Kaaviya Thalaivan - Bad Screenplay spoils the intent and content!

Kaaviya Thalivan - Content and intent not backed by Screenplay!
Cast: Siddharth - Kaliappa Bhagawathar, Prithviraj as Gomathi Nayagam, Anaika Soti as Rangamma, Vedhicka as Vadivu & Nasser as SankaraDasa Swamigal.

& Crew: Story/Dir - Vasanthabalan, S.P - Vasanthabalan & Jeyamohan,  D.O.P - Nirav Shah, Music - A.R Rahman, Edit - Praveen K.L, Dialogue by Jeyamohan

Producers: Varun Manian & SashiKanth
Time: 151 Mins

Story/Setting and Backdrop: Set in India during the 40's (pre independence ) is all about stage plays and actor which was probably the only source of entertainment during that period. The time and period back drop of this film ,just after the Kittappa's, Nawab Rajamanickam's, Sundarambal's and probably Shivaji too! Its about a bitter one sided rivalry between Gomathi Nayagam (Prithviraj) the epitome of Satan and Kaliappa (Siddharth) the virtuous saint who can only be termed as the closest avatar of god in human form . These two orphans are brought up and mentored by a passionate drama lover and a disciplinarian Sankardasa Swamigal (Nasser). Kaliappa or Kali is portrayed as the epitome of all that is good except that he seems to have a leaning towards pretty women. In fact he repeatedly gets these women pregnant and ditches them one way or the other intentionally or otherwise. The director has used ploys to deflect the blame away from Kali but it ends up more as an appeasement to his own conscience rather than the Kali's! This is one of the major weakness in the characterization of Kali. No one can be this gullible and idiotic  and the director cannot simply absolve him of being a coward in the first half and then portray him as an inspired freedom fighter of sorts immediately afterwards. This can happen in a person but it needs much stronger motives to justify this transformation. Siddarth the actor travels from drama to melodrama. For no rhyme or reason he raves, screams and rants and the very next scene remains calm, composed and mature. Lets now talk about Gomathi Nayagam. He starts his narration saying that Kalli treats him as his own elder brother since childhood. Suddenly half way through just because the swamigal seems to prefer Kalli over him he is immediately transformed into some sort of a satanic villain. Look! a director with this kind of strong content should doubly concentrate on perfecting the characterization of each one of his actors. This is where inspite of forming a good story line the director Vasantha Balan has faltered quite badly in the area of screenplay thereby diluting the premise quite a bit. Loosing favour with the guru and Vadivu (Vedhika) not noticing his overtures are the sole reasons given by the director for turning a decade long friendship into literally satanic rivalry. This may be excusable to some but to me it simply appeared as a rare opportunity missed by the director to make an average film into a great one! How? If Gomathi had played along and continued to shower his love on Kalli to make him implicitly believe on his friendship.And finally dealt the deathblow shocking Kalli out of his slumber might have worked better. Prithviraj per say is a much better performer than Siddharth. Futile attempts by the director to showcase them as opposites falls flat. It somehow reminded me of the song in Thiruvilayadal 'Oru Naal Pothuma' sung by Balamurali Krishna and TMS walking away with all the glory with a gimmicky number. 

Let me  now focus on the story a bit . Its all about the rivalry of these two characters Gomathi and Kalli which ends up killing their Guru, Rangamma the Zamindar's daughter and her unborn child and finally even Vadivu (Vedika) is devastated at the very end again with an unborn child. In between we are shown extensive footage of stage plays of the bygone era (1940's). The stage plays featuring Lord Krishna, Karna, Arjuna, Soorapadman, Harishchandra are interspaced with songs which are by itself quite interesting and melodious but somehow the choreography of these songs seem so out of place and of a somewhat different period and time. The second half features stage plays with Vande Mataram and the Indian freedom movement forming the main premise. So on the whole somehow the screenplay and sequencing of events look disjointed and fails to invoke passion, thrill, excitement of old stage plays or patriotism to the fullest. So on the whole it is neither here nor there and ends up caught in between. Nasser as Sankara Dasa Swami has performed as needed but his appearance reminds you of a Tantric from a TV serial! Once again some of the sets resemble that of Vasantha Balan's earlier film 'Aravaan'. The period setting of the film works only in parts. The Siva Thandavam kind of a choreography during the Mahabharata backdrop setting is indeed ridiculous! On the whole the film seems to be inspired from Tamil films, Thillana Mohanambal, Iruvar, & Hey Ram to name a few.  

& the climax  ends up as rather confusing as one is unable to clearly distinguish between a killing and a suicide. Gomathi's final act is so so predictable and cliched. A damp squib of a climax!

Acting Stand outs: Vedika, Nasser, Prithviraj

Acting Disappointments: Siddharth

Acting Duds: Thambi Ramiah & Rangamma (Zamindar's Doctor)

Goof ups: During the British rule two white constables would never follow the leadership of a Indian Police Inspector. Moonlight shining through the cracks on parapet walls alone.

Camerawork: Good work but at times on on his own trip.Trying to excel on his own at times letting down the content, premise and the director. Lighting at times over kills the premise leaving us wondering if the DOP is overdoing his part in the film!

Music: pleasing, melodious and interesting but choreography a big let down.

Edit: A half hour cut an absolute necessity.


Bottom Line: Content and Intent should be backed by sound Screenplay to make an average film a good or a great film! Kaviya Thalaivan is one such example of such a failure! 

A Quote: Choosing the wrong actor to perform as a character in a period film ends up spoofing both the premise and the character!

