Tokuzo Tanaka's The Betrayal could almost be a prequel to Kihachi Okamoto's Sword of Doom, in that it shows how a loyal Samurai becomes disillusioned with the traditional honor code and could eventually turn to amorality. Raizo Ichikawa, who I mainly know from the Shinobi no Mono movie series, is the honorable and skilled warrior forced by his clan senior (and father of his fiancee) to take the blame for the back-stabbing murder of a rival clan member in order to save the home clan's face. Ichikawa does so on the promise of the matter being resolved in a few months, only to find that the old man has died in the interim and there is no one that can vouch for his innocence (although I don't know why his fiancee - Kaoru Yachigusa from Hiroshi Inagaki's Samurai trilogy - who is a witness to this conversation, cannot vouch for his innocence, especially after her father is dead).
Ichikawa becomes an outcast, hunted by both the rival clan and his own clan. He disclaims Samurai honor as meaningless, although his conscience still pushes him towards a personal ethical code. He has multiple encounters with the various clan members in which his skills help him to escape. In the end he is surrounded by a literal army of enemies - his own clan, the rival clan and people interested in the bounty for his head. It is a scene of highly exaggerated combat: Ichikawa slays more than a hundred foes coming at him with swords, lances, ladders, ropes, handcarts. Even his enemy is forced to admit that with such skill and valor, he could not have been the backstabber, but for the sake of clan honor he must slay him.
For all the action, The Betrayal is primarily a melodrama, and it does lay it on a bit thick. Like I said, I am not sure why the fiancee character could not clarify matters to her clan (it would be another matter if she did not know). But the film is shot with style (Japanese film expert Tom Mes' selected scene commentary nicely dissects the visual choices Tanaka makes) and subverts some expectations - a thief character who attaches himself to Ichikawa sees his ethical behavior, but does not flinch from betraying him later. The climactic fight is a doozy, although a lot of the time the enemy pretty much fall on to Ichikawa's sword while making the most inept stabs at him (There is no way he could have overcome those odds if they had shown the slightest competence). The film ends on an ambiguous note where we don't know if Ichikawa's character will be left alone or further pursued by his enemies. Who knows, may be he could end up as the amoral character Tatsuya Nakadai played in Sword of Doom.
Radiance's blu gives a fine presentation of the B&W widescreen feature, with solid grayscale and contrast. The audio is a mixed bag, with significant distortion in the upper registers, especially noticeable during Akira Ikufube's excellent score. Extras include the aforementioned selected scene commentary, a visual essay by Mes where he discusses Tozuki Tanaka's style (I feel he extrapolates a bit too much here about the thematic elements), and a nice comparison by Philip Kemp of The Betrayal to a silent-era movie of which it is said to be a remake. The booklet in the limited edition contains a scholdarly essay by Alain Silver.
I'll cut straight to the chase. It's not since Ong-Bak that a film has so wowed me with its (ha!) furious action. I have seen reviews comparing this movie with The Raid and The Night Comes for Us. The latter I remember seeing some of on Netflix, but after a point I just switched off because it seemed to me just full of sadism and mean-spiritedness posing as entertainment. The Raid comparison is more appropriate, especially since a major action sequence is when an army of thugs enters a multi-story building our heroes are trapped in, and they have to fight their way through. But The Raid itself was butt-ugly, shot on a Handycam level camera with no thought for lighting and contrast.
If we say that The Furious is defined by its action, then to me it owes more to the classic Hong Kong martial arts crime movies than anything else. While brutal, the action is also extremely balletic; 'beat' poetry at its finest (apologies, Mr. Ginsberg). In The Furious' world, duels are rare. Most fights are threesomes, foursomes, in general multi-somes. The bodies of combatants in flow are pressed together like a sandwich, twisted into a pretzel, piled up in a meat pyramid.
Director Tanigaki knows how to film his action sequences well - eschewing the frequent modern tendency for rapid cutting, he favors long takes in which we can appreciate the beauty of the choreography and the precision of the actors. It makes the fights easy to follow as a dance of deadly movements. The interesting thing is that in most fights, there are no 'fodder' extras, stuntmen who fall down after just a couple of blows to show how powerful the heroes are. No, almost every battle here is hard-won.
The best part of the film was the climactic 5-way showdown, which for me equals, and (sacrilege!) maybe even surpasses the final fight between the Peking Opera brothers (Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung, Yuen Biao) and Dick Wei in Project A. Without any spoilers, it features an actor/fighter who is part acrobat and part wrecking ball. He is basically Donkey Kong in live action. Lead actors Miao Xie and Joe Taslim have great action chops, and analogous to Angela Mao in Enter the Dragon there is a pivotal cameo at the start from Chocolate star (Jeeja) Yanin Vismitananda.
So yeah, if watching brilliantly choreographed bruising ballets is your idea of a good time, then The Furious will make you happy indeed.
Like its title, which in the English spelling could stand for either the generic Hindi word for 'caste' or for a specific farming community in Northern India, Sunny Deol's latest vehicle Jaat is a schizophrenic beast. On the one hand it wants to be a tribute/cash-in to Deol's legacy as one of Bollywood's evergreen action movie stars. On the other hand, Deol has basically been air-dropped into the trappings of a Telugu masala flick. This is not surprising, since helmer Gopichand Malineni made his name with a string of such formula Telugu films, several of them starring this goon:
Compared to what Malineni makes him do in Jaat, Deol's previous action filmography is so grounded it would qualify as neo-realism. Interestingly, Randeep Hooda with his Haryanvi background is the only true 'Jaat' in the film (Deol's Punjabi heritage makes him a 'Jatt', which means the same thing, but not entirely); But Hooda here plays a Sri Lankan refugee called Ranatunga, while another Punjabi Vineet Kumar Singh (of Mukkabaaz fame) is cast as his psychotic younger brother Somulu(!). After having escaped the Lankan army and made his way to India with his comrades and a cache of gold (don't ask), Ranatunga runs a tyrannical parallel government in rural Andhra; In collusion with corrupt local authorities, his men oppress the cowed cow-munity, conducting periodic beheadings just to let them know who's boss. Decapitation is a major sport in Jaat - If you played a drinking game with each time someone's head flew off their shoulders, you'd be passed out well before the half-way mark.
The half-way mark incidentally is where the movie's title flashes on the screen. Deol's own entry is not long before; he is the lone non-saffron robed passenger boarding the train from Chennai to Ayodhya Dham. Hmm, according to IRCTC this is a journey that takes 39 hours. I have to wonder if Kill's success has birthed a trend of movies where folks that can afford flights (at least economy) opt for long rail journeys as an exercise in sheer masochism. But unlike Kill, this one goes off-rails fast. When technical reasons force the train to break trip, our nonchalant Jaat Wick gets himself an idli breakfast at a track-side cafe (It might be reading too much, but I wonder if his request for dal-roti getting pooh-poohed is Tollywood hinting at their current prevalence over the Hindi film industry). His meal is roughly interrupted when a bunch of local goons bump the plate out of his hands en route to heckling the cafe lady.
