Kalakalappu @ Masala Cafe

My review : Kalakalappu @ Masala Cafe

Regression is returning to an earlier phase of development or functioning to avoid the conflicts and tensions associated with one's present level of development. After string of flops as an actor , Sunder.C has tried to go back to what he used to do with a better flair & success , direction but sadly he has regressed to his old “Ullathai Allitha” days. Not only he has regressed to his heydays, anyone who has to watch this movie & enjoy should themselves regress to their pre-school age for them to make any sense of the happening of this movie. Juvenile is the term that aptly describes “Kalakalapu @ Masala Cafe”.

The initial title reels with its old fashioned background score prime the viewers the tedious journey that they are about to embark. Nowadays college students do a better job when it comes to intelligent yet witty humour for their college culturals. Sunder.c who actually did a decent job in his last year directorial venture “Nagaram” which had an engrossing story with good humour from Vadivelu to boost , has done a below par job in writing as well direction. Movie is very tacky both technically as well as making.

One wonder who are the target audience for such an infantile effort for even toddlers of the present age are intelligent enough to notice the puerility of the movie. Sunder.C is a better writer & director than this. Except for couple of scenes involving Santhanam , rest of the movie makes one irritable forget about anything remotely close to being humorous.

Vimal with his monotonous dialogue delivery tests one’s patience with his irritatingly naive characterisation. Shiva doesn’t tickle the funny bones except for one or two timing dialogues. Anjali is loud while Oviya has nothing much to do. Others in the cast Ilavarasu , John Vijay , Subbu ,Manobala are all typecast in hackneyed roles. As said earlier Santhanam does spruce up the proceedings in the second half a bit but the fun is too brief to rave about.

Vijay Ebenezer’s music is nothing to write about while U.K.SenthilKumar’s cinematography is old fashioned. Praveen-Srikanth have tried comic effects in their editing which are interesting to start with but after a point one think it might have a bit overdone.

On the whole, Sunder.C’s return to direction is a move in good direction but he should update himself of the intelligence & the expectations of the current crop of movie goers before he starts his next venture for this one is bad example of a comedy movie.

Bottomline : infantile

2/5

Vazhakku En 18/9

“Vazhakku en 18/9” is a tight slap on the moral values of the present-day society where money, power, treachery & voyeurism rules the roost. There is no place for truth, honesty , love or innocence. Balaji Sakthivel’s third movie after his brilliant “Kadhal” & high-quality “Kaloori” , “Vazhakku en 18/9” is a gem among all the neo-realistic movies that grace Tamil cinema these days. The effortless ease with which Balaji is able to engage in the social commentary in each of his movies is staggering.

 Balaji , known for the raw emotions that he is able to bring in to the narration , does it one more time. The tension, the pain, the anguish, the anger..... are some of the emotions which every one of us who watch the movie will surely go through the last half an hour of it. Though justice delivered partially, when the viewers vacate the theatre they do so with heavy heart. It does bring in shame, sorrow, and guilt in most of us who introspect on the state of the society we are part of & contribute to.

 The narration is effortless in an uncomplicated flashback mode , easy to follow. Balaji has kept it as straightforward as possible. The dialogues are simple yet at the same time hard-hitting at appropriate places. He has the knack for casting unknown people in suitable roles who end up etched in one’s memory for a long time. Here Chinnasamy as Chinnasamy & Muthuraman as Inspector are those memorable ones and both these actors have done a tremendous work.

 All the four in the lead Sri, Manisha yadav ,Urmila Mahantha & Mithun Murali have done promising work. Sri is brilliant as the innocent Velusamy who stays innocent throughout the movie (not like your routine innocent hero who turns gutsy & vigilante all of a sudden in the climax). Manisha Yadav as a naive middle class girl who falls for the temptations of the contemporary societal peer-culture is good with all her emotions & lip-sync. Urmila Mahantha’s eye are so expressive they do all the acting . She hardly gets to mouth 3 or 4 lines in the whole movie but her emotive eyes do the rest. Mithun as a cool & suave spoilt rich kid who effortlessly changes his emotions like a chameleon is another promising find.

 All the other supporting cast , be it the boss of Velu or the Rosy akka or the one who does the mother’s role of Jothi , have done a tremendous job.

 R.Prasanna’s background score is adequate, supports the narration to some extent. But movie of this stature do deserves a better background score.