My Rating: 2.50 for the intent and content less .25 for botching up the screen play - Total 2.25/5

Until Next Time,
Director Haricharan
29/11/2014

BOYHOOD - 12 to 18 growing to be a man in the Americas!

BOYHOOD - 12 to 18 growing to be a man in the Americas!

Cast: Mason - Ellar Coltrane, Patricia Arquette - Mom, Elijah Smith - Tommy, Lorelei Linklater - Samantha, Steven Chester - Prince, Ted (as Steven Prince), Bonnie Cross -Teacher, Elementary School Girl (as Sidney Orta), Libby Villari - Grandma,Ethan Hawke - Dad, Marco Perella - Professor Bill Wellbrock, Jamie Howard - Mindy & many others

& Crew: Director: Richard Linklater, Writer: Richard Linklater

Story & Backdrop

Set in Houston, Texas this film is extraordinary in parts ordinary and painfully slow and bad in parts. It is a docu-drama about an American kid growing up from the age of 7 and follows his passion photography. Finally at the age of 18 he earns a scholarship to study photography. 18 is age is considered by Americans as the transitional stage of the boyhood-adult transformation. If you are tuned to the American culture and their way of life, growing up and parenting you will probably enjoy this film the best. For those who are looking at sheer entertainment this film will be torture and a big bore! The sheer determination and the patience of this director must be appreciated.

We in India by nature deeply treasure and cherish our family bonds. I am sure that quite a few of us - amateur cameramen and photographers While growing up have managed to capture those precious moments with their own families, grandparents, parents, children, their b'day's, weddings and holidays etc by shooting it on their own (colour and black & white) with their respective old super 16 cameras, video cams, and more recently mobile phones and DSLR'S. Now all u guys would then have to do is to locate these video treasures and dust them out of old 'trunks orJathika potties'. Next locate a good video editor to sequence these clippings and 'voila' u will have a fabulous 'desi 'version of your own 'Boyhood!' The whole family can then sit, watch, share and enjoy those great moments captured by you! All the best! For the others who prefer 'masala' and lighthearted 'desi' entertainers 'Boyhood' in my opinion is a big No! No!

I have anyway managed to collect quite a few trivia and critical reviews for you to read and assess for yourself whether u want to watch this film or avoid it!

Trivia:

1. Richard Linklater cast his daughter Lorelei Linklater as Samantha because she was always singing and dancing around the house and wanted to be in his movies. At about the third or fourth year of filming, she lost interest and asked for her character to be killed off. Linklater refused, saying it was too violent for what he was planning (Lorelei eventually regained her enthusiasm and continued with the project).

2. Ellar Coltrane, who plays the boy of the title, was 7 years old when the movie started filming and 18 when it finished.

3. Had Richard Linklater died during the 12-year shoot, Ethan Hawke would have taken over the directorial duties.

4. The film was shot over 45 days from May 2002 to August 2013 which, roughly speaking is spanning more than 4,000 days.

5. As it is illegal in the U.S. to sign contracts lasting longer than 7 years, nobody could sign a contract for their 12-year commitment.

6. Richard Linklater and his crew got together annually to film Linklater's script about a boy who will eventually grow up into a college freshman. Linklater's method behind production was essentially to make several 10- to 15-minute short films over the course of 12 years, each depicting a year in the life of the boy, and then edit them together as a feature film.

7. Boyhood (2014) is one of only 11 movies to receive a metascore of 100, the highest possible score that can be attained from professional movie critics.

8. The film began production as "The Untitled 12 Year Project" and then became just "12 Years". But when the film was finished, Richard Linklater changed the title to Boyhood (2014), to avoid confusion with the similarly-titled, Academy Award-winning 12 Years a Slave (2013).

9. The guitar-playing street performer is Ellar Coltrane's real father, Bruce Salmon. He is a musician based in Austin, TX, where his cameo scene is set.

10. David Blackwell played Liquor Store Clerk in director Richard Linklater's Dazed and Confused (1993) and again here in Boyhood.

11. Lorelei Linklater is only three months older than her on-screen brother Ellar Coltrane. Richard Linklater jokes that he didn't so much cast her in the movie, as give in when she insisted on playing the part after hearing about the project.

12. Longtime friends, Linklater and Hawke both grew up with divorced fathers from Texas who worked in the insurance business, assessing risk--exactly the career Hawke's character, Mason Sr., eventually takes on in the film.

13. Mason Sr.'s roommate Jimmy is played by Charlie Sexton, a real-life musician who toured with Bob Dylan for many years. Several pieces of Dylan-themed artwork can be seen on the walls of Mason and Jimmy's apartment.

14. The GTO used in the film belongs to Richard Linklater.

15. In the campfire scene, the movie showed Dad and Mason talking about the possibility of another "Star Wars" movie. The campfire scene and the previously shown Obama/Biden campaign scene set in 2008 showed Mason at the same age. The real plans for Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015) were first conceived after the acquisition of Lucas film by Disney in 2012. Thus you might say that this movie's script in 2008 predicted the 2012 plans. Eventually, this movie was released in the same year that Episode VII started filming.

16. The film takes place from 2002 to 2013.

17. The film features two songs by Arcade Fire ("Suburban War" and "Deep Blue"). Coincidentally, two of the film's actors (Sam Dillon and Zoë Graham, who played Nick and Sheena, respectively) also appear in Spike Jonze's Scenes from the Suburbs (2011), a 2011 short film based completely on Arcade Fire’s 2010 album "The Suburbs," and featuring numerous songs from the album. Both Boyhood (2014) and "Scenes" were filmed in Austin, Texas.

