Predestination (2013)

Director: Michael and Peter Spierig

Screenplay: Michael and Peter Spierig (based on the book by Robert A. Heinlein)

Cast: Ethan Hawke, Sarah Snook, Noah Taylor

Music: Peter Spierig

Time: 97 minutes

Bottom-line: Tries to do way too much and ends up failing

This was a film that my friends were badgering me to watch for a long time, and now that I have seen it, I have no idea why they all went gaga over it. The Australian science-fiction film stars Ethan Hawke, Sarah Snook and Noah Taylor in the lead roles, and employs the concept of time travel, in particular, the predestination paradox.

"... the snake that eats its own tail, forever and ever..."
At an unknown point in time, a time-travelling agent tries to disarm a bomb that explodes and burns his face. As he recovers, we get to know that he had attempted to prevent the attack of the “Fizzle Bomber” on New York in 1975. After he heals, the agent (Hawke) moves to 1970, New York, where he works as a bartender. He meets a customer, John (Snook), who narrates his tale to the bartender. We see that he was born a female, Jane (also Snook), and she gets a chance to go to space, but is later disqualified because of a medical condition that is never revealed to her. Jane later falls in love with a man, gets pregnant, and then the man leaves her. Following some medical complications, a surgery forces Jane to live as a man. The agent offers to take John back in time to find out who left Jane, but as they soon discover, time travel has been irreparably tampered with, leading to severe repercussions.

 

Hawke as the Agent

I am reminded of the movie Incendies by Denis Villeneuve, where the twist ending awed many, but made me cringe. The same goes for Predestination. Up to a point, I felt that the concept of time travel has been used well, exploiting its loopholes and paradoxes. After a while, it is too convoluted a plot to follow. It is as though the intention of the film is just to explore an extreme case of the predestination paradox; every incident is scripted that way, and there the film loses its grip on the viewer.

 

Snook as Jane

This film launched the career of Sarah Snook, who plays both Jane and John. With sufficient help from the make-up crew and voice artists, her acting is sublime as both the characters: the sensitive, nerdy Jane, and the depressed, vengeful John. Ethan Hawke has that air of charm around him just because he is Ethan Hawke (after all, he starred in the “Before” trilogy didn’t he?) but he doesn’t have that demanding a role in this film. The other main character in the film is Robertson, played by Noah Taylor; what his true job is and how it messes with everyone’s lives will be revealed when you watch the film.

 

Snook as John

Predestination definitely requires a couple of viewings, and you might want to read several “plot explained” articles to truly understand what’s going on and place all the events in a sequential order. Once you do that, you can either go “wow!”, or in my case, wonder why the hell any of those even happened.

My Rating: 2.5/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 83%  

99 (2009)

Director: Raj and DK

Story: Raj and DK and Sita Menon

Cast: Kunal Khemu, Cyrus Broacha, Boman Irani, Soha Ali Khan

Music: Shamir Tandon, Ashutosh Pathak

Time: 133 minutes

Bottom-line: A smart mix of reality and fiction; 100% entertainment

Inspired by the India-South Africa cricket betting scandal of 1999-2000, 99 is a comedy-drama that uses that very scam as a backdrop for a tale of mix-ups, goons, theft and importantly, (lots of) money. The film features an ensemble cast including Kunal Khemu, Soha Ali Khan, “The Week That Wasn’t” Cyrus Broacha, Boman Irani, Mahesh Manjrekar and Vinod Khanna.

 

Cyrus as Zaramud (left) and Kunal as Sachin

It’s only after that one run to reach a century that you get a standing ovation; if not, no one remembers the 99 runs you scored.

Mumbai: Sachin (Khemu) and Zaramud (Broacha) run an illegal business where they clone SIM cards of mobiles. In an attempt to escape from the cops, they steal a Mercedes belonging to a gangster, AGM (Manjrekar), and damage it beyond repair. AGM catches them and uses them as hitmen to get back his loans from his other borrowers in Delhi. Meanwhile, Rahul (Irani) is a gambler, betting money on everything from poker to cricket matches. He has also borrowed money from a lot of loan sharks, including AGM. His competitor in betting is JC (Khanna) – based on the real-life bookie. When the bag of money – that Sachin and Zaramud take from Rahul to AGM – gets stolen, the only chance the three of them have to get back the money is by betting on the tie-breaker ODI match. Do they “hit a century”? Or do they “get out at 99”?

