Ready or Not (2019)

Director: Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett

Story: Guy Busick, R. Christopher Murphy

Cast: Samara Weaving, Mark O’Brien, Adam Brody

Music: Brian Tyler

Time: 95 minutes

Bottom-line: Gruesome and bloody, but an entertaining horror flick

Normally, I am the guy who avoids horror films. But when the genre of Ready or Not was mentioned (on Wikipedia) as “black comedy horror thriller”, I knew this was something different. The film stars Samara Weaving in the lead role, with an ensemble supporting cast.

 

Weaving as Grace

With family, one hopes for the best.

The Le Domas family is a wealthy clan, and the newest family member is Grace (Weaving), the wife of Alex Le Domas (O’Brien). After the marriage ceremony, Alex tells Grace that as part of the family tradition, she has to play “a game” at midnight – chosen at random by drawing a card – to officially become a family member. Grace’s card says “Hide and Seek”, and Alex’s father says she gets to hide, while the whole family’s task is to find her. Grace “wins” if she remains hidden till dawn. Little does she know that the family’s objective is not just to find her, but also to slay her.

 

O'Brien as Alex

They think they have to kill you before sunrise.

Right from the outset, there is such a clear difference between Grace and the other family members. Some people make it obvious (“They’re just trying to figure out if you’re a gold-digging whore”), while others talk behind her back, but you can see that Grace’s cheerful demeanour, radiant smile and energetic voice just don’t fit in. Apart from the exotic mix of characters of the Le Domas family, the setting of this film is so good – the ominous mansion, the accompanying background score and the camerawork that captures the violence and gore and other surprises so well that you are regularly jolted. 

 

A glimpse of the Le Domas family

Ready or Not is, in essence, Get Out: Part 2. One person stuck in a weird house with all sorts of strange people must fight a bloody battle to save his skin. It helped that I could afford to mute the movie and minimise the screen whenever needed, otherwise, there’s a lot of violence and screaming and disfigured faces that you might want to avoid. And, of course, I’m sure Tarantino would be proud of the amount of bloodshed in the film. Nevertheless, the pace of the movie never slackens, with several sequences where you are at the edge of your seat. The plot twists are well-timed, and the last scene is just perfect.

Samara Weaving is the star of the show – you think she’s alone in her battle but she has actually drawn the support of the entire audience. You cheer for her in every small victory, her screams make your stomach turn, and you gasp synchronously. Her performance is reason enough to at least watch the film, even if you end up not liking it.

The strength of Ready or Not is the fact that it comes off as a “crowd-pleasing” horror flick, in the sense that it strikes the balance between cheesy violence and gore. It is a macabre watch, best watched on an empty stomach, but you can be guaranteed of entertainment.

My Rating: 3.5/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 89%

The Irishman (2019)

(or) I Heard You Paint Houses 

Director: Martin Scorsese

Screenplay: Steven Zaillian (based on the book by Charles Brandt)

Cast: Robert de Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci  

Music: Robbie Robertson

Time: 209 minutes

Bottom-line: A gangster epic; brilliant filmmaking

Following classics like GoodFellas and The Departed, Scorsese is back with his latest addition to the gangster genre. Featuring three big names in Hollywood – de Niro, Pacino and Pesci – The Irishman (also titled I Heard You Paint Houses) is a powerful, detailed story about a hitman, a mobster and a Teamster. Although it’s the most expensive (budgeted at $159 million) and longest Scorsese film, the screen time and the money are worth it.

 

de Niro as Frank

When I was young, I thought house painters painted houses. What did I know? I was a working guy, one of a thousand working stiffs, until I wasn’t no more. And then I started painting houses myself.

The film is divided into three timelines and is narrated by Frank Sheeran (de Niro), currently in a nursing home. The second timeframe is 1975, when we see Frank, Russell Bufalino (Pesci) and their wives go on a road trip. The third timeframe spans across the '50s and '60s. Frank is a truck driver who delivers steak. He meets another mobster, Russell, and starts doing jobs for him, including murders. Russell later introduces Frank to Jimmy Hoffa (Pacino), head of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Frank then becomes Hoffa’s chief bodyguard. As Hoffa becomes increasingly difficult to deal with, the other mobsters decide it’s time to do away with him. The rest of the film is about what Frank does, how it takes a toll on his family and how the mobsters eventually end up.

