NOTHING BUT SOME ODDER ODDS

DIRECTED BY JOHN DAHL

STARRING: MATT DAMON, EDWARD NORTON, JOHN TURTURRO, GRETCHEN MOL, FAMKE JANSSEN, MARTIN LANDAU AND JOHN MALKOVICH

Maybe Matt Damon’s been in too many ‘genius’ films to trigger immediate comparisons, but I simply couldn’t deny the similarities or curious coincidences with respect to character development that I could work between ‘Rounders’ and the 1997 Gus Van Sant masterpiece ‘Good Will Hunting’. The shun of intelligence citing the irrelevance of ambition takes a hairpin bend to route back to where it’s supposed to have been: The pursuit of talent at the expense of heart, for one ultimately needs to be doing what he’s been written out for, or so says Professor Petrovsky (Martin Landau). And Mike McDermott finds no reason to not follow these words of his. But the surprising thing is that I was able to draw a parallel as much as I was able to separate this film from ‘Good Will Hunting’, with a swap of places between talent and romantic attraction along with a costume change, Vegas style.

But ‘Rounders’ is in no way as profoundly psychological, although it could match up with the level of conceptual clarity. However, I cannot say the same about that of emotion, where I found the confusion to be inadequately explained. I, for one, couldn’t decide on whether Mike plays cards because he aspires for it, or if he sees himself to be an indisputable best (both of which appears in moments split by time) with a need to establish the same to a world that’s unaware. But I could still strongly say that playing cards is what he has to be doing, because he simply isn’t cut-out for anything else, and that’s a level of clarity for one. If Will Hunting is a super-computer, Mike could very well be the ace poker-player software that no one could beat. I think that pretty much sums it up.

I liked how there always is emotional attachment, except that it is found sacrificed for the sake of personal betterment. Now that at least is a choice, as opposed to an irreconcilable circumstance. There’s an inability to relate to each other, but there definitely is a lot of fondness in the picture and I was amazed at that, it definitely left a positive mark. An equal negative would be the brash ‘Russian’ Teddy KGB (a disappointing John Malkovich) who makes fun of himself, trying not to say worse. And there’s the beloved Worm (Edward Norton) who shares an amazing chemistry with Mike, but still couldn’t stop himself from fading into a predictable stereotype, speaking of which I should say this. ‘Rounders’ is definitely not the kind of film that explores the concept of gambling with socio-economic insight, but one that merely holds it in the middle of the plot-construction, accessorizes it and builds an ‘against the odds’ victory not uncharacteristic of trend (the days of ‘Jerry Maguire’), where the contest isn’t the sport in itself but the extrapolation of it. A distinctly mundane venture that banks on the sincere reflection of smartness that, safely, none other than Damon could convincingly portray.

It is said that there’s a sequel in development. I find it hard to imagine what it could turn out to be about, for the idea of a fed-up, older Mike who ultimately reverts back to what he left in the first place (‘love’) sounds excessive. As much as there was the thrill of watching a couple of young ones making it big playing the big guys’ game, the emotions involved in course of time would become too cumbersome that I only wish against it at this point of time.

AN ATTEMPT AT AWE-INCEPTION

 

DIRECTED BY CHRISTOPHER NOLAN

STARRING: LEONARDO DiCAPRIO, JOSEPH GORDON-LEVITT, ELLEN PAGE, KEN WATANABE, CILLIAN MUPRHY, MARION COTILLARD, TOM BERENGER AND MICHAEL CAINE

148 minutes into it and I realized ‘Inception’ was exactly what it is: A strenuous piece of cinema that tires one out with even the most gripping of sequences. The intersection of layers, however, assures a certain justification and once again, you’re reminded that you need all the time in the world to not just make sense, but to entirely be imbibed into a Nolan film; a residence in the world he constructs. This inception, on his part, of the idea that you simply cannot stay inside the film unless you tip yourself headfirst in to it, and that sitting it out would only cause you to smirk at the intentional coaxing of his intelligence into your head makes you ask yourself in the end “How impressed was it anyway?” But I do not think ‘Inception’ is intended to be a sequel in his ‘Are you watching closely?’ series, although there is a desperation to incept the fact that you are indeed witnessing a sample of aesthetic brilliance that is not so uncharacteristic of Nolan.

