Category: Movie review

The Running Man

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://www.out.com/

Rating: 3 stars out of 5
Starring: Glen Powell, Josh Brolin, Colman Domingo, Lee Pace, Michael Cera
Where to watch: Prime Video
To watch or not to watch: Even though it is a much anticipated movie by the most creative director of last decade, this movie fails to do justice to it’s subject matter

This movie is set in a dystopian world where the country is almost ruled by a broadcasting network (creatively) called the Network in the parallel with the government. Most of the population lived below poverty line, in squalor and money and power resides with a select few, as is with any authoritarian/totalitarian regime. Network has a reality show called The Running Man where a contestant fights to survive for 30 days in exchange for $1 billion. In this world, there resides our hero Ben Williams (Glen Powell) who is not able to afford flu medicine for his 2 year old kid. He then decides to play for The Running Man, if it meant saving his daughter and giving a better life to his family. He is joined by 2 other contestants, who are a little more naive/optimistic than him. As the “game” progresses, we learn how rigged it is, with well-equipped hunters doing everything to ensure the contestants do not win. The game is hosted by Bobby T (Colman Domingo) who is removed from the plight of the people and is only a show piece. The real muscle behind the Network is Dan Killian (Josh Brolin) who is the scary kind of evil – calm and too self-assured. The contestants don’t have any chance of bettering the game or the Network as all the stakes are against them. But our hero Ben fights against all the odds, or at least tries to.

A few years ago, there was a movie called Jackpot starring Awkwafina and John Cena which was on the similar lines, without a dystopian world and all powerful Network, but hilarious nonetheless. It is not meant to be taken seriously and the makers are self-aware. This is exactly the problem with Edgar Wright’s movie – it doesn’t know what it wants to be. It is equal parts Scott Pilgrim and a socialist’s manifesto. The cinematography of the movie by Chung Chung-hoon is on point and does elicit an emotional response from the viewer. The 80s aesthetic with the sci-fi future is shown on point. But that’s where the movie’s promise ends. The world setting of the movie in act 1 is very quick and effective, leaving a huge margin to develop the story and characters, but that is sacrificed for style, which leaves the viewers quite apathetic towards the characters. It also fails to prove a point or even instill hope in the viewer as most of the people in the movie are portrayed to be too desperate to be good, too selfish to be considerate, which does not land the point home of hope, and hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things.

Edgar Wright is one director who is not pinned down by genres – be it horror movies like Hot Fuzz and Last Night in Soho, or action-packed Scott Pilgrim, etc, and that too with a blend of genres. Even in movies where he was associated tangentially, his signature style of quick zooms and pans were visible and made for great storytelling. But here where the story was already in place by the great Stephen King, the execution is bland. One would be hard-pressed to determine if the movie was an Edgar Wright work. But that is ok, he has proven himself more times that he hasn’t so there is no cause for worry, he will be back soon and better for it (“calm down heart. all is not lost”). In other news, has anyone else noticed how Josh Brolin is in everything these days? Anyway, give The Running Man a miss, and if you are looking for fun escapism, opt for Jackpot.

Caught Stealing

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://www.newyorker.com/

Rating: 3.5 stars out of 5
Starring: Austin Butler, Regina King, Zoë Kravitz,  Matt Smith, Liev Schreiber, Vincent D’Onofrio, Bad Bunny
Where to watch: Netflix
To watch or not to watch: It is a fun ride, delivers what it promises, which is a non-exceptional chase thriller in New York, filled with quirky eccentric characters

Hank (Austin Butler) is a sweet, borderline alcoholic bartender, who is more than an average ball player and one of the biggest fans of Giants. One night, after closing up the bar, he returns home with his non-committed long term girlfriend Yvonne (Zoë Kravitz), only to find that his neighbour Russ (Matt Smith) is leaving for the airport to take care of his sick dad and has given the responsibility of his bad tempered cat Bud to Hank. Little does Hank know that Russ is running away from Russian mobsters who are out for Russ’ blood. They mistake Hank for Russ, and beat to a pulp so much so that he needs to be admitted to the hospital to remove his ruptured kidney. From there, he is contacted by narcotics detective Elise Roman (Regina King), who tells him that the ring of drugs run deeper than Russians. There is the Puerto Rican Colorado (Bad Bunny) who works with the Russians, who in turn owe Hasidic Drucker brothers (Liev Schreiber, Vincent D’Onofrio), basically making a drug dealer’s Ponzi scheme. Fascinating.