 

Boman Irani as Rahul

99’s success relies on Kunal Khemu’s charisma and Cyrus Broacha’s comic timing. The Laurel-Hardy type combination really works wonders, and the chemistry between them is brilliant. Outrageously dumb and cunningly smart at the same time, these two carry a lot of energy, which is balanced by the far saner character of their hotel manager and Sachin’s love interest, Pooja (Soha). Boman Irani’s character is the most interesting of the lot – a gambler with a list of “theories” and “signs” that lead him to his money, the way he juggles to pay off his loans to all the different people, while pacifying his wife at the same time, is truly hilarious.

 

Soha as Pooja

The hyperlink narrative – joining tales involving small-time crooks stealing briefcases to millionaires throwing fortunes on a match – and the backdrop of cricket all add to the fun. One aspect where the film differs from reality is that the actual 4^th ODI is shown as the tie-breaker match in the story, as a plot device. A lot of subtle humour comes from the Indian stereotypes, from the way people treat cricket as a religion, how every girl in Delhi is either named only Pooja or Neha, and the newspaper headlines you see just before the closing credits. The plot twists are unexpected, and the story is filled with so many quotable punchlines and jokes.

One of the cleanest comedy films in the past decade, 99 is surprisingly (and sadly) underrated. With a fast-paced narrative, well-crafted plot twists, and, as the tagline says: part fact, part fiction, pure fun, this is a film you must watch, cricket-lover or not!

My Rating: 4/5

Searching (2018)

Director: Aneesh Chaganty

Story: Aneesh Chaganty and Sev Ohanian

Cast: John Cho, Debra Messing, Michelle La

Music: Torin Borrowdale 

Time: 102 minutes

Bottom-line: An intense, edge-of-the-seat thriller; scarily realistic.

In a time when we are dominated by data, social media and the internet, the looming question has become, “How much data is out there? How can it be used? And will it be used for doing good?” Searching is a thriller film that gives us a glimpse of the power of social media and the internet in the context of a girl who goes missing. The film stars John Cho and Debra Messing in the lead roles, with Michelle La supporting them.

 

Cho as David

San Jose: David Kim (Cho) and his daughter, Margot (Michelle) have a strained relationship ever since the death of his wife, two years ago. One night, Margot goes to her friend’s house to study, and calls David three times, but he ignores the calls in his sleep. David is unable to reach Margot the next morning, but starts to panic only when he calls her piano teacher and finds out that Margot had cancelled classes 6 months ago, but was still taking money from David. David decides to file a “missing person” case. Using her laptop and logging into her social media accounts, David realises that Margot was up to something far more sinister than it appeared. Detective Vick (Messing) confirms the last known location of Margot as just outside the city, suggesting that she may have run away. Who are Margot’s true friends? Who are the faceless people she has been talking to over the internet? And what more can David find out about his daughter from her data?

 

Michelle La as Margot

The highlight of the film is, undoubtedly, the visual style. Every scene in the film is shown in a screen, and through the viewpoint of a camera – a webcam, or a CCTV camera, or a video camera etc. (exactly like the episode Connection Lost of Modern Family – S6: E16). From googling to chatting, from untyped messages to trending tweets, the camera follows all of David’s activities on various screens and devices. The dialogues and audio track also fit in perfectly, to match the screen activity or the situation (the sudden crescendo accompanying every plot twist is pretty eerie).  

 

Messing as Detective Vick

The other reason why Searching is powerful is because it is so real. The story deals with stuff you and I use every day: Facebook, email, and various other forms of communication. It is so easy to get fooled by a faceless person on the other side of the screen, and we don’t realise how harmful our data is unless someone uses it against us. There’s also the concept of how heartless people can be when you don’t face them in person but rather just their electronic personality on screen, as shown in the film. The film once again shows how social media can work for you or against you – the moment David attacks a “potential kidnapper”, the news is all over the internet, humiliating and disparaging him for his actions, without any mention of the full story.