 Vijay Milton’s captures director’s vision onto the screen in a simple yet striking manner. Movie is crisp, runs for under two hours.

Though couple scenes do drag a bit & in couple of instances amateurishness rears its head, overall “Vazhakku En 18/9” is a brilliant piece of work. One of the best movie in recent times, it deserves more than a solitary watch & all the encouragement possible. One can be proud that movies like these do get made in Tamil now & then.

 Bottomline : Outstanding

 4.5/5

Oru Kal Oru Kannadi

Unlike his two previous movies “Siva Manasula Sakthi” (SMS) & “Boss engira Baskaran” (BES), M.Rajesh’s latest flick “Oru Kal Oru Kannadi” (OKOK) lacks a gripping screenplay. SMS had Jeeva & BEB had Arya who did their parts hilariously as well as Shanthanam but here the lead actor in Udayanithi Stalin is too weak to carry a movie on his shoulder. As a result even though Shanthanam manages his level best in keeping the ship from sinking, the ride is not as enjoyable as the two previous ones from the same director.

Except for the scenes in which Shanthanam cracks his , what has now become his forte , typical oneliners which reels of sarcasm & humour , rest of the movie is arduous to sit through. Wonder when these directors move on from stories which depict the youngsters’ lives as being focussed on one point mission of chasing & getting a good looking girl. To see the same thing getting repeated for around 3 hours time does tests one’s patience.

There are many instances of Rajesh brand of humour rearing its head above the overall patchiness. The first time flight & the English to Tamil translation scenes are two scenes in particular which are damn hilarious & worthy of mention.

Udhayanithi has a very poor screen presence & his acting is amateurish. He comes throughout the movie with a single expression & monotonous voice. Hanshika gives a stiff competition to Udhay in the pursuit of mediocrity.

Shanthanam is the only reason why the movie is tolerable to an extent. Whenever one gets annoyed with the happenings , he comes out with his hilarious ones , cheering up the sagging morale of the viewer. He has tried lots of funny changes in his modulations & dialogue delivery which have worked wonders. That English to Tamil translation scene in the climax is a testimony to that factu..!

The cameos by Arya, Sneha & Andrea falls flat. Saranya , AlagamPerumal & Sayaji Shinde does what they usually do .

Balasubramanyam’s cinematography is Good. Harris Jeyaraj’s Background score is tacky while”"Kadhal Oru Butterfly," “Akila Aklia”and "Venaam Machan “ are good songs in his music.

On the whole, “OKOK” is a pretty average movie with boring story , dragging screenplay & terrible acting which just about manages to stay afloat all because of that one man, Shanthanam.

Bottomline : One man show

2.5/5

3

My review : 3



“3” is nothing but a couple’s attempt at feeding the narcissism of the husband, here by couple I meant Dhanush & Aishwarya Dhanush. That they have taken recourse to their half-backed knowledge of Psychiatry is despicable. It is stupid & irresponsible on the part of the makers indulging in such appalling disservice to Mental health system by time & again portraying Psychiatric illness in poor light & thus perpetuating stigma. Trying to demonize a disorder like Bipolar Affective Disorder which is one of those disorders which has a very good prognosis is disgraceful.

It is a wannabe Selvaraghavan movie. Right from the first frame till the last there is semblance of all Selvarghavan movies minus the emotional connectivity which used to be so effortlessly generated in his movies. Actor Dhanush is a talented actor accepted but for him to turn so narcissistic so early in his career is bit off-putting. Whole second half is contrived & forced in to let Dhanush play out his self-indulgence & vanity. However good an actor may be , scope for acting should flow into the narrative for the viewers to get connected with his acting. If scenes are written with a preconceived idea of flaunting the acting prowess of the actor than it would only get repulsive to the viewers which exactly the case here.

It is a wannabe “different ” movie. The makers seem to have ventured into the movie with idea of making a “different” movie & hence tried to manipulate with the script to include many trivial “novelties” which they thought would make the movie look “different”. What justification does the screenplay has for the lead pair getting married in a discotheque?

Movie is replete with logical ambiguities. That the wife doesn’t have any clue about the mental illness that her husband is suffering from inspite of living together is not only laughable but downright specious.

