Connect with us

Movie Reviews

Nanban Oruvan Vantha Piragu Movie Review: This Sweet, Familiar Reel of Memories Is Long But Lifelike

Published

on

Nanban Oruvan Vantha Piragu Movie Review: This Sweet, Familiar Reel of Memories Is Long But Lifelike
Nanban Oruvan Vantha Piragu Movie Synopsis: Anand lives in a happy, little world teeming with love from his family and friends. But when life deals him a bad hand and he keeps floundering, he is forced to make some decisions that will change his life’s course.

Nanban Oruvan Vantha Piragu Movie Review: As if Anand (Meesaya Murukku fame Anant Ram) has recorded daily vlogs of his life or has written a personal journal, noting intricate details, Nanban Oruvan Vantha Piragu captures every stage of his journey with the utmost patience (the viewer too is expected to stay patient to reap the joy of watching this film). He unpacks the events right from 1992, which marks the debut of two people: Anand’s birth and AR Rahman’s entry into Tamil cinema. So, like a twin, Rahman’s songs always tag along with him.

Peppered with the 90s magic of Colony Friends, games like Seven Stones and WWE trump cards, Superstar and Thala references, CSK vs MI street fights and more, the delightful template of Tamil cinema’s coming-of-age film is brightly apparent. There isn’t much innovation either. Instead, Anant trusts the story of this man and the nostalgia it evokes – seeing someone wrestle with life’s obstacles and finally accomplish is any day audience’s favorite. The only trick is to get the emotions right, and with a dedicated cast and sincerity in writing, Anant smartly makes us root for him. He also has a knack for humour and isn’t hesitant to use memes in a film to convey the character’s thoughts. Sample this: When a scared young man enters the premises of his engineering college and is taken aback by the half-built premises, stone-like food, and other disappointing events, it’s compared to a scene from Chandramukhi where they detect the presence of evil. As if on cue, you’re in splits, reminiscing all your college memories. This sequence also plays right after an emotional conversation he has with his father and the shift in mood is so seamless. With Elango Kumaravel passionately playing the role of Anand’s father and VJ Vijay breathing life into the role of a cherished best friend, we are just drawn to empathise and relate to this world that’s formulaic but sweetly familiar.

The viewing experience of the film feels like reading a personal journal within two hours – intriguing but tiring – because of the film’s pace and detailing. You understand the need to show each stage of Anand’s life and how the people around him shape it – every time he falls, someone helps him get up; when he financially faces troubles, his best friend is always ready to pitch in; his parents don’t have the power to get him a job but are willing to spend all their life’s earnings to ensure he gets the best education possible. However, even with so many people trusting and supporting him, Anand fights and flounders. For most of the second half, Anand is seen crying, unable to iron out all the kinks and probably, we all see a little of us in him. We’re also reminded of too many films, thanks to the countless stories in this genre and Anant’s determination not to try anything different. But because we see a semblance of ourselves, our friends, and our own lives on screen, we are ready to overlook the slow pace, the unnecessarily dragged-out sequences, the overfed montages of memories, and the film’s several other flaws.

Anand yearns to get back home, relish the simplest of joys, and be around his friends and family, and at the end of the day, that’s what we wish for too. So, having taken a trip down memory lane, we walk out of the theatre happy and hopeful, and like Venkat Prabhu (in a cameo) tells Anand, “Isn’t life all about these little moments?”

Advertisement

Written By: Harshini SV

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

‘Black Bag’ Review: Cate Blanchett and Michael Fassbender Cozy Up in Steven Soderbergh’s Snazzy Spy Thriller

Published

on

‘Black Bag’ Review: Cate Blanchett and Michael Fassbender Cozy Up in Steven Soderbergh’s Snazzy Spy Thriller

There’s much concern in Black Bag about a missing cyber-worm device called Severus, capable of destabilizing a nuclear facility. But you can file that malware gadget alongside the Codex in the Superman universe and the unfortunately named Mother Boxes in Justice League. No matter how closely you pay attention, the precise functions of these power tools will be at best vaguely clear, not that it matters. In Steven Soderbergh’s sleek spy drama, a classy crew of actors keeps bringing up Severus in the direst of tones. But all that’s far less intriguing than the shifting allegiances and double-crosses among an elite group of Brit intelligence agents.

