Tag: Movie review

A Complete Unknown

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://cineccentric.com/

Rating: 2 stars out of 5
Starring: Timothée Chalamet, Edward Norton, Elle Fanning, Monica Barbaro
Where to watch: In theatres
To watch or not to watch: It is a pretty meh biopic, has a starting but doesn’t have North Star so there is no end. The acting and music are good.

A young and broke Bob Dylan (Timothée Chalamet) arrives in New York City to meet his idol Woody Guthrie who is hospitalised. Woody is with his friend Pete Seeger (Edward Norton) and encourage Dylan to play a song, which impresses both older singers. Seeger takes Dylan under his wing, lets him stay at his house and in general introducing Dylan to the larger music scene. That is where Dylan meets Joan Baez (Monica Barbaro), where they have a situationship form of the xx-ship, and Dylan also meets Sylvie Russo (Elle Fanning) and gets serious with her. Slowly and steadily Dylan moves up until he is recognised when he is out and about, people gather to listen to him at Newport Folk Festival, which saddens Sylvie for some reason and she breaks with him, only to get back together with him because he has charm (?). Anyway, this goes on, Dylan finds his music evolving into non-folk, gaining more fame, slightly alienating people sometimes, until he performs what he wants to at the Newport Folk Festival, where is booed by half the crowd and the other half is grooving, so it’s a good thing (?, Maybe?).

It is all very confusing. What was the point of the movie? To show that he was a narcissistic prick who had oodles of songwriting and singing talent? One who wanted people to like him, at the same time “leave him be” but love him still, without him doing any work? To trigger people who have been a victim of such narcissists?
There is a lot this movie could have done, but does absolutely nothing. First of all, the movie should have been termed a musical, without the dancing. Also without a story. It has many starting points – his relationship with Sylvie which must have affected her negatively, his personal and professional relationship with Joan and their rivalry-affair, what made women fall at his feet, what drew people like Seeger to root for him, and getting only indifference in return. What it does instead is to cut these scenes right before any explanation is coming forth, without any information on the timelines. Are we to fill all the details through imagination? Even an oyster needs a seed to weave a pearl.

This movie is full of flaws and will definitely not go down in history well. But… The performances!!! Oh Malone! The performances! It is difficult to say where Bob Dylan ended and Timothée began. He embodied the singer so completely that it dislike for the character was passed from it to him seamlessly. And who knew he could sing!? (Or, maybe Bob Dylan was not a good singer? It is so liberating and easy to say stuff like this when the blog doesn’t get views). Monica Barbaros was a literal angel in front of the mic! It was easily the best sound in the whole movie. And for the first time in a long time, Edward Norton didn’t look bored playing a character. Too bad it was for a movie which lacked a soul. Miss this one.

Strange Darling

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

Rating: 4 stars out of 5
Starring: Willa Fitzgerald, Kyle Gallner
Where to watch: Jio Cinema/Peacock Network and Prime Video
To watch or not to watch: This non-linear, largely two-hander is using your conscious mind and societal standards in the best way possible to give this fun ride of a movie

The movie opens with Willa Fitzgerald’s character named Lady running away in a car from Kyle Gallner’s character (Demon) who is snorting coke and loading a gun to shoot at Lady. They both met through a dating app and decide to hook up and things turn for the bad. What follows is a chase littered with cold-blooded murders, car chases, makeshift bandages for gaping wounds, and basically a short sprint for survival (the movie covers barely 2 days).

This movie has the shortest summary in the history of this website till now. And that is because the real meat of the movie is revealed in the first few minutes of the movie, and any description beyond that would be a buzzkill. But still this movie works and the reason is the non-linear storytelling style employed here. The whole movie is divided into chapters and the opening chapter sets the tone of the movie while some of the following chapters are shocking and thrilling. It is true that the non-linear storytelling is a cop-out making an otherwise bland, run-of-the-mill story into something more than what it is, simply by jumbling the parts that make it a whole. But this movie, and by extension the director, is aware of it. The parts are labelled as chapters and are revealed in piecemeal basis the emotion that needs to be extracted from the viewer. It is this awareness which subconsciously sets the expectation from the movie, and the movie rises to meet it.