What hinders makers in doing basic homework of the subject taken before starting a project. With their inadequate knowledge when they handle such sensitive subjects they do more harm than good. With all those factual inaccuracies & fallacies they have made Bipolar Affective Disorder (here they have tried to portray the most rarest of rare type “Ultra ultra rapid cycling BPAD” ) to look one of the most dangerous mental illness one would have & it is better to end one’s life rather than getting treated with numerous options available & lead a normal life as any other. Stigma is a very difficult challenge to circumvent but irresponsible people like these by making such hedonistic movies are only going to propagate it.

Dhanush has tried to showcase what all he can for no reason at all. Shruthihassan is wasted in unidimentional role in which glycerine has more work to do than herself. Sunder continues from where he left in “Mayakkam Enna” while Siva tries to ape Shanthanam. Parts between Prabhu & Dhanush are interesting. Bhanupriya has nothing much to do while Rohini lacks subtlety.

Velraj’s Cinematography is good. All songs in the movie are excellent. Music is by Anirudh. He has done well in background score as well. Pity that such wonderful compositions are wasted by poor picturization. It is true that even most experienced of directors get jittery when they have to picturize such lovely songs , so nothing much can be expected from a novice like Aishwarya. That “Why this kolaveri di” which gets greeted with thunderous applause but the theatre plunges into pin-drop silence just after a few seconds into the song gives a clue about banal picturization of the song.

There are a few bright spots here & there. The visualization of auditory hallucination is brilliant .

On the whole, “3” is artificial , factually inaccurate , irresponsible , loud & futile attempt.

Bottomline : Why this Kolaveri D(hanush)

2/5

VENGAYAM

My review : Vengayam



“Vengayam” , as the name hints , deals with superstitions especially how people’s lives get altered irreparably due to unscrupulous astrologist’s irresponsible predictions. Though the movie is shot amateurishly & acting of the cast leaves a lot to be desired , still it makes an engaging viewing. Sankagiri Rajkumar who has written & directed the movie deserves all the accolades for the hard-hitting writing which elevates the movie inspite of all its mediocrities. There are very few movie nowadays which make the viewers to think & introspect , that Rajkumar has managed to make the viewers do it is a great achievement in itself.

Screenplay is engaging & keeps the viewers glued to their seats. No point in time that one feels bored which the function of the crisp & appealing storyline & neatly woven script. We have not come across such a bold , hard-hitting movie so far in Tamil. Usually those who venture into such a theme include certain elements which they justify as for commercial considerations & the rest mellow down their script so much that the movie would not have made any impact whatsoever. “Vengayam ” is oblivious of both & remains honest to what it venture out to convey without watering down of any sorts.

Dialogues are the yet another pillar of strength to the movie. They are hard-hitting, meaningful , rationalistic & makes a lot of sense. Having used to Madurai , Thirunelveli , Chennai & Coimbatore Tamil all these days in movies , it is refreshing to hear Salem Tamil for the first time (as far I have known) in a Tamil movie. As someone from Salem , I can identify with the diction & the idiosyncrasies of the language which somehow makes the viewing special for me bringing in the nostalgic memories of my childhood when our summers were spent in our villages.

As far as acting is concerned it is amateurish to put it mildly .At the same time one has to appreciate the guts of the director for he has used only people from his native soil none of whom seem to have any sort of background or knowledge of cinema or acting. Considering their limitations I think they have put in their maximum efforts. Both Alexander & Pavina, the lead pair have adequate screen presence & have done their parts professionally.

The making of the movie is good if one take into consideration the constraints of budget the makers seem to have come across. Bharani’s background score is good at many places with amateurishness raising its head here & there. “Ara Kirukan” is a very good melody number while “Achamenna achamenna” is a foot-tapping number with meaningful & insightful lyrics from Suba Veerapandiayan.

On the whole , “Vengayam” may be a meal served in an earthen plate in a thatched house made by a amatuer cook , but the meal is tasty & healthy all the same.

Bottomline : Food for thought

3/5

The Vow

My review: The Vow



What if the love of one’s life wakes up one fine day having forgotten everything about the one she has loved day in day out & behaves totally like a stranger? How hurtful it would be to the other person who has loved her more than anything else in this world & has no one except her as his family? This is the crux of what “The Vow ” is all about. With a material like this one would have liked the makers to have made a movie which should have been an emotional roller-coaster. But sadly something seem to be missing as a result the movie doesn’t stir the emotions of the viewers.