This begins the most fun part. Deol's request for an apology is naturally scorned by the goons. He then proceeds to give them the comeuppance they deserve and his fans demand. But even after the beating they only threaten him with the name of their boss. Which means that Deol must drag them to the boss' lair and demand said apology from him. Repeat cycle. This is the sort of structure that would have been conceived in an 80's Hong Kong martial arts caper, but it's entertaining given the over-the-top cartoony nature of the villains and the humor that comes from Deol commencing his 'idli' story at each level. Finally, he enters the stronghold where Ranatunga rules with his wife Bharathi (Regina Cassandra, clearly relishing the opportunity to play wicked). In a more than passing nod to the Ramayana, Deol rescues a bunch of lady cops (led by a mostly wasted Saiyami Kher) that had been imprisoned by the Ravana-worshiping Ranatunga.
Post-interval, as Deol makes his way to the police station with his rescued charges and we are treated to distasteful reprises of their harassment by the villains, Ranatunga launches a full-scale armed assault with bikes, jeeps and random explosions. More deaths occur, and we become privy to more icky flashbacks, one in which a teenage girl is stripped and assaulted by a senior cop working for Ranatunga. Like Toshiro Mifune's wandering ronin in Yojimbo, a disgusted Deol decides that this town is too rotten to allow to survive, and proceeds to burn it down two-handed, carrying only an armory of assault rifles, RPG launchers, harpoon guns(!), and oh, a military chopper.
There are minor diversions: You have Telugu stars Ramya Krishnan as the President and Jagapathi Babu as the hotshot CBI officer she sends to Andhra to solve the crisis, only to find it Deol-ized before he even gets there proper. There are allusions to land being captured at the behest of foreign powers to extract radioactive thorium as a valuable resource. Mahesh Limaye (once of Jogwa fame) has another crass Bollywood cameo in which he serves as a (loud) mouthpiece extolling the Jaat's badasserie. But Deol's entry as a Ram-like figure - on an Ayodhya bound train - and his fight with the evil Sri Lankan tyrant to rescue Indian womanhood, and the populace in general, is really where Jaat is at.
The action is bloody, but has a cartoony edge that makes it more palatable than a Marco (see how Ranatunga's troops move obligingly in single file so they can get jointly skewered by harpoons like shish kebabs). The sexual violence is more problematic, the inherent misogyny of mainstream Telugu cinema simply transcribed here. Too many gory flashbacks drag the pace while also piling on the ick-factor. However, Deol's ability to convey a sincerity that's naive without getting cloying means that whenever he is on screen, he lifts the film, gives it a little class.
In terms of plot, Dhanush's Raayan (which he has directed himself) is a fairly standard mainstream action movie. A B&W prologue establishes that the lead character Kathavaraayan aka Raayan, after the disappearance of his parents, becomes responsible for his younger siblings - two boys and an infant girl - and will go to any lengths to protect them.
The boy grows up to be Dhanush, who runs a food stall and conceals his toughness under a meek exterior (but he still has a reputation for being a badass). His brothers Muthuvel and Manickavel (Sundeep Kishan and Kalidas Jayaram) are more reckless and frequently get into scrapes. The sister Durga (Dushara Vijayan) is the apple of Raayan's eye, and he is closer to her than the brothers. They have a father-figure in Sekhar (Selvaraghavan) who'd helped Raayan out after he escaped from his village as a child with his siblings.
The main plot is driven by a devious police commissioner (Prakash Raj, stereotyped but effective) that engineers a quarrel between local dons Durai and Sethu (Saravanan and SJ Suryah) with the idea of eliminating them both. One of Dhanush's brothers gets somehow implicated in this quarrel. To protect the family, especially the sister scheduled to be married, Dhanush has to kill one of the dons. This sets into motion a second set of events, one that tears the family apart, and ignites a trail of bloody vengeance.
Raayan's script is a mixed bag: on one hand it's filled with the usual cliches and eye-rolling contrivances of a star-driven film, but on the other, it explores nuances not normally seen in mainstream masala. The dynamics between the brothers, and the transformation of the hitherto pampered sister into an avenging angel justifying her name infuses freshness into the stereotypes - Dushara Vijayan in the film's second half is a revelation - the scene where Durga fends off an attack by goons on a mortally wounded Raayan is nail-biting, and she becomes the main driving force of the vendetta. One applauds Dhanush for permitting her to overshadow his own character. Even the shading of the bad guys is interesting - there's some wicked humor courtesy Suryah's Sethu getting buffeted between his two wives.
There is also some serious visual chutzpah on display, especially in the action scenes and the choreographed festive number that comes late in the film. Om Prakash's cinematography uses overhead tracking shots, slow motion and colors in spectacular ways. If Raayan's script had lesser concessions to 'mass' pandering this could have been an amazing masala movie. But it still has several moments of interest, per se.
The legend of the 47 Ronin is one of the most celebrated in Japanese history. Briefly, after their master Lord Asano is forced by decree to commit sepukku / hara-kiri as penance for an altercation in the Shogun's court, the warriors of Ako castle plotted and carried out revenge against the person they held responsible for the altercation. By this action they also registered their protest against the Shogunate for its wrongful verdict. Interpreted as a symbol of adherence to the Samurai honor code and extrapolated to patriotic fervor, the story has had countless adaptations in Japanese popular culture including at least half a dozen film versions, some by celebrated makers like Kenzi Mizoguchi (Ugetsu, Sansho the Bailiff) and Hiroshi Inagaki (Samurai trilogy). I haven't seen any of these previous films, and if the idea of Mizoguchi, known more for his feminist melodramas, making a Samurai vendetta flick seems somewhat preposterous (it's like if Douglas Sirk made The Dirty Dozen or Kamal Amrohi made Sholay) one can take comfort in knowing that this was also the opinion expressed by Akira Kurosawa (interestingly enough Kurosawa himself never undertook to adapt this tale).
FoAK is only the second jidaigeki (period drama) in Fukasaku's career. It is certainly amusing to see characters in the opening of a Fukasaku film swaddled in ornate kimonos, adhering to the courtly etiquette of 18th century Japan. Lord Asano (Teruhiko Saigo) is seen to attack the influential courtier Lord Kira (Nobuo Kaneko) after the latter insults him. Although he only wounds the man, the display of violence in the royal court is a shameful affair. As per the royal decree, Lord Asano must kill himself, and his clan is ordered to be disbanded, leaving his loyal retainers leaderless.