 

Pacino as Hoffa

Scorsese has a great eye for detail, you can tell. He has this knack of making a comprehensive story about people’s lives, especially in the gangster genre. The plot isn’t famous for twists, or high-speed car chases or action sequences; it’s the narrative structure that’s the highlight. The three timelines show stark contrasts in the characters’ appearances (thanks to the excellent use of CGI - the "de-ageing" technology was developed specifically for this film) and behaviour. Just like how GoodFellas shows the rise and decline of Henry Hill in the gangster clans, here, it’s the tale of Frank – a truck driver to a ruthless hitman to an old man repenting for his sins.

 

Pesci as Russell

With Scorsese films, it’s usually a matter of “when” something will happen and not what will happen; the plots are usually pretty straightforward. The only apparent downside of the plot here is the three-and-a-half-hour-long screen time. While you may feel that several scenes are needless (what’s the big deal with the fish? It’s like the kahuna burger scene from Pulp Fiction again!), you have to remember that the intention is to portray someone’s life, and any small sequence which adds value to shaping the story or developing the character is essential.

The three stalwarts have given amazing performances, and my pick among them would be Pacino – the loud-mouthed, speech-giving, crowd-pulling, arrogant Teamster. Pesci – coming out of his unofficial retirement – plays the calm and composed Russell, greatly contrasting his character of Tommy DeVito in GoodFellas. Robert de Niro’s character, for a significant part of the film, seems to have no idea of what he’s doing – constantly negotiating with Jimmy and Russell, wondering whom to support. His acting in the last half hour of the film is what brings out his versatility, and as a viewer, you also become aware of the pitiable condition of the old man, as opposed to the energetic, merciless hitman you see earlier in the film.   

Scorsese’s films also generally perform well in the technical aspects. Thelma Schoonmaker, Scorsese’s editor for over forty years, does an excellent job in this film too, and the cinematography – with long takes and stills – is top notch too. It’s amazing how the film brings together the biggest names in different categories and gives one hell of a tale.  

My Rating: 4/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 96%

Parasite (2019)

Director: Bong Joon-ho

Story: Bong Joon-ho

Cast: Song Kang-ho, Jang Hye-jin, Park So-dam, Choi Woo-shik

Music: Jeong Je-il

Time: 132 minutes

Bottom-line: Darkly funny and hard-hitting; highly impressive

Act like you own the place.

This movie from South Korea – also their official submission to the Oscars for the category of Best International Feature Film – is probably the best film I’ve seen in 2019. The film won the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival, becoming the first Korean film to do so. Starting off as a comedy, Parasite quickly shifts gears to narrate a dark tale about social classes and greed. If you are a person who easily gets paranoid, chances are that you will fire your maid and driver and any other household help after watching the film. 

With no plan, nothing can go wrong. If things spin out of control, it doesn’t matter.

Kim Ki-taek (Kang-ho), his wife Chung-sook (Hye-jin), son Ki-woo (Woo-shik), and daughter Ki-jeong (So-dam) live in a small semi-basement apartment, barely meeting expenses. Ki-woo’s friend gifts them with a rock that would supposedly bring them wealth. He also advises Ki-woo to take over his position as the English tutor of Da-hye (Jung ji-so) – the daughter of the wealthy Park family. Seeing how naive Mrs. Park is, the other family members trick her into hiring them as employees: Ki-taek as the driver, Chung-sook as the housekeeper and Ki-jeong as her son’s art teacher. When the Parks go out for a camping trip, the four of them exploit the luxuries of the empty house. However, they discover a secret that will soon ruin their lives as well as that of several others involved.

 

The Ki-taek family in their house

Rich people are naive. No resentments. No creases on them.