The storyline is solid – within 102 minutes, we are shown enough backstory about the characters, every step in the search process, and the subtle hints which could lead us to the “solution” as to what actually happened. The plot twists pop up at regular intervals, each one more powerful than the last. John Cho wins our hearts as the pitiable father of the missing girl – traumatised by his wife’s death and troubled by his relationship with his daughter and brother. Debra Messing’s role is also commendable.

Searching could be a wake-up call for many of us who are unaware of the potential/existing dangers of the internet and social media, but it is surely a thorough entertainer for all. Full of suspense and heart-racing moments, this modern-day thriller is one you should not miss.

My Rating: 4.5/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 93%

Chekka Chivantha Vaanam (2018)

English translation: Crimson Red Sky

Director: Mani Ratnam

Story: Mani Ratnam, Siva Ananth

Cast: Arvind Swami, Arun Vijay, Silambarasan, Jyothika

Music: A. R. Rahman, Qutub-E-Kripa

Time: 143 minutes

Bottom-line: Poor writing and bad acting compensated by a surprise climax

Mani Ratnam is back in action with this multi-starrer drama. The film features an ensemble cast featuring Arvind Swami, Silambarasan (aka STR), Arun Vijay, Jyothika and Vijay Sethupathi in the lead roles, with Prakash Raj, Thiagarajan, Jayasudha and several others in the supporting cast. Despite the overwhelming hype preceding this film, I wasn’t so “awestruck” as others claimed to be. I still believe that the last film of Ratnam that I enjoyed was Guru, way back in 2006.

 

Arvind Swami as Varadan and Jyothika as Chitra

“Do you have any old friends? Don’t trust them.”

Among the most feared gangsters of Chennai is Senapati (Prakash Raj), who has built an empire for himself. He has three sons: Varadan (Swami), Ethi (STR) and Thiyagu (Vijay) and one daughter. One day, Senapathi and his wife are attacked by thugs disguised as cops, but they escape alive, sustaining injuries. Following this, the entire family comes together. Varadan calls his friend in the police department – the recently suspended Rasool (Sethupathi) – to get some intel on the attack. While the main suspect is Senapati’s rival gangster, Chinappadasan (Thiagarajan), Senapati reveals to his wife (and the viewers) that he knows one of his sons was actually responsible. Senapati dies soon after. Each son becomes greedy to take Senapati’s place, and this results in a bloody and messy war that rips the family apart. Who actually attacked Senapati? Who wins the empire?

 

STR as Ethi

I think this is one story that Mani Ratnam started out saying, “I want a dozen major characters and big stars in the film (for whatever reason)”, and halfway through, he changed his mind to, “Oops, too many people. Let me start killing them.” Beyond a point every scene is just about ‘who dies next?’ – sort of like a Tarantino film where people are eliminated like swatting out flies. And I don’t see why Tarantino does this either. The story gets derailed several times just to introduce characters (or kill them, of course). I am happy we were at least spared of cheesy romantic songs. Of course, the songs that were played in the background are often drowned by a clamorous shootout, so I don’t see the point of having them.

 

Vijay as Thiyagu

The best parts of the film? One, Jyothika’s acting. Highly under-used for her talent, her character of Varadan’s wife seems to be the only sane person in the story. The performances of Prakash Raj and, to some extent, Arvind Swami – though I still feel he does a far better job playing a romantic, like he did in Roja, or a cool, stylish villain (Thani Oruvan) rather than the crass, loud and violent character of Varadan – were good too. STR and Arun Vijay have numerous instances of overacting, while Vijay Sethupathi provides the balance with a constant deadpan expression. All three of them have a number of failed attempts at humour (if that was the intention). 

 

Sethupathi as Rasool

The other highlight of the film – and the only reason why the 143 minutes were worth something – is the climax. The twist is certainly unexpected, even though there wasn’t really any clue leading towards the conclusion. On the other hand, the ending could make you question the film even more (why go through all this drama for this?!) I don’t think any other Mani Ratnam film has a plot twist at the end, and certainly, no film is known for it; looks like this is a first, but it may be for the better or worse.

Long film short, Chekka Chivantha Vaanam is Mani Ratnam’s way of saying, “If you are a man (or woman) in power, please follow the one-child policy.” Some good performances and the climax are the only things worth watching, in an otherwise overhyped film.

My Rating: 2.5/5