The script is tight and clear, two of the most important and underrated things a script should be. It is fun to watch, doesn’t take itself too seriously (unlike Aronofsky’s Black Swan, The Whale, basically his entire filmography) and thus delivers what it promises, which is also not commonly seen these days. Another winning point in the movie’s favour is the character of Hank, who is unlike the macho, testosterone-filled action movie stars we see in these movies (cue: Jason Statham). Is he an alcoholic? Yes. Is he commitment-phobic? Also yes. But he calls his mother daily, is loyal and faithful to his non-girlfriend, takes care of a foul cat. And that’s adorable, and you don’t want the goons to be after someone so adorable. You are rooting for the guy. Even the bad guys aren’t totally bad; they are in a business and are only working to solve for the stolen merchandise. Some of them will observe the traditions set by their grandmothers and follow the rules of their religion (which added a little sumnin’-sumnin’, NGL). The real bad guys are the real surprise. This is a big shift from the regular grim Aronofsky flick, and it is a pleasant surprise that he is willing to experiment (and he goes with the body anti-dismorphia with Austin Butler).

Having said so many good things about the movie, there are some things which the movie fails to deliver. The individual gangsters are mostly cliched, the chase sequences predictable, the romantic storyline adding nothing much to the whole, etc. Basically, the parts that make it a whole, while flowing into each other seamlessly, are nonetheless not surprising. There are some unbelievable points like Hank being able to run right after getting his kidney removed, being a cliched hero with a traumatic past, a die-hard sports fan making him a stereotypical American, kinda make it a bit boring too. But here’s the thing, these parts also fit together, so you need to take the good with the bad, because altogether it is quite pleasant. Will highly recommend for a Friday night chill movie session. Austin Butler has great things ahead of him for sure.

Wicked Little Letters

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://www.primevideo.com/

Rating: 3.5 stars out of 5
Starring: Jesse Buckley, Olivia Colman, Timothy Spall, Anjana Vasan
Where to watch: Prime Video
To watch or not to watch: It is a funny movie starring some of the best actors telling a story on a deep subject. Why not to watch!

The movie is based in 1920 England, where a lonely, devout spinster Edith Swan (Olivia Colman) lives with her overbearing father and gentle mother, next door to a single, Irish immigrant mother Rose Gooding (Jesse Buckley). Not only is Rose a single mother, but she is also living in sin with her partner Bill, swears like a sailor, and has a jolly good time at the pub with the other patrons, all actions not approved by the tight laced Edith. But Edith has another problem, she has been receiving poison pen letter, filled with profanity, which disturb her parents to no end, that too 19 in total! And not just Edith, the who’s-who of the village have had something vile said about them! The nerve! Who could have done such an evil trick, and who has such a potty-mouth? Why, Rose of course, with her new age ideas and little regard to propriety, she is the right suspect for this deed which has troubled the good Christians no end. Rose is thus arrested and having no money for bail, has to spend time in jail, more now that Edith’s poor mother died of a heart attack upon reading one such letter. There is also Gladys (Anjana Vasan) who is assigned this case, pays little attention to this claiming there is more serious crime to be investigated – and rightly so, she is very good at her job, but her misogynistic boss doesn’t recognise her talent. That is, until she decides to give this quickly spiralling case her full attention.

