Reviews

Take the time to read my whole review. Do not go by these 1/2/3-star reviews. They all miss the mark. If the "plot" was what people were focusing on in this movie, then they must be pretty out of their minds. We don't remember movies like Ramji Rao Speaking or Godfather for their "plot". Sure, they had their little plots, but we remember them mainly for the multiple incredible scenes and witty dialogue.

Despite the sensory overloads of those crappy text captions, the pathetic cringy dance and song interludes, and the seizure-inducing video edits, this movie had an incredible number of laugh-out-loud scenes as well as subtly funny ones which more than made up for the cringe.

If all these reviewers posting these crappy reviews here did not laugh at all those subtle nuances and dialogue, then I pity their sense of humour.

What actually irks me is that they then go on to call lame wannabe-Hollywood movies like Bheeshma Parvam and Rorschach "good cinema". I'd watch Gold any day over these.

This movie was not about the "plot" at all, it was about enjoying the characters' antics and interactions with each other.

That is where I come to the point I make in the title. Mr. Puthren, if you are reading this review, in my humble opinion, you have a gift in writing and directing incredibly funny scenes and dialogue. I see the Indian Tarantino in you. Don't waste it on the unnecessary cringe-inducing song/dance cuts and video editing overloads.

And Prithvi/Supriya, don't regret having made this movie. I haven't laughed this much in a while, so thank you.

I would have given this movie a 7 or 8 but am giving it a 9 just because of the heap of trashy low-score reviews here.

"Ponni! Ponni! Evideya Ponni! Karayalle Ponni. Ponni. Entha Ponni. Ponni! Ponni Evideya, Ponni!"

I have no idea what is up with Malayalam viewers these days, over-rating these absolutely mediocre "realistic" movies as if they were the second coming of Christ. The first half (or one-third?) of the movie seems like it was going somewhere. And then the "twist" happens and we see our hero struggle around for what seems like an eternity. I don't know if they felt like making this after watching 127 hours. I haven't watched 127 hours though. But if it ends up like this, I really don't want to watch it.

Malayalam films these days have a tendency to just bunch up random scenes and subplots together in the name of realism. This is a perfect example of that. What was the point of that first half for the development of the second? Absolutely nothing!

The movie ended up being a complete waste of my time.

And it's now my undisputed greatest video game of all time, bar none. Hell, Halo 1,2 & 3 together make the greatest video game series of all time.

And I've played my fair share of video games, trust me. There's something about the whole Halo experience that is just far too unique. The story, the fun characters, the cutscenes, the vehicles, the expanded levels, even the talkative marines!

And Halo 3 is the cream of the crop. Wherever Halo:CE and Halo 2 (rarely) fell short, Halo 3 cleaned it all up with a relatively short but wonderful campaign.

To hell with these battle royales and "graphics". People put graphics over way too much. Gameplay is the core. Not that Halo 3 has bad graphics anyway, to me all of it still holds up today... even Halo:CE, in my opinion, is better than most games released today.

There's nothing like Halo 3, though (the campaign ending, wow!). 11/10.

PS: How could I forget the music!! Such a huge part of the whole trilogy... the greatest music I have ever heard in video games, and some of the greatest music I have ever heard in any entertainment medium. Kudos to Marty & Michael... geniuses.

This is the movie pretentious movie snobs use to certify themselves as precisely that, movie snobs.

The same movie made today would have been met with absolute harsh criticism and thrown out into the trash. The only reasons it is held in such high regard, are:

• It came out in the 60s, and its effects were wonderful for that time
• It has some great shots
• It apparently has "deep meaning" (it really does not, by the way)
• And most importantly, it was made by Stanley Kubrick

You'll find several "lovers" of the film repeating that "the film is meant for intellectuals" and that "stupid people call this movie trash". Well, if that makes me stupid than so be it. I personally didn't even care about the "meaning" of the ending, even though I completely understood what happened in the ending. I understood almost everything going on through all of the film. But the ending's "meaning" doesn't mean anything if I was already bored to death in the first place reaching it.

What happened to the basics of cinema? Great shots and "deep meaning" exclusively do not define great cinema. Great cinema primarily must keep you engaged, by either moving you or entertaining you - everything else is secondary. I don't for a second believe the "intellectuals" who rate this movie highly could sit through that stupid light scene without at least yawning several times, if not almost sleeping. And that agonizing glass slab CPU replacing scene, you're telling me that was "great cinema"?

Just because it was "ahead of its time" for 1968 does not make it great. Citizen Kane came in out in 1941 and was ahead of its time. But Citizen Kane was also engaging, which is what especially makes it great, unlike 2001.

Final verdict: Self-indulgent trash.

