Dark Shadows: A spook, a spoof….. what is it?

A movie needs to be sure of what it is or what it wants to be for it to create an impression on the audience. Sitting through Dark Shadows, one tries to figure out what the movie wants to be. Is it a funny tale of a vampire who is released after 196 years in a box or is it the story of how a vampire comes back to restore family honour and reclaim his lost love? Well, at the end, you realize that perhaps even the makers weren’t too sure of what they wanted to deliver.

You have Barnabas Collins being accidentally released from a chained coffin, trying to come to terms with a world that has changed greatly since he was locked up. You have the dilapidated Collins’ mansion which he returns to, vowing to restore the lost glory of the family fishing business which has been drubbed into the depths by one Angelique. Then you are told that Angelique is not just an astute businesswoman, but has some connection with the past of the Collins.

Well, the plot is definitely interesting, could have made for an interesting script. But, it keeps plodding in so many different directions, takes on so many different hues and tries to be so many things, that in the end, it is none of what it tried to be. You have Barnabas ‘vampire’ Collins speaking witty and sometimes tongue-in-cheek lines (sometimes intentionally and at other times because he still two centuries behind), after which he is seen going on a killing spree. Amidst this, he finds time to have some ‘monster sex’ with Angelique ( a scene that seems to be thrust in there) while also successfully restoring a semblance of respect to the family business. Of course, there is also the small matter of his two century-old love story resurfacing.

The film is supposedly about the rivalry between Collins and Angelique. But, the script couldn’t resist the temptation of being swayed by witticisms, sarcasm and other superfluous extras. And, then there is climax (which of course has to be a face off between Collins and Angelique) where you have a couple of big surprises waiting for you; can’t tell how people would react to it.

Johnny Depp, well, there is nothing in here that challenges him. He has to look ‘stoned’ for most part, as one of the characters says. Has to twirl his fingers in a ‘hypnotising’ move and plug in to a few necks apart from uttering the odd witty line. Eva Green has to look menacing and ‘bewitching’, especially during the monster sex scene. She does her theatrics well. Most of the movie is dark, as you would expect when a vampire is in it. The music sometimes gives you the feeling that you are watching a comedy or a spoof. One is not quite sure whether that effect was intended. Art is perhaps the one aspect of the movie that looks consistent.

Dark Shadows might make sense to those who have already seen, and are fans of, the TV series. Others might find it difficult to really understand the nature of the movie. It is not spooky, funny or dramatic enough. The rivalry doesn’t really make you take sides, the love story does not endear. You might manage the odd smirk or smile here or there. But, otherwise, it is plain sailing. You could watch it once, but even if you do not, then you are not missing much. If you want to watch a good spoof with a vampire in it, try ‘Dracula Dead and Loving it’ instead.

The makers are in the dark about what they wanted to deliver!

Hugo: Visual treat, adventure, tribute!

It usually doesn’t take such a long time for a Martin Scorsese movie to arrive in India; Hugo, however took more than four months. If you have followed Martin Scorsese’s films for a while, the initial reports about Hugo would have surprised you a great deal. Yes, Scorsese and a movie about a boy? That’s the last thing you expected from a man who has mastered the art of making dark and rugged films that deal with the thoughts, insecurities and ambitions of the adult world. His films never had innocence or charm. Could Scorsese make a film for children? Hugo answers that question.

Set in the early 20^th century in Paris, Hugo is about how a boy turns around the life of a man who thinks that the world has forgotten him for good. Hugo Cabaret’s life takes a miserable turn when he loses his father in an accident. He is left to fend for himself in the bowels of the Paris railway station, winding the huge station clock everyday. He also has to contend with the one-legged police inspector who seems to derive pleasure from sending children to the orphanage. Hugo has but one hope in life, to get an automaton to work, which, he thinks, holds a message from his father. His efforts to get it working, however, land him in further trouble. But, this time, destiny seems to be taking him somewhere, it introduces him to a curio shop owner (though not the most favourable way to meet a person) and it also gives him a new friend. The automaton works, and reveals something that neither of them even thought remotely possible. What is it that the automaton told them?

Hugo is as much about old George Melies as it is about Hugo Cabaret. In fact, it is more about George Melies, through the efforts of Hugo. The film is foremost, a visual treat. Martin Scorsese lets go of his dim lit ways and brings us a bright and colourful Paris railway station that bustles with activity. The interiors of the clock tower are also quite masterfully shot, the view of the city from the top is also wonderful. Literally, every frame charms you and the 3-D takes effect at all the right places; watch the scene where the pictures fly about in the room.

The film is a bit slow to take off. It meanders about a bit before taking on a steady course. At first, you wonder whether Martin Scorsese has got the balance wrong, making a children’s film that is too slow, verbose and morose; it wouldn’t appeal to children, would it? But, give the film that much time to firmly establish its premise. Then for a bit, it looks like a regular kids’ adventure of meddling with things and stumbling upon something really interesting. But, it is after this that the plot gives you the most pleasant surprise. You realize that this is more than just a movie; it is also a rich tribute to cinema itself; to the pioneers who envisaged the art of moving pictures when no one thought it possible. The short capsule where George Melies narrates his life with the movies is really exquisite- it starts right from the Lumiere Brothers. You get a brief glimpse of what the earliest form of cinema looked like. Scorsese shows that he is a versatile director with the kind of shots and images he has used in these portions. These portions are clearly a delight for those who love cinema as an art form.

