Reviews

Nuri Bilge Ceylan is no ordinary director. This fact becomes evident from the very first few frames of his "Climates" (2006), a rather languidly paced, wonderfully minimalist piece of work. We come across an odd looking couple, a young woman, Bahar (Ebru Ceylan) and her visibly older partner (?) Isa (Nuri Bilge Ceylan). It is not clear if they are married or engaged or just living in. They are on a holiday somewhere and Isa is busy photographing some ruins, while Bahar looks on with odd stares. The ambient sounds of buzzing bees and chirping birds add to the mood of the lazy afternoon and the seemingly laid back attitude of the couple on screen. Only just before the title credits appear, there is a long take of Bahar staring right at you (although in the film it's Isa she is looking at). And suddenly, tears start rolling down. Clearly, all is not well.

It is soon established that the couple are in a troubled relationship. They are out of love. Bahar seems trapped and suffocated in this relationship. This part is highlighted in a real neat dream sequence of a blurred image of Isa smothering Bahar with sand as she lies on the beach. And later, Isa, who is also aware of the distance between them, rehearses lines to convey that they should probably part ways. These two sequences and one awkward dinner table conversation with a friend quickly impress you. You instantly sit up and take notice. Perhaps you are watching yet another minimalist European masterwork.

If only the same sentiment stayed on after the first 50 odd minutes, after which it appears that Ceylan probably exhausted the greatest written scenes in his visibly unaccomplished script, which simply isn't potent enough in the first place. The plot, if any, merely delves on Bahar and Isa's break-up and Isa's attempt to reconcile. That's all you can really write about it. The deficient script wouldn't matter much, if all of the handful of characters that appear on screen make up for the lack of substantial meat in the writing. But the focus is mostly only on Isa, while the other players, although introduced, appear in some important scenes, but aren't much looked into. We only know them superficially.

For example, sometime later, we are introduced to Serap (Nazan Kirilmis), apparently an ex of Isa. Isa runs into Serap, old romance/lust rekindles, and he invites himself into her home, in spite of the fact that she is now carrying on with a friend of his! Serap and Isa stare at each other awkwardly for a long while and exchange small talk about their respective relationships. Serap smokes her cigarettes with elan, and in the moments of silence we can actually hear the sound of smoke being drawn in every puff till the cigarette burns out. Just Lovely! But suddenly something happens that makes you wonder what kind of man Isa really is!

This is further corroborated in a sequence in the snow-clad eastern Turkey, to where Isa travels to find his lost love, Bahar, in an attempt to win her back! How fickle can one get? He meets a friendly cabbie, who doesn't ask much except to be sent a photograph he takes of him against a snowy landscape. Isa agrees and the cabbie writes down his address on a piece of paper. But later, very nonchalantly, he throws the piece of paper in an ash tray in a coffee shop! One wonders if the only character that carries so much weight in the script should come across as so unlikeable that you would hardly even care about him much.

"Climates" had potential to completely succeed only in scenes like these that highlight some behavioral traits of Ceylan's characters, since plot-wise he didn't have much to go on. More talent, though, is invested in capturing breathtakingly beautiful landscapes across Turkey in some of the finest cinematography this reviewer had the pleasure of coming across. Add to that, some of the greatest sound design, capturing ambient sounds that you simply fall in love with, and wonderfully natural acting that you can't forget for a while.

The title, apart from the physical change of seasons we see on the screen, also alludes to the ups and downs in human relationships. But more so, it is symbolic of the fickleness of a human being, his shifting inclinations that change with time. "Climates" shows us in its subtle, simple narrative, how a man can break up, stray and then attempt to make up again! "Climates", thus succeeds on a considerable level, as a romantic mood piece. Only it ends up being a little too simple and a tad hollow for a film trying to bring out the complicated functioning of the human mind.

There certainly is sheer grace in the mechanics of "Climates", and Ceylan proves that he has the skill for the aesthetics. Only one wishes there was more heart in it too.

Score: 8/10

A bird's-eye view of a crowded train station. A haunting, almost chilling jazz score with sensuous female vocals. Crisp black and white cinematography. You can't help but get the feel of a high quality noir film right from the first frame. The myriad human beings look like small creatures scurrying in all directions. It's a seemingly normal view at a train station. Soon, as the view draws closer, we get a glimpse of some of the primary players in this strangely ambiguous psychological drama.

A dapper looking man with sunglasses, Jerzy (Leon Niemczyk) enters the train compartment without a ticket (saying that he forgot everything at home) and insists on buying his way into the train, and also the neighbouring berths 'cause he wants to alone. He seems to be tensed, possibly just wants to go away some place, hardly smiles, and smokes a lot of cigarettes. A beautiful young blonde, Marta (Lucyna Winnicka) makes an appearance. She has a certain sadness in her eyes. She obviously has something to hide and is probably on the run from something. A younger man (Zbigniew Cybulski), hot on her pursuit, enters ticket-less and proceeds to constantly stalk her, every chance he gets. As luck would have it, some sort of technical error leads to Marta and Jerzy ending up in the same coupe of two berths. Both of them are visibly disconcerted by this, but eventually give in, and are forced to spend the night in the company of each other, owing to lack of any other option.

It's the holidays and the train is practically overflowing, as passengers crowd the corridors. They are a motley crew of individuals with varied behavioral traits and their own quirks. There are a group of ogling men who lustfully eye practically every woman that passes by. There's a flirtatious, married woman (Teresa Szmigielówna) trying to seek the attention of Jerzy every chance she gets, even at the momentary halts at the intermediate stations. For a while we can only hear her husband's voice, who seems to be a lawyer, and for some reason, seems to be a very boring companion! There's a young sailor who quietly stares in admiration at a pretty young thing, throughout the train journey. And then there's an man, an insomniac who cannot sleep in the bunk beds because they remind him of his concentration camp days, so he spends his time reading in the corridor.

Amidst all the chaos, there is some gossip about the latest news of a man who killed his wife and fled! A lot of conversations, exchanges of glances, vague ramblings later, the journey turns into an eventful one for all the passengers. The train suddenly stops at an unknown location, where official authorities board the train, for they have information that there is a wanted killer on board! Which of these ensemble of characters is the person they are looking for? There are suddenly grapevines, as doubt and tension fill the environment, and the characters we are by now familiar with, begin to exhibit a gradual transformation of sorts….

Jerzy Kawalerowicz's "Night Train" (Original title: Pociag) is not much about its plot. It is, in fact, a very realistic study of how a given group of people would behave and make judgments based on whatever little information they have. Passengers on a train are mostly strangers to each other. But a lot is judged (or misjudged) based on their overall demeanor, body language, personality, and what-not. It is a strikingly natural aspect of any human being and "Night Train" brings it out like no other! The lead characters are both strangers to each other, and in that one night together, they seem to assume quite a few things about each other. So do the other passengers. Where the director plays a winning hand, is at his tactful handling of the screenplay by keeping things deliberately ambiguous for the most part, playing a clever trick on the audience, by keeping them guessing constantly, as they start framing their initial mental perceptions about the various characters. The viewer, then, becomes a passenger himself, the kind of curious bystander who makes enquiries in hushed whispers, despite knowing that its none of his/her business. Or the kind that pushes the others aside to be amongst the first to know more and gossip about it; or the kind of person who starts judging based on initial impressions.

So what is the reality of all these characters then? We are given a hint of it much later, although not everything is declared explicitly. Kawalerowicz's ploy lies in keeping almost everything under wraps until the final half hour when some subtle twists almost sharpen the blurs, but not entirely! It is also during this time that we learn how a society as a whole, goes up in arms, against anything deemed wrong in the conventional sense. Somewhere amidst all the chaos, we, as individuals of society are also shown the mirror. It is alarming how people can turn their backs on you and stop at nothing to malign or blacklist you, just as quickly as they can turn you into a hero! Kawalerowicz's film has some extraordinary camera-work (apparently most of the train corridor scenes were shot on a set; it is almost impossible to make out), which has its highly realistic effect on the viewer (the suffocating feeling of trying to squeeze through a narrow, crowded passageway). It also has some great performances, especially by the two leads, Leon Niemczyk and Lucyna Winnicka, and there's some riveting drama and mesmerizing score to go along. But "Night Train" goes way beyond its very enticing exterior of a claustrophobic, tense noir, a supposed nod to Hitchcock's thrillers. It makes a very important statement on societal dynamics.

A hidden gem, a winner all the way!

"After the Wedding" (2006) begins on the streets of Mumbai, India, where several orphaned, homeless children are queuing up for food, courtesy 'Anand Orphanage and School', assisted by Jacob (Mads Mikkelsen) who has taken up the cause. He teaches in the school attached to the orphanage, and is a favorite with the children there. The initial scenes make one wonder if this is yet another 'poverty porn' focusing only on the dirty underbelly of India and projecting it to be a country worse than it actually is (Think "Slumdog Millionaire"). But any negativity formed in the beginning is quickly quashed with what follows.

The orphanage is clearly falling short of funds. A silver lining is seen, as some tycoon in Denmark, by the name of Jorgen Hansson (Rolf Lassgård), has agreed to offer a huge sum of money as donation to the orphanage, but only on the condition that Jacob travel to Denmark personally, meet with Jorgen and then return with the necessary funds and paperwork. This tiny detail offered in the beginning, highlights the whimsical nature of the wealthy businessman's offer, and immediately hints at a catch, so we begin to brace ourselves for an early twist. Any surprise quotient, then, is automatically reduced to half.

Jacob travels to Denmark, leaving behind his shanty life, albeit promising one of the orphan boys, Pramod (Neeral Mulchandani), who he has brought up and loves like his son, that he would be back in a week. Once in Denmark, Jacob is given red carpet treatment; a personal airport pickup, a luxury suite in a posh hotel, and later a meeting with the man himself; who takes a look at the project put together by Jacob (a videotape detailing the activities of the orphanage), but seems to be more interested in having a drink with him. Jorgen turns off the tape halfway, leaving Jacob stumped and disappointed, but proceeds to invite Jacob to the upcoming wedding of his daughter Anna (Stine Fischer Christensen). The unsuspecting Jacob accepts the invitation and shows up at Jorgen's plush mansion, the venue of the wedding.

But a series of startling discoveries at the wedding and after it, make this visit to Denmark, a life-changing experience for Jacob…..

Writer-Director Susanne Bier's screenplay shows great promise, at least in the first half, thanks to the periodic revelations. Some dark secrets are revealed at regular intervals, and thus the pace is well maintained 'til then, although the film revolves only around four major characters. There are great moments of power-packed drama, sometimes intense, sometimes warm, sometimes awkward; mostly the uncomfortable encounters between characters are very naturally captured; it couldn't get more real than that. The director knows exactly how the characters would emote under the circumstances, and thanks to the terrific actors, it's all well done and earnestly acted. The cinematography is somewhat grainy, mostly devoid of the usage of special lighting, and is shot on a hand-held camera, reminiscent of the style of the Dogme 95 movement first initiated by Lars Von Trier. It is no surprise that the filming of the entire wedding sequence very much reminds of that in Von Trier's "Breaking the Waves".