18. The baseball game that Dad brings Mason and Samantha to was a real Brewers / Astros contest, held on August 18, 2005. The Astros' Jason Lane actually did hit a home run down the left field line (precisely where the camera was pointing) during the only inning, the 2nd, that the crew shot on-field action. However, in the film, Mason reports afterwards that the Astros "won it on Lane's three-run homer," while in reality, it was a solo home run, and the Astros lost when Roger Clemens gave up four runs in the seventh inning.

19. There are 143 scenes in the film.

20. Near the end of the movie, while talking to his father about relationships and girls, and in the next scene with his mother and sister, Mason wears a t-shirt with a painting "Collective Vision" by Alex Gray, an artist known for his artwork for the metal band Tool.

21. The football game that Mason and Samantha play with their father was filmed at the Miller Outdoor Theatre in Houston. The pavilion of the theatre itself can be seen at the top of the hill.

22. In the scene when the Dad takes Mason to a band practice after his graduation, a poster behind on the wall reads the name of one of the producers of the film, Cat Sutherland.

23. Mason's full name, as seen on his engraved Bible, is Mason Evans, Jr.

Critics/Viewers - How do they rate this film?

1. I don't know. I rated it 5 out of 10 stars. It got better after a while when Mason had grown up a bit but that was a long way into the movie. Acting was not very good and story was very cliché. Some of the conversations had that special Linklater quality to them and were actually rather good in the end. But overall it was a huge disappointment to me. Perhaps the stretched out production is to blame? Making him loose touch with what he was doing and perhaps not paying attention to the acting in the beginning not knowing if the project would take of? I don't know. For reference this is how I've rated other Linklater movies just so you don't take me as a Transformers guy or something like that.

Other films by this director: 1. Before Sunrise. 10/10 2. Walking Life. 10/10 3.Before Sunset. 9/10 4. A Scanner Darkly. 8/10 5. Before Midnight. 10/10

2. And I saw Slacker ages ago. Would rate it high but it's been too long to make an accurate rating. So yeah. I was expecting to give this movie a better rating. But you should go see for yourself. Most people seem to like it.

3. This reality film with a run time of 165 mins lacks an orientation a complication and a resolution. Every film needs an orientation a complication and a resolution. Nothing really happens it’s sought just the growing up of a boy within 12 years, first film to do this but is it really necessary. The only reason this film stands out is because the acting and the idea. But putting all that aside this doesn't even qualify as a movie.

4. I don't agree a lot of things happen in the movie. So much that you could do a film about any of the events of the movie. For example, the entire situation with the alcoholic husband and their struggles on trying to become a family composed of two half of previous families. Or the childhood with a non-present father and a mother trying to educate and sustain them. Or the first experiences of love on school.

5. I think that, on the contrary, this film expands above a lot of films on its theme... It tries to grasp his process of becoming an independent subject in the world and you could do a handful of films about it.

6. And of course a film doesn't have to be structured always like you expected, but even then I could say that the film is related to that structure. There's an orientation that's the introduction to the family and the roles every member of the family has related to Mason on the first scenes of his childhood. The complication... Every scene in the movie where Mason struggles to be himself to do what he wants without hurting others.

7. This isn't a movie about some extraordinary event. It's a movie that's supposed to reflect life and does so very well. If you thought nothing really happened, well that's usually how life goes if you think about it. And it also depends what angle you view the movie from. The power of the movie is in its humanity and how relatable different aspects of it are.

8. My wife and I saw this movie the other day and we kept waiting for it to get interesting. The novelty of the kids growing up in front of your eyes got old (no pun intended) pretty quick and we were left with a depressing movie with pretty terrible acting.

9. I would say Ethan Hawke was the only good character in the movie and I liked to see his progression and where his life took him. Otherwise the characters were pretty blah even though there were major events that took place in this movie (leaving an alcoholic abusive step-father etc) it was boring and very predictable.

10. Patricia Arquette character was very depressing and her lines seemed so forced we actually laughed at a few serious places. Her breakdown at the very end was how I felt about her acting and lines.

11. The two kids were equally confusing. The boy seemed lost and uninspired to do ANYTHING with his life. Seemed like a kid who thought he was entitled to the world for doing absolutely nothing. And what a depressing view to see this cute kid at the beginning turn into a dirty lazy nothing at the end.

12. The daughter was slightly interesting at the start and follow her brothers overall thought process. At least she was cute throughout.

13. I'm sure I'll get bashed by all the artsy film students out there but oh well. Movie sucked and I wish I had those 2 hours and 42 minutes back of my life.

14. Wow! You think the kid turned into a "lazy dirty nothing" at the end? I thought he turned into a pretty good kid who was somewhat confused, but still going to college to try to make something of his life and pursue his dream of being a photographer

15. Every scene at the end was like pulling teeth for this kid to do ANYTHING on his own. He looked "dirty" because his hair looked like he hadn't washed it for ages, his posture was always slouched and frail, everyone around him was giving him advice that he never took, and he was just wandering through life expecting things to fall into his lap while spouting off profound things that really made no impact on his actions... "I hate cell phones"... "Btw look at this pig while you drive". Maybe this is how kids are these days but it was a poor representation of what a "good kid" should be IMO.

16. This movie was just annoying because I wanted it to go somewhere and it never did. This alone made each scene and character that much more bland and uninteresting.

17. The story wasn't some groundbreaking tale and the characters while developed weren't that interesting. The writing was so bad at times and the acting was so forced in other areas. Just painful to watch at times.

18. I'm sure this movie touched you or somehow you connected with the characters in some way and that's great but it still doesn't make this a good movie.

Bottom Line: Strictly for those who get high on a nostalgic trip of 'look back'!