I don’t imply a shortcoming, though, but definitely a faith in a stereotype in the mould of his non-caped films and in that way ‘Inception’ is more of a summary of previous works, a development that took him all these years and not just the six months he spent to write it. The upside to it is that he happens to be writing a Nolan film, which almost always holds a justification of itself in itself. But there are certain regulatory conditions that he has imposed on himself this time around. On the one hand, there is the heist and the crew that he puts together for it. On the other, we have an emotional turmoil that is to define the film. This emphasis hinges more on the director’s independent days of ‘Memento’ and the frosty ‘Insomnia’, where the dull moments are clearly those who actually add spark to the film and not otherwise. Cobb takes his time with himself (in a wife metaphor) not because it is personally essential (which it is, of course) but more because that is what constitutes the film, the heist almost proving to be irrelevant in the later stages: just the means, not the end. The deuce is only obvious, but is it delightful? I’m going to have to say no, I actually found it slightly unconvincing; somewhat forced. A novel incursion that is still in pulp.

Here is a film that speaks of labyrinths but surprisingly isn’t one. Characters lack depth except for the one that’s stressed upon, the layering is writer-out and, again, obvious and the whole thing is clockwork with a little winding up being all that’s required, something that’s achieved through extensive cross-cutting (a specialty of Nolan’s) and an overused background score that strangely fails to impress, maybe because there’s no ‘Dark Knight’ for it to hide behind and reinforce. Long sequences tired me out and I sat waiting for the thrill to mount, only to realize that that’s deception. And the inception is the means, a shot to compel the viewer that this is a visually intense, hectic and painfully striking vision of a film, except that it’s not. But that doesn’t mean ‘Inception’ doesn’t have the usual promise, I see I have said it already! It is ‘usual’, the typical Nolan venture that secures itself against itself, which majorly adds to its strength. You are not to question why the dreams are how they are, why there is a quasi-awakened state, and why there’s almost always an attached gloom, a total depression. Nolan plays by rules this time, but not in a constrained way for the rules are his, and what you’re in for is not a foundation course. It’s just a handbook that you get thrown-in.

Setting aside the fact that I anticipated more of dream-reality shifts (as the initial sequence promises) than what I got, ‘Inception’ is still a film that is very characteristic of and very faithful to the mind of Nolan, and what could be called a personal tribute to himself that’s awkwardly underdone.

TWIN REVIEW: LONG OVERDUE

Please note that there definitely is more than one purpose behind this twin review of mine, of the music of ‘Vinnaithaandi Varuvaaya’ and the film itself, and none of those is hard to hit on. Firstly, I just want to get this out of my mind, out of the window and it’s something like, “I don’t want to regret having not done this anymore.” Second, I don’t want to waste a lot of cyberspace on something that doesn’t deserve the same, and thirdly, the connection is innate, almost parasitical where the movie and its music are concerned.

MUSIC BY A.R.RAHMAN

A result of Rahman’s experience with Akon and related sound-engineering, and a speculation on my part that he’s let himself into a lot of contemporary pop music (the healthier kind) lately. I can swear that the intro to ‘Mannipaaya’ is a slow-mo rip off the solo of ‘Heart of life’ by John Mayer (Continuum, 2006) and that the piano chords are almost nearly the same in the lead-up, also paralleling with Springsteen’s evergreen masterpiece ‘Secret Garden’. Of course, I’m okay with the chords because chords are chords, but I’d like to think that the solo was more than just coincidental. But the bottom-line? Shreya Ghosal honey-kisses a dead song to life, the effect was amazing until everyone started singing it.

Two pieces of Déjà vu (one being too much so), one that’s too very ordinary to be ‘Hit of the Year’ and two more that delve excessively into a language that the supposed girl doesn’t even know to speak (this requires viewing of the film, but again, this explains why Rahman isn’t the right choice if you’re looking to make the right kind of film). There, I’ve summarized the album for you. Does this mean I have nothing but negatives for an album that’s seen as much acclaim as this one has? Well, this is one of the rare Rahman albums that actually stick to a theme and hence had my head turned his way a little. But it’s certainly not one of those that could coerce the attention out of me, I guess that’s history, of ‘Kandukondaen Kandukondaen’ days.

DIRECTED BY GAUTHAM VASUDEV MENON

STARRING: SILAMBARASAN, TRISHA KRISHNAN, GANESH VENKATRAMAN

A certain ‘filmcritic’ rubbished me for having connected this film in the least to ‘(500) Days of Summer’. I pondered about it for a while, read what people said about the film (the Hollywood version, I mean) and even read what the creator himself had to say about it, and it all makes me to stay where I stood before: That I think this film indeed has a lot to do with ‘(500) Days of Summer’, but it’s not in a plagiaristic way (except for the park bench) as you could think I intended. Gautham Menon could have watched (or heard) about this new English film that a lot of people are talking about and somehow… somehow, the climax didn’t agree with him (not to mention the obvious 'Annie Hall' twist to the tale!).

Well, his climax didn’t go well with me!

