Florence Pugh, left, and Andrew Garfield in the movie “We Live in Time.” Credit: A24 via TNS
When people think of A24, the production company behind films like “Everything Everywhere All At Once,” “Moonlight,” “Midsommar” and more, against-the-grain films tend to come to mind — a breath of fresh air against cookie-cutter, mainstream studios.
However, as A24 has begun pumping out more films, it seems to have become more mainstream; perhaps its focus is shifting to more easily accessible films.
A24’s latest romance movie, starring Andrew Garfield (“The Amazing Spider-Man”) and Florence Pugh (“Midsommar”), is certainly much more by-the-books than what was previously expected of the typically quirky, arthouse studio.
“We Live In Time” is a broad examination of what it means to be committed to a loved one over a long period of time. Told mostly nonlinearly, it follows a couple, Tobias (Garfield) and Almut (Pugh), as they grapple with the struggles life throws at their relationship, including complications around Almut’s pregnancy and her battle with cancer while trying to maintain her job as an esteemed chef.
Advertisement
Though the film begins from Tobias’ perspective, as he shifts to being a supportive partner, so too does the narrative switch to concentrating on Almut’s tribulations.
Like Tobias’ and Almut’s relationship, the film itself is full of ups and downs. On one hand, it has some really poignant moments, particularly during Almut’s treatment and in Tobias’ relationship with their daughter. The ending’s payoff is very well orchestrated, tying together this narrative that jumps back and forth throughout long swaths of time in a satisfactory, albeit heartbreaking manner.
The issue is that these heartfelt, heavy moments never quite hit as hard as they could because “We Live In Time” jumps right into them from the second the projector starts rolling and doesn’t let up until the credits roll. The movie leaves too little time to get to actually know and care about Tobias and Almut as real people, and not just vessels for suffering.
The first half of the film mostly focuses on their budding relationship, which is the least compelling part of the film, feeling pretty airport romance novel-esque. Their romance is never given time to breathe because it’s constantly undercut by flashbacks and flashforwards to different times in their relationship.
The second half of the film is much more endearing, maybe because the nonlinear storytelling is ditched, allowing for the characters’ lives to play out sequentially.
Advertisement
Though the major emotional beats still sting in a way that will leave a lot of people in the theater shedding a tear, they feel awfully predictable.
Maybe “We Live In Time” suffers from the success of a studio in A24 that’s taken the world by storm, winning multiple Academy Awards — including many Best Pictures — in the past decade. Regardless of its brand, “We Live In Time” constantly feels like it’s afraid to throw a curveball that would allow itself to stand out from the abundance of other films that tell a similar story.
Rather, it relies on tried-and-true storytelling methods and the acting prowess of its two superstar leads to get a response, which might just be enough for “We Live In Time” to get viewers’ eyes misty as they exit the theater.
Pottel, directed by Sahith Mothkuri and starring Ajay, Yuvachandra, and Ananya Nagalla in pivotal roles, is a rural drama that delves into the socio-cultural issues of the 1970s. The movie, which captivated audiences with its intriguing title, was released in theaters in October and recently debuted on OTT platforms Amazon Prima and Aha. With music by Sekhar Chandra, the film aims to strike an emotional chord with its thought-provoking narrative.
Plot Summary: The story is set in a remote village during the 1970s, where the powerful Patel family dominates the region. Believing that education empowers people to question authority, the Patels discourage the villagers from pursuing it. Mallanna (Chatrapathi Sekhar), who recognizes the importance of education, dreams of educating his son Gangadharam (Yuvachandra). However, his efforts are thwarted when Patel (Ajay) kills him to maintain control over the village.
The villagers revere a local deity, Balamma, and Patel manipulates their beliefs to suppress dissent. Gangadharam grows up in this oppressive environment, determined to bring change. He marries Bujjamma (Ananya Nagalla), defying her brother and societal norms.
Meanwhile, the village observes a ritual every 12 years, offering a Pottel as a sacrifice to their deity. This time, Gangadharam is tasked with overseeing the ritual. The stakes are high, as failure to perform the ritual properly could have dire consequences for him. Caught between his goal of educating his daughter and empowering the villagers, and the ritualistic traditions, Gangadharam faces immense challenges from Patel. How he overcomes these obstacles forms the crux of the story.
Analysis: The film effectively portrays the socio-political dynamics and superstitions prevalent in rural India during the 1970s. The director highlights the dominance of landlords like the Patels and their efforts to maintain control by keeping the marginalized sections uneducated. The screenplay weaves these themes with clarity, emphasizing the need for education as a tool for empowerment.