Quote: A film need not necessarily entertain all the time; At times it simply serves to revive forgotten memories!

My Rating: 2.5 + .5 for sheer perseverance of the director. Total: 3/5

Until Next Time

Director Haricharan

17/11/2014

Thirudan Police - Somehow gives you the 'Jigarthanda' feel!

Thirudan Police - Somehow gives you the 'Jigarthanda' feel!


Cast: Attakathi Dinesh, Ishwaryaa, Bala Saravanan, John Vijay, Naan Kadavul Rajendran, Nitin Satya, Naren etc

& Crew: Direction: Caarthick Raju, Screenplay: Caarthick Raju,Story: Caarthick Raju ,Music: Yuvan Shankar Raja 
Background score: Yuvan Shankar Raja ,Cinematography: Siddharth ,Dialogues: Caarthick Raju ,Editing: Praveen KL 
Art direction: Jacki ,Stunt choreography: Dilip Subarayan 
Dance choreography: Dinesh ,Lyrics: Na Muthukumar 
PRO: Suresh Chandra 

Production: S.P.Charan, Selvakumar J 

Time: 2hrs 16mins

Story/Backdrop/Screenplay

This film's on the whole somehow had the 'Jigarthanda' feel, especially the transformation of the villain, his confession etc! Whether it was intentional or not at times the director of this film appears to be making a fool of his own premise! Let me explain- 

Stereotyped 

The film opens with 'adi thadi' as Vishwa (Dinesh) single handedly bashes up (Nithin Sathya) a good for nothing and his cronies. Selva chases Nitin all over the place they even end up fighting inside a cop station with all the usual Tamilnadu 'idiot' cops even unable to even separate leave alone stop the two juveniles (stereotyped). You come to know through Ekambaram (stereotyped Bala Saravanan the comedy quotient & policeman buddy of the hero) that that Selva is the S/o (Rajesh) a head constable and Nitin S/o an asst com of police. Unusual beginning but slightly cliched! Director Caarthick Raju then goes on to introduce the heroine (Ishwaryaa Rajesh). The heroine job is very clearly defined it is to keep smiling or turning around and smiling all the time. Once again heroine is turned redundant by one more director (stereotyped). Our hero Vishwa 'once' again (stereo typed) by a Tamil director as a 'Naalaayak; beta (good for nothing son) and the poor hard working father a typically overweight head constable keeps abusing and cursing his son most of the time while the doting mom (Uma Padmanabhan) keeps indulging her darling son (stereo typed so often that i have lost count ). To cut the blah! blah! short, the dad wants his son to become a cop etc etc that is why he keeps cursing and abusing him (another stereotyped father for the umpteenth time). This kind of storytelling requires the minimum of effort by the director but fetches him the maximum returns by way of content filling! Nitin Sathya is once again (stereotyped) as a tamil film playboy who seduces and rapes every damsel he sets his eye on! Here the wretched dad (stereotyped) keeps cursing and abusing his 'rapist' son but turns a blind eye to his all misdeeds. Why? That's a silly question! Ans: The father is a corrupt Asst commissioner who is hand in glove with a notorious history cheater (Rajendran) and his younger brother (Daniel Balaji) (stereotyped). Someone should advice this actor to stop ranting, raving and screaming and start performing. This actor is very closely following Thambi Ramiah's footsteps (probably a future national award?) but believe me after a while he simply gets on your nerves. Vishwa and (Nitin Sathya) are both pursuing Ishwaryaa of course for different 'R'S' I mean reasons one to romance her and the other to rape her! (stereotyped) wow! I am beginning to get all poetic and rhyming etc.

Now the story moves on to (Naren) the commissioner of police wanting to encounter the history sheeter Rajendran. He summons the Asst commissioner to 'Pottuthallify' Rajendran. (stereotyped)The asst commissioner who is in cahoots with Rajendran not only warns him but condones his misdeeds ,grants him immunity and a new identity if he 'pottuthallifies' Vishwa's dad the head constable. All done in one telephone call! Why? Because the head constable had earlier threatened  to reveal the clandestine deeds of the asst commissioner! (stereotyped)Why? For the sake of his 'Nalayak' son Vishwa. Why? (stereotyped) Pl no more questions! After killing Vishwa's father how does he become incognito! The commissioner simply asks Rajendran to shave of his head and relax in a neighbouring cop friends jail cell! Which actually has a suit of empty adjoining cells to put up all of Rajendran's gang members! Just in case 'his' own police force try to arrest Rajendran! In fact he has free access to his cell phone too! Vishwa who hates his father till now is oblivious of all that is happening around him and does not even shed a tear at his dad's 'encounter' death!  Why? Because he hates his abusive father.  A decent man trying to make a man out of his good for nothing son. (stereotyped)The commissioner somehow within a matter of a few minutes on the way to Vishwa's house to pay respects out of nowhere fishes out a cover and hands an order to Vishwa appointing him as a constable! Wow! The state government should take a cue from this on how to get rid of red tapism. 

Footnote: Why does all the stereotyping go well with our viewers. In this film a few cosmetic changes effected by the director, funny dialogues, contribution from a few actors, sizeable contributions from the D.O.P and the editor compels one to sit through all the above scenes. It's like a sugar coated pill!