I simply cannot see ‘Vinnaithaandi Varuvaaya’ as a film, it’s just not complete enough to be one. I could easily suggest ways to do it better, and that’s where the film primarily fails, because people (I) were able to walk out of the hall thinking they could have ended it in a better way. The weird thing here is that they could possibly be right. Apart from that, I’d grow tired if I mentioned ‘anti-realism’, then I’d have to quote the whole length of the film as proof, and inconsistencies too, not of plot but of character in itself, and it just can’t get any more messed up than this. And I’m not talking of Jessie’s state of mind when I say that, I hope you understand.

I simply cannot intellectualize this ‘film’. I can’t lay it on a plate, dissect it and find which parts are edible (although someone with a history like Gautham Menon could bake a cake out of that), it’s just plain absurd. The people in it aren’t people, the emotions are written-out and the film actually needs the music it has to keep it going, because it’s still an X and a Y and that’s pretty much it. We’re driven to forget that we’re dealing with a writer and a coding-expert over here, and too bad I stated that unaware for a moment that it’s a Tamil language feature film – that’s how it’s supposed to be.

People definitely have better work to do, or at least some work to do. This just isn’t their kind of a film.

PLAIN AMAZING

DIRECTED BY KEN LOACH

STARRING: STEVE EVETS, STEPHANIE BISHOP, GERARD KEARNS, STEPHAN GUMBS, LUCY-JO HUDSON, JOHN HENSHAW, JUSTIN MOORHOUSE AND ERIC CANTONA

Halfway through ‘Looking for Eric’, Eric Bishop (Steve Evets) sits down to have a smoke with Eric Cantona, a metaphor of his conscience, wishes to digress into football like he always does when confronted by a situation. Eric Cantona (Himself) in turn, dances with him. We don’t see him for the rest of the film from there, even the sequence where he’s most anticipated, where he doesn’t show up but still sends a deputy: Lily. It’s a done deed, what needs to be said had been said and Eric surely had been found. The end result of a search that had in no way been agonizing, but which had been filled with buckets of happiness and awesome goals.

So, how many films have we come across before that dealt with a supernatural character to keep a lonely man company? It would be incompetence on my part (not to mention ignorance) if I fail to quote names over here, but that’s not my point. The question I chose to ask myself instead is what can possibly make Eric Cantona stand out from the multiple geniuses who had nurtured losers in film-town through the ages, up until Chef Gusteau in Brad Bird’s ‘Ratatouille’? Simplicity, perhaps, because the character isn’t stressed, he just walks around and exists, there’s no puff of smoke or surprise. Eric is at home with Eric, and even with a troubled inner self, he’s still able to sit with the same and talk with it. The decisions are his, no minds changed, with the most far-fetched sequence being the most inspiring of the lot: Cantona’s best moment had been in seeing someone else score because of him, he quotes proverbs to substantiate that and he plays the trumpet too (“I’m not a man. I am Cantona.”). A cynic could be prickled here, but I thought it played along pretty well, I was more than happy with the deflation of this celebrity.

The contrast of build almost develops a sort of cool chemistry between the lead characters. Cantona being the tall and sturdy self that he is, while Bishop hovers far on the runty side, Steve Evets proving to be riveting with his performance, a sort of ‘live-in’ act more than a staged show. Lily (Stephanie Bishop, Laura Ainsworth) is amazing, the moments are amazing, I’m thrilled to know that the man Ken Loach could be this romantic at his age, but then again that’s nearly how old Eric is too. Dear me, lots to say, lots to say! Well, moments when Jess (Stephan Gumbs) watches militant rap videos with his friends, moments when I actually suspected him of having hidden the gun, moments when there’s a porn club in Ryan’s (Gerard Kearns) room, and there’s moments when there’s Eric in Eric’s. Goes to show that a man who’s messing his life up messes his children’s life more, because what’s suicide and depression to him turns out to be aggression and violence in the case of his ‘kids’. And I personally found their individual rooms irritating, too much of near-nudes. On the other hand, there’s also the well-mannered (not that the boys aren’t, they had just ‘forgotten’) daughter, the actual offspring Sam (Lucy-Jo Hudson) who is pretty much a breeze, the kind of child parents patch-up for, not to mention the fact that she has a girl of her own, adorable Daisy.

As I mentioned before, there wasn’t a moment when I was bitter and waiting for something good to happen, because everything was just impending and not doubtful. Lily had ‘moved on’ with just herself and Eric merely has to find the one who loved her, because that’s pretty much the only part of him that can love. Everything’s alright once he lays his hand on that version of him, love lights the rest. This is the kind of film that incessantly keeps one in good spirits because that’s exactly what it is: A depiction of a life that’s full of love and acts of love and I think you’ve just got to face it – Love’s fun.