The premise of the movie is hilarious and the execution even more so. Anything which has either Colman or Buckley is a treat in itself and this one has them both. Add to this mix Vasan (of We Are Ladyparts fame) and you get a cherry on your cake you did not know you needed. This movie has some fantastic dialogue writing and a bit of on-time slapstick comedy which makes it an ideal viewing pleasure. The movie touches on a topic, or rather, a side to human nature we all know and talk about but has never given the center stage or a de-facto position it deserves. And that is the real feat of this movie. Anyone who has ever had someone out to get them should come back to this movie and understand the underlying reason for such malice. It might help to understand the other person and maybe lessen their burdens a bit.
On the other side, the story and performance can only do so much. They are not the salve for the wounds caused by sloppy screenplay. Things suddenly take a turn and it is revealed who has been actually writing the letters, and while it deserves a slow camera pan-up to the face of the criminal, and its own crescendo in the background, it gets none of that, but rather a reveal which is more matter-of-fact. That take away from the almost 50% of the runtime build-up we have been viewing and waiting for. And the climax, while totally funny (ngl) is make out to be this big curtain drawing moment, which we saw coming a mile away.

It is confounding to realise why people can be so bitter about themselves and their lives that they have to take it out on others who have absolute zero contribution in their misery. Their only sin is that they have something the bitter person covets. And don’t all humans covet something they see others enjoying? So when does this scarcity give rise to such acid in their nature? Is there a trigger or is this something that builds up slowly, was always there and was only looking for an opening to rear its ugly head? On the flip side, what is stopping anyone from changing their lives, little bit at a time, because afterall it is the little things that matter, that one can control? Or is the effort in making that change so daunting, so scary, and turning into a harmful part of humanity so easy and satisfying, that it becomes the immediate choice? Is it a choice? Maybe it is. Comment if you have any answers to these questions?
This movie is a light-hearted, but deep movie which comes rarely on the screen, and has all but one pillar working for it. It can be a family movie too, if the family has members above the minimum age of voting, or driving, at the more adult’s discretion. The dialogues and the letters are so ridiculously out-there, they are laugh-out-loud. Jesse Buckley’s character’s free way of life is so inviting, all of us would want to be there with her, but we would need to build our characters strong enough. It is uplifting. Watch it!

Longlegs

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://www.imdb.com/

Rating: 2 stars out of 5
Starring: Maika Monroe, Nicolas Cage, Blair Underwood, Alicia Witt
Where to watch: Amazon Prime Video
To watch or not to watch: What the hell! Stitch together incoherent pieces together and you get this rag doll. Yea… no.

The movie is set in the 1990s where Agent Lee Harker (Maika Monroe) is with the FBI, is awkward, socially inept, a loner and is discovered to have uncanny “psychic” powers. For this ability, she is pulled into the investigation of a crime 3 decades running, where the patriarch of a totally normal family suddenly goes violent on his family and butchers them all. Her supervisor William Carter (Blair Underwood) wants to solve this case and things that Harker’s psychic abilities might aid in the endeavour. And she does help, as she is able to crack the code on the letters left by an unknown entity known as Longlegs at the murder sites, claiming credit for the murders. The investigation takes Harker to one of the survivors of the annihilation, an in-execution annihilation where a life size doll of the girl child is discovered with a mysterious metal ball in its brain, and back to her own childhood. We do see Longlegs before long and its… interesting? Anyway, the movie is not.

What an utter ridiculous farce of a movie. A wanna-be Silence Of The Lambs, without the substance. Or rather scattered substance which changes tone without so much as a “Hey” and goes about as if nothing has happened. Kinda like that co-worker who has made a mistake which affects the project but is entirely unbothered. (Mild spoilers follow)
The villain/evil character has a Satanic bend and is able to twist the patriarch against the family with the girl child in some sort of trance. But why? Is the agenda to kill all normal families? Why? Is the idea to kill God fearing Christians? Again, why? And these questions stare into the abyss which is the travesty of a horror movie. So much so, that it might have been slightly better if it had stuck to the tropes and made it a cliche. It starts ok, you can see there is something off about Harker and Carter is like a father figure to her, looking beyond the awkwardness and seeing the person, but then enters Alicia Witt as Harker’s mother and then it is throw-everything-to-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks.