Merriam-Webster defines a “parasite” as an organism living in, with, or on another organism or a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich; there cannot be a more apt title for the film. The story starts on a humorous note, as we see how Ki-taek’s family takes advantage of the wealth and the innocence of Mr. and Mrs. Park. Before you realise it, the tale turns into a dark, biting commentary on how greed can overcome even the best of us. Also, when you are desperate to save your skin, you don’t care one bit about what you do to a fellow human being. Another theme that’s explored is how people change when they suddenly get more power in their hands – when you’re weaker, you try to cooperate, but when you’re the stronger one, you step on the weak.

 

Cho Yeo-jeong as Mr. Park and Jung Ji-so as Mrs. Park

Of course, the underlying factor that drives the story is the social inequality that exists. The livelihood of Ki-taek’s family is in stark contrast to that of the Parks. One house has a rotten smell and people urinating on their window and the other one has a wine cellar and a Benz. Note how the poster shows the Ki-taek family and the Park family having different coloured bands across their eyes. It’s only in retrospect that you realise that Mr. Park’s comment: “he doesn’t cross the line,” means something else entirely.

I like how the film starts and ends with the same shot – an indication that some things have remained the same, but a lot of other things have changed forever. The pseudo-positive note on which the film ends (which you’ll understand when you actually watch it) is bound to have a lasting effect on you. The film is also filled with several ironical scenes and themes, including what the “rock that brings luck” actually does and how tables turn when you are suddenly the one in a dominant position. Another interesting aspect is the use of Morse code in the film – perhaps as a metaphor for the moral that the tale tries to tell us, in code.  

One of the best parts of the film is when the Ki-taek family tries to sneak out of the house without the Parks knowing. The suspense is at screaming point, but there’s still a faintly comical tone to it. Every character has acted brilliantly throughout the film, but this scene, in particular, highlights it. It is during this time that you realise that the film is no longer remotely close to the comedy it started out as, but rather, it’s a much more sinister tale that’s making us think. I would say the movie has created a genre of its own.   

Parasite is one of those films about which you feel “Why hasn’t anyone thought of this before?” but at the same time, you are woken up with none too soft a jolt. It’s a painfully realistic look at social inequality, as well as a powerful, gripping tale about greed and family. This film is one for the ages.  

My Rating: 5/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 99%

Joker (2019)

Director: Todd Phillips

Story: Todd Phillips, Scott Silver

Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Robert de Niro

Music: Hildur Guðnadóttir

Time: 122 minutes

Bottom-line: One of the darkest films of the year

Although numerous directors and actors have taken efforts to portray Batman’s life in their own styles, Todd Phillips does something different: he makes an origin story of one of the most famous villains of the Batman universe. Starring Joaquin Phoenix as the titular character, alongside Robert de Niro and Frances Conroy, Joker is arguably the darkest Batman film yet.

Is it just me, or is it getting crazier out there?

1981, Gotham City: Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) is a party-clown and an aspiring stand-up comedian, living with his mother, Penny (Conroy). He has a mental condition that causes him to laugh uncontrollably at random times. At a time when Gotham is swarming with unemployment and crime, Arthur also loses his job. Things worsen when he is mocked publicly on a TV show by host Murray Franklin (de Niro), and he also finds out that he was adopted. Deciding that it’s time he reaches out to the public, he accepts an offer to be on Murray’s show. But by then, Arthur has already descended into a dangerous state of insanity and violence.

 

Phoenix as Arthur/Joker

Joker was an instant commercial hit, becoming the first R-rated film to gross over a billion in box-office revenues. The “R” rating is mainly due to the violent and disturbing content of the film, and that’s what makes Joker so hard-hitting. The depiction of mental illness in Arthur – from physical symptoms to seemingly comic acts to some of the most brutal acts you can imagine – has a chilling effect on the viewer. It’s also difficult to imagine that Todd Phillips – the director of the Hangover trilogy – made a film as dark as this.  