It is the extreme close-ups of eyes, lips, hands, and even some facial hair that come across as an eyesore. There are way too many close-ups that just weren't required and suit neither the genre, nor the subject matter. In fact they take away from the scenes somewhat, by not showing us the visage of the actor during a scene, when his/her reaction or emotion is vital to the scene. It is in the latter half, that the drama begins to shed the subtlety, when the most important twist of the story is revealed, and the film dips into mawkish melodrama giving rise to histrionics and gawky over-sentimentality! The major twist is itself a cliché and a bankable ingredient for a weepy soap opera. But there are other events that follow, and at such timings, that you can't help but think that the screenplay is taking an emotionally manipulative direction, by forcing some events that just weren't necessary, but used merely because they, somehow, serve as good excuses to make the proceedings sappier!

That said, it is indeed noteworthy, how almost all the characters are very well written; they have a lot of depth and more importantly, the initial impression that is created about them, takes a drastic turn in some key events, and we are forced to see them in a different light. Of course, the convincing dynamics of the characters, are owing to the choice of actors that are immensely talented. Mads Mikkelsen brings a range of emotions to the otherwise stoic Jacob who is taken aback when he first learns of the shattering truth that hits like a bolt of lightning. Ditto for the mixed emotions and the inevitable awkwardness he displays, later, in one of the best directed scenes of the film. Rolf Lassgård is brilliant as the drunk, but loving father and business tycoon, whose real intentions, and hence the kind of person he is, becomes clear only later. Stine Fischer Christensen is cute and does a commendable job as the daughter Anna who gets a double whammy of deceit. And then we have Sidse Babett Knudsen as Helene, who finds herself in an extraordinary situation, by a twist of fate, following a seemingly strange coincidence, and a past that refuses to let go. It is a classy performance indeed.

What "After the Wedding" needed was a steady grip and restrained tone, that it maintains in the first half of the film, despite the plot contrivances, after which it nosedives into unnecessary melodrama and starts to come undone. Too bad, really!

Score: 7/10

It was the latter half of the 19th century. The year was 1860, ten years before the French Third Republic came into being. Medical Science hadn't made the kind of advancements that it saw later, and disease and death were in abundance. It was a well-known fact that thirty percent of women died in childbirth due to Puerperal fever, better known as childbed fever, accounting for about twenty thousand annual deaths in the city alone!

Yet there was a grave ignorance of monumental proportions, even as one man, a chemist dared to think differently. He urged medical practitioners to boil their instruments; or in modern parlance, 'sterilize' them, before using on patients in addition to thoroughly washing their hands with a disinfectant before working on patients. He firmly believed that more than half the deaths were caused due to lack of hygiene and the transmission of 'germs' from objects such as the doctor's instruments! Not surprisingly, the man was laughed at, and written off to be a charlatan, a quack! After all, what would a chemist know, that the doctors couldn't see! But the man had seen it all. He had first discovered what causes wine to go sour. His relentless experimentation in his laboratory had helped him discover that microorganisms were the major cause of disease (while the doctors still firmly believed that these organisms were a result of disease rather than the cause!).

The man was Louis Pasteur. And the technique he gave to the world was pasteurization!

William Dieterle's 1936 biographical film "The Story of Louis Pasteur", at its modest 85 minutes length, is a tad short to even qualify for a proper biographical film. It begins on a rather startling note with the scene of a doctor being shot by a silhouetted gunman. One wonders if they've taken cinematic liberties to such an extent as to make the lead actor Paul Muni feel at home owing to his crime film beginnings! It is later learnt that Pasteur is indirectly responsible for the murder of the doctor, for reasons best left for the viewer to find out! It's a rather silly beginning, one the film could've easily done without. "The Story of Louis Pasteur" does take a few minutes to attain a grip on its narrative which eventually does make for very engaging drama.

It is astonishing how a simple film revolving around a man and his microscope has been made into something so riveting, that you can't take your eyes off, once it picks up steam. The primary focus is on Pasteur's taxing attempts to prove to the then Emperor Napolean III, his findings about the microscopic creatures and their connection to disease, and later, post the advent of the Third republic, his diligent attempts at developing the first successful vaccines for deadly diseases like Anthrax and Rabies. Of course, there is resistance to his claims and discoveries, more specifically from Pasteur's most vocal critic, Dr. Charbonnet (Fritz Leiber). As the audience, our hearts go all out to Pasteur and we find ourselves rooting for the industrious scientist. We watch with bated breath and find ourselves praying for him to succeed in his experiments, even when we are well aware of the eventual outcome. We feel the triumph felt by Pasteur when he weeps tears of joy upon tasting victory!

But Pasteur didn't succeed instantly. There were numerous failed attempts and broken test tubes and dead ends from whence he found new directions. The entire medical fraternity turned against him but he stood his ground and ended up having the last laugh anyway! But the path to victory wasn't easy for him, and "The Story of Louis Pasteur" succeeds in conveying to us, this particular facet of Pasteur's dedication to science. It is heartening to watch Pasteur and his loyal team of scientists toil away in the laboratory attached to his house, as his devoted wife Marie (Josephine Hutchinson) cooks supper for the entire team and also stands by her husband through thick and thin. It is awe-inspiring to see him stumble upon clues almost by accident that lead him to make some of the most startling discoveries known to mankind now. It is also slightly scary to see him succumb to a suggestion of using an untested vaccine on a little boy who is supposedly at death's door anyway!

The film may appear somewhat dated with regard to the set design and slightly poor production values. But that is hardly a hindrance, thanks to the gripping script and taut editing. There are some subplots in the film, that weren't entirely necessary, though; that of a romance between Pasteur's daughter Annette (Anita Louise) and the young Dr. Martel (Donald Woods) who wins Pasteur's favor earlier in the film. It seems to be there merely to dramatize the proceedings. Ditto for the climactic twist of fate in the final few minutes when Annette is on the brink of delivering a baby. The events in those last few minutes seem contrived to the extent of being melodramatic, although, by then you are so in love with the protagonist that you don't care for the minor hiccups. Because mostly, apart from the solid performance of Fritz Leiber, it is the magnificent Paul Muni that holds our attention.

The under-appreciated Paul Muni, in his Oscar winning performance of the steadfast scientist, manages to render this film much more watchable than it actually is. It is his earnest act that ultimately salvages even the weakest scene. His final speech, just minutes before "The End" flashes on the screen, as he struggles with a walking stick, thanks to being in a recovery phase from a paralytic stroke, is nothing short of inspiring! Paul Muni should be reason enough for anyone to look up "The Story of Louis Pasteur". They don't make 'em like him anymore! Score: 8/10

Director Vincenzo Natali's earlier "Cube" (1997) was a fascinating film, and that was reason enough to give "Cypher" (2002) a look.

"Cypher" makes a very intriguing start; a man named Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam) is being interviewed by Digicorp's head of security and is being put through some neurological tests. He is being hired for corporate espionage and will soon be sent on missions to various conventions to secretly transmit corporate presentations for the benefit of Digicorp. He is given a new identity; that of Jack Thursby and his first assignment begins. It all seems fine in the beginning and Digicorp seems to be pleased with Sullivan's job. A chance encounter at the convention with a mysterious but beautiful stranger Rita (Lucy Liu) brings forth startling revelations and Sullivan finds that he could be caught in a deadly web of deceit amidst an ongoing cutthroat corporate war! Revealing more would take out whatever fun there is in watching "Cypher" for it is entirely a plot-driven film and it is the turns in the plot that keep it going.

A terrific beginning doesn't always guarantee picture perfect masterpieces and "Cypher" proves just that. Further down, beneath the highly enticing exterior of brilliantly sleek cinematography, surreal camera-work and a background score that creates a sense of dread, there is great ambition that unfortunately succumbs under its own weight and finds itself settling into the comfort zone of a 'been there-done that' thriller which incorporates the essential ingredients of a typical edge-of-the-seat action/thriller.

After a promising start, the film picks up a decent amount of momentum and does build tension to a considerable extent, enough to keep you hooked throughout, in its maze of twists and turns, that sometimes catch you unawares and sometimes come across as predictable. Certain twists are just too convenient for their own good, but you find yourself excusing them as you become increasingly curious to learn where it's all going to lead. There are hi-tech contraptions and otherworldly gadgets, a glass-eyed evil looking man who has to be an antagonist by design, odd shaped choppers and underground vaults in isolated locations, to access which, you have to use some fast capsule-shaped elevators that go some several hundred feet beneath the ground! The filmmakers play with your mind. An 'alien' angle, perhaps; or just a futuristic vision of corporate security measures!? It is a very interesting representation, although an exaggerated one; maybe the intention was to make a statement about the future of the contest in the corporate world!

Brian King's screenplay and the director's vision of it, definitely draws a whole lot of inspiration from past masters. Some of the set design and the overall mood of the film quickly bring to mind, Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner" (1982). Some of the thematic elements also remind you of John Frankenheimer 's masterpiece, "The Manchurian Candidate" (1962). Only those were ground-breaking films for their times and "Cypher" doesn't particularly create anything strikingly innovative. The oft-used gimmick of too many twists in the final act raise entirely new questions in an already befuddling narrative, making us rewind and think of the numerous holes that the film may have managed to riddle itself with. Employment of fast cut editing for showing some visions in the protagonists mind that may be distant memories or just random nightmares tends to strain the eyes. "Mission Impossible"-like athletic stunts and nick of time narrow escapes put a dent in the film's grave atmosphere and transport the viewer to the world of popcorn cinema for those brief moments!

Nonetheless, a very sincere and convincing lead performance by the underrated Jeremy Northam and a steady pace that doesn't let up, make for an engaging and entertaining sci-fi noir thriller. Do not expect anything earth-shattering; then perhaps it wouldn't hurt to check "Cypher" out when you have nothing better to do.

Score: 7/10

What drives a wronged person to revenge? What initiates a thirst for retribution? It is when the powers that be fail to deliver a "fair judgment"; when the hunger for getting even remains unsatisfied; when one is convinced that justice has not been done and decides that they just can't remain helpless, mute spectators to the wrongdoing inflicted upon them or their loved ones.

But to what extent should one go? How much is enough? Is death the ultimate penalty? Not at all! What is more potent then? A fate worse than death, perhaps; something that could make life a living hell for the perpetrator! Japanese filmmaker Tetsuya Nakashima 's "Confessions" (2010), which tells a rather twisted tale of one such act of revenge, begins on a rather random note with a somewhat disoriented scene in a noisy classroom full of boisterous and mischievous thirteen year olds on the final day of class before school closes for the Spring break. A young teacher, Miss Moriguchi (Takako Matsu), says that it will be her last day in school and is delivering a long monologue which occasionally gets drowned in the accompanying continuous drone in the background score. The viewer suffers distraction too, with the camera cutting to the shots of some students playing mischief, hitting each other with a baseball, and chattering away, hardly paying attention to their teacher, while she continues addressing the class. The whole class (and so does the viewer) suddenly starts paying attention when she begins to make some startling revelations about what happened with her little daughter Manami.