Coincidences galore

1.The commissioner connecting an old incident involving Vishwa's father. 2. Vishwa appears out of nowhere at the market and saves the kidnapped child by bending down to tie his shoe lace . 3. Vishwa once re appears when Rajendran and his 'adiyals' threaten Ishwaryaa 3.Vishwa and (Bala) go to the same Tasmac shop where Rajendran and his buddies are drinking 4. Vishwa sent to the same jail for duty where Rajendran and co are hiding 5. Commissioner being so impressed with Vishwa insists that he should be a part of the encounter team 6. Vishwa meeting Ishwaryaa as and when the 'director' pleases.7. Picked each and every time to serve the asst commissioner's wife and his son (Nithin Sathya)  8. Vishwa accompanying the asst comm's wife  to the temple with Asst comm's wife and saving  her.

Footnote: Why do so many coincidences work in Tamil cinema. In this film once again the cosmetic changes and the flow of the premise purely owing to the edit and camera work makes it plausible! Luckily not too many songs, fights are obscenity to make such instances glaring.

The second half (the final 15 mins)

The absurd comical scenes in this half are the most enjoyable parts in this film. Though it reminds one of 'Jigarthanda'. 1. The villain Rajendran and his 'adiyals' being transformed into lame ducks! (Making Rajendran dress like a woman symbolizing the slang word 'Pottai' normally used for 'scaredy cats' is one of the better scenes in this film). 2. Extracting confessions from Rajendran and co (video taping it etc). 3. Vishwas and his buddy playing a major part in the final act of the film. The difference being the hero in Jigarthanda being he fights the villains to avenge the injustice meted out to him. Here the hero fights to avenge his father's death. In both films the directors use comical absurdity to enliven proceedings. Is this another coincidence?

Footnote: Vijay Sethupathi cameo appears in a 'item number' is rather irksome! 2. Dinesh should stop trying hard to act 'normally'! He should try hard to get out of the 'cuckoo' mould! 3. Vishwa explodes when his friend is bashed up but is relatively sombre and mild when dealing with his father's killers! In fact one feels he lets them of quite lightly in comparison! 

D.O.P: Involved with the film completely. It shows! The song filming was just about average.

Edit: Great work! It really help cut any lag the film the film may have had. Though the Tasmac scene should have been pruned along with both the songs!

Music: BG score adequate. Songs nothing to write home about!

Bottomline: A film on the lines of Soodhu Kavum, Jigarthanda, Moodar koodam etc. I am glad that these small budget films are giving a run for their money to all the so called big budget superhero films!

Quote: "Small budget films stumble but recover! Big budget films fall and remain fallen!"

My Rating: 2.25 + .25 (performance of a few actors) Total 2.5/5

Until next time,

Director Haricharan

15/11/2014

Gone Girl – Will continue to haunt u for a long time!

Gone Girl – Will continue to haunt u for a long time!

Cast:-  Ben Affleck (Nick Dunne), Rosamund Pike (Amy Dunne), Neil Patrick Harris,Tyler Perry,Carrie Coon,Kim Dickens

& Crew:-

Directed by: David Fincher,Screenplay by: Gillian Flynn,

Music by: Trent Reznor,Atticus Ross, Cinematography: Jeff Cronenweth, Edit: Kirk Baxter

Producer: Leslie Dixon, Bruna Papandrea, Reese Witherspoon, Ceán Chaffin

Produced by: Regency Enterprises & Pacific Standard

Distributed by: 20th Century Fox

Running time: 149 minutes

Country  United States

 Story/Backdrop/Screenplay

This film is a classic example how a film’s well thought out screenplay (Gillian Flynn) can simply keep you guessing at every turn and asking for more. The film starts of rather slowly but it is deliberately orchestrated by the director to let the characterization of each actor in play to linger and finally sink into you. Ben Affleck who plays Nick Dunne, Rosamund Pike as Amy Dunne (Exceptional performance) , Carrie Coom as Margo Dunne, Kim Dickens as detective Rhonda Boney, Neil Patrick Harris who plays Desi Collings and Tyler Perry as Tanner Bolt each one of them have supported the director David Fincher to the hilt. The story based on a novel Gillian Flynn is all about a modern day marriage of convenience filled with lies, deceit, dark secrets between the husband and wife. Amidst all this chaos and confusion the best way to retain your sanity is simply learn to use this relationship to a mutual advantage. This director has excelled in showcasing this unrealistic mirage of today’s shallow relationship between man and wife.

The film set in Missouri starts with Nick’s 5^th wedding anniversary. He reports that his wife has gone missing. From here on the police take over and the media hypes it to a tizzy! (TR ratings are all that matters). Let me do a chronological review which may help you understand the plot better.

Prelude: Nick Dunne is stroking Amy’s hair- Voice over- ‘He would like to crack her skull and examine a part of her brain to know what she was thinking! (Doesn't every married couple want an answer to this question?)

2012:  Nick (writes for a men’s magazine) goes about his daily chores. Goes to a bar he co-owns with his sister. Over a board game Mastermind! (The director subtly hints to u the nature of his premise. But u will never catch it!). Nick’s mind is not on the game and seems unhappy. Marco is not exactly in love with Amy! Subtle but again another knot neatly tied.

2005:  Nick and Amy meet at a party. Amy also is a personality quiz writer for a magazine. They hit it off well! (Watch the director how he uses the symbolism of a sugar delivery at a bakery in the background to let you know that ‘it all starts with sugar and honey love!’)

Today:  Nick at the bar gets a call from a neighbor that his cat is stranded outside his house. Gets back home to find that a glass table is all shattered and on the floor. He finds that Amy is missing. He calls the police. Detective Rhonda arrives and after a few simple questions to Nick finds a small splatter of blood in the kitchen. She sees a book ‘Amazing Amy’ and reveals to Nick that she is a great fan of Amy’s writings.

Note: The police station scene where Nick happens to meet his dad by sheer accident and driving him back to an assisted care centre is another loose end craftily closed by the director a little later.