 

de Niro as Murray 

Joaquin Phoenix has done a bunch of commendable roles as villains in the past – Gladiator and The Yards – but his portrayal of the psychotic character in this film takes the cake. Heath Ledger underwent a lot of physically taxing exercises to prepare for his role as the Joker in The Dark Knight, and we saw the outcome of that; it makes you wonder how much more Phoenix went through to transform himself into the character you see on screen. You’d think he has one hand on the Oscar already.

You can see a lot of similar themes between Joker and a couple of Martin Scorsese films – Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy (both of which feature de Niro). The first film also depicts the slow mental decay of one man fighting to change a city rife with crime, and the second film is about an aspiring comedian going to extreme lengths to get his fame. The cinematography techniques are also similar to some extent, especially the portrayal of a dark and depressing atmosphere.

With a climax that reminds me of Psycho, Todd Phillips’ film is a thrilling ride but only if you can stomach a lot of violence and depressing sights. But Joaquin Phoenix’s performance is something that you must not miss!  

My Rating: 3.5/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 69%

Blue Valentine (2010)

Director: Derek Cianfrance

Story: Derek Cianfrance, Cami Delavigne, Joey Curtis

Cast: Ryan Gosling, Michelle Williams

Music: Grizzly Bear

Time: 112 minutes

Bottom-line: Depressing and realistic; meant for a select few

Derek Cianfrance’s romantic drama, Blue Valentine, is a film I came across when looking at a compilation of "the most realistic romance films". Sure enough, this film takes a strained marriage and uses it to portray a brutally vivid depiction of how it takes a toll on the partners involved.

How do you trust your feelings when they can just disappear like that?

The film uses a nonlinear narrative sequence that keeps changing between the courtship period between Dean (Gosling) and Cindy (Williams) and the current state of their failing marriage. Dean is a high-school dropout who gets a job in a moving firm. Cindy is studying pre-med. On the job, Dean meets Cindy, who is with her grandmother. The two of them start dating soon. In the present day, Dean paints houses for a living and is an alcoholic, and Cindy is a nurse. The couple has a daughter, Frankie, and a family dog. The relationship is clearly strained, with Cindy's boss making advances on her, and Dean's alcoholism getting out of control. Have they reached their breaking points, or will the family remain intact?

 

The younger Dean (Gosling) and Cindy (Williams)

If Blue Valentine has a lasting impact on you, it is thanks to the acting of Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams. While Gosling is more famously known for being the charming romantic that all the women in the audience have a crush on, in this film we get to see a drunk, loathsome Gosling (not the drunk type who makes you laugh, like his role in The Nice Guys) who does his role so well it’ll take you a while to get used to the fact that it’s the same person. Michelle Williams earned an Oscar nomination for her role as the wife who has “had enough” of her husband. From portraying the pitiable pre-med student to the wife struggling with marital and household problems, Williams illustrates a lot of versatility in her role. The scene in the hospital where they fight shows the tension at its peak, and the following scene, where both of them break down in the house, summarises how the relationship has come tumbling down.

 

The older (present-day) Dean and Cindy

The nonlinear storyline enhances the contrast in the relationship phases of Dean and Cindy. The craving they once shared has gone dry; the only thing holding them together is their daughter. You see Dean and Cindy merrily singing and dancing and making love and the next moment the timeframe shifts to indicate the stark contrast of the couple's present state. That is what makes the film so powerful – it takes an ordinary couple and shows a very detailed description of a marriage where the “spark” has long ceased to exist. This is something very real – there are a number of passionate couples who go from “Let’s start a family together” to “I've got nothing left for you, nothing, nothing!” in a matter of a few years.

The details of the movie lie not only in the story but also in the visual aspects – the fights, the crying, the sex, everything (which is also why there was an initial controversy when the film was given an NC-17 rating and not R). The main takeaways, however, are the stunning performances by Gosling and Williams. While the tale is certainly saddening, it is still worth one watch.

My Rating: 3.5/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 88%

Iravukku Aayiram Kangal (2018)

English translation: The night has a thousand eyes
Director: M. Maran

Story: M. Maran

Cast: Arulnithi, Ajmal, Mahima Nambiar

Music: Sam C.S.