She reveals that her daughter was killed in an incident which was considered to be "drowning by accident" and was soon dismissed. But in reality, two boys present in the class at the time, were responsible for the daughter's death. She further adds that she is aware that the laws for juveniles are too soft and the boys would escape severe punishment. The students are taken aback at these sudden shocking confessions and are further subjected to a deadly surprise when Miss Moriguchi reveals her diabolical plan for exacting revenge and establishes that she has already set the ball rolling as they speak ….! It's a fantastic twist that catches us unawares in this one scene in the beginning but it also raises a whole lot of questions immediately. What next? Is this it? This almost seems to be a closure to the story. A girl killed, culprits revealed, and the mother takes her revenge! That kind of wraps it up, doesn't it?! But not so soon. Writer-director Tetsuya Nakashima has more in store for us! The meaning of the title "Confessions" now starts taking shape. For this is not merely about the confessions of the mother, Ms. Moriguchi! It is also about those of others who are somehow tied to the incident in question.

In a rather intricately layered and engaging screenplay, Nakashima shifts focus from one viewpoint to the other. A motley of characters, people connected to the incident make their own 'confessions' in voice-overs that narrate their side of the story. Nakashima presents us one picture in the initial few frames, from which we form an image of a particular character. Yet later, he forces us to see the same picture in a different light, a completely different perspective that makes us rethink our initial judgment of the character. It is a classic representation of the "other" side of truth and how appearances can be deceptive. It is about how it is awfully difficult to distinguish the right from the wrong, the good from the bad, because in the end, it is all a matter of perspective. One could stop at what seems to be the absolute truth. But dig beneath, and there could be more that could turn a 'fact' on its head! "Confessions" is a fascinating play on the viewer's judgment and overall impression about a person or a happening; an impression that doesn't seem to attain stability and finds itself shifting in the labyrinth of these strange episodes happening in each person's life. Nakashima also succeeds in putting the viewer in a hypnotic trance with his stylistic approach of beautiful cinematography that is gorgeous and bleak at the same time, a haunting soundtrack that plays with the senses along with a very prominent drone that fills the atmosphere, and slow-motion camera-work that more or less occupies most of the running time of the film, rendering a spacey, dream-like mood. One might wonder if more style means less substance, but so is not the case, as there is enough meat to balance the style and a perfect equilibrium is achieved in the overall construction of the film. Thankfully, graphic, gory violence, which is a characteristic of most Asian revenge dramas is kept to a minimum and is not exaggerated. There is more reliance on the trance-like atmosphere rather than the gore.

"Confessions" boasts of an intriguing script and commendable performances, especially from Takako Matsu and youngsters Yukito Nishii and Ai Hashimoto. The film does falter slightly, though, from some overdone and contorted scenes drawing dangerously close to being gimmicky and just too many twists crammed in the final act, some of which aren't as shocking or compelling as some better ones that appear midway through the film. Hardly any reason to sideline it though; for this is surely one of the finest thrillers from recent times that you'll have the pleasure of viewing.

Score: 8/10

Okwe (Chiwetel Ejiofor) is a Nigerian illegal immigrant in London. This brooding man drives a taxi by day and works as a porter at a plush hotel in London by night. He supposedly never sleeps and chews on some kind of leaves to keep himself awake. He is a kind man; popular and well-loved amongst fellow immigrants who live a hand-to-mouth existence in the city doing odd jobs as custodians, cleaners, cooks, cabbies. Okwe also helps out his friends and other poor immigrants with their ailments; apparently he has some history working as a doctor in his home country! Okwe has an arrangement with another illegal immigrant, a shy, Turkish woman named Senay (Audrey Tautou), wherein he uses her couch in her small room to catch a few winks during morning time when she reports to work in the same hotel he works in. He also likes Senay and she likes him but nothing has been said yet. Senay is too reserved and shy and fears the neighbours. She does not want to attract unwanted attention, especially from nosey gossipers! Any wrong move can lead to her deportation; the immigration officials are already harassing her.

A dramatic change of events occurs one day and it sets off a series of episodes that threaten to change the lives of Okwe and Senay forever. A prostitute Juliette (Sophie Okonedo) asks Okwe to check a room she has been in. Okwe inspects the room and finds that the toilet bowl is blocked and overflowing. He is shocked to discover that the cause of the blockage is a human heart stuck in the pipes! The Spanish night manager Senor "Sneaky" Juan (Sergi Lopez) seems to be well aware and tries to bribe Okwe to keep his mouth shut. Okwe gradually discovers that there is something sinister and "dirty" beneath the "pretty" hotel exterior.

"Dirty Pretty Things" is a tale about dreams. It is about those countless immigrants who dream of making a better living in a rich, developed country; of having the kind of life and freedom they could never have in their home countries. It is about how they would give their eye and teeth to have a legal status! Survival is on the knife's edge as is the case for any illegal immigrant in a big city, who wants to 'escape' to paradise. Steven Knight's screenplay is refreshingly original, barring some minor clichéd characterization and blatant racial stereotyping which prove to be the glitches in an otherwise superb work of writing (It was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay). Stephen Frears turns Knight's script into an intriguing thriller, that's also a gut-wrenchingly potent drama centered around illegal immigrants in London.

The story is told in a crisp fashion with some beautiful cinematography and commendable shot composition, and the preliminary scenario is established rather quickly but doesn't seem hurried or forced in any way. It hardly takes any time for the plot to take off which works in the film's favour. The character of Okwe quickly strikes a chord with the audiences, with most of the first few minutes revolving around him and his deeds. What doesn't work is how most characters (including Okwe, to some extent) are instantly recognizable as either "good" or "bad" or "kind" or "unkind" and don't deviate from these traits of theirs! Okwe, for example, is shown to be such an impossibly noble and kind soul that you can't possibly think he can harm anyone. On the other hand there's 'Sneaky' Juan, who is like the ultimate personification of 'slimy', staring you in the face! Some lines of dialog including some oozing racial stereotyping are just too blatantly rude to be taken seriously.

And then there are some character clichés like the helpful buddy (Guo, an Asian man who works at the hospital mortuary), the hooker with a heart of gold (Juliette), Senay's fat and horny old immigrant employer (Barber Ali, a sweatshop foreman) who not-surprisingly asks her for sexual favours in return for not revealing her identity or whereabouts to the hot on the trail immigration officials.. ! Hand it to the filmmaker and the actors though, that despite these clichés, the viewer ultimately ends up rooting for them anyway! Audrey Tautou is in fact miscast as a Turkish woman, and although one really wonders why someone from Turkey would have to go through all the tough ordeals to secure a status for themselves in London, she delivers a kind of performance that you can't overlook and can't help but applaud. Senay's predicament and her dealing with the whole situation is pulled off in a sincere effort by Tautou. Ditto for Sergi Lopez as the crooked hotel manager who has something dirty up his sleeve. The guy is despicable to say the least and portrays his one-dimensional character in an extremely convincing manner.

But the big winner in the performances department is of course, Chiwetel Ejiofor, as Okwe. His character is written in a manner which will surely evoke great empathy. Ejiofor makes the character his own and steals the show from right under everyone's noses with a fabulous performance and manages to instantly connect with the viewer. He is a helpful, kind, selfless man but you very much know that he has a great sadness about him. It is a brilliant portrayal of a tortured soul; an epitome of self-sacrifice.

It is worthwhile to check out Stephen Frears' "Dirty Pretty Things". While it may not be perfect, it is a fine work of cinema that is gripping as well as emotionally affecting and will keep you hooked 'til it reaches its bittersweet conclusion.

Score: 8/10.

Prima facie, "The War Zone" comes across as a misnomer for this brutally disturbing drama directed by Tim Roth. This reviewer thought it is set against the backdrop of a war, but when the film unfolded, the underlying meaning of the title became clearer; the only war this film deals with is a personal war; a war within!

15-year old Tom (Freddie Cunliffe) is the hero of this sad story. His family, consisting of 18 year old sister Jessie (Lara Belmont), Dad (Ray Winstone), and Mum (A bloated Tilda Swinton) have moved to the Devonshire countryside to live on an isolated property, leaving their London city life behind. Tom is bored and feels lonely, clearly misses London. There hardly are neighbours; the area is mostly desolate. Pregnant mum just delivers a baby amidst difficult circumstances (a car accident!) and yet the baby is born healthy. Everyone is slightly injured, but in the end it's all hunky dory and life goes on. The isolation and modest living conditions have also made these people used to casual nudity around the house. Tom is a curious teen, and he seems to have taken fancy to a neighbouring girl, Lucy (Kate Ashfeld).

The seemingly peaceful environment in the family is disrupted one day when Tom comes face to face with a shattering truth about an incestuous relationship between his Dad and sister…

But haven't we seen so many other films that deal with incest? Maybe so, but what makes "The War Zone" distinct, is in its non-adherence to rendering simplistic treatment to its characters. These characters are complex, they aren't necessarily pigeon-holed to predictable traits. So then, when we witness the dynamics of these characters we are forced to ask ourselves several questions. The dad seems to be a really nice and loving father. Why then, does he develop the sick desire to sexually abuse his own daughter? Is he even aware of what he is doing? Is he aware of the gravity of his heinous act? Or is it rather casual to him; ....perhaps he himself has a history of abuse dating back to his childhood?

And then there's Jessie; she is well aware of the implications of the deeds she is involving herself in. Or is she? Maybe she is going along with it, maybe she is enjoying it. Or perhaps suffering (?) silently, because she is too afraid to bring it out in the open; maybe just too ashamed. And the mother is blissfully unaware of what is happening....will she be able to take it once she realizes?

Which brings us to Tom, who is at the epicenter of this explosive situation. It is actually through his eyes that we see the film. You can't help but yield to a hint somewhere in the middle of the film that there's a curious voyeur inside him who wants to videotape the action. And you wish deep within that it is only to expose the sick act. But it can't be ignored that Tom is a 15 year old teen struggling with his own transition into adulthood. And call it a case of bad timing; fate is playing a cruel joke on the boy by invoking the adult inside this vulnerable teen by bringing him face to face with the most aberrant of sexual acts inside his own home! At a point of time the sister almost hits the nail on the head after a confrontation, "This isn't just about me and dad is it?" further insinuating that actually Tom wants to know about sex and himself wants to experience it!

Tom is thus, a soul torn apart. Maybe he knows the difference between right and wrong but is finding himself succumbing to a perverse temptation, given his unstable transition phase! Jessie tries to put her assumption about Tom to the test in a bizarre episode at her friend Carol's place in London; then again, perhaps her intentions are different altogether! Her eventual action further clouds any hopes the viewer may have about gaining an insight on Jessie's thought process. It is in this unpredictability of the characters that most of the success of this excellent handling of a fine screenplay by Alexander Stuart lies. Tim Roth, a fine actor of our time, proves that he can handle the director's job with an equal finesse. He clearly understands his characters' complexities and his vision of the characters' personae enables him to deliver their perfect transition to the motion picture.

The soul is all there, but what about the body? No complaints there either; Roth captures some of the finest images of the isolated, rain-soaked country side and the rocky seashore. The feeling of desolation is further enhanced by the achingly beautiful score by Simon Boswell. The choice of actors is spot on. Winstone and Swinton are simply great in their respective roles. But special mention must be made of the actors who play the siblings, Lara Belmont and Freddie Cunliffe who had no prior acting experience but emerge winners with their effortless performances.

Do not miss Tim Roth's "The War Zone". It is a disturbing look at something as warped as incest but a patient and an open-minded viewing would ensure that instead of turning your head away in shame, you'll end up thanking yourself for subjecting yourself to this mind-numbing yet rewarding film experience.