The direction of the movie is good. Genuinely. It is specially visible in the first act with the dark yellow and brown tones, slow pace, few dialogues. The choice of a wide angle camera for shooting most of the movie was a good artistic choice, without which they wouldn’t have even enough marketing material. And it so far removed from the promises made during marketing that a case can be made for false advertising. “The sample doesn’t match the final product delivered”. The wide angle remains throughout the movie but it cannot take the place of a story or script or screenplay or agenda. Cage has turned out a good performance (though not many people agree with this), it is not creepy. It gives the vibes of a sad, lonely, retired circus performer who is fighting to make ends meet and is losing sanity due to loneliness. This theme is a social issue, not necessarily a horror movie subject matter. Go back in time and undo this movie. It should not have happened

The Menu

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://www.hotstar.com/

Rating: 3 stars out of 5
Starring: Ralph Fiennes, Anya Taylor-Joy, Nicholas Hoult, Hong Chau, Janet McTeer, Aimee Carrero, Judith Light
Where to watch: Disney+ Hotstar
Run time: 1hour 47 minutes
To watch or not to watch: An original script, which might not be perfect but is fun to watch

A boat (yacht) is filled with 11 people who are embarking on a journey to a private island called Hawthorn, which has one of the most exclusive restaurants owned by Julian Slowik (Ralph Fiennes). The multi-course meals are $1,250 each, are invite only and are a strictly +1 (or more) event. The meal is an event, yes – the customers tour the entire island which shows the raw ingredients grown/bred, the military discipline enforced and followed by Slowik and his staff, the descriptions of the courses are like a soliloquy by the respective chefs. Only in this case, the soliloquy is followed by terror. Let me elaborate…

The people who have managed to bag a table at the over-exclusive restaurant are 3 finance bros, a washed-out actor with his manager (John Leguizamo and Aimee Carrero), an ultra-rich couple (Judith Light and Reed Birney), a renowned food critic (Janet McTeer) with her obsequious editor (Paul Adelstein) and a self-proclaimed foodie, Tyler (Nicholas Hoult) and his companion Margot (Anya Taylor-Joy). Each meal is presented by the chef with a resounding clap which jerks everyone’s attention to the aforementioned soliloquy on the dish – the reason it was designed, what are the ingredients and what is the emotion the dish is designed to bring to the eater. Each of these courses get progressively darker, including drowning of the man who invested in the restaurant, a public suicide of the sous chef who dared to compete with Slowik, a run for survival by the men while a woman stabs Slowik for sexually harassing her in the past. The list of the macabre activities go on, while there is little to no change in the schedule of the service, complete with the clap and descriptions. The one person who is the proverbial fish out of water is Margot, who is not the initial companion planned by Tyler. This does throw a spanner in the works but not necessarily a bad thing for Margot. Read on…

The movie is supposed to be a satire on the wealthy. The intended message is that, well, wealth corrupts (no shit). The people present during the dinner are pretentious, full of themselves, and in general, have had life easier than most. And that is their biggest crime, according to the movie, that they have had it easier, as depicted by the character of Aimee, who went to Brown and her education was funded by her parents. It is all difficult for a person who hasn’t had these privileges but not sure if the rich are to blame. The whole movie falls short in attaining the premise. What is the crime here? Being rich? Wanting to be rich? Wanting to be the best? Just wanting? There are multiple plot holes which cannot be explained by any amount of explanations, as explanation do not brick and mortar make. Even the climax which has been lauded for its unexpected and triumphant nature is unexpected because it doesn’t logically follow.

The movie is made almost flawlessly. That is, the performances, set design, dialogues, sound, character nuances, lighting, editing, etc is what is great. The only thing lacking is a script which has been worked on till it was sparkling. The audience member will find the movie understandably quite unsettling, as the experience for the clientele in the movie is supposed to be comforting and it is anything but. The problem is when plot holes are left in the core or climax of the movie, everything leading up to it feels false. Why was the 90 min storyline needed, if the 20 min conclusion was going to be cutting corners, you know? The primary emotion this movie left was confusion, like was it a good movie, or just a good execution, because the ending didn’t make sense. Don’t think The Menu will go down well in history.