Finally Kyle Gallner gets some of the recognition he deserves. He was brilliant in The Haunting in Connecticut, which happens to be one of the best horror movies (Rotten Tomates and IMdB disagree), and he is perfection in this one. This movie also does something which is turning to be commonplace and that is subverting the genre (anymore said on this will be a spoiler). It is not not done before, nonetheless, it is being done quite refreshingly here. There are multiple (intentional or unintentional) instances which have a deeper meaning to the scene and it is fun to rewatch and learn more about it. All in all, time well spent. Highly recommended.

Nosferatu

Published on by cinemadilemma1 Comment
https://www.imdb.com/title/

Rating: 4 stars out of 5
Starring: Lily-Rose Depp, Nicholas Hoult, Bill Skarsgård, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, William Dafoe
Where to watch: Playing in theatres
To watch or not to watch: A fitting and honest tribute to the 1922 movie and 1897 book Bram Stoker’s Dracula. But it is not for everyone

It is 1830s and Elle (Lily-Rose Depp) is widowed at a very young age and is terribly lonely. To alleviate the loneliness, she makes a deal with the devil, and in this case Count Dracula, and pledges herself to him eternally. But time passes, she gets married to Thomas Hutter (Nicholas Hoult) and they are quite happy together in Wisburg, though rather poor. Hutter gets a quite lucrative job at a real estate agent, and the first order of business is to deliver the documents of a castle to Count Orlok (Bill Skarsgård) in Transylvania, leaving Ellen with his friend Friedrich (Aaron Taylor-Johnson). He finds the menacing presence of Count uncomfortable and tries to escape, but he keeps falling more and more sick (because the Count is feeding on him). Thomas ultimately escapes the castle and is nursed back to health by nuns living in an orthodox convent, meanwhile Orlok travels to Wisburg in a ship to be with Ellen. On meeting Ellen, he gives an ultimatum that he will kill everyone in Wisburg in three days if she refuses to be with him, and he has already killed half the population by spreading plague. They manage to find an ostracised scientist named Von Franz (William Dafoe) who believes in occult and has more answers than they have managed to find with conventional medicine, and they can actually win against the devil.

This movie is not for everyone – the dialogue is not in the linear, conventional English we know and use, but rather poetic, true to the time in which the movie is based. There are also a lot of dream sequences as Dracula visits Ellen in dreams for more than half the movie, which is interspersed with the real life having the same characters. The movie is grey-green-blue toned, whenever it is not out and out black-and-white. Despite all this (and maybe because of this), it is a masterpiece! Can this type of movie be scary, in the true sense of horror that we have come to expect? Not really, no. The story is well-known (adaption of a 1922 movie of the same name which in turn was adaption of Bram Stoker’s book titled Dracula) so it is not a surprise element which can work in this case. What can work is the portrayal of the story, the ability to elicit the emotions different from what has been done and maybe give a different perspective. And this movie delivers! Thanks to (in no small measure) Bill Skarsgård’s portrayal. He has the ability to go beyond himself and totally into the character where it becomes difficult to ascertain if he is even there or is it wholly the devil. This performance is closely followed by Hoult’s as a naive husband (who is so ripped, by the way) looking at his wife getting sicker and in a twisted way more pleasure from Orlok than him. Depp on the other hand, is a one-dimensional figure who is unfortunately central to the movie and sticks like a sore thumb. She lacks the range which a character like Ellen requires, and most of the sympathy falls to every other character, which doesn’t really tie with the story.

This movie is divisive and it takes no stretch of imagination to understand the other side of the opinion than the one listed above. It is only a matter of focus – focus on the colour scheme, the on-the-nose size and accent of Orlok, confusing dream sequences mixed with real life, and the weird English, and you won’t like this movie one bit, even move out halfway. But keep in mind that this is a nod to the 1922 movie, keeps true to to the book and is not necessarily reinventing the wheel, and you will see the charm and what it brings to the table. At the time of this post, the Google review is 3.0 whereas some of the movies reviewed on this site and have received 2 stars have received 4 stars and above. Eggers in general has been divisive. While The Vvitch is often lauded as one of the best horror movies of this generation, it lacks any definitive storyline, open so much to the interpretation that without the requisite mindset, it will fail to register with 90% of the audience. Keep an open mind with this one and you will definitely enjoy 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