What happened to basic presumption of innocence? Are we supposed to believe two people just because they say so? Do you think this is how courts work? Simply listening to the plaintiffs and convicting the defendant on the basis of their stories? What happened to looking at both sides? No matter how "weird" or "inappropriate" MJ's actions were, the crime in question is child molestation, not having sleepovers with children. And considering this anybody who has ever looked into MJ's previous accusers clearly would know what kind of shady characters they were, and how those accusations were simply blatant extortion plots. And when one does in fact look at the other side of these newfound "victims", it does not take much time to find out the amount of blatant lies in this movie. I'll give you one example - google "Mark Geragos Leaving Neverland". It is sad that society today is all about mob-lynching and virtue-signalling. Equally sad that Michael Jackson is still being used a scapegoat to distract the gullible public, from God knows what. Pathetic misuse of the wonderful medium of cinema to railroad a man who remained humble and empathetic to others despite all the personal struggles he went through. Please, people. Wake up. Learn to think independently. Don't let the mainstream media shove everything down your throats.

Pointless because almost every Malayalee now is aware of the Nipah virus and the mechanism of it's spread. Boring because it is boring as hell, period, with unnecessary casting of acting biggies who probably have delusions of grandeur of doing some "service to society" by acting in this tripe of a film. And exploitative because this movie is using the sufferings of the families whose loved ones fell victim to the disease, and is making money out of it (I hope Rima and Ashique are reading this), while not really helping the cause in the least. In fact, I'll take this whole review back the moment I learn that this movie or the money earnt through it was used to help the victims or to fund any research. I pity all the folks here giving this movie good ratings. You people need to watch more cinema, and quality cinema at that. Not this mediocre stuff. I've said this before and I'll say it again - Malayalees have lost their taste for good cinema. This tripe is rated 8.4 (makes me laugh) and there needs to be a balancing force. Hence I rate it a solid 1.

I find "Rope" to be a big failure in the medium of motion picture. The only really good things about this film, were the performances of Jimmy Stewart and John Dall. Jimmy Stewart especially, the natural acting pioneer that he was, shines brightly among the rest who seem to be acting too theatrically. John Dall as the schemimg megalomaniac was very good. Farley Granger as Jimmy was bad, and although his drunk scenes were still a tad bit better than his sober scenes, the expressions he gives off (when he thinks the crime's being caught) were way too exaggerated. A child could have guessed that something was amiss by looking at his exaggerated faces. The other characters were plain bland (Joan Chandler as Janet was alright though, her character was at least trying to liven things up). The murder/superman-uberman conversation was pretty good, but 5 minutes of that aren't enough to make a good film. The "one shot" camera gimmick is another thing often mentioned. Who cares? Cuts or not, the end result should be worth watching. "Rope" was most definitely not. If people think this was entertaining or suspenseful, "North by Northwest" was a 100 times more so. If people think the superman-uberman stuff was psychologically "deep", I'd say Jimmy Stewart's obsession in "Vertigo" was a 100 times more so!

I'll certainly not give this film the benefit of being from older times. The 40s was the same decade films like It's a Wonderful Life, Casablanca and Citizen Kane came from - all movies which I, in my humble opinion, consider to be superior to almost all movies being released in today's times. I fail to understand why and how people like this bland movie. Is it because of Nietzsche? I don't know, just because it uses some psychological theme doesn't guarantee the movie has to be worth watching. Is it just because it's from Hitchcock? That's just blind idol worship. Is it because of nostalgia? Probably, I guess. Either way, "Rope" is a big thumbs down from my side. You're free to vote this review "not helpful" all you want.

I find "Silence of the Lambs" to be one of those movies that is hailed by one and all, and yet is underwhelming once watched - definitely good, but still underwhelming. You wonder what the hullabaloo was all about.

The settings were cartoonishly murky and dungeon-like, to the point that Lecter's asylum (and at points even Clarice's FBI training centre) looked like Hell itself. I also personally disliked the "screaming lambs" scene; it felt unnecessary and dragged, and Jodie Foster's emotional reactions to Hannibal's questions felt absolutely out of place. As if he miraculously healed her of her long nightmare-sufferings in an Osho-esque way. Overall, the camera work, sound and direction are all great. I especially loved those first-person shots with Hopkins and Clarice. Very claustrophobia-inducing.

Coming to the acting, Anthony Hopkins, though mightily entertaining - very often chuckle-inducing with his sly sarcasm - came across as far from real. His performance was in no way what a true psychopath (especially one so well educated) would be like. I honestly did not find the man scary, though I did find his screen-presence charismatic and imposing. Jodie Foster was excellent , her vulnerability, her subtle pretence in font of Hannibal, everything. Ted Levine was marvellous - that strange voice, his quirky dialogue and body language - it all added up perfectly. A great example would be the scene where he gives a slight chuckle, and then runs behind a corner, when confronted at his house. Hard to believe this was the same man who played Pacino's subordinate cop in "Heat". Scott Glenn underplays his role so well, that he seems disarmingly real - cool and calm. It's no surprise that Clarice wanted to work for this guy.