He is a quiet man, Monsieur Hire (Michel Blanc). A balding, middle aged fellow, a misanthrope and a recluse, he doesn't socialize much. None of the neighbours talk to him either; conversations die down and they start whispering as he passes by. A tailor by profession, Hire is particular about his appearance. He keeps some pet white rats at home. When one of the pet rats dies, he carefully wraps it in a piece of cloth and gives it a respectful water burial! He seems to be a good, honest man, but no one really knows much about him. Perhaps they don't want to know. But they don't miss a chance to sneak a curious peek at him like he is some alien being. When Hire realizes this, he promptly snaps back "Want a photograph?" Some neighbourhood kids make fun of him by throwing flour on him or making fun of him. He just brushes all of this off and holds no grudge against anyone. He just isn't bothered; wants to be left alone, as always.

It is no surprise then, that when one young woman is found murdered in the vicinity, he automatically becomes the prime suspect. Blame it on the neighbourhood! And more so, because a taxi driver saw a figure somewhat matching Monsieur Hire's description run towards the same block where Monsieur Hire resides. The police detective starts pursuing his suspect; there's no evidence yet that can implicate Hire, but the detective is in hot pursuit.

Monsieur Hire seems unperturbed, though. There is nothing that can possibly connect him. He has just become an easy target because he is "not sociable; and people don't like that". So Hire goes about his daily, mundane, boring routine; amongst his pastimes and necessities is a visit to the bowling alley, he is a champion at the game and is well admired by onlookers who give him a round of applause for he never misses scoring a perfect strike, even when blindfolded. He acknowledges their adulation with a forced smile. He also spends time at a brothel once in a while to satisfy his sexual needs but seems to be getting increasingly weary of it.

And then there's Alice (Sandrine Bonnaire), his object of affection who stays in the neighbouring apartment complex. He spends most of his time standing in his window, simply observing Alice through her open window directly in front of his. She has never noticed; has in fact, always thought that Hire's apartment was empty and therefore never felt the need to put up drapes! Hire observes Alice's every move, as she dresses, undresses, eats, sleeps, and once in a while makes out with her no good fiancé Emile (Luc Thuillier). Hire also is a lover of music and plugs in the same record on his player, the soulful Quatuor en Sol Mineur Op. 25 de Brahms, every time he stands to watch Alice. Hire just wants to watch. He is in love, but he knows there isn't much he can do about it. He just watches. It becomes apparent that Emile doesn't seem to be serious about marrying Alice. Alice knows this, but she loves him. Everything changes one day when Alice finally gets a good look at the ghostly face that has been staring at her all this time....

Director Patrice Leconte's effortless storytelling does a laudable job of building Hire's character for the viewers in a considerably short time. Right from the first frame, as the body of the young woman is discovered, Leconte's 1989 film "Monsieur Hire" has the power to grip! Sure, there is a murder. But solving the murder is least of film's concerns. Who did the killing is secondary. The murder acts as a catalyst and alters the status quo. How this killing decides the fate of our two central characters; that forms the crux of this heartwrenching story.

In its modest running time of about 1 hour 17 minutes or so, there is not one wasted moment and we can instantly connect to the two lead characters, Hire and Alice. These characters are both very human. They have their secrets, they have their ambitions, they have their motivations and in the end they have their secret desires! And therefore, not everything is out in the open; not just as yet. There is a lot going on in these characters' minds which we aren't given a peek at. The voyeur in us doesn't have the kind of luck Monsieur Hire has, as he gets to see Alice's life like a Live reality show! But Leconte has a purpose. For deep within the layers of this deeply moving psychological drama lies the darkest of human traits; motivations that drive a person to take the step they take, that might shatter all beliefs, all the hope one has instilled in humanity. There are important lessons to be learnt. Oft-stated idioms "Don't judge a book by its cover" are reinforced. Appearances are indeed deceiving. Your curmudgeonly, neglected next door neighbor could perhaps be an angel in disguise! But then there is the bigger question of trust and inherent cynicism that we social beings have to live with. How much can we know at face value? In the end, we are only human! Michel Blanc instantly makes an impression; his pale, round face, although deadpan most of the times, speaks volumes at its most vulnerable. Sandrine Bonnaire does justice to the kind of unreserved character she is playing.

There is a strong chance that no matter how surrounded you are by people, you will end up feeling all alone when you reach the film's shattering climax. "Monsiure Hire" is a melancholic character study of a lonesome man who falls in love. But at what price? Score: 9/10

Pedro Almodovar's latest offering is a bizarre, complex thriller which could also be the first of its kind for the talented Spanish filmmaker. Almodovar essentially combines the soap operatic elements of his earlier films like "Broken Embraces" replete with characters with dark secrets, tragedies of the past that can't let go, severed blood ties, trauma, etc with a touch of Michael Crichton-ish medical thriller elements! Nonetheless, the outcome is a surprisingly original film to grace this reviewer's movie watch-list in a long, long time! In Toledo, Spain, Plastic surgeon Dr. Robert Ledgard (Antonio Banderas) has had a brilliant breakthrough in creating an artificial skin tougher than normal human skin. It is the kind of skin that is resistant to mosquito bites and burns. We learn later, that an incident of the past has made this research of his almost an obsession for him. While Ledgard claims that he has been experimenting with athymic mice, it becomes clear that his guinea pig is actually human, a beautiful girl, Vera (Elena Anaya) who has been confined to a private chamber in his secluded estate where he resides with his elderly maid servant, Marilia (Marisa Paredes) who has been with the Ledgards since Robert was a child. Vera is monitored through various Closed-circuit TVs by Robert and it seems that she has been there for a long time now. She is provided food and supplies through a dumbwaiter but is never allowed out of her room. This place also serves as a center for research and operations hence there is limited or no access to outsiders, barring some of Robert's professional colleagues for specified purposes only. Life goes on and this status quo is disturbed one day, when Marilia's long estranged son Zeca (Roberto Alamo) suddenly shows up at their door ….

Loosely based on Thierry Jonquet's novel, "Tarantula", Almodovar's screenplay is magnificent in the manner in which he slowly unfolds the various layers of his twisted story, divulging information to his audiences only as required, in a carefully constructed non-linear narrative. What starts out like a conventional thriller in the first half, gradually melds into a nuanced drama laced with tragedy and subtle emotions. Instead of relying on jump twist endings that sometimes seem forced, Almodovar, in the film's runtime of 120 minutes, progressively 'builds' the story, by in fact, peeling the 'skin' off the package and unraveling the mystery within, little by little. In some back stories and subplots we are introduced to some more characters and it is at this point that the film actually gets its Pedro Almodovar feel! One may feel that the director is going off-track with these random introductions, but do not be fooled, for trust Almodovar to stay focused and not digress from the plot at any cost! There are absolutely no wasted moments or scenes as ultimately it all falls into place beautifully! Not all the characters are fully developed but those who do matter the most are, to a considerable extent; if not through elaborately written scenes, definitely through some back stories provided in flashback monologues.

"The Skin I Live in" is also an actors' film. Antonio Banderas in a never before seen avatar is a revelation; so amazing is his presence, he pulls off a challenging lead role with finesse as the dynamics of his character are revealed to the audience as the story moves forward. Ditto for Elena Anaya who has already established her status as a solid actress in the Spanish film world. It's a spectacular performance, the greatness of which is more evident in the latter half of the film. The supporting actors are not far behind, with some noteworthy performances by actors Blanca Suarez, Jan Cornet and Almodovar regular Marisa Paredes as the loyal maid servant Marilia, tormented by a dark secret of her own! "The Skin I Live In" is a riveting thriller…an almost Shakespearean tragedy with a macabre twist. Pedro Almodovar made one of the finest films of his career and also one of the best films of 2011. It is likely to stay in your mind for a long time after it is over… the kind of film that can get under your 'skin'... literally! Score: 10/10.

There are sometimes films which are depraved for the sake of being depraved. There is some seriously disturbing stuff happening on the screen but the progression of the narrative to reach that extreme stage seems so contrived that you ultimately end up somewhat dissatisfied in the end!

Based on Rampo Edogawa's story, Yasuzo Masumura's "Blind Beast" (1969) falls in this category. Michio (Eiji Funakoshi) is a blind sculptor (blind since birth) who has, over the years, developed the "sense of touch" to the fullest to satisfy or please himself. All other senses like sound, smell and sight are of no use to him because they aren't the real deal and "sight" he has never known! He has come to learn a lot about how things may look and has developed his own understanding of the forms of various objects around him. Most notably he has become obsessed with the female body as he finds it the most beautiful creation and feeling up the female body parts gives him the most pleasure(!). He has a studio built out of a warehouse and it contains a lot of sculptures of the female body and the individual parts as he has perceived them using his sense of touch! And now he has made "pioneering the art of touch" his life's mission! "An art form for the blind, by the blind" as he describes it!

Enter beautiful model Aki (Mako Midori), stories of whose beautiful body Michio has heard! A desire to feel up Aki's exquisite anatomy and to use her as a model for his latest sculpture drives Michio into kidnapping her with the help of his mother and holding her captive in his studio. Aki tries her best to flee but is overpowered by the blind sculptor and his mother. Amidst the labyrinth of giant female body parts including eyes, lips, nose, breasts, hands, legs, he starts building a sculpture, feeling up a reluctant Aki once in a while and then moulding his clay accordingly!

Aki starts thinking up ways to escape and even makes several attempts to trick the mother-son duo into letting her go. But a dramatic change of events turns this kidnap drama into a strange tale of macabre fetishism, as the kidnapped starts identifying with her captor and finds herself embracing his perverse ways…..

"Blind Beast" surely has the power to grip from its very first frame. The initial few sequences after the kidnapping are very well filmed and give a distinctly eerie and claustrophobic feel as Aki fumbles and stumbles in the surreal studio full of sculpted body parts. It is also commendable that the film doesn't follow the oft-trodden path that kidnap dramas usually take. The final half hour takes an entirely different direction and that's a good thing. What isn't very appealing, however, is the abrupt manner in which that direction is taken! The jump or transition is somewhat half-baked. It is not entirely unusual for kidnap dramas to portray their victims as utterly stupid and clumsy idiots whose repeated attempts to escape always predictably fail, because if the escape really happens, then there is nothing left to film! "Blind Beast"'s Aki is no different, as in spite of some clever tricks she plays to fool the mother-son duo whilst trying to escape, she always manages to bungle up in the end. That's not all, what's more frustrating is how she even gets overpowered by a completely blind man and sometimes even misses some blatantly obvious chances of getting the better of him….all for the sake of movie continuity perhaps?

It also doesn't help that the otherwise efficient blind person who is very adept at sensing a presence from their smell, footsteps and breathing sounds, lacks consistency and behaves in the clunkiest manner at times. Towards the third act, as the film gets to its focal point in a bizarre twist to the proceedings, we, the audiences wonder…how did things even get so far? It just doesn't quite cut it.

But for all its worth, "Blind Beast" is a watchable film and manages to disturb the viewer in the final act, with terrific performances from the two leads Mako Midori and Eiji Funakoshi. One wonders though, whether this film was an excuse for the filmmaker and the lead actor to simply to feed their nasty appetite of fondling their lead woman, because moments when she ISN'T groped in this film are few and far between!

Score: 7/10.