Furious at the forced suicide of their master, the Ako clan warriors led by chief retainer Oishi (Yorozuya Kinosuke) wish to kill Lord Kira. But the latter, after being relived of his duties - in itself, an admission by the Shogunate of the one-sidedness of its verdict - lives in a protected citadel with his spies constantly monitoring Ako castle. Oishi instructs the clan members to lay low, pretending to accept the Shogun's verdict, till the time is right for action.
It is nearly two years before the moment comes. During this period, the Ako clan members become ronin (clan-deprived warriors), struggling to fend for their families, while Oishi seems to sink into debauchery. South East Asian film expert Tony Rayns in his video essay for FoAK states that in this while, the clan eroded from an original 600 members to the final number of the legend. Fukasaku personifies this in the character of an ex-Ako warrior whose belief in the cause fails after he suffers humiliating penury where his wife must sell her body to support the family. Sonny Chiba plays another Ako-ite who remains loyal to the clan and shows his mettle in the final revenge, while Toshiro Mifune makes an appearance as a warlord sympathetic to the Ako cause. Non-Japanese viewers only familiar with Chiba and Mifune's names may be disappointed to find that they have limited screen time (adding all his footage, Mifune probably has less than 2 min).
At long last, Oishi gives the call for revenge, and the remaining squad of Ako loyalists launch a full-scale raid on Lord Kira's stronghold. After they fulfill their mission, they surrender to the Shogunate which, in tacit sympathy with their honor code, does not order for their execution; instead, it permits them to commit honorable ritual suicide. Their bodies were later buried with that of their late lord in Sengaku-ji temple, where they are still commemorated.
FoAK has the pedigree of a bonafide epic (aided in no small measure by the cinematography of Yoshio Miyajima, who worked on several of Masaki Kobayashi's classic films), but somewhere in all the grandeur, its soul gets stifled. Not that the film is devoid of good moments - the panic of the Ako retinue outside the palace wanting to know the fate of their master, the initial failed attempt to assassinate Lord Kira, the relentless climactic assault are rendered with Fukasaku's trademark vitality. The fate of the Samurai whose life and faith crumble to circumstances during the terrible waiting period also generate empathy. But the political drama is stuffy, and the majority of characters are overly familiar archetypes whose actions and fate fail to engage us. This lack of grip means that nearly 160 min runtime hangs heavy, and I found my attention repeatedly wandering. Your mileage may vary.
The film is presented as part of Eureka's prestigious Masters of Cinema series. The back cover simply says "Presented in 1080p HD from a restoration of the original film elements by Toei [Studios]", but this is a handsome video presentation with lush colors and filmic texture. There may be a slight green tint, as often seen in vintage Japanese movies, which may be endemic to the source. The lossless Japanese mono audio is strong in terms of dialog, sound effects and the eclectic score (Toshiaki Tsushima). On-disc extras include a video essay by Japanese film expert Jasper Sharp, but what I loved was Tony Rayns' supplement, which is a masterclass on the true history of the 47 Ronin legend and the multiple adaptations of it in theater and cinema. The included booklet features an essay by Jonathan Clements, which talks about the disagreement between Fukasaku and lead star Kinnosuke, which may have led to the tonal discrepancies in the film. The cover features vintage poster art on the reverse side. While the film was not entirely satisfactory to me, this blu-ray release is highly recommended to people who are already fans or want to check it out.
In Sergio Sollima's The Big Gundown, actor Tomas Milian played a character nicknamed 'Cuchillo' aka 'The Knife', who is chased by Lee Van Cleef's lawman. Cuchillo's a vulgar and shifty bastard, loud mouthed and slippery, amenable to all kinds of dirty tricks. The character was obviously a hit with audiences, because Sollima and Milian return to Cuchillo in Run, Man, Run (RMR). Here his braggadocio is a little tamped down and he is a touch more openly heroic. Cuchillo gets mixed up in an adventure pertaining to the Mexican revolution when an imprisoned poet he helps to break out of jail confides to him in a dying moment, the location of hidden gold in Texas meant to fund the rebellion.
But several other parties are interested in the gold, and perhaps for less altruistic reasons. There's former sheriff Cassidy (Donald O'Brien), a pair of French mercenaries, the Texan mayor (Gianni Rizzi, who frequently played oily villains) and his daughter, and the bandit Riza. Cuchillo's quest leads him to tight spots on several occasions: he is beaten, shot at, strung up, tied to a windmill. To survive, he must rely on his wits and his knife skills, and occasionally, the help of some unlikely allies.
While the political angle has a place in RMR, it is secondary to Cuchillo's adventure. There are even some moments of black comedy, like when Cuchillo steals food from a house and walks out the front door only to find himself facing a firing squad. Milian is a delight in the lead, conveying as much through shrugs, grins and glances as through dialog. There are some strong actors in the supporting cast. The action scenes are ambitious and fun. I know Leone is a bigger name, but I find Corbucci and Sollima's less pompous western tales more easily watchable.
A few words on the blu-ray release from Eureka:
Video-wise, the Eureka transfer is pretty fine. Detail is not always the greatest, but the colors look pretty good. In general, it resembles how I'd expect a low-budget Italian western of that period to look like. The Italian mono track I used (overdubbed, of course) sounded good. Bruno Nicolai's score has some nice moments (my favorite is a nighttime ambush where Cuchillo has to take on a gang of fellows with his knives, while an ally takes up sniper duty). The English subtitles are generally fine, although there is the occasional typo like when the rebel leader tells his henchman to "...get the keys to the 'panty' and double the men's rations". There is also an English audio track (with optional SDH subs).
Extras include a feature commentary with (who else!) Kim Newman, a 20-min video essay by Stephen Thrower, alternate English credits sequence and a lengthy trailer. The booklet has 2 essays by critic Howard Hughes, one on the film, and an exhaustive rundown of films featuring the Mexican revolution. The now OOP first run of this movie had a bonus disc with a 85-min badly truncated US cut (and its own commentary).
RMR is another fine specimen of the spaghetti western genre, and even if you didn't get the LE, the standard release has enough good stuff in it to warrant the purchase.
It's general acclaim notwithstanding, many Mad Max fanboys were not pleased that the franchise's last installment Fury Road was less a Max showcase and more a film about its female protagonist Furiosa (Charlize Theron). Now 9 years later, this prequel goes even further in that direction, focusing entirely on the origins of the renegade woman warrior. Max is seen only in a single shot, replicating the one at the beginning of Fury Road.