“The Vow ” does have its moments but they are drowned under the larger mendaciousness which is an offshoot of derivative writing & not so great direction. Movie comes out a collage of events that we have seen in many movie of this genre & theme , especially clichéd things like a adulterous & conniving father of the amnesiac , protagonist who is a romantic old world guy married to a rich girl who has moved out of family to pursue her interest & independence , typical family dinner in which the poor struggling protagonist is ridiculed by the rich family members of his wife, the girl’s ex-fiancé who tries to take advantage of the amnesia that she is currently affected from.....and it goes on and on.

What makes this movie work inspite of all those clichés is the wonderful acting by the lead , Channing Tatum & Rachel McAdams . Channing Tatum, who for the first time being presented with scope to showcase his acting skills , has untilled the opportunity well. As a lover happily married to the love of his life suddenly finding out she has forgotten everything about those romantic as well the married days after an accident & trying to get back his love one more time, Channing scores. Be it romance, frustration, expectation , disappointment , anger, despair ,Channing carries the movie on his shoulder supported amply by Rachel McAdams. Rachel does her job very well as a person torn between her past & the missing link in the present.

Michael Brook & Rachel Portman have scored the background music which carry forward the narration & tries to instil in the emotions which the writing and the direction fails to do.

Roger Stoffer’s cinematography is good & special mention has to be made of the accident scene, wonderfully shot.

Michael Sucsy has directed the movie written by him along with Abby Kohn & Marc Silverstein which is inspired by the book “The Vow” written by Kim Carpenter based on his own life & how he managed to win back his wife who totally forgotten everything about him.

On the whole, “The Vow” could have been one of the best romantic movies of the year considering the scope it had with the basic premise of the movie, but in the end due to formulaic writing & direction it ends up as a very average movie, one time watch.

Bottomline : Missed opportunity

2.5/5

A Dangerous Method

My review : A Dangerous Method



“A Dangerous Method” based on the play “The Talking Cure” which in turn is adapted from the book “A Most Dangerous Method: The story of Jung, Freud, and Sabina Spielrein” by John Kerr deals with episodes that led to the intertwining of the lives of Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung & Sabina Speilrein during the days when Psychoanalysis was still in its infancy. Directed by David Cronenberg , the adapted screenplay is by Christopher Hampton.

Movie traces how Jung got into contact with Freud by means his patient Sabina Spielrein who ironically is also the reason for the frictions to develop between them later on. It also shows how Psychoanalysis got into prominence & how the most dreaded consequence of Psychotherapy , Transference and Counter-transference developed between Jung & Sabina , how it affected their professional lives. Finally it also give us glimpses of how Freud & Jung developed professional divergence after initial conformity which affected Freud deeply for he has thought of Jung has his successor in carrying forward his theories of Classical Psychoanalysis & his theories of Sexuality as the basis for all neurosis.

Though the movie is educative , it doesn’t come across with a documentary feel to it. It has all the elements of an engaging emotional drama with some sparkling chemistry between Keira Knightly & Michael Fassbender (Sabina & Jung respectively) and Viggo Mortensen & Michael Fassbender (Freud & Jung). Especially the manner in which the director is able to create the viewer feel the sexual tension that is developing between Sabina & Jung is amazing. Also the palpable friction that develops between Freud & Jung is enacted well.

Part of the appreciation should go to the cast. Michael Fassbender is the star of the movie , not to be overshadowed by Keira , he is able to stand his ground & comes out with flying colours. As the introverted Jung , who tries initially to repress the sexual drive he has towards his patient but finally giving into it and also a devoted disciple of Freud who gets into conflict with himself unable to stand up to him when he starts to have difference of opinion , Michael has excelled in his portrayal.

Keira Knightly is reliable as ever. Initially as a psychotic patient troubled by all those delusions & hallucinations, later as a seductress having developed transference towards her therapist, then turning sinister and cold when she feels cheated by her lover & finally as one of the earliest female Psychoanalyst , Kiera is able to bring about various shades of Sabina in her portrayal with conviction.

The last but not the least Viggo Mortensen as Sigmund Freud is excellent. Vincent Cassel as Otto Gross is also convincing.

Peter Suschitzky’s cinematography & Howard Shore’s background score supports the narration to a great deal.

On the whole , “A Dangerous Method” is an interesting watch not only for those who are into Psychology but also general audience as well. It is fascinating to have a peek at the personal lives of these doyens of Psychiatry, their strengths & vulnerabilities , loyalty & betrayal , devotion & differences .

Bottomline : Informative yet entertaining

3.5/5