A small town. A drunk room; a rather dreary bar with two big lights hanging from the ceiling. Village simpletons falling all over the floor with an overdose of drinks. "You tubs of beer"..the bartender calls them! At closing time, a wide-eyed, gaunt, but seemingly popular young man walks in. He is Janos Valuska (Lars Rudolph). He uses the drunks at the bar as props and demonstrates the Solar Eclipse and the effects of this phenomenon on the behavior of the mortal beings of the earth. The scene lasts for the first 10-12 minutes and ends with a melancholic, haunting score by Mihaly Vig. This single scene is so beautiful, it sets the tone for what's to come.

There is a shroud of ambiguity over Hungarian filmmaker Bela Tarr's "Werckmeister Harmonies" (co-directed by Ágnes Hranitzky). There is communication that is very vague. Things are spoken about something bad that happened before and something terrible that's perhaps about to happen. And in some towns, they say it has already begun. Is it the advent of the apocalypse? At the center of this mystery is a stuffed giant whale, a part of a "circus" that has arrived in town. This circus also features the enigmatic "Prince". With the coming of the whale and the Prince there is suddenly a 'lack of harmony' within the quietude of the town. Foreigners have started encroaching. There are stories that they have started rioting and looting. The whale is perhaps the reason. Most people seem to regard the whale as an abomination. Only Janos sees it as a bounty of nature, a miracle of God...Janos is clearly an optimist. Or is it the Prince who is behind all the turbulence? There are all kinds of stories. The dead whale and the Prince are somehow responsible for creating ripples in the otherwise still waters of the quiet little town. They have already spread their wings on other parts of the country. But are all these just urban legends?

One of the main characters, György Eszter (Peter Fitz), speaks about how the musical intervals and harmonies as we know them over the centuries are "false" and the result of a huge scandal brought about by a certain Andreas Werckmeister. The title alludes to the harmonies or lack thereof owing to some funny business brought about by Werckmeister as a result of an "unhinged arrogance" that wished to take possession of the natural harmonies of the Gods! This one scene and the philosophy within has a strong connection with the overall theme of the film...lack of harmony and how it is brought about!

Eszter's former wife Aunt Tunde (Hanna Schygulla) has an agenda of her own...she is out to initiate a "clean town" project with the help of her current lover, the Police Chief, for which she needs her former husband's help. "Our Janos" (as he is referred to by all townsfolk who like him) is entrusted the task of convincing Eszter to use his command and popularity to get support of the movement. Eszter reluctantly agrees. "I've paid for it and I may pay for it all my life", he says. But what exactly? Tarr doesn't think that is important. We never get to know. He clearly loves ambiguity.

Tarr also loves extremely long takes, stark Black and White cinematography (beautiful at that), a somber mood, melancholic score, a languorous pace, bleak imagery and an overall sense of doom and despair. There are long philosophical monologues which are almost poetic and need to be heard at least twice to grasp. There is a distinct "meditative" feel to the proceedings. It is not difficult to spot the heavy Andrei Tarkovsky influence here, just as in other films of his. But Tarr's pictures are less abstract than those of the great Russian filmmaker. "Werckmeister Harmonies" is mostly materialism heavy but there certainly is some symbolism embedded in the narrative. The "Prince" who travels with the whale, for example, is a mysterious faceless creature who seems to have immense powers. A clock that was dead for years started ticking again as he went past! And he apparently also incites rioting. He doesn't believe in any greater power or authority either. Is he then the "Prince of darkness" with a thirst for destruction?

Tarr demonstrates his ability to create a powerful impact through the marriage of visuals and sound. On one hand there is the scene in which Vig's soulful music accompanies, like Janos appreciating the whale and being awestruck by its enormity. And then there is the scene in a newspaper factory. Long monologues and ambient sounds serve as a background to Janos' mundane activities being filmed, and later the camera slowly pans to the person delivering the monologue! Then, of the several long tracking shots, a particular shot of Janos and Eszter walking adjacent to each other in an almost synchronized march of their feet (with only the sound of their feet and a lunch box providing the sound...carrying on for a good 2-3 minutes!) can't help but bring a smile on your face. Apparently, for one other scene, in which a lot of people are marching together to reach a destination, Tarr was asked why the scene is that long. Tarr simply answered "that's how long it took to get there!"

"Werckmeister Harmonies", like any other Bela Tarr film, is surely not for the impatient viewer. It is for that segment of film lovers who love their films grave; and who don't mind the scenes playing out real time, with the editing process being allowed to take the back seat as long as the final product delivers. Suffice to say, Tarr manages to engulf the viewer under his spell and guarantees a hypnotic audiovisual experience, one that culminates into a powerful ending that leaves a lasting impact....

Score: 10/10.

When was the last time you had a hell lot of fun while watching a film? And we aren't even talking escapist, commercial popcorn flicks or sitcoms! Far from it. We're talking about an avant-garde surrealist film, highly disturbing yet darkly humorous at the same time….in French New Wave style! Jean-Luc Godard's "Weekend" (sometimes written "Week End") will guarantee a delightfully macabre ride through hell, as a husband and wife cheating on each other decide to ride to the country to secure inheritance from the parents of the wife, by possibly murdering her father! Sounds crazy? Not half as crazy as what ensues next as their journey turns into an outlandish odyssey through a nightmare full of traffic jams and gruesome car accidents and terrorists and hippies and cannibals! What "Weekend" is about is difficult to pen. Perhaps it is about Godard's bizarre vision of the apocalypse; of a bleak future that's going to see the end of civilization as we know it; a world in which people will turn on one another and start raping and looting and killing and eating each other! A world in which the bourgeois society will bear the brunt of its own materialistic trappings…when people will become so insensitive, they will even steal stuff off of dead bodies rather nonchalantly! Or perhaps "Weekend" is merely a black comedy built around everything Godard personally hated and wanted to make fun of, through the medium he knows best…cinema! And he pulls it off like there's no tomorrow! Sometimes he also resorts to self-parody! And for that, he uses some insane yet subtle absurdist humour. Blink and you may miss some of the gems and golden lines uttered in this film. Sample this: Roland (Jean Yanne) abandons (or loses) his car and starts out on foot with his wife Corinne (Mireille Darc ). On the way there are numerous mangled bodies, victims of car accidents and the remains of their vehicles lying around, but they are just casually ignored! Roland tries to ask directions to another character in the film, gets some loony response in return and comments "What a rotten film! All we meet are crazy people!" Godard, an eccentric auteur that he is, makes sure he frustrates his audiences as well as keeps them hooked with his bravura writing. Usage of intertitles isn't uncommon in a Godard film, but in "Weekend" they take on a new, entirely free form, get sprinkled arbitrarily between scenes, interrupting randomly yet trying to say something about the scene at hand. But they don't always take a serious form; sometimes some of the dialog uttered takes the form of intertitles, sometimes Godard tries to be funny by adding title cards like "A film found on scrap heap" to describe this motion picture! At other times we see some sharp political jibes.

Then there are the typical Godard idiosyncrasies including a background score that sometimes drowns the dialog and appears out of nowhere and disappears just as suddenly as it appeared; some deliberate repetitions of scenes and dialogs as if it's some editing flaw! And let's not forget the over 8 minutes long tracking shot of a traffic jam accompanied by blaring car horns in the background and car drivers cursing each other in the foreground! This shot ends in an ironic fashion that reveals the cause of the jam! The film takes dramatic turns with one bizarre event after another, subjecting us to a savagely funny ride, with senseless political speeches, oddball camera-work and ultimately an allegorical, chaotic finale…..the aim was clearly to alarm the viewer and leave him/her in a jaw-dropped state! There are notable movie references....although it is difficult to say in one case; a "Persona"-esque (Ingmar Bergman, 1966) monologue of Corinne narrating a particularly wild sexual adventure, and in a nod to Luis Bunuel, perhaps, a title card that reads "The Exterminating Angel" (1962). Speaking of Bunuel, it is not difficult to find some creative similarities between "Weekend" and Bunuel's "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie". Nonetheless, this could be a first film of its kind for Godard (it is a significant departure compared to his earlier 60s works) and he makes sure he leaves no stone unturned in delivering a masterwork. "Weekend" could very well have been rechristened "Week End" (as it is known in some countries) owing to the fact that this was Godard's final film of his most celebrated cinematic period.

Highly imaginative, but pure madness; Godard's "Weekend" = Luis Bunuel on steroids! Score: 10/10 (Hands down!)

A lot of avant-garde filmmakers experimented with Lewis Carroll's classic novel "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland". Some features that come to mind are Jaromil Jires' wonderful film, "Valerie and her Week of Wonders", Guillermo Del Toro's "Pan's Labyrinth" and Jan Svankmajer's "Alice". Louis Malle's surrealist experimental film "Black Moon" could very well fit into this category of the directors' own interpretation of the novel giving it their own "free form"!

Written by Louis Malle in collaboration with Joyce Bunuel (Luis Bunuel's daughter-in-law!) and directed by Louis Malle, "Black Moon" is devoid of any central plot as such. Set against a post-apocalyptic backdrop of a "war between the sexes", this film simply chronicles the weird happenings as experienced (or imagined?) by a teenage girl, Lily (Cathryn Harrison) who has narrowly escaped being killed by men seemingly out to wipe out the entire women populace! Having been lucky to have escaped, she just speeds away in her car deep into the woods only to come across an isolated property, a huge manor house and its strange inhabitants. The house is dwelled in by a cantankerous, bed ridden old lady (Therese Giehse) with a weird fetish, who talks to animals, especially a big rat-like creature "Humphrey" in some language that's gibberish, and every once in a while speaks on a radio kept by her bed. There is a brother-sister pair around the house to take care of stuff. They don't speak a single word. They only hum some songs as they work around the property. Some snakes tucked away in unlocked drawers also share the space with them!

The most bizarre of all though, is the presence of about half a dozen naked children running around playing with a gigantic pig; they keep interrupting Lily's path every time she chases a not-so-graceful Unicorn that seems to be a regular visitor around the property…..

Everything sounds very interesting for film lovers who love their films rife with surreal dreamscapes but frankly it doesn't go much beyond this. The film surely holds our interest for most of its modest running time of about 95 minutes thanks to the splendid camera-work by the genius cinematographer Sven Nykvist and the rather awe-inspiring sound design. In a fabulous close-up of a crawling centipede, you can actually "hear" the little thing crawl on a surface! In another hilarious scene (repeated twice), amidst near dead silence, a pig sitting at a table, apparently guarding a large glass of milk kept at the center of the table, lets out a loud grunt every time Lily gulps milk from it!

These are just some of the really jaw-droppingly outlandish scenes in the film and there are a good number of them. There are some scenarios that are so absurd, they are comical and that's a good thing, but after a while the same devices are recycled instead of bringing in some novelty factor. Once one gives in to the idea of absurdist fiction, then there are no limits to what one can do! But surrealism not being Malle's forte, he leaves a little to be desired in his product. If a premise that automatically creates endless possibilities starts to get repetitive then there is a problem somewhere! Malle even tries to infuse some allegorical allusions to the Indian epic Ramayana (a particular episode involving "Jatayu", the demi-god possessing the form of a vulture, who tries to save Sita from Raavana's clutches!) but it doesn't necessarily create a huge impact in the overall proceedings.