Advertisement
The movie also sheds light on superstitions and rituals like animal sacrifices, which were exploited by the powerful to manipulate the weak. The village itself feels like a character in the story, with its landscapes and traditions adding depth to the narrative. The realistic portrayal of the struggles and resilience of rural communities enhances the film’s authenticity.
Performances: Yuvachandra delivers a compelling performance as Gangadharam, capturing the character’s struggle and determination effectively. Ajay excels as the antagonist Patel, portraying the role with authority and menace. Ananya Nagalla impresses with her portrayal of Bujjamma, adding emotional depth to the story. The supporting cast, including Chatrapathi Sekhar, performs within the scope of their roles, contributing to the narrative’s strength.
Technical Aspects: Cinematography by Monish Bhupathiraju stands out, beautifully capturing the rural and forest backdrops, adding an immersive visual quality. Music by Sekhar Chandra complements the narrative well, with both songs and background score enhancing the emotional impact. Editing by Karthik Srinivas ensures a cohesive flow, although some scenes feel slightly stretched. The authentic depiction of rural settings and customs adds to the film’s credibility.
Final Verdict: Pottel is a sincere attempt to address important social issues like education, empowerment, and superstition through a rural narrative. While the film’s pacing and predictability in certain areas might deter some viewers, its emotional core and relevant themes make it a worthwhile watch for those interested in rural dramas.
1 of 5 | Robbie Williams appears behind the scenes of his biopic “Better Man,” in theaters Dec. 25. Photo courtesy of Paramount
LOS ANGELES, Dec. 21 (UPI) — Robbie Williams is the latest subject of a musician biopic. Better Man, in theaters Dec. 25, takes such a wild approach that it easily stands apart from films like Walk the Line and Bohemian Rhapsody.
Williams got the performing bug at age 9 in a school performance of The Pirates of Penzance. As a teenager, he auditioned to be in a boy band and landed a spot in Take That.
Williams went solo after friction with the band but still struggled to write original lyrics. By Better Man‘s accounts, Williams had a similar cinematic trajectory as Johnny Cash or Freddie Mercury.
However, Better Man represents Williams as a talking monkey. Director Michael Gracey explains in a pre-film video that he took Williams literally when the singer called himself a performing monkey.
Advertisement
So this is a Planet of the Apes visual effect. It’s Williams’ voice but Jonno Davies performing the reference footage, along with a few other performers for elaborate dance scenes.
The film never gets used to having a monkey as the lead character, a real-life figure who is still alive at that. It never ceases to be off-putting, especially when Williams sings and dances elaborate choreography, and that is part of the film’s power.
Now, when Williams goes through the stereotypical spiral into drugs and alcohol, watching a monkey recreate those scenes is avant-garde art. The visual effect captures Williams’ charm and emotional turmoil, so it’s not a joke.
It only becomes more shocking the more famous Williams gets. Once he starts sporting revealing dance outfits, even more fur is on display.
Advertisement
It’s not even a movie star embodying Williams. There’s neither the real Williams nor an actor’s persona to attach to the film, removing yet another layer of artifice but replacing it with an even more jarring one.
As if one monkey isn’t daring enough, Williams’ inner demons are also visualized as monkeys. So many scenes boast monkey Williams staring at disapproving monkeys too.
Other biopic traditions include a scene where Williams sings a rough demo of his future hit “Something Beautiful” and confronting his absent father (Steve Pemberton) over abandoning him. The biopic tradition of showing photos of the real Williams during the credits actually breaks the spell when audiences can see he was not an actual monkey.
The monkey is the boldest leap Better Man takes but it is not the only one. A disco ball effect lights vast outdoor locations, and the film includes a climactic action scene.
Musical numbers are dynamic, including a romp through the streets of London in an unbroken take. A duet between Williams and lover Nicole Appleton (Raechelle Banno) evokes Astaire and Rogers.
Advertisement
The film embodies Williams’ irreverent spirit, as if a drama starring a monkey could ever be reverent. In his narration, Williams is self-deprecating, and some of the dance numbers blatantly injure pedestrians in their choreography.
The new arrangements of Williams’ songs add dimensions to his hits.
Better Man is bold cinema. The audacity alone is worth celebrating, but the fact that it works is a miracle.
Fred Topel, who attended film school at Ithaca College, is a UPI entertainment writer based in Los Angeles. He has been a professional film critic since 1999, a Rotten Tomatoes critic since 2001, and a member of the Television Critics Association since 2012 and the Critics Choice Association since 2023. Read more of his work in Entertainment.