Its nice to see Ben Kingsley in a role that requires him to dig deep. He enjoys himself, and so do we. He is in his element in the portions where he is shown as the passionate film maker. Asa Butterfield’s little shoulders carry the heavy load of the movie quite well and he is ably aided by Chloe Moretz. Sacha Baron plays along quite well to the demands of the script as the one-legged inspector. Christopher Lee makes his presence felt with just the one shot where he hands a book over to Hugo. Jude Law makes a very brief appearance. And, the most important character of them all, the automaton; looks like he is alive.

Of course, Hugo being a film that is also for children has a few elements for them; like the inspector’s character. Well, it’s more of a caricature than a character, a bit over the top, but well presented and tolerable if you accept the fact that children are the target audience. But, you also get some of Scorsese’s trademark elements, like the insecurity of the adult mind and the fear of a man to look at his own past; the inability to accept that the world has moved on. These are some of the emotions that Scorsese has portrayed so well all his career.

Hugo is not a full fledged gripping entertainer; nor is it a rollicking adventure; nor is it full of cheer and laughs. Yet, it is a bit of all this and most importantly, a tribute to cinema. Scorsese’s ability to show old-world cinema in a way that will appeal too contemporary audiences are testimony to his class. Hugo will not make you clap in delight or gasp in surprise, but it will leave you feeling really good and also give you a perspective of how far cinema has come. Go for it; you will like some part of it.

Grandmaster: An intriguing game of chess!

Grandmaster; B.Unnikrishnan’s summer offering with Mohanlal created quite a buzz with its title and some trendy music. There is always a sense of apprehension with which you approach a B.Unnikrishnan movie. Not that he is a bad director, but within his relatively short career, he has shown the tendencies to be repetitive in his plot lines and his making styles. With at least three investigative films already under his belt, Grandmaster gave you the feeling that there might be a fare enough sprinkling of déjà vu. So, has Unnikrishnan fallen into repetitive patterns or has he left it behind him?

The movie is about Chandrashekharan (Mohanlal), newly appointed as the head of the crime prevention unit. His job is to prevent crime, but he doesn’t seem too interested in that, he just whiles away time with his chess board. A pretty sedate way to introduce your protagonist in a thriller! That’s the first place where Unnikrishnan shows us that this is not another run of the mill movie. As it is said later, there is a reason behind Chandrashekharan’s apathy towards his duties – his personal life. Of course, that moment has to come where the man rises to be the hero. That comes in the form of a kidnapping and the rescue operation that follows. A bit later on, the real game begins, with someone challenging the sharp-brained Chandrashekharan to a game of crime. From then on, it is a cat and mouse game with the challenger bravely leaving clues behind for the investigator to follow. But, are the clues really what they seem to be? Watch the Grandmaster’s response.

The most important element in every investigative movie is the way in which the investigator draws his conclusions. It should not be too easy, nor should it be incomprehensible. Unnikrishnan gets that balance right, almost. At first, it seems like a straightforward chase wherein the investigator has to identify the challenger before further damage is done. But, then, it is a veiled game. Somewhere, Unnikrishnan might have pulled the veil in too close. In the middle portion of the second half, the investigators make conclusions which appear silly and you don’t have any idea where it comes from. Of course, all the knots are tied together neatly in the climax, but you do feel a bit perplexed in the middle.

After watching the movie, you have to rewind all those key portions in your head to put it all together neatly. How that would go down with the audiences is unpredictable. Also, a lack of connection to the victims of the crimes reduces the grip of the plot on the viewer. The victims are almost treated as pieces on a chessboard in what is a rather bloody game of chess between an obsessed mind and a sharp one.

Unnikrishnan leaves his signature at many places. In quite a few ways, he seems to be heavily influenced by the Shaji Kailas school of film-making. You have dramatic images, like the hooded player and Grandmaster sitting across a chessboard and making their moves. The fascination with hoods continues with a priest too being shown in a very similar get up; an early clue to the viewer. Unnikrishnan also unleashes a heavy dose of English dialogues; there are certain scenes where you can hear almost no Malayalam. That could have been toned down a bit. Also, the director needs to work more on the way he picturises action sequences. The one-man commando operation and the shootout encounter (that looks forced into the script without any reason whatsoever) both look amateurishly shot. The protagonists never take cover, but escape serious injury. In a movie that is intelligent for most parts, the action sequences look strangely out of logic.

The performances: when you have Mohanlal, you need no better benchmarks. He is suave, stylish and sharp, just as the role demands. His look in the movie has already gained appreciation, kudos to the stylist. And, he seems to have trimmed down quite well. Of course, the role does not demand anything special from him. But, as one of the dialogues in the movie goes, ‘My roles cannot be done by anyone else’. Narain is there and is not pushed out of his comfort zone, a pretty easy outing. The same goes with Jagathy Sreekumar. Priyamani does a neat job, looking mature and underplays well. Anoop Menon is placed cleverly in the script. Siddique shows his expertise in the few scenes that he is allowed, a strong villain like him for a longer duration would have made things more interesting. Roma, surprising that she accepted this role, but she has done a fair job of it. Babu Anthony makes an interesting appearance in a very mysterious character.