This is an English language film and Cathryn Harrison, portraying Lily clearly speaks in English. However Therese Giehse's (Old Lady) speech sounds dubbed in English and her lip movement is ridiculously out of sync. It is unclear whether this was intentional or a technical glitch, a bad dubbing job or a bad lip-synching job! At times even Harrison's dialog seems out of sync. Some of it sounds really dumb as well! If one thinks from a certain angle, there certainly is an interpretation that gives the happenings on screen some meaning and a vaguely fitting explanation which could even reflect religious themes! I would not like to adhere to any theory or interpretation though. I think it is safe to assume that Louis Malle didn't want to make a deeply thought-provoking or metaphorical film. He merely wanted to compile some dream-like visions into a motion picture laced with themes of civil war and futuristic dystopia and a teenager's coming-of-age, and that's fair enough. He wanted his film to be more a visual experience than a cerebral puzzle. Only Luis Bunuel or David Lynch could've done a much better job with the material at hand.

Score: 7.5/10.

A couple of Filipino guys put together a brilliant idea and decided to make a film on it. Neill Dela Llana and Ian Gamazon, two ambitious young men had the concept very much in place.

The idea revolves around an American Filipino named Adam, returning to his homeland in the Philippines only to become the target of a mysterious caller on a cell phone who has kidnapped his sister and mother and threatens to kill them if Adam doesn't comply with certain demands of his. He is not allowed to hang up either. The caller has a task for Adam and Adam is supposed to see it through to its conclusion, failing which the consequences would be dire! Adam finds himself constantly stalked as he is made to travel all around Cavite city and explore its dark underbelly, in order to run the caller's "errand". Everywhere he goes he feels he is being watched and a lot of people seem to be "in on it", as at every step, Adam finds something which enables him to move forward in his task. What's more…the caller seems to know his every move! The plot thickens as Adam finds there is more to it than meets the eye. Why has he been chosen by the caller? Could it be some extremists who have involved him in something much more dangerous than he can handle? So there you have it. Sounds great on paper, right? But does every great idea transform into a well-executed motion picture? Sadly not, and "Cavite" is testimony to this fact.

"Cavite" partially works solely due to its interesting premise. It is this premise that somewhat manages to engage the viewer, not the execution; because the execution simply doesn't have much to talk about. Shot entirely on hand-held camera that gets irritating after a while with its constantly wobbly and brownish yellow cinematography, the film captures mostly the squalid parts of the city where there are squatter camps and garbage dumps and hungry, naked children! Now such visuals should normally move the viewer but blame it on the handling, it fails to resonate with the viewer or evoke any kind of emotion, barring a few scenes which speak volumes of the inherent hypocrisy of terrorists who scream "Jihad" at the drop of a hat! Certain props used to scare or disturb us clearly appear fake and that is another big failure on the filmmakers' part. The film feels slightly long even for its considerably short 80 minutes length, thanks to a lazy screenplay which just doesn't reflect the sense of urgency or anxiety that is very much essential for the subject at hand. There are hardly any tense moments and the apart from the filmmaker, the person largely to be blamed for this is the lead actor, Ian Gamazon! This is the kind of story that has to depend on the protagonist's able shoulders, because ultimately, it is his predicament that is supposed to evoke sympathy in his favour and thus engage the viewer. Sadly our hero proves to be the weakest link as he fails to bring out the helplessness or the vexation that any guy in his shoes would feel. If someone is holding your mother and sister hostage and wants you to carry out a task that could get you in trouble, you should be one big bundle of nerves! But Gamazon almost casually goes through everything, trying to force some emotions on his face once a while and swearing out loud when he is unable to. Alas, it amounts to hardly anything and this is the film's biggest failure. The actor just fails to connect with the audiences! Then how are we supposed to care about his outcome anyway. The background score is also very uninspired and incomplete; perhaps some attention to a good score could've provided some leverage to the film.

Some suspense built in the final half hour of the film raises our expectations and one wishes the makers hadn't been slothful with the conclusion at least, but the film pretty much ends with a whimper. Add to that some done to death clichéd ramblings about how Muslims are targeted everywhere, thus forcing them to build terrorist outfits for "Jihad" all around the world and one particularly cringe-worthy scene about Adam's American girlfriend "not wanting to have a Muslim baby" further mar any bright prospects for the film in the audiences' favour.

"Cavite" is a solid idea that just barely makes it in getting successfully transferred to a gripping motion picture. It has its moments but as an overall product, it just about manages to stay afloat. Watch only if you must….

(Trivia :-)…But here's an interesting fact. In 2008, Indian director Raj Kumar Gupta made "Aamir", a Bollywood film which rips off the premise and most of the screenplay of "Cavite". Only the action is shifted to streets of Mumbai city instead of Cavite! "Aamir" is a better made film, is considerably gripping and has a much better actor (Rajeev Khandelwal) playing the central actor. However, nothing can change the fact that it is shameless and unethical rip-off of "Cavite". One only wishes Gupta had officially purchased the rights instead of blatantly copying, thinking that no one would notice. Sad..

Score: 6/10.

It is typical of every religion to preach that self-sacrifice is the path to find God. That giving up all the "pleasures" of the world will purify man. Wonder where those teachings came from, but it is quite a common trait, no matter what religion. Embrace asceticism, rid yourself of the so-called "worldly pleasures" or "sins" and achieve your spiritual or religious goals! The ultimate path to salvation is here! The Catholic teachings are no different, and Luis Bunuel has always been highly critical of organized religion. He has dedicated so many of his films as tools to launch razor sharp, scathing attacks on these beliefs or the Church in general.

Loosely based on the real life story of the 5th century ascetic Saint Simeon Stylites, who spent 39 years atop a column ,"Simon of the Desert" is no exception. Picture a bearded monk, Simon (Claudio Brook), devoting his life to ascetic ways. He has already spent six years, six weeks and six days atop a pillar in the middle of the desert, praying for spiritual purification. He has gained a good amount of followers; mostly peasants, some priests and other village folk who believe that he has been blessed with special powers. They come to him for help or deliver some food from time to time. He is offered a brand new, taller pillar as a token of their faith and respect for his sacrifice. Simon continues his act of good faith, keeps delivering sermons and can even seemingly perform miracles.....

Sounds like a serious, religious, deeply meaningful, preachy biography of a Saint? Not in the Luis Bunuel universe! Trust Bunuel to turn something that sounds very deep and heavy into a darkly humorous, absurd mock-fest that is unrelenting and uncompromising in its ways so much so as to scandalize half the audiences who could be believers! So this whole God-fearing stuff takes a dramatic turn as some of the priests and peasants start getting critical of Simon and think it is all in vain. Simon is taken to be an arrogant man by some, and a few others think he is faking it. Simon himself begins to deem his actions futile on several occasions. What's more...the Devil shows up too, and tries to "tempt" Simon in his many ways by appearing in the form of a beautiful woman (Silvia Pinal) in an attempt to seduce Simon out of his saintly ways! Will Simon yield to the temptation? Bunuel takes only about 45 minutes to drive his point across and does it with his masterful touch. Accompanied by Gabriel Figueroa's beautiful camera-work, Bunuel makes unpredictable transitions from realism to surrealism to hilarious absurdism all in the miniscule time frame that was available to him. Apparently Gustavo Alatriste, the producer could no longer fund the film for some reasons and that is how Bunuel was forced to abruptly end the film (with a bizarre ending that has been criticized in several write-ups, but do not be misled...it does have its place..and its own charm based on the interpretation), while in reality he wished to add more material to the film. Whatever the reasons, the end result is a highly original, savagely funny and one of the most eccentric works of cinema from the twisted mind of Luis Bunuel.

Pay especially careful attention to certain scenes in which Simon mutters random religious ramblings on seeing some ordinary creatures like an insect (that has absolutely no idea of what is going on!) and later tries to do the same with an inanimate object but gives up! Or the scene in which Simon performs a miracle and gives a cripple a new pair of hands...and the eventual consequence of it! Or that brutally funny scene in which some of the priests don't seem to know the meaning of a particular Biblical reference. Every scene drips a lot of really clever writing....and there is no question that this is an exemplary work of genius from the great director.

Bunuel's pick of actors add to the amazing experience with their superb performances, especially Claudio Brook, Silvia Pinal and the midget Jesus Fernandez.

"Simon of the Desert" is the kind of film that leaves you wanting more. Another 45 minutes of running time perhaps? Check out this masterpiece...do not waste anymore time.

Score: 10/10.

Poor Michael Shannon! Imagine having to play the same role time and again and turning something as exciting as acting into a mundane routine. In William Friedkin's colossal misfire of a psychological thriller, Shannon portrays yet another nutcase (who goes by the name of Peter Evans), this time a 'delusional paranoid schizophrenic'…but a bigger one compared to his recent "Take Shelter". But that isn't the least of our worries. He is also a violent crackpot, a total madcap who inflicts cuts and wounds on himself! What's more..he has great convincing power, whereby he is capable of making a complete fool out of a seemingly sane but depressed Agnes (Ashley Judd). Friedkin takes us audiences to be complete dimwits too, what with Agnes' lesbian friend R.C. who 'just met' Peter introduces him to Agnes and brings him to Agnes' motel room for a night of alcohol and cocaine binging! Now it is just one meeting but after some sob stories and a surprisingly quick bonding later, Agnes and Peter end up having sex! One unconvincing situation after the other and we get to the focal point…..the bug infestation! Peter suddenly starts finding bugs everywhere…on him, around him, and keeps slapping himself once in a while in an attempt to kill these bugs….Agnes can't see anything, but Peter, the great convincer that he is manages to convince Agnes that the room is infested with bugs.

And to add to it there's a bizarre conspiracy theory of the US army using Peter as a guinea pig to conduct some ghastly experiments which include planting bug egg-sacs in his tooth! By the time the senile old Friedkin starts bombarding all this nonsense on his audiences, we are already awaiting the end of the film, simply because we are just not interested in the madness anymore. And Shannon, being Shannon and a pro at acting like a psychotic weirdo, has a ball doing it, with extra gusto this time...convulsing, swatting invisible bugs all over his body, inflicting injuries, twitching his face, slapping it once in a while, hollering at the top of his voice concocting one theory after another as to what actually is happening with him and Agnes! Judd joins in, with an initially stellar performance which unfortunately takes a free fall in the second half of the film, in which both Judd and Shannon seem to be vying for the trophy of the most ridiculously over-the-top and unintentionally comic performance of all time! A nervous wreck that she becomes, she also mouths off loud lines in resonance with Shannon's insane ramblings about implanted computer chips and manufactured zombies, human guinea pigs and androids posing as humans ……..you feel like reaching for the stop button already! At one point of time I literally felt like getting a bug spray and dousing Shannon and Judd in it to free them from their misery! Add to that Friedkin's non-serious attitude thanks to which he throws so much of logic right out the window….I mean, it's a Motel room that's been turned into a tin foil house decorated with bug zappers! Where are the Motel authorities for Christ sakes?! Agnes is supposed to be great friends with R.C. but she trusts Peter over R.C. and slaps R.C. out of her room! A lot more incredibly brainless situations abound. Throw in some couple more stupid scenes and a subplot revolving around Agnes' estranged abusive ex-hubby Jerry (Harry Connick Jr) who acts like a tough guy wife-beater in one scene, yet foolishly gets his hand stapled in the other….. and voila! You got the perfect schlock in the name of a "disturbing psychological horror".