THEY'RE 'KIDDING' ME!

DIRECTED BY MATTHEW VAUGHN

STARRING: AARON JOHNSON, CHLOE MORETZ, MARK STRONG, CHRISTOPHER MINTZ-PLASSE, LYNDSY FONSECA AND NICOLAS CAGE

A sense of evolution apparent, I’ve observed that superheroes got younger as time progressed, not to mention the debate surrounding the necessity of superpowers in order to be one. If ‘Superman’ flew and did all such things and ‘Batman’ defied that cliché, it was up to ‘Spiderman’ to even break through the aspect of mental-determination and need for change by inflicting personal intentions as base motive. Now, I’ve no mind at all to touch upon the ethics of it already, but what was College in the case of Peter Parker turns to school for Dave Lizewski a.k.a ‘Kick-Ass’. He is (most probably) 17 years old, but he isn’t a superhero. But ‘Hit-Girl’ (Chloe Moretz) is: And she is (again, most likely to be) eleven.

I needn’t say how outrageous it all is, the film speaks for itself. ‘Big Daddy’ (Nicolas Cage) is hailed towards the end by his very own daughter ‘Hit-Girl’ that he’s the best father in the whole world. To inspire vendetta is one thing, but it is certainly not in the same league to be living just for that. In that context, I’d actually like to question the whole set-up, the backdrop, the city involved, the government. Gotham functioned in its own regard, save for the slightest of mentions of the USA. The city in ‘Kick-Ass’ is ambient of it, and I was outraged (yes) to see a cop being introduced just for the purpose of him foster-fathering ‘Hit-Girl’ in a post-climactic epilogue. We’re to assume that the superheroes almost entirely operate underground, which I find hard to believe considering there’ve been films like ‘Eagle Eye’ lately, which show that it’s pretty damn hard even for a machinery of the tiniest level to function without governmental knowledge. I thought it ought to be pretty much established that drug-lords thrive only because they’re let to me, not because the system is ignorant about them, but it seems that no one in this vicinity other than Daddy and his little girl seem to know of such shady deals. I’m not assuming things over here, I’m merely playing by the idea that policemen in ‘Kick-Ass’ city do nothing but drop their superheroes at school.

What surprises me most is the thought that I could actually substantiate even a positive review of this film, because it’s fast, often wacky and so insensitive that it’s actually the most contemporary of superhero movies, better than ‘Hancock’ in terms of lethargy and an overall laid-back nature. Bodies are walked-on and the film is outrageously funny even in the direst of situations, consequential injuries even, and I think that’s something awfully wrong. If I was rolling with laughter when Kick-Ass got stabbed the first time, it was because I was supposed to be and that’s what makes the film questionable. Hit-Girl inspires awe in sequences, pounding dozens of fully-built men to the ground, affected in no way whatsoever by blood unless in an inspirational way, and Chloe Moretz (the big mouth in ‘(500) Days of Summer’) only makes us forget that she’s probably not even pubescent yet. Surely deserves a mention, this kid, who masters fight sequences in ways that could render the likes of Milla Jovovich and Angelina Jolie speechless. What she would also deserve is some grounding for a lifetime and also some quality time in military school as any ‘normal’ parent would agree.

That was how ‘Kick-Ass’ went for me. Each moment was a rush, a rage but I was constantly nagged by this voice that asked me to keep my eyes open, to know what was actually happening instead of what was being shown. Perhaps an older Hit-Girl would have kicked Katie Deauxma (Lyndsy Fonseca) off the plot, but I still liked the brother-sister kind of bond between the wannabe and the overgrown kid. I’ve got nothing on Chloe, though. Loved her, all through.

SOULFULLY FUNNY!

DIRECTED BY FATIH AKIN

STARRING: ADAM BOUSDOKOS, MORITZ BLEIBTREU, PHELINE ROGGAN, ANNA BEDERKE, BIROL UNEL, DORCA GRYLLUS, WOTAN WILKE MOHRING, LUCAS GREGOROWICZ AND CATRIN STRIEBECK

Warning: The following is not a piece of criticism but rather a perspective of admiration, possibly to fanatical extents, which is what could predominantly have helped me like ‘Soul Kitchen’ to the level that I ended up liking it, left in splits by a couple of sequences and entirely carried ahead by the rest without an apparent dull moment. I have to say that Fatih looks to be a sort of a reciprocal of Woody Allen in this digression into unfamiliar territory, that of comedy, like how the latter does serious to get his wares ahead. Allen casts Tchaikovsky, Fatih is more grunge, house and underground, and they deal with spectacularly diverse sections of society at that. Fatih Akin, still, is the only man who could have made ‘The Edge of Heaven’ and having said that, what was done was solely an analogy and not a comparison.