Time: 121 minutes

Bottom-line: Racy script that loses focus now and then

Yet another addition to the next phase of Tamil cinema, where new directors come up with innovative ideas for stories involving “grey” characters, Iravukku Aayiram Kangal is a murder-mystery “wrong man” film. The film stars Arulnithi, Ajmal and Mahima Nambiar in the lead roles, with Vidya Pradeep, John Vijay and Chaya Singh in the supporting roles.

Bharath (Arulnithi) is a cab driver. His love interest is Suseela (Nambiar). One night, when Suseela is assaulted by another cab driver, Ganesh (Ajmal) comes to her rescue, but he later stalks her and behaves inappropriately. Suseela comes to know that her client, Roopala (Singh) has also been blackmailed by Ganesh, who has filmed her nude and has incriminating videos of her husband (Vijay) too. Bharath decides to teach Ganesh a lesson, but when he goes to his house, he finds a young woman shot dead, and soon, he is wrongly named as the murderer by a neighbour. As Bharath runs away from the cops, the viewer joins him in the hunt for the murderer and, more importantly, finding the true nature of everyone around him.

 

Arulnithi as Bharath and Mahima Nambiar as Suseela

Iravukku Aayiram Kangal was certainly meant to be constructed as a proper mystery story – in the sense, the viewer who pays careful attention to the scenes and dialogues can guess the “solution” before the characters in the film narrate the same via flashbacks. Several scenes in the film are played again to show the viewpoint of different players in the scene. At one point it feels like there are too many people involved, but like Neram or Maanagaram, the story brings most of them together nicely. (Spoiler alert) The ending could have been scripted in a better way – one that's more open-ended. Instead of showing Bharath arrive at the writer’s house (which makes him seemingly innocent), I would have preferred a black screen with the voice-over of a newsreader reporting the murder. On that note, the other aspect of the film that I liked was the clever use of the writer’s character as a MacGuffin.

 

Ajmal as Ganesh

The cinematography is put to good use, especially with the slow-motion and rewind sequences. The fight scenes could have been done away with or kept as brief as possible. Again, pay attention to the little details to guess what’s going to happen, or, as a last resort, watch the film a second time to catch what you missed the first time. Having seen it twice, I still feel like there are a few unanswered questions but you will surely understand the flow of events and have plenty of “aha” moments. 

To summarise, Iravukku Aayiram Kangal is a well-crafted mystery tale with fine-tuning needed in a few places. There really isn’t any great acting; most dialogues and exchanges seem to take place as if they are being read from a book, with Ajmal being a notable exception. Nevertheless, the plot is quite enjoyable.

My Rating: 3.5/5

The King of Comedy (1980)

Director: Martin Scorsese

Story: Paul D. Zimmerman

Cast: Robert De Niro, Jerry Lewis, Sandra Bernhard

Time: 109 minutes

Bottom-line: Not a comedy after all, but rather a reality bite

Martin Scorsese goes out of his normal line of filmmaking and directs the satirical dark comedy, The King of Comedy. A film very poorly received at the box office on initial release (grossing only $2.5 million against a $19 million budget), the film eventually gained praise and recognition in the coming years and, in my opinion, showcases one of De Niro’s best performances.

Better to be king for a night, than a shmuck for a lifetime.

Rupert Pupkin (De Niro) is an aspiring stand-up comedian, desperate for a “big break” in his career. He is a stage-door autograph hound, who gets a chance to share a ride in the car of Jerry Langford (Lewis), an immensely popular talk show host. He tries to convince Jerry to give him a chance on his show, after evaluating his recorded performance. However, he is continuously rejected by Jerry’s office staff, and finally by Jerry himself, to the point where Rupert reaches his breaking point. He partners with another hard-core fan of Jerry, Masha (Bernhard), and abducts Jerry at gunpoint, agreeing to release him if Rupert gets a chance to appear on the talk show. Does he finally get his “big break”?