But that's not all! Friedkin gets even more ambitious…and tries to do a Hitchcock here, and needless to say, fails miserably in creating any sort of locked-in, claustrophobic atmosphere, which just comes across as a cheap imitation. Shyamalan did a much better job in "Signs". There are but a few tense moments which are far between and can't do much to save the film as a whole. There's also Judd's fine acting until she turns into a hysterical comedian joining in the cacophony of Shannon's jitter-'bug' maniacal clown. Both of them devise a 'great' plan to save the world from the bug infection, one that's supposed to affect us deeply; but we find that we have almost given up by the third act…..

Score: 3/10.

"Take Shelter" is a heart-rending story of Curtis LaForche (Michael Shannon), who resides with his wife Samantha (Jessica Chastain) and his little daughter Hannah (Tova Stewart) who happens to be deaf. It all begins when Curtis has visions of a storm coming...in the form of dark clouds, whirlwinds, thunderous noises, and a strange looking rain, the water from which resembles motor oil! Some of these visions are extreme and apocalyptic, laden with immense paranoia. He sees himself and his family being stalked and attacked by faceless people....and that is when he realizes that something is amiss with his head. He has these nightmares almost every night, yet withholds them from his family, for he is concerned about them; doesn't want them to feel insecure in the company of a mentally ill man of the house! More so, because apparently there has been a history of paranoid schizophrenia in the family; his mother had it too......! He just goes on with life, looks up books about mental illnesses and starts meeting a counselor at the free clinic.

But are these visions actually premonitions of a deadly storm to come (he describes them as "a feeling", not "just dreams")? Or are they merely hallucinations? Regardless, Curtis takes up the task of protecting his family...by building a fully equipped storm shelter underground.....

"Take Shelter" reminded me of Andrei Tarkovsky's final masterpiece, "The Sacrifice" which also features the central character living in an isolated house with his wife, daughter and a son (who is mute!), and decides to carry out an ultimate sacrifice to save his family from the impending apocalypse by a nuclear holocaust. Only the similarities end right there and this film is in no way a rip-off.

"Take Shelter", on the outside, may appear like yet another psychological drama about a man suffering from Schizophrenia with all the essential clichés that usually infest such films. Writer-director Jeff Nichols proves this assumption wrong, however, and takes a whole new approach in which the protagonist senses early on that he has a problem and tries his level best to seem normal, so as to not affect his family that he loves so much and ensures that they don't feel unprotected. The idea of delusions of doom clubbed with this fresh new twist work wonders for a tired premise of a schizophrenic protagonist and thus render "Take Shelter" one of the best films dealing with the subject. Nichols handles the story with finesse and takes utmost care to not let it slip into the triteness of melodrama. There is drama alright, but nothing that would seem overdone. Every little bit is realistically done; every scene is carefully thought out, every little character reaction is meticulously written, except for maybe a single scene.

Some of Curtis' visions are frightening and Nichols sure knows how to the scare the hell out his audiences! This film could serve to be a perfect blend of the 'psychological thriller' and 'drama' genres and has plenty of moments to please film lovers of both categories. On the technical front, the film excels in most departments, particularly cinematography, sound design and even special visual effects. Just behold those excellent scenes of the storm that could give any big budget disaster movie a run for their money. Or that chilling moment when Curtis and Hannah find themselves in the midst of some birds gone berserk in a frighteningly surreal sequence!

The acting is marvelous all along...Jessica Chastain is brilliant as the caring wife distressed upon not knowing what exactly is going through her husband's head, yet trying to manage the family and making some modest money by selling in a local flea market. The little daughter Hannah is superb as the deaf daughter. Even though she has precious little to do, she has a presence that is endearing! Robert Longstreet and Shea Whigham make an impression in their small acting parts in the roles of Jim and Dewart respectively.

Which brings us to the lead performer, Michael Shannon. Now, his performance is definitely solid. Shannon practically lives the character and makes it his own. The realization, the helplessness, the anxiety, the sadness...all pulled off masterfully. Only I didn't see anything significantly different from what I saw in "Revolutionary Road" in which he played a similar character. Only Curtis of "Take Shelter" is a little more compassionate than John Givings of "Revolutionary Road", but essentially he seemed like the extension of the same person! Now this leads Shannon into an even greater danger of being type-casted, because even if he attempts something different, we are bound to see a mentally unstable character, and that's not a good thing. One can just hope Shannon is more careful while choosing his next big role if he wants to show if he is versatile enough.

Jeff Nichols has crafted a real fine film. This is only his second venture and he has already mastered the art. Some may complain that the film slows down at intervals, but it is the kind of screenplay that is best savored at a steady pace rather than in a hurried manner. In spite of the slow place, the film is engaging enough and never lets up, thanks to the fine acting and plenty of great moments to fill the running time of 120 minutes.

This is yet another example of a great film that was sadly overlooked by the Academy. I can just hope that this review and many others reach out to film lovers all around and they take notice of "Take Shelter".

Score: 9/10.

Pier Paolo Pasolini's "Teorema" had me dumbfounded! It was one of those rare instances where I was unable to formulate a clear opinion of what I thought about it. For one, this minimalist picture from the controversial filmmaker has "art-house" written all over it. Yes, there is extreme minimalism, very little dialog (it seems the number of actual spoken words in the film is about 923!). This almost silent film is allegorical…rife with symbolism and religious connotations, and may not be a very interesting subject matter for those looking at mainstream cinema, that is for sure! Terence Stamp is "The Visitor", a mysterious stranger who once visits the mansion of a rich family of four. The man of the house is Paolo, a rich businessman who owns a factory, and then there's his awkward son, a daughter, a beautiful wife who is sexually repressed and a scary-looking maid. In the next few days that pass, this visitor has sexual encounters with each of the inhabitants of the house! In a way, he "seduces" them. And almost as suddenly as he appears, he soon takes leave of them, leaving them in a state like never before! All of these people he "touched" exhibit marked changes in their lives, of a different level altogether! The "consequences" forms the crux of this strange film and paves way for detailed discussion! What makes Pasolini's film so important is the daring concept that Pasolini presents to his viewers with a script set in the contemporary world. From what I understand, The visitor is supposed to be a God-send or an angel who influences the members of the house in one way or another. Why "sexually" is a good question, but that depends on how you see it. Is it the touch of God, or the Devil's seduction? Perhaps it is symbolic of a "close encounter with God"? So what exactly does God do to these bourgeois individuals? Apparently he makes them see beyond their pretentious cocooned life. They all go through a self-realization phase, which they all confess one by one to the Visitor when it is time for him to leave. But he isn't there to see the changes. Are these changes always positive? Does being "blessed" always lead to happiness? Or is there another side to it? Pasolini, through his seemingly simple yet highly complex allegory poses these ambiguous questions, which likely polarized his audiences, based on their religious beliefs! Being an atheist I wasn't particularly offended or overwhelmed with the subject, but I was definitely intrigued by how drastically different this film and its viewpoint is! Pasolini's technique of story-telling is poetic! It is almost like Pasolini deliberately chose the visual style as exists in the film to give it a meditative form. Long takes, solitude, mostly gentle atmosphere, intermittent random scenes of a vast empty desert, the presence of a radiant light just before the visitor appears, all tactfully done! The visuals are also enchanting, the cinematography is beautiful, with the colours changing from sepia (in the beginning during the introduction of the characters, perhaps to show their 'ordinary' life?) to vividly colourful (a marked change with the introduction of the "visitor"?). It is then, mostly on the technical front and the handling of the film with its layered theme that makes "Teorema" most watchable.

Where it falters is in some (only a couple or three) haphazard sequences here and there, and in the tepid acting from the actors playing the son and the daughter. I don't know if it was intentional but the daughter, Odetta (Anne Wiazemsky) who also appeared in Robert Bresson's "Au Hasard Balthazar" delivers what could be one of the most wooden acting performances I've seen! At one point it even becomes slightly apparent that she is reading her lines from cue cards!! The son, Pietro is played by Andrés José Cruz Soublette also seems somewhat awkward, but maybe his acting reflects his character who behaves like that owing to being a closeted homosexual! The finest acting then comes from Terence Stamp, even though he doesn't have much to do except give mysterious smiles once in a while and appear compassionate! A close second best actor in the film is the beautiful Silvana Magnano, the lady of the house. Her Lucia's perplexed state of mind is wonderfully portrayed by the actress. Also impressive is Laura Betti as Emilia, the maid. Laura looks and acts the weird Emilia quite earnestly.

But how does one eventually evaluate and rate something as flummoxing as "Teorema"? Why is it even called that anyway? ('Teorema' means 'Theorem') There are views that the structure of the film itself and the psychological transformation of all characters follow a single formulaic structure! The film doesn't boast of great acting, neither is it an intimate character portrait. Not all characters are dug deep into. The subject matter is not what one would fall in love with, but it sure is extremely interesting! But in spite of this, there is something about "Teorema" that makes it worthwhile. While the visuals and the characters haunt your memory long after the film is over, the happenings in the narrative will give you something to ponder about. It is not a film one may go ga-ga about, but can one ever forget having watched "Teorema"? Hell, no! Score: 8/10.

"You look like a 'Marcy May'", the creepy leader of a hippie cult, Patrick (John Hawkes) tells Martha (Elizabeth Olsen). That summarizes what the first three words in this tongue-twister of a title of this excellent film signify. As for 'Marlene', I would rather leave it for the viewer to find out. It's an interesting little part that one would miss if not very attentive.

As a matter of fact, the whole film pretty much plays out steadily and engulfs your senses in its own sweet way, thanks to the terrific original screenplay and its treatment by debutant director Sean Durkin.

At the break of dawn, Martha (Elizabeth Olsen, the much prettier and much cooler younger sister of the Olsen twins) flees from an isolated house inhabited by a number of people, somewhere in the Catskill mountains. She later gets in touch with her elder sister, Lucy (Sarah Paulson), who takes her to her beautiful weekend home in Connecticut. Martha withholds what she's been through from her sister. In a narrative that flashes back and forth we learn that Martha had been in the company of a strange cult led by Patrick (John Hawkes) who preaches some twisted philosophy which all the runaways under him blindly follow. Martha has also been a runaway, who disappeared from Lucy's life for a couple of years or more. Lucy is happily married to Ted (Hugh Dancy). While the couple try their level best to accommodate Lucy's returned sibling, despite her difficult attitude, it becomes increasingly apparent that living with Patrick's hippie group has had a damaging effect on Martha's psyche and she can't seem to adjust to normal life again……..

For a debut feature length, Sean Durkin handles the film like a pro. He is obviously influenced by the minimalistic style of most European art films and it shows. As mentioned earlier, instead of resorting to conventional storytelling, Durkin feeds us a slow meal, little by little, steadily increasing the dose with each morsel as he unravels the chilling back-story of what actually happened and why it is not entirely unexpected why Martha is socially inept. There are surprises in store, but not in the way most modern films treat them…there are no lame gimmicks of jump-twists suddenly shown like trump cards towards the climax. Each surprise is delivered in parts; these parts, including some seriously disturbing moments, are sprinkled across the narrative and gently thrown at us unsuspecting audiences.