‘Soul Kitchen’ is funny. I wouldn’t call it hilarious or entirely justified, but it is what it is, a funny film that has a story to tell, and the humour here is for humour’s sake, it isn’t a prerequisite. Zinos is in real a tragedy, a sob-story, a laughing stock of an otherwise perfect robbery. He needs his brother to teach him something he already knows, he needs his girlfriend to show for real that she’s exactly what he fears she’d be and he has to lose his flourishing restaurant to make all this happen. He has (and earns) the friendship of Lucia, a naïve, yet committed romantic, that of Shayn, the trump, soul of his kitchen, knife on the wall, his brother Ilias, of course, and not to mention the enmity of one who’s written to be screwed by the one he screws (goes both ways), as part of which Catrin Striebeck gets to show that she can’t miss out on the sex on screen. Not the comedy, though. It’s not constructed: it hovers as it’s supposed to.

I wouldn’t call it slapstick, the physical condition, which ironically forms the backbone and isn’t an mere element. It’s the beings that are funny, the characters don’t have to be. Of course, I’m talking about Zinos and not Adam; Ilias and not Moritz, ‘Bonebreaker Kebel’ and not Ugur. Technicalities, well… the soundtrack was impressive, it had Fatih written all over it. Birol Unel extrapolates his ‘Head On’ slouch, except that it comes off to be surprisingly humourous. Pretty much a personnel overload, still it’s all good. There’s room for adoration, for empathy and most importantly, there’s a lot of laughs. Some goodness, of course, yeah. Even ‘Sideways’ ended on an optimistic note.

‘Soul Kitchen’ to me, is an example of how Fatih Akin would handle comedy in pretty much his own way. And I found that substantially soulful.

TIMID THAN FIERY

DIRECTED BY HENRY BEAN
STARRING: RYAN GOSLING, BILLY ZANE, THERESA RUSSELL AND SUMMER PHOENIX

Finally, this is a review that can never have as much dimension as the ‘New York Times’ (ruling Mr. Scott out of this) or maybe even ‘Washington Post’, predominantly because my house doesn’t overlook an anti-Semitic scenario. Not even a Semitic scenario at that, and that’s why I can’t touch upon the content of ‘The Believer’ as much as I can about the effect it produced.

I wonder how much this man can do, you know. This is not his only dilemmatic role, although Dan Dunne definitely had a way higher level of clarity on chaos than Daniel Balint, who plays a Jew who wants to blow Jews up. The world calls it ‘self-hating’, I frankly do not understand the relevance of the term. I don’t believe Danny hates himself but just the idea that he’s one among the kind of people he can never bring himself to like, although he is sub-consciously emotionally attached to his religion, particularly because he believes that he’s one of the very few who has actually understood it. What he feels is hatred towards the rest who don’t show as much clarity as he does, just like a laid-back, angst-ridden teen would hate an academically successful geek in school, partly because he thinks he understands the world better than the science-hogger can, possibly. He is, however, afraid or mortified to admit the fact that he is a Jew, although there is the substantiated opinion inside his head that one must know in order to even try to hate. To ‘be’ isn’t the same as to ‘know’.

I couldn’t find enough conflict in Danny to die, really. At least, maybe not this way, it could have been better if it was an inescapable situation where he just gives up fighting and gives in. Thought it looked a little too amateurish, to be honest. Ryan Gosling sparkles, fizzes, explodes even and yeah, he’s pretty much the bomb, it’s like everything’s on him. I cannot say that the ideas expressed in the film, be it the anti-Semitic theory based on sexuality, that which even goes as far as including Marx, are in anyway buyable, but I can safely state that Gosling’s vigour and energy in this performance made me raise as little questions about the context as possible, and I personally liked the idea of loving a Jew to destroy him, like a Godly finality curbs any sort of further development (at least that’s how I interpreted it). Again, it helps me if beautiful women play substantial parts, like Carla Moebius (Summer Phoenix) and the fascination she shows not for a ‘religion’ as such, but its language, which she finds intriguing. Sort of told that there’s more to religion than hatred, or that there’s more to religion than the religion itself, which could help one hate it less, like maybe a digression into Persian beauty to avert anti-Islamic tendencies (I’m just making an irrelevant parallel here, it’s not a big deal).

I’ve no verdict on this film, I just plainly thought it’s been a while. But yeah, thumbs up for Ryan Gosling, it’s certainly soothing to know that the man’s been in quite a substantial haul of roles.