Immaculate

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

Rating: 2 stars out of 5
Starring: Sydney Sweeney, Álvaro Morte, Simona Tabasco, Dora Romano
Where to watch: Amazon Prime Video
To watch or not to watch: No, for the love of God, no

The opening foreshadowing shot shows a nun sneaking out from a convent in the middle of the night, and running away from that place, only to be caught by a group of nuns at the gates and her legs broken.
Cut to: Sister Cecilia (Sydney Sweeney) is a novice who has moved to a convent in Italy from a small town in The USA at the behest of Father Tedeschi (Álvaro Morte). Her belief in Christianity began at a young age when she was rescued from a frozen lake and died for 7 minutes. This rescue was understandably covered in news and got a bit of virality. And her faith and fate sealed for Christianity. At the convent, she goes about her life normally, making friends and trying to do good, but she also has glimpses of something sinister going on, and it involves the higher-ups (because, of course).

Have you seen Rosemary’s Baby? Yes? Then you have watched this film. Goodbye and good night.
If you haven’t, then watch that rather than this. This movie is the rehashing of same old faith vs fanaticism, where good Christian women are used and abused, and for some reason virginity and purity are equated and highly revered. While this genre of movies is supposed to use the concept of objectification of women as a source of horror, they at the same time unironically do the same thing. In this case for example, Sydney Sweeney regularly received comments about her good looks, is shown bathing with the fellow nuns, etc. “You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become a villain”.
If that was not enough, they have eerie shadows, abruptly cut scenes, and mockery of science (which is the biggest sin of all). Can we please collectively as a society decide we don’t want to weaponise nor demonise religion anymore? Thank you.

The only reason this movie is not a hot pile of stinking garbage is the lead, Sydney Sweeney. She has single-handedly carried the story, to the point where it became apparent she was trying antics to fill the spaces. There are too many scenes filled with screams, needless to say, unwarranted. She was carrying on the movie so she was over-doing things. Sad but forgivable. There is nothing particularly horrifying in this movie, and nothing we haven’t seen before. It takes a different path from Rosemary’s Baby but it is not impactful enough that it redeems itself, because by that time we have waded through a lot of scene-there-heard-that. Its 1.5 hour runtime feels at least twice as long, and it is no wonder it has a current rating of 2.9 on Google and that tells you everything you need to know. Don’t listen to anyone who says it is good, because it is not. Don’t bother.

Why The Autopsy of Jane Doe Is Good and How It Could Have Been Saved

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

Rating: 3.5 stars out of 5
Starring: Brian Cox, Emile Hirsch, Olwen Catherine Kelly
Where to watch: Lionsgate Play
To watch or not to watch: It is a new concept and well done. Though it has its failings, it is worth checking out

Tommy (Brian Cox) and Austin Tilden (Emile Hirsch) are a father-son duo who own an operate a morgue and crematorium in a small town. The place has been with the family for generations but Austin doesn’t feel comfortable working with the dead all day long and is looking for a way out. One day, the town’s sheriff comes to their workplace rather late with a dead body of an unidentified female in her early 20s. She was found in a home where there were multiple homicides and bodies buried in the backyard. Hers was the only body they could not account for, she had no clothes on and no identification. As the father-son start working on the body, they find many inconsistencies – her blood flows from her body even though she is dead, her fingernails have peat under them which has not been found in that part of the country for centuries, her joints are broken but there are no external injuries, her lungs are scarred, but again no external injuries. In fact, they couldn’t account for any of her conditions without going beyond the obvious. They do continue the work despite the difficulties for humanity’s sake, only to find that maybe humanity is not always a virtue.