We first meet Furiosa as a little girl from an unmapped oasis, kidnapped by raiders when she goes foraging. Her brave mother embarks on a rescue mission, but is killed by the horde of bad guy Dementus (Chris Hemsworth). Dementus imprisons little Furiosa to know the location of her oasis, but is soon forced to give her up to Citadel ruler Immortan Joe (Lachy Hulme filling in for the late Hugh Keays-Byrne). To escape the fate of joining Joe's harem, Furiosa shaves her head to disguise herself as a boy, and works for the Citadel garage. Later as an adult (Anya Taylor-Joy from The Menu), she shows her mettle in an astounding vehicle combat sequence that demonstrates helmer George Miller's continued mastery of the craft. This earns her the respect of Praetorian Jack (Tom Burke), the Citadel's 'War Rig' driver, who then furthers her education in survival.
An aging Dementus reappears on the scene, engineering treachery to take over the citadel. Amidst the battle between the different factions in the wasteland, Furiosa must obtain her revenge and her release. As you may expect, there is a good amount of combat here, both on vehicles and off. Anya Taylor-Joy gives a decent account of herself as the taciturn constantly wary warrior, and she is certainly up for the physical demands of the role, which I had not expected from seeing her as the cigarette-huffing stick-figured girl in The Menu. But it is Chris Hemsworth who seems to be having the most fun. His Dementus is by turns a blusterer, a comic, a megalomaniac, a traitor...yet in the end he almost wins our sympathy with a superbly delivered monologue about how vengeance never takes away the pain. It finally leads to the point where Furiosa's mission in Fury Road begins.
At nearly 2.5 hours, the prequel is significantly longer than Fury Road. A lot of the time is spent on identifying the different factions and their politics. It's not Shakespearean drama, and some of it more in the vein of video game cut-scenes. Thankfully these proceedings (marked by portentous chapter stops) are sufficiently punctuated with enough blistering action to make the whole dish palatable. Once again, Miller shows how to conduct scenes of battle which are palpable and have a clear flow that makes them easy to follow.
While I would have liked for a more crisp adventure, I still had a good time at the cinema, which is really where you should be catching this spectacle.
Directed by journeyman Rene Cardona (more infamous for Night of the Bloody Apes, which mixes a Frankensteinian plot with wrestling), The Bat Woman aka La Mujer Murcielago is a Mexican cross between Adam West era Batman and Modesty Blaise. Leading lady Maura Monti's character Gloria is a multimillionaire socialite that uses her fortune to fight crime. As a bonus she is also a luchadora (costumed wrestler) called the Bat Woman. She dons a mask and a rather eye-catching outfit that takes major design cues from the Batman costume. How DC's legal dept wasn't immediately all over this is a mystery, but thanks heavens for that, because so far as copyright infringements go this is a load of fun.
Gloria / Bat Woman's adversary in this adventure is one Dr. Williams (Roberto Canedo), a mad scientist with an an Igor-like assistant called...oh hey...Igor (Carlos Suarez). Williams, as revealed from his monologues punctuated with bursts of evil laughter, aims to raise an army of amphibious fish-men. His plan involves extracting pineal fluid (a Lovecraftian touch?) from the bodies of wrestlers and doing...something...that involves goldfish and tiny man-dolls. It's patently absurd and the straight-faced manner the film gives it to you only makes it all the more funny. The fish-man suit is fairly nifty (a little like an orange version of the Creature from the Black Lagoon). This is an unpretentious goofy film, but it has a good deal going for it.
First off, The Bat Woman is gorgeous looking and colorful. It works as a kind of advert for the Acupulco locales, showcasing glitzy resorts alongside pristine beaches. And Maura Monti in the lead is a genuine star, exuding equal measures of sophistication and charm. Even in the skimpy bikini costume, neither she nor the film descend to sleaze territory. She takes guff from no one, and all the men - including the bad guys - treat her with deference. It may be naughty but it's still classy. Also, Monti does her own action and underwater scenes like a trooper. Only in the film's wrestling bouts she is replaced by a stunt person who has a noticeably thicker build.
Sadly, this is apparently one of less than a handful of headlining roles in her career. It would have been great if they could have exploited the Bat Woman character into a franchise similar to the El Santo films (assuming there were no cease-and-desist orders from DC). After she got married, Monti quit acting to step into journalism and eventually became an academic (NY Times bio link). But this film remains as a wonderful memory of her star appeal.
For those interested, a few words on the blu-ray release from Powerhouse/Indicator:
The 4K restoration sourced by Indicator for this release is first-rate, rich in color and filmic texture. Even the several underwater scenes in the film look lovely. The lossless audio in the original Spanish language is clear and gives the bright jazzy score a nice boost. There are a slew of on-disc extras, including a recent interview with the 80-year old Monti - she has fond memories of the shoot and looks back on her various careers with affection and pride. There are some nice featurettes on Mexican fantasy cinema and on the Bat Woman legacy in Mexican pop culture. I wasn't so thrilled with David Wilt's feature commentary which, when not doling out IMDB style biographies of cast/crew, made inane sniggering comments about the onscreen proceedings. The LE version of the blu-ray uses a colorful digipak to keep the disc, which is housed inside a rigid slipcase, which also holds a hefty 80-page booklet. The booklet is stuffed with writing on the film, lucha libra cinema, luchadora culture, an archival interview with Monti and a biography of director Cardona.
A close friend coined for me the "10% Rule" wherein supposedly I develop an immediate distaste for any piece of entertainment enjoyed by more than 10% of my friends list (this was before Facebook, when that phrase had a little more meaning). It is of course wholly untrue: I love Chennai Express and despise Ghostworld as much as all of you, so there.
Anyhoo, this came to mind because of the hype I encountered about Aavesham from Malayalees of my acquaintance as an "event" movie. With only a teaser that showed star Fahadh Faasil doing a dhappaankoothu dance number in bath-towel and glares, I went in without many preconceptions.
In Aavesham, Faasil's introduction is nearly a third into the film and one that flips over the usual "mass star" dick-waving even as it takes place in a urinal. And the build-up is its own interesting character, because the story's actual protagonists are a trio of Kerala teens (Mithun Jai Shankar, Hipzster and Roshan Shahnavaz) enrolled into engineering college in Bengaluru. A sly vein of humor outlines the difference between the expectations of college from these young men and their naive parents.
For a little while we see our guys spreading their wings; they're not wastrels, they just want to have a bit of fun alongside their education. Hipzster's Aju is the street-smart one, urging all the newcomers to go united as a gang to avoid getting hazed by the seniors. But when one of them gets too cocky, that plan backfires and they are subjected to a humiliating beating. Interestingly, the seniors gang leader Kutty (Midhutty) is not all sneer and brimstone. Once his ego is satisfied, he hands out drinks and calls them his 'bros', accepted members of his troupe. But Aju wants vengeance and comes up with the foolhardy scheme of befriending a local gangster to aid them.
It is in their trawling through shady local bars that our trio meets up with Ranga (Faasil). Ranga is a conglomeration of the archetypes of on-screen toughies. He wears an all-white outfit and is laden with gold jewelry. Branded sunglasses and a well-oiled handlebar mustache complete the outfit.