De Niro as Pupkin

All of us – at some point or the other – want to be famous; we at least want our “fifteen minutes of fame”. How desperate we are to achieve this is what defines what we do. Here, we see the ultimate case of obsession: a man who lives in a fantasy world where he is famous, more than he lives in the real world; a man who does not even realise that he is being rejected, time and time again. The story and direction are so beautifully done that you do not know whether to laugh or pity the character of Pupkin – kind of like the character of The Tramp in City Lights. As I said, this is not a film that makes you laugh; it is, in fact, depressing to some extent, to see a man struggle to achieve his dreams when virtually nothing and no one is supporting him.

 

Lewis as Langford

In many ways, the overall course of the story is similar to that of Taxi Driver: a man determined to do something, he’s alone with no one to support him, and when all the orthodox methods fail and he reaches his breaking point, he has to take extreme steps. Both Travis Bickle and Rupert Pupkin live in a world of imagination, and, like the climax of the 1976 film, whether the ending is a fantasy or not is for us to decide. Though the awards don’t reflect the fact, De Niro’s performance is easily one of the best of his career. The way he plays a character in constant denial, always putting a smile on his face hoping the moment will come – in a film all about showmanship – deserves praise. Among his eight collaborations with Scorsese, the latter considers the role of Pupkin to be his favourite.

Bernhard as Masha

This is a movie filled with characters each caring only about themselves, or as a critic put it: everybody's just waiting for the other person to stop talking so they can start, and this makes the film a reality bite. It is a wake-up call saying that no one is going to care about you unless you’re wealthy, powerful or famous. In a world filled with Jerry Langfords, you are going to have to be as eccentric as Rupert Pupkin to be “the King”, even if it’s only for fifteen minutes. Is it worth it? Or is it okay to “be a shmuck for a lifetime”? The King of Comedy might not be Scorsese or De Niro’s most well-known work, but watching it will influence you a lot.

My Rating: 3.5/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 90%

Thank you for Smoking (2006)

Director: Jason Reitman

Screenplay: Jason Reitman (based on the novel by Christopher Buckley)

Cast: Aaron Eckhart, Cameron Bright, William H. Macy

Music: Rolfe Kent

Time: 92 minutes

Bottom-line: Highly impressive. Brilliant filmmaking on a sensitive topic

Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I talk. Everyone has a talent.

Currently, every movie, whether it is screened in a theatre or aired on TV, must advertise against smoking. “Smoking causes cancer; smoking kills” is probably the most repeated line on television. In 2006, Jason Reitman took Christopher Buckley’s book and decided to make a film on this extremely sensitive topic - smoking - and boy, did he pull off a success!

When you argue correctly, you're never wrong.

Meet Nick Naylor (Eckhart): handsome, stylish, and the best of the lot in his job. His job? A “lobbyist” and Vice President of “The Academy of Tobacco Studies”, which has been researching the relationship between tobacco smoking and lung cancer. Nick’s job is to report the findings of the Academy and also to question opposing health claims. He advises people to take their own choice when it comes to smoking. Nick’s method of arguing inspires his son, Joey (Bright). Nick’s friends - firearm lobbyist Bobby Jay Bliss (David Koechner) and alcohol lobbyist Polly Bailey (Maria Bello) call themselves the “Merchants of Death”. Meanwhile, Senator Finistirre (Macy) wants to promote the skull-and-bones warning sign on all cigarette packs. In a debate between Nick and the Senator, Nick gets a death threat from a caller. Nick is also destroyed by a seductive reporter, Heather Holloway (Katie Holmes), who exposes all his “true” intentions. How does Nick strike back?

 

Eckhart as Nick (right), and Bright as Joey

Few people on this planet know what it is to be truly despised. Can you blame them? I earn a living fronting an organisation that kills one thousand two hundred human beings a day.

Like Reitman’s future films, Thank you for Smoking also carries a distinctive style of filmmaking: the smart and witty lead character, the first-person narrative, the catchy opening sequence and a story revolving around a sensitive topic – this film deals with smoking, while his later films Juno and Up in the Air deal with teenage pregnancies and the need for human attachments, respectively – and a brilliant script. As much as we all know that cigarettes are harmful, it is still a business that will be running as long as people do smoke. The fact that the story is narrated from a person in the industry makes it interesting by giving us a new viewpoint.