Conclusion: SOTL is by all means a very a good film, but to be called one of the greatest movies of all time? I don't think so. It's predecessor "Manhunter" (1986) is by all means the superior Hannibal film, and in my humble opinion, much, much more significant a film (and by significant, I mean more worthy of being preserved in archives for times ahead, than "Silence of the Lambs") . Sadly, "Manhunter", although a cult classic now, has always been criminally under-appreciated and misunderstood (strong emphasis on "misunderstood") and has since remained under the shadow of this one.

I'm trying hard to bring out words to describe this movie. The amount of comic genius put into the writing of the Malayalam comedies of those times is just unparalleled. Everyone in this movie was great. Everyone, ranging from Philomena, to NNP, to Thilakan, Mukesh... all of them all gave their best to make this a laugh riot to remember. Also, Mukesh is a very under-rated actor. He needs to be given more role varieties like in the recent "Jomonte...". One of the greatest comedies ever. But hey, almost all of the great Malayalam comedies of that time count as one of the greatest comedies ever made. Truly, Malayalam cinema from those times was all-encompassing and had a class of it's own.

Lal Salam is a very haphazardly directed movie. The first half is extremely drawn out and boring, with fervent and unnecessary flashbacks. The movie picks up pace only after the characters' hairs start graying out. It then becomes a treat to watch, with some terrific dialogue scenes, with Mohanlal especially standing out. He pretty much owns the movie. And then you cannot help but feel disappointed, with such a contrived ending. A movie with great potential is dragged down by bad direction and an overall bad plot line (of course excluding the great parts in the second half). I'd still rewatch it for those few classic scenes though.

John Carpenter outdoes even the great "Halloween". This movie is a horror not because of the jump scares, but because it genuinely keeps you tense, anticipating what could happen next. What could happen next, not as in jump-scares, but the story - absolutely nerve-wracking. This is one of my favourite movies from all genres and my favourite horror movie ever. This might very well be the greatest horror movie ever made, and I mean every bit of what I have said. That having been said, do not watch it if you go in expecting a horror movie with ghosts and demons coming out of thin air, and heart attack inducing jump-scares. 10/10.

One of Priyadarshan's completely original movies, this was (not surprisingly) the biggest Malayalam hit in 1994. We see Mohanlal as Manikyam, who happen's to be the loyal Man Friday/friend/brother to Sreekrishnan (Nedumudi Venu). Both of them fall head over heels for village beauty Karthumbi (Shobana). Mohanlal does a great job, but this is Nedumudi's movie. His act as the jealous lover forms the centrefold of the movie; everything else revolves around it. Adding fuel to his seething envy is Appakkala (Sreenivasan, who is genuinely hilarious as always).

The cinematography by Santosh Sivan is breath-taking, no wonder he is lauded so much. The beautiful music is another aspect to be noted. The soundtrack went on to become the most sold soundtrack ever in Malayalam cinema, as of 1994-95.

The Hindi and Telugu remakes do grave injustice to the simplicity of the original. Refrain from watching them.

The first impression that the movie gives you is that director Rajeev Ravi, being Anurag Kashyap's close buddy and cinematographer, is trying to emulate the style of "Gangs of Wasseypur" or "City of God". "Gangs of Wasseypur" was at least entertaining throughout. This movie fails at that. The editing is absolutely poor, for one thing - the pace is too slow and there are too many unnecessary scenes, including fight scenes such as the one in prison. The direction is haphazard, the back-and- forth switching between flashbacks seems way too convoluted. Substance and coherence have been given up for the sake of style. Also, special mention to the make-up artists, who have done a horrible job in portraying the age progression, especially that of Ganga's family (Ganga seems older than his father later in one certain flashback). On a positive note, the actors haven't done a bad job at all. They are the sole saving grace. I started watching this movie with huge expectations, and they fell flat even before the movie was halfway through. As another reviewer said, this could have been a much more interesting watch if it was condensed to a nice 1 hour 30-45 minutes... the film dragged so much, that by the time the movie ended, I did not care for a single character. If you make such a long movie, at least make it worth the length. And all of this pretentious mess culminated into a plain-old revenge drama.No wonder it couldn't surpass Kali's box-office collections, despite being a much more hyped film.

I read the summary of this film - "Two British track athletes, one a determined Jew and the other a devout Christian, compete in the 1924 Olympics." - and decided to give it a shot. And that was all there was to the movie. A Christian, and a Jew compete in the 1924 Olympics on behalf of Great Britain. All throughout the movie, I waited and waited for something interesting to happen. But alas, it was all in vain. They run in the races, win their respective medals, and that's it. Presumably, it was mean to be enjoyed by the British in patriotic fervour. I wouldn't call it a bad film, but it isn't no masterpiece either. It did not deserve the Academy Award that year. The reason I give it a 5 is the beautiful way it's been shot, the acting, and of course, the marvellous theme song. That theme (by Vangelis, he deserved his Oscar) is the biggest contribution this movie has made to the world! I somehow believe that the theme brainwashes people into believing this movie to be a masterpiece!

