Kaithi

Kaithi (2019)

Runtime: 144 minutes

Directed by: Lokesh Kanagaraj

Starring: Karthi, Narain, Ramana, George Maryan, Harish Uthaman

From: A few Indian companies

It's time for me to play catch-up. Here's a review posted on Letterboxd a few days ago: This time, it was a movie watch inspired by recent Letterboxd discussion. Out of nowhere, my review for the 2018 Indian movie Satyameva Jayate (which I actually saw theatrically) gained some traction and there was discussion in the comments w/ a mutual which made me realize that I should see more of these. Earlier in the year another mutual reviewed this in particular and that's why it has been on my radar since then. As it's actually for free on YouTube via an official upload from one of the production companies, that's how I viewed this. Before I get on, that YouTube copy had something curious: whenever there was smoking, alcohol seen or drugs, a small message popped up in the Tamil language-as I know nothing about that language written or spoken, thankfully each message was accompanied by a pictogram telling the audience not to drink, smoke or do drugs! Was that something only for the print on YouTube, only done by some studios or is that actually common for all modern Indian films?

Anyhow, a plot inspired by both Sorcerer and Assault on Precinct 13 (or if you will, The Wages of Fear/Rio Bravo) will capture my attention. It involves cops and a phalanx of drug dealers. Via contrivances, cops at a party are Roofied (!) by the villains and the only one to transport them in the flatbed of a truck to a hospital is a convict just released from prison-for what I would say is justified homicide-and an officer w/ a broken arm. Meanwhile, those same dealers attempt to break into a police station to release one of their own... further contrivances have the only people guarding the station be a new officer and some random teenagers. The most plausible scenario it is not... but is it greatly entertaining, yes. Consider, the truck stops surprisingly often considering the circumstances, yet it does allow for our hero Dilli to wreck dudes in hand to hand combat.

After a half hour of setup which establishes (among other things) the main players and how both sides have someone undercover, the rest is action mixed with some drama and pathos. After all, Dilli has a 10 year old daughter he's never met before... for its uneven moments and silliness, overall the movie is a lot of fun. The action beats are pretty cool and sometimes unique-there's explosions, shootouts, unexpected heroes, and a Minigun a la Ol' Painless from Predator. Plus, believe it or not there are no musical song and dance numbers. Be that as it may, it still has a typical Masala mix of a few different genres that can only come from motion pictures originating in India. It's all set in one night and not only does it have some unique elements, but those are mostly executed well. Thus, this was just another reminder that at least for me (although perhaps others should be paying attention too) India is not a country whose cinematic output should be ignored.

Scarecrow

Scarecrow (1973)

Runtime: 112 minutes

Directed by: Jerry Schatzberg

Starring: Gene Hackman, Al Pacino, Dorothy Tristan, Ann Wedgeworth, Richard Lynch

From: Warner Bros.

Eat Cantaloupe You Bellyachin' Rhinoceros! While I've known of this 70's road movie for a long time now, the impetus behind finally giving this a spin: a recent realization that more Gene Hackman should be seen by myself. Something that also starred Al Pacino & featured cinematography from Vilmos Zsigmond was only icing on the cake. At first the movie was amusing as we got to see the two leads (drifters who were hitchhiking and both had lonely existences, for differing reasons) meet each other and after initial wariness they become pals. There are some funny moments as Pacino was happy/carefree while Hackman was quite gruff and a loner. They join up to travel across the country so Al can see his ex in Detroit and visit their kid for the first time while Gene has a dream of... opening a carwash in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The mystery of why he chose Pittsburgh is addressed in the film although never answered. That's right, a Pittsburgh MacGuffin.

Then the second half of the movie happens... things change and trying to be vague, I'll just say that “it's a 70's film” and for certain only something that could be made in that decade. As usually happens, whenever Richard Lynch enters a flick, it's bad news for at least a few characters. It ended up being a more moving and powerful motion picture than what I was expecting going in. The cast as a whole is good overall (other familiar faces include Eileen Brennan & Rutanya Alda) but naturally it's the two leads who receive the lion's share of the attention and they are both great in what was not an easy role for either actor. It also has a nice musical score.

I do understand how many don't rate this as highly as I do, or feel that this has flaws, or that it's more about an actor's showcase than anything else. This happened to work like gangbusters for me. The performances delivered by and the characters brought to life by the two leads was so great, it won me over with all those poor sad-sacks went through. The filmmaking that had long takes, static shots that could last for a long while & took its time was also greatly appealing to my sensibilities. Besides watching more Gene Hackman, the same should go for the genre of 70's dramas.

Cleopatra

Cleopatra (1963)

Runtime: Around 4 hours!