 

William H. Macy as Senator Finisterre 

Nick constantly keeps emphasising the fact that it is our choice whether or not to get addicted to cigarettes. In 92 minutes, we see why Nick’s method of articulation makes him the best at what he is, and how the mere fact that he works for a cigarette company affects his relationship with his ex-wife and son. The second half of the film deals with Nick’s downfall after Heather’s report and how he bounces back. The humour comes from the way Nick convinces people that cigarettes aren’t as fatal as they seem to be, and how he teaches his son (and the viewers) the methods of arguing.

 

Holmes as Heather 

This role could well be Eckhart’s most stylish role and his best to date, second only to that of Harvey Dent perhaps. Full of charisma and humour, you know he is not kidding when he says his (character’s) talent is “to talk”. The scenes where he appears before the Senate committee and the one where he discusses the art of “arguing” with his son prove this. J.K. Simmons – who plays Nick’s boss – and William H. Macy have done well too, and, like in all Reitman films, their lines/dialogues give a big boost. 

So, while the main reason I watched the film was out of curiosity regarding the content, I found myself more than satisfied with what I got. This is one satire that you must not miss – smoker or not!

My Rating: 3.5/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 86%

The Descendants (2011)

Director: Alexander Payne
Screenplay: Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon and Jim Rash (based on the novel by Kaui Hart Hemmings)
Cast: George Clooney, Shailene Woodley, Amara Miller
Time: 115 minutes
Bottom-line: Touching and emotional, with powerful acting 

In Alexander Payne’s family drama, The Descendants, George Clooney pulls off his finest performance yet! The film is about a family’s hardships and how they deal with it, against a Hawaiian backdrop. The film co-stars Shailene Woodley, Amara Miller, Nick Krause and Matthew Lillard.

Matthew “Matt” King (Clooney) is a man with a number of problems on his hands at the moment – his wife is in a coma after a boating accident, he is the sole trustee of 25000 acres of land on Kauai island, and the trust expires in seven years due to the rule against perpetuities, so the rest of the family pressurises him to sell off the land for a fortune. His elder daughter, Alexandra (Woodley), is involved with drugs and older boys, while his younger daughter, Scottie (Miller) bullies others at school. On top of all this, Matt finds out that his wife had been cheating on him. With the help of his daughters, Alex’s friend Sid (Krause) and by keeping his own wits about, watch how Matt deals with all his problems, en route to being a better family man.

The story is set in Hawaii probably because it is to show the viewers that Hawaii is not exactly paradise for everyone. As Matt says in the opening lines of the film: “My friends on the mainland think just because I live in Hawaii, I live in paradise. We’re all here just shaking our hips and catching waves. Are they insane? How can they possibly think that our families are any less screwed up than theirs, our cancers less fatal, our heartaches less painful?” The plot focuses mainly on how Matt transforms into a caring family man, from being a business-oriented lawyer, learning from the painful experience of having to take care of his daughters without their mother. He has to overcome his emotional breakdown too when he learns about how his wife cheated on him. Matt learns more about himself and those around him when his wife can no longer move a muscle than he did when they were married.

Clooney as Matt (left), Woodley as
Alexandra (middle) and Miller as Scottie

After being awestruck by Clooney’s performance in Up in the Air, The Descendants was next on my list. This role amazed me even more, and, like I said, it could well be the best performance of Clooney’s career. You have seen him as a suave businessman (Up in the Air), a cunning thief (Ocean's Eleven), and even an attorney (Michael Clayton). Now he plays a family man, and he is so good at it too! Every expression is perfect, the body language is superb, and his lines are rendered with such passion and emotion. Look out for the scene where he confronts his wife’s lover and the final scene where he says the last goodbye to his wife. Another exceptional performance is by Shailene Woodley. The 19-year-old actress shows some really mature acting, filled with authentic expressions, and displaying all the characteristics of a typical teenager. This movie gives her a solid platform to expand her career. Miller, who plays the 10-year-old Scottie, has done quite well too.