2007(After 2 years of courtship):  Nick and Amy go to a party arranged by Amy’s parents Rand and Marybeth. Nick decides to propose to Amy and she accepts. The director again uses a book as a tool for Nick to reveal the engagement ring. Always stays focused on his chosen premise. Nick uses the word ‘vagina’ the director uses this to simply state that most men use their partners only for ‘sex’.

2009:  ‘Happily’ remain married for 2 years. The usage of bed sheets as gifts by both Amy and Nick to symbolize sex is another classic example used by the director.

Today: Using ‘clues’ to move the story is another brilliant example of innovation in screen play by this director. He through clues left by the missing Amy discovered by the detective and Nick leads the viewer to a step by step unraveling of the plot! (Hercule Poirot would have given a pat to the director for using a wedding anniversary as a ploy to leave clues for estranged husband to discover the play by the missing wife). Clue 1 leads to clue 2 – a red panty a loose end as of now but again brilliantly tied up later by the director) Using the alarm in Nick’s dad’s empty house (loose end of the missing dad closed here) and in the confusion Nick hides the 3^rd clue. Amy’s parents fly in from New York and the media continues its relentless hype on the missing Amy. Amy is by now a household name in America. Nick who remains emotionless at a press conference goes with his overall character. The entry of an old classmate and boy friend Desi Collins who had been earlier accused of being a stalker by Amy sort of draws the suspicion away from Nick on to the new entrant of this drama. Once again the suspicion veers back to Nick based on a ‘selfie’ posted on facebook. (Present day usage of ‘selfie’ to damage beyond redemption the character of another) These small but impact creating scenes takes this film from being a drama to a mystery and now moves it to a thriller ‘genre’.  The feminist media now paint Nick as a sociopath and the entire country simply hates him.

2010: Amy’s diary is another example of a writer using her brains in essaying her actions. 1. ‘Background Noises’ in their lives used to explain Amy’s parents financial problems along with Amy’s actions in giving away a million dollars without asking Nick and his reaction etc. 2. Nick’s sudden fascination to video games and electronic gadgets another lovely bit to portray Nick losing interest in their marriage. 3. Nick and Margo’s mother being diagnosed with cancer another viable distraction. 4. Amy wants to go out with Nick as he is about to go out to meet some friends and his refusal to take her with him. 5. At this point Amy confronts Nick and wants to have a child 6. Nick loses his cool and reacts rather violently. Where is this all leading to? Believe me it leads you to a near edge of the seat thriller!

Present Day: Amy disappears! The director now reveals that Nick is having an affair with Andie a 20 year old. (Here the usage of SMS to reveal that she is outside. Well thought of!). Margo is shocked to learn that her brother is having an affair and he also wanted to divorce Amy. At Amy’s night vigil the assembled crowd and the viewers get the shock of their lives to discover that Amy’s 6 months pregnant at the time of her disappearance. The police now discover traces of a wiped out pool of blood at Nick’s home.  On top of all this Nick’s overdrawn credit card bills and upping the value of Amy’s life insurance policy etc slowly but surely points all suspicion at him for the murder of his wife Amy. Finally cornered Nick remembers the hidden 3^rd clue and deciphers it and gets the biggest shock of his life!

I really do not want to reveal anything more about this film and act spoiler except for the fact that the second half of this film will simply thrill you to bits!

And the climax: As far as I am concerned the director’s choice is the best ending to this film! If he had tinkered with it he would have botched it!

Trivia I liked: The cat – a silent witness to all the happenings. 2. Usage of clues to move the film. 3. Amy’s revelation through her diary notes. 4. The robbery of Amy at the motel. 5. Her final tryst with Desi Collins. 5. Even the toothpaste tune with the brand ‘Aim’

6. Amy’s (Rosamund Pike) amazing performance. 7. Nick’ subdued acting (Ben Affleck) 8. Every actor played his part to almost perfection. 9. Hats off to the director for the sheer audacity of the screen play.

Published Trivia: Ben Affleck postponed directing a film in order to work with David Fincher. "He's the only director I've met who can do everybody else's job better than they could," states Affleck. On set one day, Affleck changed the lens setting on a camera an almost indiscernible amount, betting a crew member that Fincher wouldn't notice. "But goddammit if he didn't say, 'Why does the camera look a little dim?'"

In order to figure out his character, Ben Affleck researched and studied several men who were accused and convicted of killing their wives. He paid particular attention to Scott Peterson.

For her performance, Rosamund Pike drew inspiration from Nicole Kidman's performance in To Die For (1995) and Sharon Stone's in Basic Instinct (1992). She also studied Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy, wife of John F. Kennedy Jr., for her body language and aloof mood.

When it comes to casting roles, David Fincher typically goes on the internet to look through pictures of actors to help him find the right type of actor for a role. When casting the role of Nick Dunne, Fincher spotted photos of Ben Affleck & noticed a particular smile Affleck had on dozens of pictures to which Fincher has stated captured a particular emotion in a scene of Nick Dunne smiling that Fincher said apprehended the essence of the character Nick Dunne. After that, Fincher shortly casted Ben Affleck for the role.

In a scene where Nick and Amy have sex in the library, they talk about Jane Austen's book "Pride & Prejudice". Rosamund Pike, who plays Amy, was the one of the leads in that book's movie version, playing the part of Jane Bennet.

The film has become David Fincher's highest grossing domestic box-office film. "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" was David Fincher's highest grossing domestic box-office film prior.

David Fincher's second film in a row to have the word Girl in the title, the previous being The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

Published Plot Holes: Amy allegedly lost lots of blood on the kitchen floor. Later, nobody questions what the injury that produced so much of it was.