Monica, O My Darling

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://www.bollywoodmdb.com/

Rating: 3 stars out of 5
Starring: Rajkumar Rao, Huma Qureshi, Radhika Apte, Sikander Kher, Sukant Goel, Akansha Ranjan Kapoor, Bagavathi Perumal,
Where to watch: Netflix
To watch or not to watch: A neo-noir movie which tries too hard and fails. Skip this one

Jayant (Rajkumar Rao) is a star robotics engineer at Unicorn Robotics, and is in a relationship with the owner’s daughter Nikki (Akansha Ranjan). He hails from a small town, intent on escaping it and lands at Pune. Now things are all looking up for him and he is as susceptible to ego as any human, and gets into a casual relationship with the secretary to his future father-in-law, Monica Machado (Huma Qureshi). She claims to be pregnant with his child and is blackmailing him. He is spooked, and rightly so, as it threatens his rise up the company. It turns out, she has been blackmailing other heterosexual male members of the company, namely Arvind Manivannan (Bagavathi Perumal) and Nishant Adhikari (Sikander Kher). The three of them hatch a plan to kill Monica and dispose of the body in a rather Strangers on a Train way. The case is handled by ACP Naidu (Radhika Apte). Needless to say, the plan goes awry and then there is confusion, anxiety and insecurity, which enhances the chaos.

The problem with any such movie (read: Netflix Originals and Bollywood) is that they try too hard. They have tried to do everything the great masters have done in their art, for example, there is quirkiness of Knives Out, confusion of Guy Ritchie’s Snatch, opening credit fonts of Quentin Tarantino (seriously, this has to be the biggest crime of this movie, touching something so holy), etc. The idea of the movie, which by the way, is taken from a Keigo Higashino book titled Burutasu No Shinzou (Heart of Brutus) (another blasphemy), is superb, and so are the performances. What else to expect from Rajkumar Rao, Huma Qureshi and Radhika Apte. But everything else just doesn’t reach the mark. The storyline is unnecessarily convoluted, with random flashbacks and parallels which do not add to the mystery, only serves as a distraction. There are multiple plot lines they tried to address, but couldn’t do justice to a single one. Radhika Apte as a sarcastic-comic police inspector adds no entertainment value, only succeeds in being a slight annoyance. Disappointing.

The movie gets aa few things right – Huma Qureshi’s femme fatale is no simpering mess in size 2, she is comfortable in her skin, slays in her character and succeeds in getting all men’s attention without trying too hard. Maybe this movie has rightly projected that it is not always the vampy females who manage to trap guileless men. It is the men who need to be better and not villainize females. It also shows Radhika Apte as a not-too-honest police inspector, something we don’t see, and don’t associate with females. Rajkumar Rao’s Jayant is thankfully not a toxic masculine person either, though is toxic in general. All these points, while good, do not a good movie make. A movie is an amalgamation of direction, story, screenplay, editing and acting. The other points defying convention only enhance it. And in this case, it was simply disappointing to waste so much good because some aspects did not put in the work required. Skip this one without regrets.

Run Sweetheart Run

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://www.heavenofhorror.com/

Rating: 3 stars out of 5
Starring: Ella Balinska, Pilou Asbæk
Where to watch: Amazon PrimeVideo
To watch or not to watch: A survival movie with an average amount of thrill along with a pinch of unsuspected supernatural. It is fine

Cherie (Ella Balinska) is a single mother to a daughter, works as a paralegal, studies part time to become a full-fledged lawyer. She has mistakenly double-booked her boss with a client and his anniversary dinner, and takes his place at the client meeting. She is part hopeful for the meeting to turn into something more, as she has been single a long tim, but carries pepper spray nonetheless. She meets Ethan (Pilou Asbæk), who is rich, considerate and says the right things, all of which is very refreshing for Cherie. What starts as a night of part hope, part skepticism, resulting in more hope than skepticism, ends up turning into horror and a chase for her, when Ethan attacks her after returning from dinner. She narrowly escapes his place and runs to cops who arrest her. Ethan posts her bail and gives her a headstart in the hunt he will pursue. Cherie explores all her options to survive and gives a tough fight.

This movie falls in the sub-genre called social horror (think Jordan Peele’s Get Out), only here the social issue is patriarchy. The problem with movies trying to address two things at once is balance, which is often difficult to strike. This problem exists in this movie as well. It starts as any horror movie, but the dialogues are discordant with what’s happening, like the flow of the movie is being forced in a certain direction only by dialogues. The whole chase sequence is pretty cool, and Ethan’s powers are revealed slowly and it is a good surprise, but mixing it with patriarchy was a bit much. Even the protagonist’s actions did not follow a pattern like it happens with a human in general. A lot of this made the thrill questionable. The second act of the movie was the one part which was great, really gory. But it is a very good execution as the actual violence is actually censored, happens off-screen and left to the imagination of the viewers.