Grandmaster has very strong technical points; a slick camera and crisp editing. Deepak Dev chips in with some good music, though the BGM does sound a bit jarring at times.

The movie wants to be an out and out investigative thriller. But, the focus is more on the personal game of chess between the challenger and the grandmaster rather than the crimes itself. That takes away a bit from the movie. Also, Unnikrishnan holds his cards too close to his chest for too long for the audience to feel a bit lost in the middle portions – too much suspense can be a spoiler at times. But, he leaves very subtle clues here and there, which some might pick up. Overall, Grandmaster is an intelligent and slick investigative movie which had the potential to be more gripping. You will like the stylish Mohanlal, realistic presentation of characters, subdued heroism, economy of songs and the climax moments. Grandmaster is definitely worth a watch.

The Woman in Black: Old tricks for some chills!

'An abandoned mansion, a young man, vengeance that lies unabated for years and many dead children........'

There is something that new-age cinema lacks: old-school horror. It has been quite a while since we have seen something that banks on the good old ways of sending some chills up your spine. Weird forms, apparitions, wails, dark rooms, sinister corridors, haunted castles etc.. The new and intelligent cinema cares a whole lot about reasoning and plausibility to unleash such middle-age tricks on screen. But, guess what? It still works; as it is proved by The Woman in Black.

Set in what presumably must be the late 19^th or early 20^th century England, The Woman in Black takes us into the journey of a lawyer who is sent on an assignment to a county that is not yet urban. He is there to finish off the legalities of a mansion left behind by woman; a simple job, it must seem. But, he doesn’t seem too welcome there. Someone is uneasy knowing what he has come for; obviously, they do not want him to get on with his work. What is it that makes them apprehensive about a lawyer settling matters of a mansion? We do not know, nor does Arthur Kipps, the lawyer. He finds out, but not before it has caused the deaths of two young children in the county. What lurks in the mansion and why does it have to bring about the pretty gruesome deaths of children? Well, you have to find that for yourself.

The thing about The Woman in Black is that it hinges not so much on its story than on its imagery and placement of thrills. There is not a bright or sunny moment in the entire film. Arthur Kipps is despondent right from the start, for personal reasons, and this sets the mood for the movie too, which is almost morbid with an almost upsetting silence about it all the time. It does take the film quite a while to get firmly set on its course. Almost the entire first hour is a series of scenes where Arthur Kipps keeps sighting strange figures here and there in a mansion that was reportedly abandoned. For most part, these figures fail to give you any chills because you are half expecting them to jump out any time. Deep into the first hour you might also begin to wonder whether the movie has any intention of getting on with it or whether it is going to be just a series of strange figures popping up here and there followed by a gruesome climax. Thankfully, the first real thrill arrives right then and the plot begins to unravel itself. From then on to the climax, which is short of an hour, you will find yourself engaged in the story behind the mansion, why the people fear it so and why children in the county keep dying. And, one must say, its good while it lasts, especially the attempt by Arthur Kipps to find an appeasement for the wandering soul.

As said earlier, as a movie, The Woman in Black is more about the images than about the plot. What surprises us most is that even in this era of 3D and rich colors, a film that seems to be just black and white for almost its entire duration can still hold our attention. The director deserves a round of applause for pulling this off, for reminding us that cinema still hinges firmly on its ability to engage with the audience at the content level ahead of any technical wizardry. The marshland, the mansion, the dark corridors, eerie windows all are just right for the kind of movie that this is. The minimal use of sounds is also one good aspect, those loud wails and screams have an effect of us mainly because of the otherwise eerily silent proceedings. The director has strode the thin line of using cheesy thrills just in the adequate proportion; a little more and the audience could have taken it more as a spoof rather than a serious horror movie. Finally, after all the arduous efforts at appeasements, the closing minute is the one that will wrench at your heart. Of course, horror movies are supposed to have such endings!

Daniel Radcliffe proves that he doesn’t need a magic wand for company on screen all the time. He is present in almost every frame of the movie, and for most parts, he is alone. His screen presence is one of the most important factors of the movie and he carries it off well. And, one must say that the constantly morose look does suit him. All other characters are etched well and build towards the unravelling of the history behind the mansion.

The Woman in Black is horror in the good-old way: darkness, shadows, ajar doors and a mystery around a grave. The style of imagery suits the mood of the movie and never once does it deviate from the set course. Of course, it does take a lengthy prelude full off shadowy occurrences before the movie embarks on its actual course. You can watch it once; it may not be a spine chilling horror flick, but it definitely is a good deviation from the loud and bright kind of cinema we get these days. The Woman in Black is an occasionally chilling movie which can be watched mainly for its imagery and minimal use of sounds; it’s a rare occurrence these days!