The best part of The Descendants is that it shows the story of a normal man, not someone special. That is what makes the story all the more relatable. Watch the film for a touching story about a loving father/husband, and if you are a fan of George Clooney, get ready to experience a performance like you’ve never seen before!

My Rating: 4/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 89%

Up in the Air (2009)

Director: Jason Reitman
Screenplay: Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner (based on the book by Walter Kirn)
Cast: George Clooney, Vera Farmiga, Anna Kendrick 
Music: Rolfe Kent
Time: 109 minutes
Bottom-line: Soars high! 

Natalie: How can you not think about that? How does it not even cross your mind that you might want a future with someone?
Ryan: It's simple; you know that moment when you look into somebody's eyes and you can feel them staring into your soul and the whole world goes quiet... just for a second?
Natalie: Yes!
Ryan: Right, well I don't.

Clooney as Ryan

Meet Ryan Bingham (Clooney), a man working for Career Transition Corporation, a firm that helps in termination assistance (which means he goes around firing people on behalf of their employers). Ryan loves flying, and his aim is to become the seventh person in the world to reach the ten million frequent flyer mile mark. His philosophy – on which he delivers motivational speeches too – is that one must live without any attachments... literally, live off a suitcase! In one of his trips, Ryan meets another traveller, Alex (Farmiga), and the two of them start a casual relationship. Ryan is unexpectedly called back home when his firm decides to use the idea of a new employee, Natalie (Kendrick) – to conduct layoffs via video conferencing, thereby “grounding” Ryan, which irritates him. How Ryan’s lifestyle now changes, and what the consequences are, is what Up in the Air is about.

Farmiga as Alex

The stars will wheel forth from their daytime hiding places... and one of those lights, slightly brighter than the rest, will be my wingtip passing over. 
The story deals with various themes – Ryan’s job of firing people, his viewpoint of “moving is living”, his aim of reaching the 10 million mark, and his relationships with Natalie and Alex. All of them are tied by a fine thread: Ryan (described as a suave, smartly dressed businessman in his 40s) wants to lead a life without having any commitments; not even a proper house. He even says: All the things you probably hate about travelling – the recycled air, the artificial lighting, the digital juice dispensers, the cheap sushi – are warm reminders that I’m home. This attitude makes him oblivious to the pain faced by the fired employees, who often talk about how their family would react (“Done it so many times that I’ve forgotten what it is like to hire someone” he says), which is why he is probably so good at his job of firing them! Later in the story, he realises the flaw in his policy and by the time he attempts to start a new life it is already too late.

A minor theme that is also discussed is the use of technology. From firing people "over the internet" to breaking up over a text message, "where are people's manners?" (as Ryan's boss says). We are moving towards a time where all contact between humans is going to be electronic; how will that be? Is face-to-face conversation going to become a thing of the past?

The part of the story dealing with the 10 million mile mark is probably to show how obsessed one can become with something others consider trivial – Natalie’s belief that one must find a life partner is mocked at by Ryan, while Ryan’s yet-to-reach milestone is mocked at by her. Up in the Air makes you question whether or not one needs to have attachments. Yes, Ryan seems “happier than most married people”, but then he himself asks, “In all your best moments, were you alone?”

Kendrick as Natalie

George Clooney’s acting is simply stunning. He’s funny, charming, condescending and of course, he carries with him his finesse and panache that no other actor is capable of bringing on screen. The female leads played out their roles superbly too. This is Anna Kendrick’s first major film, and the manner in which she plays the newly joined employee is excellent. She is new to travelling (much to Ryan’s irritation!), has her own ideas of life – contrasting those of Ryan’s in every way – bold enough to question Ryan’s doctrines, and smart enough to get others’ attention. Look out for the scene where she confronts Ryan about marriage; the debate they have gives you a lot to think about.

Jason Reitman’s Up in the Air is a new type of drama, which proves to be funny, influential, thought-provoking and entertaining all at once. It does not stand out exceedingly well in any category in particular, but the overall presentation and charm is something you should not miss! Join Ryan Bingham in his journey up in the air!

My Rating: 4.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 91%