The movie is pretty low-budget and it a testament to the director who has made it possible to remove the actual scares from the screen, and still made it possible to be thrilling. It has very small cast and next to no special effects. Other factor which carries the movie forward are the actors, specially Ella Balinska who managed to convey the pain, hurt, fear and strength through the acting alone. Pilou Asbæk is sufficiently hateful and creepy. The music is another positive aspect, complementing the movie in all the right ways. It is pop, lyrics are relevant to the concept and add to the movie where the story subtracts. Watch it for the average thrill, superb acting and vicarious response to patriarchy. It wouldn’t require too much popcorn though.

See How They Run

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://film-authority.com/

Rating: 4 stars out of 5
Starring: Sam Rockwell, Saoirse Ronan, Adrien Brody, Ruth Wilson
Where to watch: Disney+
To watch or not to watch: A comic whodunit which leaves the audience guessing till the end

It is the 100th performance of Mousetrap in London and during the celebratory party, Leo Köpernick (Adrian Brody) is murdered. He was a notorious drunk and had fluid moral values. He was also looking to direct the movie adaptation of the play. None of the people involved with the project, whether it be the play or the movie-in-the-works, really liked Leo, hence the suspect pool is quite big. The case is handed to a jaded, worn-out and alcoholic Inspector Stoppard (Sam Rockwell) and an eager, inexperienced and by-the-book Constable Stalker (Saoirse Ronan). After another person is murdered in the theatre during another Mousetrap screening, the whole situation gets a bit more urgent and serious, making the suspect pool more suspicious. Until it all comes to head Christie fashion.

This movie isn’t an aspirational movie, blazing trail for all the future whodunits to come, doesn’t take itself seriously and isn’t serious. What it is, is a fun movie to watch with a bit of nostalgia, served with a side of Christie-ness. The center stage doesn’t belong to the plot, but to the characters of Sam Rockwell and Saoirse Ronan. Also, to the subtle jokes pulled at the cost of the cliched British murder mysteries. It does feel a bit like a parody of those mysteries, slightly, just a little bit, but tasteful. It doesn’t lead the viewers to an off-path of romance or back stories. It is mentioned and woven in the plot (as in the case of Stoppard) or informed to enhance the character (as in the case of Stalker). The cliched characters are the bedrock on which the story and plot develops.

This movie is a comfort-watch. Everything is in plain-view and repeated watches will not enrich the experience, but it will be an enjoyable watch everytime. It is fun, quirky, perfect watch for a pick-me-up after a long and disappointing day at work.

Rosaline

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://www.imdb.com/

Rating: 3.5 stars out of 5
Starring: Kaitlyn Dever, Isabela Merced, Kyle Allen, Sean Teale, Minnie Driver, Bradley Whitford
Where to watch: Disney+
To watch or not to watch: A delightful retelling of the OG of romance makes for a nice, light-hearted watch

Rosaline (Kaitlyn Dever) and Romeo (Kyle Allen) are boyfriend and girlfriend, and Rosaline is absolutely smitten by the long, blonde haired hunk from the enemy camp. Her father, Adrian Capulet (Bradley Whitford) is attempting his best to arrange a marriage for his only daughter, and the daughter does everything to be as unsuitable a wife as possible. In one such arranged-marriage-date scenario, Rosaline is out on a boat with Dario (Sean Teale), is waylaid by a storm and is late in reaching the (famous) Capulet ball and a pre-arranged date with Romeo. Romeo’s excess of love is not to be hindered by the absence of his lady love, and remedies the situation by falling in love with Juliet (Isabela Merced), Rosaline’s cousin. Rosaline is understandably extremely pissed by this turn of events and now has a reason for intensely disliking Dario. She pursues multiple schemes to deter the couple, loses her moral fiber, sees the wrong of her ways, works to undo the damage and ensure the couple lives happily every after.