Directed by: Joseph L. Mankiewicz

Starring: Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, Rex Harrison, Pamela Brown, George Cole

From: 20^th Century Fox

One of those films where I feel the production was more interesting than the final product.

Last night I was able to see this-recently recorded off the DVR-in one shot, even though it was a four hour plus recording made off of the FXM channel. While the DVR is far from being even half-full, it was nice to get a big recording off of there. I can enjoy the old epic movies, especially the ones from around this time period. Say what you will about Ben-Hur or The Ten Commandments (the '56 version), but they were spectacles, had nice casts & were lavish productions which were simply lovely to look at. This had many of those traits yet personally, its tumultuous production history was more noteworthy than what was shown on screen.

This was a longtime passion project for producer Walter Wenger. It seemed like a wise choice for Fox to make as a possible big hit when they really needed one at the time. The story was a standard tale revolving around fictionalized versions of the title character, Mark Antony and Caesar. Unfortunately for the studio, this took a few years to make due to various problems. Wenger really wanted Liz Taylor and while he was successful, she was ill often (the ailments real or imagined), this began the infamous relationship between Taylor & Richard Burton-when both were married to other people at the time-the shooting started before the script was even completed-yes, this happened even back then-original director Richard Mamoulian was fired, the movie started filming in England before production shut down and everything was scrapped to move to the more appropriate Italy... that and other calamities made it clear why this cost an estimated 44 million dollars between the production and all the advertising once this was finally released. That is almost 400 million dollars now! Needless to say, that was astronomical for the time & the long protracted shoot was a fiasco for many reasons, only some of which I've listed here.

With all that knowledge now known, it is a testament to the talent involved (especially director Joseph L. Mankiewicz, who was literally worked to the point of exhaustion) that this 4 hour picture ended up being good instead of a long painful experience akin to an extended root canal. This did win a few Oscars, but none of them had to do with acting—instead it was for such things as the effects, the cinematography & costumes. It was definitely a lovely movie to look at & another nice asset was the Alex North score. The acting and story is more spotty, although none of that was terrible. It's just that the protracted production obviously had an impact on the finished product & quality-wise is not as good as Ben-Hur or The Ten Commandments. Technically it eventually did make money because it was a box office hit, but that took awhile and at the time caused more strife than anything else for 20th Century Fox.

Does it feel rather long at times? It sure does. Perhaps I should have watched it in at least two installments, as I've seen other Letterboxd users do. Even if it's flawed and the making-of was more interesting than what was presented on screen, no regrets in spending a lot of time with this then getting to explain why this movie is sometimes more well known for what was not on celluloid.

The Book Of Life

The Book of Life (2014)

Runtime: 95 minutes

Directed by: Jorge R. Guitterez

Starring the voice talents of: Diego Luna, Zoe Saldana, Channing Tatum, Ron Perlman, Christina Applegate

From: 20^th Century Fox

The perfect movie to watch on Dia de los Muertos (Day of the Day)... if you've seen Coco before. Normally I wouldn't boldly make that comparison right away but even before Coco came out, the Internet was the Internet, meaning they thought Coco was a ripoff of this and thus were MAD that Disney was stealing some other property, again. Heaven knows that Disney committed theft when it came to “borrowing” ideas-among many other sins-however, a ripoff this was not. The only similarities are the Day of the Dead setting & music as a key plot point; both tell worthwhile, fun stories suitable for the entire family in a gorgeous, unique visual style. I do prefer Coco to this-that should not be taken as a slight. I am a gringo so take my opinion however you wish.

The plot here surrounds a love triangle where the trio has known each other since childhood; however, it is much more complicated than that. Two higher powers place a bet on which guy the girl will marry, and of course the heel cheats & gives his kid something that will greatly help him be a hero as long as he carries it. The girl becomes “an empowered woman”, the kid from a bullfighting family wishes to become a singer instead & like in Coco the concept of Dia de los Muertos is explained well enough to the audience that is unfamiliar with this tradition.

Not all the humor works & I am unsure why our hero sings songs from RADIOHEAD and ELVIS... despite that and some uneven moments, overall this was a charming film which has some pathos-the traditional music you hear is also fine. Channing Tatum voicing a Hispanic character is a little odd, but I am sure more than a few on Letterboxd will love that not only does Diego Luna lend his voice, he is the one who sings a few songs. I can't carp about its faults too loudly when there are nice messages such as “be true to yourself” and some will love that this gets Vegan Points for being against bullfighting and an early scene of animals being rescued from a butcher. Those that love Coco should at least give this a chance one day, even if it's not on a Day of the Dead.