A lot of the items in the shed would had to be signed for and received by someone; no one investigates who signed for the deliveries. No one even noticed a large quantity of deliveries coming to the shed, either by Amy or the delivery guys.

Amy calls Desi for help and he later comes to her place. Before that Desi was seen in so many places like in Missouri and New York where Nick visits him. If the investors (Rhonda) went about Desi's call records, they would have known that Amy had called Desi after disappearing.

Bottom line: What ‘Kollywood’ director Bala achieved in the Tamil film ‘Sethu’; ‘Hollywood’ director David Fincher has achieved in ‘Gone girl’ – Honestly both these films will continue to haunt you for a very long time after you leave the theatre!

Quote: ‘Most modern marriages are built on a platform of mutual convenience! The man and wife relationship these days most often than not is filled with shame, anger, deceit, dark secrets, sometimes even murder and most of all SEX! But the institute of marriage carries on as the end marks the beginning!”

Footnote: Though this reminds you of the film 'Double Jeopardy' (1999) Stg Tommy Lee Jones & Ashley Judd where the roles were reversed where the husband disappears and wife searches etc. This film plays with your emotions a lot more than DJ!

My Rating: 3.5 and for the performance of Rosamund Pike as Amy +.25 Total 3.75/5 – GO for it, before it’s GONE!

Until Next Time,

Director Haricharan

12/11/2014

Oru oorla rendu raja - The poor 'viewer' is the subject of this 'crap'!

Hi! This is another film that I have decided not to review, in spite of this film being a 'critics' delight in the wrong sense. I will not be a contributory factor to incite any kind of curiosity among my readers which may even remotely tempt them to watch this total 'crap' which in my opinion should not even be termed as a 'FILM'!

Until next time,

Director Haricharan

10/11/2014

It's about 6 packs & 100 crore.......

It's more about 6 packs &100 crore today than story line ........ Speakers at the Odisha Literary Festival 2014 opined. Read on....... 

Film Maker Nilamadhab Panda - " .... it is mostly  about the business dynamics...if a story would take the fastest route to the 100 crore club or not"

Novelist & Diplomat Vikas Swarup - "unlike the West where the story of a film is considered supreme, in India, the story comes last as far as filmmaking is concerned. we know people who have watched Sholay at least a100 times, but no one will watch the current releases more than once. It is thro aggressive marketing that people are being brought to the theatres, but after that the film makers and distributors are not bothered if their film is liked by the audience or not."

TV personality and poet Lavlin Thadani - "we the audience, do not think before watching a film. We see whatever is shown to us. This inertia of watching anything &everything that Bollywood offers us is a deep rooted conditioning. This is why,filmmakers and distributors are dictating the market now."

Finally Panda added on Cinema criticism - " Here too, business has crept in, affecting the quality of writing for films."

Bottom line: How true! But who bloody cares!

Courtesy: The New Indian Express 6th Nov 2014.

Until Next Time,

Director Haricharan

6.11.2014

Nerungi Vaa Muththam Idathe - It's like reading a newspaper with only Headlines as content!

Nerungi Vaa Muththam Idathe – It’s like reading a Newspaper with only Headlines as content!

Cast: - Shabeer (Chandru), Pia Bajpai (Maya), Sruthi Hariharan, Viji Chandrasekhar, Thambi Ramaiah, Y.GEE.Mahendra among others

& Crew: - S/S.P/Dir- Lakshmy Ramakrishnan, Music-Medley-Blues, D.O.P-Vinod Bharathi, Edit-Sabu Joseph

Produced by: - A.V.Anoop (AVA Productions)

To read this review pl cut and paste all the 1’s, 2’s, 3,s and so forth in order and read it. I promise you it will make some sense otherwise you may end up with a psychiatrist or probably even in a mental asylum! I have followed this format so that the viewers will experience and feel the way I felt while watching this film!  

Story/Screenplay/Backdrop

1.In the stealth of the night a man pops or shall I say literally bursts out of a river. Even before he could remove his waterproof overalls is immediately and chased by the police. Place-Unknown, Reasons-unknown. (Obviously up to no good!)

2.There is a diesel crisis in the country. Life comes to a standstill.

3.Chandru (Shabeer) (the hero) agrees to drive a lorry laden with onions belonging Kaleeswaran (A.L.Azhagappan) his friend, guide, philosopher and friend in spite of a serious petroleum shortage.

4.Then comes Maya (Pia Bajpai) supposedly the heroine who is all the time sulking while her friends are partying. Where? Come on! Of course in Karaikal! How else can the hero meet her?

5.One way Rajagopalan (Thambi Ramaiah) is riding a share taxi with a couple. The girl is carrying a goat and talking over phone while the husband tries to throw the irritating Rajagopalan out of the taxi. (Will somebody please give this actor another national award to stop acting?) He keeps cracking stupid wise cracks (thanks to the dialogue writer who seems to have lost his sense of humor)

6.Bala Saravanan the hero’s friend back home is also waiting for his uncle to die! Why? Now look……..

1. Ranting & raving the terrorist now surfaces aboard a trawler which has somehow run out of diesel. So what does the poor guy do? Patience please the director will reveal later!

2.But where are the people? People have forgotten even to walk owing to their total dependence on cycles/mobikes/cars/trains and planes! Boy! This director conveys her messages directly and in no uncertain terms!

3.The hero stops on the way to talk to a roadside mother and child who is supposedly a prostitute (who entertains lorry driver to feed her baby with biscuits dipped in milk). The hero plays the good Samaritan by making her clean the lorry instead and pays her handsomely. Moral of this story – Every prostitute will be saved by a hero at the right time! All she has to do is to wait patiently.