This is no 10 things I hate about you or She’s the Man. It is a refreshing retelling of the eponymous love story, which if viewed objectively is deeply flawed. Rosaline doesn’t make the wrongs right, it makes the wrong seem funny and well yes, rights some wrongs. The titular character is independent, intelligent, knows her mind, isn’t patriarchal but does stumble when it comes to non-platonic attraction – something to which a lot of females can relate. Then she has the normal human feelings of jealousy, rage and frustration when things don’t go her way, finally ending with the silver lining to it all when she finds the man who is a perfect match for her (spoiler alert – Romeo and Juliet aren’t too perfect for each other, by the way). It is joyful to see the other side of this mega love story, from the eyes of the jilted lover. It ties in with the character of the easily-swayed Romeo (though not publicised as such).

Rosaline is a movie carried on by female character, doesn’t take itself too seriously and you shouldn’t either. There is no Shakespearean English (comically explained as being difficult to follow in the movie) and no English accents either. It is quirky, female-empowering, and explores love more than first sight. And if taken the time to think about it, it can actually be deep. What Rosaline’s character ends up finding is someone who is at her side when she needs it, calls her antics for what they are and is not completely, totally, irrevocably in love with her, which is more sane and real. Kaitlyn Dever is a delight, she is channeling her persona from Last Man Standing, and it fits well in this movie. To praise Minnie Driver is stating the obvious, but she is a straight-shooter nurse to the impulsive Rosaline and it fits well with the over-all tone. The movie is surprisingly well written and made. It might surprise even the readers of this post as these movies typically are bad. This one is not. Do watch.

Bhoothkalam

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://www.manoramaonline.com/

Rating: 4 out of 5
Starring: Shane Nigam, Revathy, Saiju Kurup, James Eliya and Athira Patel
Streaming on: Sony Liv
To watch or not to watch: A good watch for people on the hunt for a thrilling movie

Asha (Revathy) and her son Vinu (Shane Nigam) live together with Asha’s mother in a house. They are financially hard-up, with Vinu not having a job since one and a half years after graduating, and Asha being a school teacher, not making enough. Vinu has taken to substance abuse and Asha suffers from clinical depression, which is aggravated by her mother’s passing. Slowly and steadily Vinu’s mental health starts declining and he becomes sleep deprived, easily startled, and aggressive. So his hearing sounds at night and seeing shadows is attributed to his addictions and is a counsellor is consulted. That is when the history of the house, incidents with the past tenants comes to fore and story takes shape.

The storyline is stupidly simple, in a good way. There is linearity in things unfolding and not much is said about what happened in the past in Asha’s and Vinu’s lives which has shaped them this way – it is only hinted at. And it is annoying. It neither helps nor can it be ignored, as it is fundamental to the relationship mother-son share, which is in-turn fundamental to the story. There are also false starts (Granny staring at Vinu when he is helping to put her to bed), loud music from out of no where, which dies the sudden death special to amorphous entities, with nothing to show for it. And also a love song in the background of Vinu’s and Priya’s date, when it has not shown to have any bearing on Vinu’s life – Priya just exists.
Now that that’s out of the way, we can come to why this movie is recommended. The movie shines in camera work, direction and ACTING, a bit of story too. The play of shadows and difference in views of Asha and Vinu are beautifully done, the viewer gets to be in the same room as them and understand the agitation, helplessness and frustration when they are not able to understand each other. The show-not-tell segue into the past of the house with the counselor investigating the truth is better done than in most movies, though far from perfect.

This movie wins on most points, specially since horror has been an under-performing genre in Indian cinema as a whole. The fact that Revathy stars in it, who is better known to the masses, helps bring this movie to the fore, and demography of cinema lovers is all the better for it. It is a simple movie, no gore, crazy made-up ghost or VFX, it is a plain haunted house horror. The last 17 minutes of the movie, shot in one bedroom and dining area really does justice to the almost one and a quarter hour spent before. Only wish the cinema can grow to understand movies can be made with without a romantic angle in the lead’s life and some more of the backbone story. And it is only being said because this movie was so so close to perfection. Highly recommended.