Ronin

Ronin (1998)

Runtime: 122 minutes

Directed by: John Frankenheimer

Starring: Robert De Niro, Jean Reno, Natascha McElhone, Stellan Skarsgard, Jonathan Pryce

From: United Artists

While watching horror or otherwise creepy motion pictures (the majority of the time) the past two months has been fun—yet it does feel nice to have a return to normalcy & view all sorts of films. This was recorded last month on DVR & was in fact something I tried recording earlier in the month from the same channel but the recording stopped after the first minute. Thank goodness there was no issue this time-like I said at the time, I realize everyone has had at least one DVR hiccup in the past.

It is a John Frankenheimer joint which almost feels like something from Michael Mann-to steal a thought from elsewhere-which is a Euro crime sort of picture where various mercenaries or ex agents of a government are recruited by a mysterious figure to “acquire” a metal briefcase-a true MacGuffin in that what is in it is just like the contents of the briefcase in Pulp Fiction—meaning “never explained.” Of course, things go wrong and with all those shady characters, not everyone can be trusted.

Ronin is not a movie I am as over the moon for as some. Yet I am not complaining-nor do I think anyone else should-that I still thought this was pretty good. After all, what an incredible main cast this has (whether or not I know all the faces), a score that at times does bring in motifs that “sound Japanese” which is appropriate for a flick entitled “Ronin”, a script that David Mamet worked on, nice French settings & great car chases. Plus, it was a complex story which never became convoluted to the point of frustration. In addition, Michael Lonsdale here was certainly better than in Moonraker, although I don't blame him for that Bond film not being one of the better ones.

I've seen others bemoan the lack of Ronin sequels-if not that, I'd like to see more stylish Euro crime thrillers like this which are more about the drama than action, although the action is crackin'. Without a doubt, there should have been more movies starring De Niro & Reno (no matter their genre) as they were a hell of a duo here. While it was stated a few months ago and did not come to fruition, this time I will view more Frankenheimer later in November.

Here Is The Link To My Spooky Season List

I do explain why it's entitled A Ghastly Ghoulish Spine-Chilling Spookshow, Part 7: I Was A Teenage Blairwolf

Halloween (Unfortunately, The Rob Zombie Version)

Halloween (2007)

Runtime: A rather long 121 minutes; yes, I saw the Director's Cut

Directed by: Rob Zombie

Starring: Plenty of famous faces I wish would have been in something better, along with some actors who I wish I could have seen less of

From: Dimension

Not the only piece of entertainment I revisited yesterday... but it was the worst. I'll just say that the others were some appropriate cartoons and the charmingly pleasant WNUF Halloween Special, all of which I've reviewed before. However, I had only seen this once before (soon after it came out on disc) and that was long before I joined Letterboxd so of course this is the first time it will be reviewed. Likely I will never watch this again; it has nothing to do with its status as a drastically different interpretation of the Michael Myers story—if it was about another mass-murdering psychopath then I would still find this to be an unpleasant 2 hours. Yes, I saw the unrated Director's Cut as that's the version commonly available.

This movie is why me (along with many others) have the stereotype of Rob Zombie only doing motion pictures concerning gross vulgar white trash stereotypes. From the opening scene where we see Michael as a young boy and he has a disgusting redneck family that constantly yells and is constantly gross, it starts off everything on the wrong note-at least for me-and that made this feel incredibly long having to deal with something so aggressively crass & in your face. The fact that Laurie Strode and friends are definitely not as likable or charming compared to what we saw in '78 when this motion picture does a compressed version of the original's plot... not a good time for me. The fact that the performances from little Michael & Zombie's own wife aren't exactly thespian quality (although apparently Sheri Moon has improved in subsequent films) is another issue.

It's not all bad; at least I enjoyed the 70's tunes that Zombie selected... although how Love Hurts was used will forever make me think differently of that song. It was also nice seeing such a large collection of old actors (character or otherwise) most of whom are liked by such nerds as those in the Letterboxd community. Even if I don't necessarily love what was done w/ the Loomis character, there are no complaints with Malcolm McDowell's acting in said role. The brutality of Myers was nice if you dig such things; the movie is not a total failure. It's no surprise why many would like a grimy greasy piece of work like this-personally, it's all just too much. As for Michael Myers as a character, I prefer it as a random young boy who-even if he has some sort of supernatural powers-happened to be a psychopath that murdered his sister then became a terrifying masked mute that stalked people-whether family members or not. Before anyone asks, I've never experienced Zombie's Halloween II... and there's a chance I never will.

In a few hours my list of what I've seen spooky season wise these past two months will go public. That will feature many films that I liked more than this.