Ranga takes the kids under his wing and shows them a good time. Regaled with booze and legends of Ranga's badassery told by his burly right-hand-man Amban (Sajin Gopu), it isn't long before the colorful nightlife eats into their academic schedule. At last, taking the opportunity, they let Ranga know of their humiliation, coaxing him into exacting retribution from Kutty's gang. But all actions have consequences; so does their association with the gangster for the purpose of petty revenge.
On paper, Aavesham has a lot going for it. The 3 youngsters have the right combination of cockiness and naivete that you can believe their sticking together for this cockamamie business. It helps that there is no romantic sub-plot for any of them. For a while, there is a delicious ambiguity as to whether Ranga's past
exploits are real or just tall stories; during most of the fights, the kids only see
him barking instructions to his lackeys, not actually taking part. The writing and Faasil's commitment to a 'big' performance glorify the gangster archetype while simultaneously poking fun at it. Sajin Gopu provides an able foil to Faasil. Their Ranga and Amban have a rapport that pleasantly harks back to the Munnabhai-Circuit scenes from that franchise, and Faasil does not hesitate taking the character to psychotic extremes when needed.
In short, the ingredients are great, but alas, the final dish turns out overcooked. The major issue for me was, the pacing is way off on this one. What could have been a riveting and joyful sub-100 min black comedy (One part of the climax recalls a similar moment from The Shining) is stretched out to a fatiguing 160min. Ranga's full-vein swag is fun the first couple of times, but the movie piles it on ad nauseam. The sub-plot with Mansoor Ali Khan as Ranga's jealous ex-mentor Reddy is amusing in itself, but an unwieldy addition to an already stuffed narrative. Even with all its interesting bits the movie became a bit of an ordeal.
At the risk of my 'Mallu' friends sharpening their 'tools' to skewer me, I have to say that this Aavesham is marred by the 'anaavishyam' (excessive and unnecessary) amount of swag. YMMV.
55 years ago Haskell Wexler, known primarily as a cinematographer (Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, In the Heat of the Night, One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest), made a film called Medium Cool. Wexler's film was an auteur-driven enterprise, written, photographed edited, co-produced and directed by him. In it, a young Robert Forster (Jackie Brown) played a Chicago TV news cameraman dispassionately capturing sensationalist stories with his 16 mm in the period leading up to the rioting at the Democratic National Convention. While not a period of actual civil war, there was a strong element of unrest among the American people on account of opposition to the Vietnam War and the assassination of Equal Rights activist Martin Luther King. With its nouvelle vague inspired freewheeling journey, Medium Cool captured the zeitgeist of that period in a manner few films have. As critic Vincent Canby says in his review, it portrays "...a picture of America in the process of exploding into fragmented bits of hostility, suspicion, fear and violence."
Alex Garland's Civil War is set in an even more chaotic dystopian near-future, with the White House a fortress occupied by a Fascist dictator and the country torn apart by violent secession. Veteran combat photojournalist Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst) and her comrade Joel (Elite Squad and Narcos fame Wagner Moura) plan to travel from Brooklyn to DC to interview the president. Tagging along is their mentor Sammy (Stephen Henderson). Sammy has played the game a long time, but now he's "too old and fat to run", even to save his life. They have another fellow traveler in Jessie (Cailee Spaeny) a wet-behind-the-ears novice lugging around her father's film camera. Having seen her lose it at a riot event they previously met at, Lee is reluctant to take the girl on board, but Sammy and Joel convince her.
In their road journey to the capital, the group see violence in multiple forms, including armed assault, cruel vigilantism and even mass civilian murder by militia groups. Garland dishes out some mordant humor: The once-almighty US dollar is shown to be hugely devalued ($300 can only buy a ham / cheese sandwich). In a shootout between two bands of snipers, one of the men mockingly answers Joel's question about which faction they are fighting with "The guys trying to shoot us".
While Garland originated as a writer, the most gripping parts of Civil War are the visuals (DoP Rob Hardy, who handled cinematography for Garland's previous features Ex Machina, Annihilation and Men). The scenes of rioting and armed conflict are captured with veritable intensity. Garland also uses the full height of the IMAX screen, especially noticeable in the scenes where helicopters glide over troubled vistas or during the large scale climactic battle in the capital. The format also gives tremendous depth of field and a 'window effect' into the happenings on screen.
The visuals are sadly undercut by the predictability of the narrative. Where Medium Cool or Oliver Stone's Salvador (also about an American journalist caught in a civil war) echoed the chaos and desperation of unrest and gave it a personal edge, Civil War mostly follows a conventional coming of age drama - Lee is the aging camera-slinger that takes a maternal interest in Jessie (even Joel who is said to be hitting on her never crosses any line) and the youngster in the course of her adventures wises up to emulate her idol (this is contrasted with Lee suddenly losing her nerve during the final conflict). A certain "circle of life" metaphor hinted at early in the narrative is given a groaning realization in the climax.
Don't get me wrong here, Civil War is admirable for its technical audacity - Garland achieves the kind of spectacle that would normally require 2 or 3 times the budget, and he does not trivialize his material with fake heroism. The actors are fine too, adjusting to the physical and emotional needs of their characters. But the rote writing reduces the film's power as a statement on the brutality of civil war.
P.S. If you are seeing the film, make sure to catch it on the largest screen format.
I have to confess I was never a big Patrick Swayze fan during his heyday. His romantic leading man style was not a huge draw for my schoolboy self, who was more interested in slashers and bullet-buffets. It didn't help that his biggest hit Ghost was a movie I loathed for being a piece of garbage. So while I had heard of Road House at the time, the idea of Swayze as an action star did not (ha!) sway me and so I'd never actually watched it before. It was the release of the 2024 remake on Amazon Prime that made me reconsider.
The '89 Road House has over the years become something of a cult classic. Swayze plays Dalton, a tough guy with a feared name, who is hired by bar owner Kevin Tighe to handle the violent elements that are ruining his business. With sheer presence and the occasional takedown he starts to bring order into the place. Then Dalton comes up against local big-shot Brad Wesley (Ben Gazzara), an extortionist and shady businessman who rules the town with an iron hand.
Very rightly it has been pointed out that Road House, while clothed in 80's garb, is really a 'Western' - Swayze is the taciturn new gunslinger in town and Gazzara is the evil big rancher that's been squeezing out the small farmers, store-owners, and heck, even the saloon guy. A large part of the film runs on Swayze's charm. He has excellent chemistry with the supporting cast including the sultry Kelly Lynch. Gazzara can be a wonderful actor when he wants - check out his work with John Cassavettes or his pivotal part in Anatomy of a Murder. Here he's slumming it in a caricature "evull" role, still he gives this joint a bit of class. As I later learned, Swayze had studied some martial arts and this comes in handy for the several nicely choreographed action scenes. The fist-pumping soundtrack is provided by the enthusiastic Jeff Healey Band.