The concept of the movie is very fresh. It is also a masterclass in making a naked female in full view non-sexual! It is sometimes shocking to realise that there is a naked female on the table (an actual table) and there is no focus on sexuality. Kudos to the team for this.
The horror of the movie comes in slow waves, till it crescendos and ends – it starts with the disconnected finds on the Jane Does eternal body and really takes off when the autopsy reaches her internal body, where they find scar tissue on her lungs, completely blacked out lungs, flower of dathura (a hallucinogen) wrapped in a scribbled cloth, her tooth etc. It is jarring and the audience is left wondering about her life. The movie is also largely a two-parter shot mostly in a claustrophobic environment of the autopsy room. It adds to the creepiness and makes for an uncomfortable watch. In a good way.
There are still problems with it, and that’s unfortunate. The movie is filled with jump scares. For an idea which is this elevated, the jump scares are a cheap ploy (they are a cheap ploy nonetheless). There are some unexplained points, like what really could have happened to her, what is the end goal, what are her powers, and all. That would have made the movie stay on the subject matter. There is also this unnecessary short story of Austin’s love life, which takes about 10 minutes and add absolutely 0 to the movie.

There is something wrong with the people who make horror movies (excluding Peele, Ari Aster, A24 productions, and all). Or the genre might be difficult to execute, people who are in the business would be better equipped to comment on this. Given the tripe we have been served, the latter might be true. It is easy to fall into the trap of crescendo music which culminates abruptly, dark corners with a hint of something lurking behind it. The one movie which plays with shadows well would be Hereditary aided a million times by the perfect acting by Toni Collette. The fact that someone has taken a great concept of an alleged witch semi-dead wielding her powers, and made a lukewarm movie off it, is sad and disappointing. Maybe somewhere down the line someone decides to revive this movie with a remake and does it right. Also, can we please pick good concept movies executed badly and make them better? And not do the vice versa? Thanks.

Kill Boksoon

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://decider.com/

Rating: 4 stars out of 5
Starring: Jeon Do-yeon, Esom, Sol Kyung-gu, Koo Kyo-hwan, Kim si-a
Where to watch: Netflix
To watch or not to watch: A highly recommended watch for all the action lovers and thrill seekers

Gill Boksoon (Jeon Do-yeon) has been rechristened Kill Boksoon by her peers, as she has the most and the best kills within the contract killer agency, MK Entertainment. She is a single mother who participates in PTA, has lunches with other mothers, drives a G-wagon, can also drive a beat-up van to a secluded spot to fight to death against a Yakuza. She has a clairvoyance-like ability to sense the victim’s next possible move, clout within the contract killer community, respect of fellow PTA mothers, a ton of money as evidenced by the high ceiling flat, the ultra premium school she is sending her daughter to, and a boss who is slightly in love with her. What she doesn’t have is a close relationship with her daughter, which she desperately wants, even though she is a “cool mom” and has kept her personal and professional life totally separate. Now, as in any good story, comes a conflict which challenges this precarious balance. Her agency has asked her to kill a minor, something that is not aligned with her principles. This gets the ire of her boss, fueled and fanned by his jealous sister (Esom), a betrayal by her booty call, and a run for her life. All this culminates in one of the most visually appealing and well choreographed fight scenes.

The movie does well what it sets out to do – give a thrilling and chilling action movie with right emotions dotted along the way in the relationships between Boksoon, her boss, her daughter and the boss’ twisted sister. It is centered around the titular character Boksoon. All the other things are mere decors. It doesn’t pull punches when describing Boksoon’s life, but even better is that it doesn’t overdo it either (of which a lot of Korean action movies I have seen are guilty). Boksoon is flawed, she doesn’t always treat people well, her position in her work community has led to conceit, not to mention what she does for a living. But in conjunction with this is also her irresolute principles even within the contract killing, her motherhood, which is reflected in the guidance she gives to the trainee under her and the way she handles the problems her daughter faces in her school. And, as already mentioned, the choreography and direction of the action sequences make up for all the other flaws which the movie has.

Why do we watch movies? To get entertained, to be taken on an emotional roller-coaster, to see experiences we may or may not have experiences ourselves depicted through other people. This one is surely entertaining, and that should be enough to make for the reason to watch it. It also does one thing which is commendable – it portrays, single-motherhood and unconventional relationships which come along with it as part of course. It is much needed to normalise this also-reality, specially coming from Korean cinema which is has been rather binary in this (Oldboy, Handmaiden vs K-dramas). It is a small step in the right direction.

All this rant just to say that it is a good movie to watch after a tiring day, just to get that adrenaline pumping, the heart beating and to feel good. Watch it with popcorn for sure.

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.