientific purposes is fully robotic) he instantly distrusts him.

"You're a robot" he says "You killed my father, you tried to kill my mother, but you'll never kill me".

But surely he was old enough to recall in Terminator II (or for that matter Part III) how Arnold Schwarzenegger (robot with human tissue) sacrificed his own existence so John and his mom could go back to live a normal life. But this movie never dwells on such matters. Conner later goes on to confess he can no longer tell who the real enemy is; as if this is the first time he (or anybody) encountered such a conundrum. This was already explored wonderfully in Terminator II, when Sarah Connor had to accept the evil Cyborg who killed her lover and almost killed her in Terminator 1, had now returned to save her life.

In fact true to his nature McG spends a good 15 minutes soon after depicting Conners actions to track down and recapture an escaping Marcus.

The ending leaves much to be desired. It all unravels too easily like a ball of yarn and, save for a well-done gimmick, single-handedly pulls the movie down. The fact of the matter is there seems an abundance of good ideas flying all over the place, but the director just cannot seem to give equal attention to all (given the time frame) and as a result the end product seems a little haphazard.

But what really stands out are the action sequences. Gripping narration and cinematography is suitably engrossing, allowing the audience to feel they're right in the middle of the action. Almost like a first person video game, something Alfonso Cuaron achieved with similar success in Children of Men. MCG scores well here and the first 30 minutes or so is superbly paced.

But for godssake why is this a PG-13 movie? Where is the gruesome violence from Terminator 1 and 2? I'm absolutely convinced certain scenes were excised to allow for a PG-13 certificate. There were at least 2 separate instances where there was jarring disjoint between two immediate scenes. And the climatic portions also seemed a little too mellow. Will have to keep an eye out for the directors cut DVD.

Nav