Apart from the nudity, most of Road House is a solid PG-rated adventure. The climax however decides to go very violent, what with throat-rippings and shotgun massacres. It's a startling change of tone, and I wonder if it was influenced by the trend of the violent spectacles from Stallone, Schwarzenegger & Co (even the way houses explode is hugely exaggerated, like they were filled with dynamite and kerosene). It is an absurd kind of film (as Roger Ebert's review very rightly points out), but there's a charm to it, courtesy the likable cast (a hot Sam Elliot appears as Dalton's buddy), the action and the rousing rock score.
Road House (2024) is a remake led by a ridiculously shredded Jake Gyllenhaal. This film's Dalton is a retired UFC champion who apparently has such a reputation his opponents prefer to surrender without a fight. Now making a living in illicit fight clubs, he soon lands up to protect the titular bar (In the original film the place was called the Double Deuce).
While Swayze's character radiated a taciturn "Don't fuck with me" menace, Gylenhaal's Dalton is more chatty and affable; he even drives down his opponents to the local hospital after he has broken their bones. I appreciate that Dalton is not another sullen asshole, but it makes the dark side of his persona a lot less believable - Then again, it's a very cliched "I once killed a guy in the ring" dark side, which John Wayne did much better in The Quiet Man.
The bar in the remake is apparently such a good deal they have a different act performing every night. This dilutes the more cozy feeling of the original and makes the performance aspect more anonymous. The bad guys are now dealing in drugs and real estate. The action is amped up with boat chases and bigger explosions. Real-life UFC champion Conor McGregor makes a huge impression as Knox, a crazy tattooed mob enforcer up against Gyllenhaal - McGregor's performance is not necessarily in tone with the rest of the film, but he livens up every scene he is in. He shows the potential to become a big movie player, if he can keep out of jail.
Road House (2024) is more self-aware and a precocious young girl in the cast makes smirky remarks about it being a Western narrative. Director Doug Liman (who previously did the surprisingly enjoyable Edge of Tomorrow and American Made with Tom Cruise) has a certain felicity with humor, but this remake is more passable than memorable.
I realize I'm not in the majority when I say this, but Siddharth Anand's movies leave me cold. This was true right from the time he was making rom-coms/rom-drams (I had the misfortune of watching Bachna Ae Haseeno on a bus trip, a reprehensible exercise which, not just the ladies, everyone should beware of). Anand then shifted to more heavy-duty action with Bang Bang (an official remake of the frenetic Knight and Day). Therein he found his true metier, doing desi takes on the stereotype Hollywood tent-pole action movie. He then churned out the exponentially more bombastic War (which I found enjoyable in its embracing of the ludicrous) and Pathaan. The latter was his biggest commercial success, but for me it was a mostly lifeless experience, not even fun in the illogical masala vein. Pathaan was so concerned with being 'hip' I could not give a fuck about anything that happened onscreen (perhaps I was more concerned with the increasing numbness in my butt and brain).
With Fighter, Anand continues his run of feature-length action-VFX showreels, angling for a job on the next Mission Impossible or Top Gun or at least Fast & Furious installment. The film is set in the world of combat pilots hand-picked as an elite team for strike/rescue missions. After 2019's Uri: The Surgical Strike, rah-rah war movies reflecting the 'New India, Aggressive India' image became cool. With titles like Gunjan Saxena, they also became (preachy) vehicles of female empowerment. Fighter collects these trends into a single package - the Hrithik-worship from War continues in an almost identical adoring coverage of bronzed biceps and gold-flecked hair, Balakot and Pulwama are referenced in the cartoonish portrayal of counter maneuvers, and Deepika Padukone's chopper pilot could be an extension of the Gunjan Saxena character.
Fighter fills the frame with a sizable cast and lip-service is paid to 'team bonding', but make no mistake, this is not an ensemble piece. The characters that are not matinee names have no backstory or hook to make them interesting. They're just there, 'reflectors' to bounce more light on the leads. The audience is never given any reason to care for their fate. One character is the token Muslim card that becomes a martyr; his funeral rituals are completely drowned out by a Vande Mataram cover. Even the manner in which characters seem to have carte blanche to enter control centers for ops they are not part of, or just hang around for emotional detours in the middle of setting up covert missions takes away from the immersion.
The movie expects us to feel bad for Hrithik when he is called out for going cowboy and endangering his squad by abandoning team goals in pursuit of individual targets. Curiously, none of his team-mates have an issue with his lone wolf attitude. The calling out is done by his commanding officer Anil Kapoor, who yells out every sentence like an unruly society chairman uncle bawling at the cricket playing kids damaging his window panes. There would be some logic to this narrative if it culminated in Hrithik's becoming more mindful of following orders, which I assume is what the armed forces want of soldiers. But for some reason this PTSD afflicted bloke's self-obsession becomes a virtue.
The action is slick, I'll grant, but it feels rehashed and unexciting - the exhaust pipes shimmering at launch, the jets blowing snow off the trees or spray off the water surface as they zoom by, the loop-de-loop maneuver, we've seen all this before. It's more like Anand studied scenes from Top Gun to showcase his ability to replicate them indigenously at lower cost. Some of the green screen work is less than stellar (when Hrithik and the villain - a Fabio clone with one bloodshot eye to signal his villainy - are slugging it out atop a careening jeep). The film is set in Jammu & Kashmir, but you get Mediterranean beachside and ultrahip-nightclub song sequences that are awkwardly horned in. For tonal consistency, this Fighter is a damp squib.
Vengeance is Mine... is in many ways an unexpected movie. Based on a novel by Eka Kurniawan, which I haven't read, the title makes it sound like one of countless spaghetti westerns pumped out in the 60's and 70's. But it's actually an Indonesian drama set in the 1980's, in the late phase of the autocratic Suharto regime. It starts off like a martial arts action movie with a cocky badass hero and features several brutal hand-to-hand combat sequences, but at its core is a deep romance. It subverts many of the usual tropes of revenge in movies and, after a point, even goes into magic realism mode. How's that for straddling genres?
The conventionality of the beginning is also relative. When was the last time you saw an action movie where the lead guy (Mathino Lio) is sexually impotent? Here it is upfront, presented as the driving engine behind his character's violent streak, because his masculinity has no other outlet. The leading lady (Ladya Cheryl, my favorite actor in this movie) is also a hyper-violent no-holds-barred brawler that on their first encounter kicks his face up his butt in combat, before they proceed to fall in love. She accepts his impotence as a fact, but it has consequences later that tear their life apart. Their condition is a reflection of disturbing incidents that occurred during their respective childhoods - She was molested by a teacher and he witnessed a woman's brutal rape-murder. This has been interpreted by multiple critics as a metaphor for the oppressive political regime and moral corruption that prevailed in Indonesia in that period, and its debilitating impact on the people's psyche (it's not something the film tries to punch you in the face with). The magic realism aspect, involving the unearthing of a certain character referred to in the past, is disorienting when it happens, and it's not explained out in the explicit manner a less confident maker would succumb to. Film-maker Edwin trusts the audience to fill in the gaps for themselves.