4.Why does Pia continue to sulk?  Wait!

5.Finally Thambi Ramiah is thrown out. Why?  Because the hero has to pick him up! Why? For irritating everyone around and the viewers too.

1.Who is this guy waiting in the boat? He is an international terrorist now doubling as a spy carrying plans of the ‘Karaikal’ atomic plant! Now finally the director reveals that this guy is waiting in the trawler for the hero to deliver diesel!

2.Every now and then a news reader conveys the grave crisis of petroleum shortage. Lakshmy Ramakrishnan the director who also doubles as the petroleum minister chips in with her views on the crisis. Oh! Yes! She is always calm and composed! She is the best choice to replace Dhoni!

3.The Hero is then forced by the mother to help an eloping Muslim girl and Hindu boy. How? By offering to drop them en route AND in a safe zone.

4.In the midst of the party Pia suddenly takes off on a bike with a so called partying friend. Why? Patience please!

5.Now the hero picks up Thambi Ramiah on the way supposedly a bumbling idiot but is actually a clever con man and is working for the master mind Kaleeshwaran! What? How? Look pl stop asking questions. The director will answer at her own sweet time and place. If not pl email her.

6. Oh! Bala Saravanan! I almost forgot. Sorry! He is waiting because he will inherit money and property from an unknown uncle who is about to kick the bucket. This is comedy ‘Machi’ Comedy!

1.Why is the hero abetting the terrorist? Because he is blackmailed by the master mind!

2.The hero hates the father Y.G.Mahendran. Why? Because he treated him badly during childhood! Look. The director can’t keep spoon feeding you all the time. You should learn to use your own intelligence once in a while! And then…..

4.The friends call Maya’s mom (Viji Chandrashekar) who is a middle aged pop singer (Remember Usha Uthup). Pia’s mother is in Malaysia about to perform in front of a ‘supposedly’ sold out show. She is quite shocked to hear that her estranged daughter Pia is missing. But alas what can the poor lady do sitting in hotel room in Chennai...Oh! Sorry! In Malaysia! I was sort of fooled by the venetian blinds in the hotel room in Malaysia. It somehow reminded me of a green matte shot!

3.The angry mob is waiting for the Hindu Muslim boy and girl! Why? Come on! To separate them by ‘pottuthallifying’ the boy!

4. Pia’s friends lodge a complaint with the local police. By the way the inspector occupies himself playing video games on his mobile. Any takers? This guy needs to attend anger management classes too!

5.Now Thambi Ramiah is once again thrown out by the mastermind (villain). As the hero drives away Thambi calls the villain (mastermind)…. Wow! Another twist by the director!

3.Finally is the hero’s dad dead? No! But then why does the hero hate his real father? Look! Don’t ask too many questions! The director Lakshmy Ramakrishnan will answer all your silly questions before the film come to an end. If not u can always email her!

3.But I will help u to a certain extent! That’s all! The hero is befriended by the master mind and conned into doing his dirty work. It all ties up doesn't it! Wait! There are more bits and pieces. This director has fashioned out a jigsaw puzzle which only she can solve! But I will keep trying!

2.The police stop the truck in search of the terrorist and discover that Pia is seriously sick!

6.By the way Bala Saravanan's mother suffers from dementia of sorts. Fooled you! Comedy once again! Ha! Ha! Ha! I think I am losing it!

2.Hero drives Pia and her friend to the hospital and the doctor takes admits her in ICU only to find out that she has asthma! And a simple nebulizer does the job and she is discharged. By this she is almost in love with the hero! Makes u blush eh!

I am really sorry for being unable to continue with this review purely due to mental fatigue and disorientation of my brain cells. So I will conclude with the climax: - The Mastermind, the villain and the minister are all villains! The Muslim boy and Hindu girl live happily ever after owing to the boy’s father kicking the bucket! Pia Bajpai finally falls in love and conveys it to the Y.G.Mahendran. The minister gets arrested because the terrorist fails to get the diesel to move his trawler. The master mind’s fate is sealed. Hero’s friend continues to clean trucks. Thambi Ramaiah’s fate will be known if he is ever given another acting chance. The hero runs with his dad YG.Mahendran in pursuit. Sorry! The hero also has a mother who keeps serving idlis.sambar and chutney!

What irked me most: - Some reviewers have opined as follows: - 1. Thambi Ramaiah’s name is revealed late. So! 2. The identity of Ambika is revealed late. So! 3. Friend vanishes on the FIR being registered. So! 4. The girl in the share auto is carrying a goat on her lap and her husband is on the phone. So! 5. Pia’s mother wears stylist clothes and bright pink nail polish in spite of her age. So! Does all these inconsequential trivia make this a good film! In my opinion definitely not! This film simply fails to translate content into visuals! It confuses the discerning viewer like yours truly big time and the producer should have had more foresight to even approve such a confused narrative which simply goes all over the place and finally ends up nowhere!

Acting: - Too many actors spoil the plot!

What worked: - The camera work

What failed: - I think the music directors were let into a musical store and told to feel free. They have probably used all the possible musical instruments available in the store to compose the BG score. Jokes apart - The songs simply failed to stick!

Bottom Line: - Caste, creed & gender bias should never be used as a basis to rate a film!

A Quote: - A film does not pass if the reviewer or a film critic alone likes it! It has to be rated by the discerning viewer as a GOOD film to pass the acid test!

My Rating: - 2/5

Until Next Time,

Director Haricharan

2/11/2014