High production values mean zilch when the story barely holds your attention due to there being a multitude of chaotic characters and the environment being too very dull (and again, chaotic). This movie is probably the perfect example. The actors do their job well (at times looking like caricatures, but that's all right). The movie, though, on the whole, drags you down with boredom. The setting is pretty dull, too many people fill the screen, and there's violence, and pretty gratuitous violence at that. Martin Scorcese is among my favourite directors, and it's still hard to believe that he made this tripe, but then, people do make mistakes. He was probably doing some experimenting of some sort. That's the only conclusion I can make. I'm probably being generous giving this a four. Folks, watch it only if you have the patience. I'm no Roger Ebert, but my humble opinion is to give this one a pass.

As much as I like "The Silence of The Lambs", this is the starting point as well as the best movie of the whole series. Michael Mann is one of my favourite directors, particularly due to movies like this and "Heat". He has that conspicuously distinct style of his own.

William Petersen plays criminal profiler Will Graham. He at first seems awkward, but later after he meets Hannibal Lecter, you realize that he's more of a troubled personality than it seems. Brian Cox's Hannibal "Lecktor" seems more real than Hopkins' characterisation, that's what makes him scarier. He's supposed to be a psychopath, and in real life, psychos don't show signs of being psychopathic, they act normal; they just don't feel for anyone else. Tom Noonan as Francis Dollarhyde is a sociopath in just the same way as Lecter is a psychopath. His peculiar appearance and build adds to his mystique.

The score is pure '80s, like when "The Big Hush" plays in the background in Noonan's bedroom. I liked it personally, maybe because it evokes some of the nostalgia within me.

The cinematography and direction are top-notch. Tints are heavily used in scenes according to different moods. Some scenes, e.g. when Graham imagines how Dollarhyde went on with his murder and why he used the mirror shards (when the victim's eyes light up) were genuinely unsettling. The forensic lab scenes were also great, when they catch up with one clue and run on to examine another one. It adds to the realistic charm of this movie.

"Manhunter" can bring out some very polarized opinions from the audience, and that's understandable, most complaints being with the movie's pace and apparent datedness.

For me, though, it's a 10/10 psychological thriller, an under-rated classic. This movie is meant to be watched alone, preferably at night.

Edit: After re-watching this movie and "Silence of the Lambs", I can say without a doubt that "Manhunter" is the superior film.

This is easily one of the best Malayalam movies made. And one of the most iconic. The character of Mangalassery Neelakantan is as legendary a cult figure as it gets. The script was great, and so was the dialogue, both by Ranjith. No crass monologues as there would so often be a decade later. An example of the splendid dialogue (one example among many good ones) would be when Neelakantan talks about all the girls he'd romanced before as corpses, commending Bhanumati's character and calling her a real woman. Rarely in Indian cinema do we get a strong female lead (played so well by Revathi) going toe- to-toe with the male lead.

But the heart and soul of the movie was Mohanlal. Without him, there would be no Devasuram. The ease and spontaneity with which he essays that role is commendable. Such a role is easy to ruin with one- dimensional histrionics, but Mohanlal does not do so. Also, he always has that quality to bring a dash of vulnerability to even the most invincible of the characters he plays.

Even though this is one of my favourite movies I cannot give it a perfect 10 (I am tempted to do so). As great as it is, it could have potentially been even greater a movie, if it was handled with some more subtlety, like Irinjal rightly said. For example, the fight scenes were relevant to the plot, but a bit out of line with the realistic tone of the film, even with Mohanlal's larger-than-life character. The antagonist Shekharan could have been so much better than a bland, grimacing Napoleon. Imagine someone versatile like Siddique as Mundakkal Shekharan (sadly his versatility was exploited much later).

This movie is filled with action and may be be best known for the signature Mohanlal-mundu attack, but the father-son relationship is the center-stage for the whole movie. Some scenes are very moving. For example, the scene where Thoma's father is to invite Thoma to his sister's wedding, Mohanlal driving the lorry in anguish, the hospital scene, and yes, the climax.

Mohanlal doesn't have a chiseled body or bulging biceps. But his gait, body language, dialogue delivery - all ooze masculinity. Wonderful acting by Mohanlal and Thilakan. This movie seems something at first, but turns out to be something else.

The story (based on a real-life person), background score and acting all fit into place. A definite watch and an all-time Malayalam classic.

This fine movie is director Bhadran's sole saving-grace.