In consequence, Vengeance is Mine... may sometimes seem meandering, and it definitely does not stick to genre limitations; it's as serious about being a humanistic drama or an absurdist fable as it is about being an action flick. But in all of its phases it always remains interesting and off-kilter. For me it was mainly the very palpable chemistry between the leads that kept me constantly interested in their fate. I also love the manner in which the camera (DoP Akiko Ashizawa) captures their intimate physical and emotional moments; obviously a great deal of thought was given to this.
I would like to talk more about the film, go into some of the ways it deflects conventional arcs into something new, but I don't right now know how I can do that without spoiling the film for people that haven't previously seen it. I'm thinking I'll come back for a stab at that at a later stage. But this much is clear, for those looking for entertainment off the beaten track and with a little more emotional substance, it is certainly a film worth watching.
The film is currently screening on Netflix, but I caught it on the UK blu-ray release from Arrow Video, about which a few words:
This is a recent film, but it was shot in 16mm - It looks a little soft, but textures are good and the colors are vibrant. There primary audio track is 5.1 DTS-HDMA (with an option of lossless stereo), but I did not experience a lot of activity in the surrounds. There are a good number of meaty extras, including interviews with the cast and crew, and behind-the-scenes footage from its making. My copy came with a slipcover (the reverse art features the Indonesian title and different artwork) and booklet with a pretty good essay from cult movie enthusiast Josh Hurtado.
With its 80's Bollywood meets graphic novel / videogame sensibilities, Animal reminded me a good deal of Kill Bill. It bears that same element of homage / masturbatory pastiche Quentin Tarantino legitimized as its own art form.
The first inspiration is of course The Godfather. Reddy's film borrows swathes of narrative from that classic (As Baradwaj Rangan's review puts it, "...the trashy Mario Puzo novel and the classy Coppola adaptation that followed"). Ranbir Kapoor's Vijay is Michael Corleone to Anil Kapoor's Don-like tycoon father Balbir Singh. Like Michael, he as a child idolizes the dad, gets estranged from him and then returns when that father is murderously attacked, to take on the family mantle and go after his father's enemies with a vengeance. Of course, one could say Vijay's hotheadedness and penis-driven thinking also make him a Sonny Corleone; And like Sonny is admonished by Don Vito, he is frequently rebuked by Dad Balbir.
Old-school masala movie grammar runs in full vein in the depiction of the father-son relationship. There is a cloying, fetishistic edge to how much the son adores Balbir, stopping just short of attaching himself to and humping the dad's leg. Of course, like most tycoon dads in Indian movies, Balbir can't give his kids time of day, and Vijay's early misdemeanors (as a high school kid, he fires an assault rifle in his sister's classroom to rattle the fellows ragging her) seem like desperate attempts to get his dad to pay attention, even if it is only to give him a dressing-down. Surprisingly for a bigshot business magnate based in Delhi, Balbir actually believes his son he could be imprisoned for a crime. If the Manu Sharma and Sanjeev Nanda cases have taught us anything, it is that rich connected kids can (at least before a major public outcry) get away with murder.
And in the Animal universe, the law simply doesn't exist. I don't think I saw a single police character, not even when the rich tycoon's son-in-law goes missing (SPOILER: he and Vijay don't get along) or to investigate the aftermath of the pre-interval bloodbath in which Vijay trashes a hotel and mows down 300 masked blokes (ANIMAL masks, get it?!) with the help of axes, assault rifles and later a golf cart mounted with a gazillion belt-fed Gatling guns. This sequence with its complete disregard for proportion (and an involved gag about underwear) is fun, though not as engrossing as Oldboy's corridor fight because what really should have been a series of uninterrupted takes is edited to bits.
Post-intermission, we see a more humanized Vijay - his injuries in the hotel massacre have him dependent on a catheter and urine bag, he grows a belly and makes references to needing more frequent pad changes than his wife (Rashmika Mandanna, more on her later). For some reason, he now requires a heart transplant. Of course, he's still (hah!) cocky, but it makes a lot of emotional sense here, him trying to hold on to his alpha-maleness (oh yes, the movie is sufficiently self-aware to give us early on a mini-dissertation on the subject from Vijay's POV). This part of the film was to me the most interesting character-wise, and I would have been interested to see vulnerable Vijay for a longer span. But Reddy has other plans.
After a pointless subplot about a mistress (Tripti Dimri, wasted), the film unveils the major antagonist, another alpha male. This one is played by Bobby Deol: Age and a beard lend him personality and the part is written to his strengths. Now the stage is set for a showdown between Vijay and this guy. It's a more stereotypical contest of beefy biceps and obligatory shirt ripping. It tries to have its moment when Vijay offers his enemy the chance for a cessation of hostilities (they're actually related - elements of the Mabhabharata here). But you know what the bad guy's answer will be.
I was hesitant to see Animal because the reports of Reddy's previous hit Arjun Reddy glorifying a self-centered misogynistic prick kept me away from that one. But while dominated by the conflict between alpha-males and featuring a vulgar brand of humor, Animal does not legitimize them. Vijay's willingness to shed pools of blood to protect the family doesn't necessarily win him their adulation. His position towards women is a little murky. He criticizes his sister for being doormatted by her husband, but that seems more an expression of territorialism - How dare someone outside of the family disrespect her? As his wife, Rashmika Mandanna displays a lot of agency. She accepts his alpha-male status but is ready to hit back when he crosses her boundaries. A telling moment is when she lashes out at her mother, justifying her devotion to her blood-crazy husband, because he stood by her in her moments of need when her own parents deserted her for their social standing. She also gets a great scene when she confronts Vijay about his infidelity - it doesn't justify the time wasted on that subplot (which has a laughable conclusion) but it's engaging and Mandanna gives a solid account of her dramatic talent - I also appreciate that Reddy retains her original South Indian accent instead of a generic dub. The chemistry between her and Ranbir Kapoor supports the volatile and intense relationship of their characters, and I wish more of the film could have been told from the perspective of this couple and how it affects their dynamic than from the traditional all-male angle.