The constant flashing back and forth of the narrative could have tried the viewer's patience had it not been for the very mature handling of this device with the help of some intelligent match cuts. The placement of scenes and buildup of the narrative couldn't have been better. Durkin certainly knows how to tell a story. Scenes that are especially tense and brutal are handled with extra finesse. The sound design is another fine quality of this film and deserves accolades. It adds that extra flavor to an already brilliantly filmed sequence. It reminded me of David Lynch's signature sound effects in many ways….

The acting is terrific…Elizabeth Olsen runs away with an unforgettable lead performance. She brings to life, this really distressed young girl in need of help, who you want to empathize with but are unable to decide whether she actually deserves kindness. And then there's Sarah Paulson as Lucy, the caring sister who is desperately trying hard to get through to her younger sibling who just refuses to open out, as well as balancing her married life and plans to conceive. It is a great supporting act indeed! Ditto for Hugh Dancy who does a terrific job as Ted, the supportive husband, who makes a sincere attempt to put up with his wife's little sister who gradually manages to get on his nerves; there are moments of some genuinely well-written drama between these three characters. And lastly there's John Hawkes as the sleazy, creepy looking Patrick, a self-proclaimed "teacher and a leader" of the hippie group where our protagonist loses her way. His wicked smile and domineering ways and absurd views disgust and enrage you and make you despise him. This scorn on the audiences' part is testimony to how great his performance ultimately is.

The film is near flawless, but for very minor problems with a couple of instances in the proceedings, which seemed a little forced and a tad unnecessary but not in a big way. 2011 has been a great year for cinema and "Martha Marcy May Marlene" belongs to the best of 2011. It is a masterstroke in film-making for Sean Durkin who seems to have the knack for making quality stuff and that makes him a fine young director to look out for. One wonders what the Academy were smoking 'cause this film has failed to get any nomination at all! It is at times like these when I have to question the credibility of these "prestigious" Oscars Awards! Oh well….

Score: 9/10.

"The Killing Fields" is a film that is one of those unlucky ones, based on a premise so strong, but sadly, made in an era that churned out mediocre fare, perhaps! Set against the backdrop of the war-infested Cambodia, where Khmer Rouge had taken charge during the mid-70s, this is a story of those brave-heart journalists who made it back alive! And honestly, that is the only story this film tells! Khmer Rouge is merely a 'backdrop' as mentioned earlier in this paragraph and that is the very fact about this film that lets it down.

This is a film that begins on a chaotic note and continues it further, and hence, for the viewer, the tension never really develops...it is already there, at the outset! The story centers around two of the main characters, Sydney Schanberg (Sam Waterston) and Dith Pran (Haing S. Ngor) who are trying to cover the war situation in Cambodia in 1973. Things turn uglier soon enough when an American B-52 bombs the town of Neak Leung by mistake! Two years later, the Khmer Rouge seem to be taking over, and evacuation begins. Some Cambodian locals who have sought refuge in the French Embassy in Cambodia are forcibly trapped in the whole drama, including Dith Pran, who is there to assist Schanberg.

The rest of the story focuses on how Schanberg is feeling guilty about letting Pran stay on with him and how Pran attempts to survive amidst the Killing Fields created by the Rouge.

What this film doesn't quite clarify are the intentions of the Khmer Rouge itself on which the whole films seems to build its premise. The actions and the very reason of the existence of the Khmer Rouge isn't clear enough, neither is the actual situation in Cambodia. There is chaos throughout the film, so there isn't really any clear explanation given for the whys and the hows and the whats in this supposedly powerful drama.

Sure, there are a lot of gut-wrenching scenes in this war-fest, but since we who are newly being introduced to the Khmer Rouge history aren't really told the inside story, it is difficult to relate to any of those who are mercilessly disposed of! So at this point, I would recommend the viewer to thoroughly study the Khmer Rouge story, in order to follow this film more closely! Good performances from the two lead actors Sam Waterston and Haing S. Ngor and a fine supporting act in an early role by John Malkovich, but that is just not enough to save this film based on a strong true story.

"The Killing Fields" is a film begging for a remake, with hopefully a more focused script.

The makers of "Jennifer's Body" probably knew that what they set out to make wasn't to be taken too seriously!

How else would you explain Oscar winner Diablo Cody penning such a laughably ridiculous teeny-bopper-Gothic-satanic-horror-comedy and whatever-other-genre-you-wanna-add picture!

Megan Fox stars as Jennifer, the flirtatious teen who is the hottest girl in school and best friends with one of the nerdiest girl with specs, Needy (Amanda Seyfried). Both of them venture out to a rock concert in one of the local bars at Devil's Kettle (the name of the town they live in). That is where the fateful events depicted in this funny film start to take shape!

At the outset, it seems like some stupid teenybopper horror flick with lots of stupid dialog. But then it seems to get cleverer in a couple of scenes or more! The dialog gets better too. Further in the film, the 'horror' premise does show a little bit of promise, but ultimately it all comes down and what is offered to us is the same old nonsense that you may have seen in countless B-horror films albeit with some fresh faces and that's about it!

That said, this film does have some juicy moments for those looking for some wet-dream-come-true moments and plenty of gore to go along with it! Fox and Seyfriend deliver good performances to make this film at least somewhat watchable in its approximately 107 mins running time.

Otherwise it is passable fare! Watch if you have nothing better to do and you just happen to run into a DVD of this! 4/10..

I must admit that I wasn't aware of there being an original Scarface from 1932 when I first saw the 1983 remake starring Pacino. Only later after I saw the special edition DVD of the 1983 film, I realized that it is, in fact, a remake! Al Pacino is interviewed in one of the features and he mentions about Paul Muni's performance. Some footage from the original is also shown.

I've been wanting to see this original 'Scarface' ever since. It was a strange but satisfying experience seeing Paul Muni do way back then in 1932, what Pacino did in the 1983 remake! The story, loosely based on the life of real-life gangster Al Capone, is pretty much the same for all those who are familiar with the remake. Some of the key scenes, characters and even some lines of dialog in the remake are a direct lift from this film! Only the setting has been changed of course. The business is booze, not drugs. The central character is not a Cuban refugee, but an Italian gangster! The time is the 30s, not 80s..and so on! Paul Muni stars as Antonio 'Tony' Camonte who starts under Johnny Lovo (Osgood Perkins) who has taken over the South Side to carry on with his illegal booze trade, after he gets rid of the leading South Side mob boss, Costillo. But little does he know that Tony is a power-hungry, ambitious young mobster who will stop at nothing for a quick rise right up to the top. He is a man who won't take orders from a boss for very long and wants to do something of his own. So then it begins. Tony sets out on a murderous rampage and spreads his wings like wildfire across all the parts of the city, killing anyone who comes in the way. He even refuses to follow the orders of Johnny Lovo at a point of time. All the while by his side he has his loyal buddy Guino Ronaldo (George Raft) and a bumbling Angelo (Vince Barnett) as his secretary.

The fast-paced machine-gun mayhem in this film almost never lets up in the crisp 90 minutes running time of the film.

Parallely, there are the story angles of Tony's overprotective and seemingly incestuous demeanor towards his sister Francesca (Ann Dvorak), and that of his own pursuit of Johnny Lovo's girlfriend, Poppy (Karen Morley).

Great acting skills displayed by most of the cast apart from Paul Muni, of course, who is wildly over-the-top, almost to the extent of hilarity, but in a positive sense! He is an absolute pleasure to watch as he hogs the screen. He has clearly had a lot of fun portraying this character, just as Pacino did in the remake.

Penned by Ben Hecht and superbly directed by Howard Hawks,"Scarface" is a landmark in the gangster film genre.

Highly recommended!

A pre-code era picture, "I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang" is a kind of film one could easily pass. For one, it is from the early 30s and two: many of us haven't really heard about Paul Muni or seen him on screen, have we! I saw Muni first in Scarface (1932) and then in this. And am I glad I saw this film, 'cause it was such sheer pleasure to see Muni perform in this gripping film about a man named James Allen (Muni) wrongly accused of committing a robbery.

Directed by Mervyn LeRoy, this film is based on a true story, more specifically, Robert Elliott Burns's autobiography, 'I Am a Fugitive from a Georgia Chain Gang'. It tells a man's long struggle in prison after he is sentenced to ten years on a brutal Southern chain gang.

I was surprised to see that in spite of being from the 30s, this film presents a very disturbing picture of the 'chain gang' prison life and the horrible way the prisoners are treated. And all the while your heart goes out to James Allen who suffers in silence but knows that he has to escape or die trying.

The story moves on in an unpredictable fashion and keeps the viewer hooked. There are plenty of edge-of-the-seat moments and superbly executed scenes. Mentioning any here would take away all the fun, so I'll leave that to the viewer.

Paul Muni delivers a breathtaking performance as James Allen. After watching this film I was convinced that he was one of the greatest actors to grace our planet. Sure, we all talk about Pacino, De Niro, Brando, etc. all great actors as we know them, but how many of us have explored the era that was..much before these legendary actors came into picture? Watch Paul Muni in this and you will know what I mean. What sincerity, what charisma! He is nothing short of brilliant! This dark and haunting film deserves to be watched and is one that shouldn't be missed by any connoisseur of quality cinema.

Stanley Kubrick's 1957 war film, "Paths of Glory" based on a novel of the same name by Humphrey Cobb is more of an anti-war statement. Hence, calling it a 'war film' wouldn't be right, as it does not lie in the same category as other war films, plot-wise.

The film is set during World War I. The story focuses on the war between the French and the Germans. General Mireau (George Macready) sends his division headed by Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas) on a suicidal mission to take over a prominent German position called "Anthill". Initially Mireau is reluctant to carry out this task, but is enticed by an offer of promotion from his superiors. With this in mind, he practically forces Dax to begin with the mission. Col. Dax, also aware of the danger associated with the mission, points the same out to Mireau but Mireau does not relent.

Sure enough, the mission ends in disaster and what follows next is the crux of this powerful story.

What happens when these men in the very same army, defending the same country, from the same regiment turn against each other? What happens when some superior officers get greedy and selfish and stop valuing human life, more so, the lives of their own soldiers? "Paths of Glory" goes deep in the psyche of these men, both superiors and subordinates and makes a strong statement on what war does to them.

"Paths of Glory" was just a modest success commercially, I've read. It comes as a surprise, considering the screenplay by Stanley Kubrick, Calder Willingham and Jim Thompson is spell-binding, to say the least. Kubrick directs with his touch of genius and creates a tremendous impact. The first scene of attack on Anthill is so masterfully shot, you actually feel you are in the field of battle! Ditto for the rest of the film when things take an unexpected turn for some of the less fortunate soldiers. Every frame of this picture is gripping, right 'til the final one.

Kirk Douglas delivers a fabulous performance as Colonel Dax. His helplessness and the growing frustration about the greedy and corrupt army officers and the overall futility of the system is so convincing, it creates a lasting impression. This is one earnest and unforgettable performance by the legendary actor.

George Macready lends a great supporting act as the selfish, cut-throat General Mireau. So do others, including Wayne Morris, Ralph Meeker, Joe Turkel and Timothy Carey.

A special mention here, of Mrs. Kubrick (Christiane Kubrick) who makes an appearance for a short scene to sing the haunting German folk song, 'The Faithful Hussar'. She appears in a scene towards the end in what could be one of the best and most haunting endings I've ever seen in film.

"Paths of Glory" may not be as popular as some of Stanley Kubrick's later films, but it is definitely one of his best.