Ranbir Kapoor obviously commits to the lead part. Why wouldn't he, it's like Al Pacino playing Scarface's psycho-gangster, a colorful OTT actor's showcase - he even gets to do the body transformation bit (or wears a convincing fat suit). One part of Vijay's life the film keeps behind closed curtains is the time between his leaving home after he is thrown out by his father (thrown out in style though, he at least gets to keep an airplane) and when he returns in the wake of the father's attempted killing. This is the period when Vijay supposedly lives an independent life in the US with his wife and raises two children. While it might have been nice to see a different facet of his personality (and how he functioned outside of his family), Reddy adds to the script's intrigue by not exploring that segment. He does refer to it in a telling exchange between Vijay and Balbir towards the end when Vijay calls out his father's complete ignorance of his life away from the family and of the person he could be when not drawn into conflict. Sadly, Anil Kapoor gets the short end of the stick. The father-son relationship is a crucial dynamic of the film and at the heart of the protagonist's actions, but the part of Balbir Singh is flat and under-written. He is mostly a reaction board to Vijay's doings, reduced to either sounding out Vijay or lamenting his misdeeds. You don't get an overall sense of the man, who seems remote to his family, but is apparently so loved by his employees, they whoop with joy when his son proclaims vengeance on his attackers.
Some of Reddy's editing choices are strange. A crucial killing in the film is shown much ahead of time with a jarring jumpcut - the scene goes from just-married clean-cut Ranbir angling his honeymoon plane over a steep slope to him suddenly all bearded and mean heading a convoy of cars and armed henchmen out to cause murderous havoc. The narrative later backtracks to explain, but the overall effect is of needless complication in the name of style and reduces the impact of the scene. The second half starts get tiresome with all the convolutions (and a post-credits sequence that steps into parody territory). I respect that Reddy wanted to tell the story in a messy way, but too much is often just too much. For better or worse, the score of the film is in tune with its loud sensibilities - there are occasions where the music drowns out the dialog, and moments where you dearly wish for a pair of earplugs.
That said, Animal at least strikes me as a work that reflects the vision and sensibilities of an individual movie-maker and not a collection of box-office choices. The fact that I could sit through this 200(!) min slogathon without at the end wanting to kill myself tells me that it was doing a few things right. Your mileage may vary.
Lokesh Kanagaraj's 'Thalapathy'Vijay-starrer Leo is basically A History of Violence(AHoV)...for Dummies.
In David Cronenberg's 2005 movie, Viggo Mortensen played amiable small-town restauranter and family man Tom Stall, who suddenly displays a ruthless streak taking down murderous thugs that invade his diner. Hailed as a local hero for his bravery, mild-mannered Tom's life gets complicated when a vicious gangster (Ed Harris with a scarred eye) drops in claiming that Tom is actually Joey Cusack, hitman for a crime syndicate. The gangster doesn't believe Tom's denials and stalks his family to pressure him into confession, even kidnapping Tom's son, which culminates in another bloodbath. The violence creates estrangement and strife in Tom's personal life. One day he gets a call from a man claiming to be Joey's brother, a big city criminal who wants Joey to return, threatening that he will otherwise come out to find him.
Kanagaraj lifts the premise almost wholesale: When crazed criminals invade Parthiban (Vijay)'s snazzy coffee shop in Theog, Himachal and threaten evil tidings to his little girl, he guns them down unhesitatingly and with superhuman accuracy. Shortly after, the kin of the slain gangsters who come in for revenge get slaughtered by Parthiban in a market brawl, making his wife (Trisha) wonder about the man she married. Then a gnarly old gangster Antony Das (Sanjay Dutt) drops in, insisting that Parthiban is actually his son Leo, a killer. Das also kidnaps Parthiban's son to make him admit his identity. Sounds familiar?
AHoVhas a reputation as a masterful study of inner violence, but I couldn't buy into it. Compared to previous Cronenberg ventures like Dead Ringers, Naked Lunch and Crash, AHoV's layering is juvenile pop-psychology. The bad guys who come in after Tom/Joey, including his brother (William Hurt) are such flat caricatures there's no sense of the uncontrollable animal inside Tom.
But if I felt that way about the source film, Leo takes it down several notches, using the plot as yet another star-glorifying vehicle, albeit a frequently stylish one. In AHoV, till the diner assault, Tom is seen only as the sweet-natured whitebread townie. In Vijay's introductory scene he tackles an aggressive runaway hyena, even giving gyaan about animal behavior to the local forest ranger (Gautham Menon in another paycheck part), finally jabbing a tranquilizer by hand into the animal.
This is before we get the tour of him waltzing through the coffee shop to the strains of an English song called Ordinary Person, telling us how utterly "ordinary" this guy is. Yeah, right. Later on, we have more "Now feeling" songs like I'm Scared and Badass; because Thalapathy can't act his way out of a paper bag, he needs this Greek chorus equivalent to explain what his character is going through at each stage. When the fracas with the coffee shop invaders happens, it is set to retro jukebox Tamil tunes, softening the impact of the violence, making it more a flashy "hero" fight. To Kanagaraj's credit he does give these baddies a neat little backstory of how they landed in the cafe. After gunning down the felons, Vijay expresses his character's horror at his own violence by yelling aloud, in a hilarious imitation of Kamalahaasan's Guna histrionics.
As Antony Das, Sanjay Dutt regurgitates the "heavy" he played in the Agneepath remake and KGF: Chapter 2. Das runs a front of a tobacco business, and to emphasize this point the characters in this movie smoke like chimneys (Thankfully, Netflix doesn't bother with the mandatory on-screen smoking disclaimers). But the real business for Antony and his brother Harold(!) - played by Arjun Sarja - is drugs. Even here Kanagaraj shows his weird tastes by having the brothers deal in datura, a poisonous plant. Datura extracts have psychoactive properties, but they are not the "feel good" variety of drugs, used more as ritual poisons / fear-generating hallucinogens. When in an extended flashback sequence that also bungs in a "mass" number, you are told Antony Das' motive to track down Leo, you start to wish you had some datura toxin to swallow.
Leo's screenplay is a trainwreck of dead-ends and pointless twists. As depicted here, the character's dual nature is not particularly different from films like Hum and Baasha where an apparently mild-mannered protagonist is revealed to have a violent history he is covering up. The near 3-hour runtime is such a slog I had to split my viewing into 3 instalments. But it does have some of Kanagaraj's best directed action sequences. The highlight for me is a chase sequence where Parthiban, riding shotgun on a bike, chases after a convoy of vehicles driven by Antony's gang who have kidnapped his son. It features that same brand of painstakingly storyboarded and executed action that distinguished his 2019 Kaithi. The camera is an active participant in the proceedings, swooping back and forth, even going through vehicles. It's (ha!) fast and furious, yet maintains clarity in the sequence of events. Leo is probably also the hardest that Vijay has worked on a film in recent years, physically at least. In contrast to turds like Sarkar, where he just waltzes through the fight scenes while bad guys fall all around him, he is shown to have tougher battles, often taking a fair pounding before he finally prevails. If you do decide to subject yourself to the film, these might be small saving graces.
Posts