Following the taut, Hitchcock-meets-De Palma suspense of the tech thriller Kimi and the masterfully shivery ghost story Presence, this third consecutive collaboration between Soderbergh and ace screenwriter David Koepp is a mild disappointment. It’s witty, stylishly crafted and boasts a stellar ensemble, led by especially toothsome work from Cate Blanchett and Michael Fassbender. It keeps you glued, even if the movie ultimately feels evanescent, a slick diversion you forget soon after the end credits have rolled.

Black Bag

The Bottom Line

Tantalizing, even if the aftertaste doesn’t linger.

Advertisement

Release date: Friday, March 14
Cast: Cate Blanchett, Michael Fassbender, Marisa Abela, Tom Burke, Naomie Harris, Regé-Jean Page, Pierce Brosnan, Gustaf Skarsgard
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Screenwriter: David Koepp

Rated R,
1 hour 33 minutes

Still, there’s a lot to be said for being in capable hands, and even if the plot often has more complications than propulsion, Soderbergh and his actors give it a consistently pleasurable buoyancy. At this point, three-and-a-half decades and 35 features into a career with way more peaks than valleys, it’s enjoyable just to sit back and savor the playful dexterity of the director’s storytelling and the seductive sheen of his elegant visuals.

The title refers to any highly classified intel too sensitive to be shared, even between married colleagues like Kathryn St. Jean (Blanchett) and George Woodhouse (Fassbender). It also provides convenient cover for infidelities, betrayals and underhand dealings for the circle of senior agents in their immediate orbit. “Where were you this afternoon?” “Black bag.”

Advertisement

When Meacham (Gustaf Skarsgard), a fellow agent at the National Cyber Security Centre, assigns George to sniff out the traitor within the organization who has let Severus fall into the wrong hands, he asks would George be comfortable neutralizing Kathryn should it turn out to be her. But even without invoking the proverbial black bag, George keeps his cards close to his vest. Others at NCSC view his loyalty to Kathryn as his weakness.

The couple organizes a dinner party at their swanky London home and invite four senior associates who also happen to be couples, suspecting that one of them is the mole.

The guests are Colonel James Stokes (Regé-Jean Page), who reports directly to George; Dr. Zoe Vaughan (Naomi Harris), in-house NCSC shrink and Stokes’ lover; boozing, skirt-chasing Freddie Smalls (Tom Burke), resentful about being recently passed over for a promotion; and his current girlfriend, cyber comms expert Clarissa (Marisa Abela), the newest NCSC recruit. All four consider themselves friends of George and Kathryn but know their hosts well enough to figure there’s a hidden agenda behind the last-minute invite.

They are right to be suspicious. George, who enjoys cooking and bass fishing with the same glacial calm he brings to every task, warns Kathryn to avoid the chana masala, which he has laced with drugs to loosen the guests’ tongues. But nothing conclusive is revealed beyond Freddie’s twice-weekly hotel trysts with a mystery woman, an inconvenient disclosure when Clarissa has a steak knife handy.

Koepp’s script plants subtle clues that Kathryn might be the dodgy one, her skilled evasiveness very much in evidence during one standout scene — a mandated therapy session with Zoe, who notes that an air of hostility always wafts into the office ahead of her patient. Kathryn also remains cagey about the details of a meeting in Zurich. Her “black bag” response prompts George to enlist Clarissa’s help, accessing a keyhole in satellite coverage that allows him to observe his wife’s Swiss rendezvous without being detected elsewhere at NCSC.

Advertisement

When Clarissa cocks an eyebrow about marital mistrust, George says of his wife, “I watch her, and she watches me. If she gets into trouble, I will do everything in my power to extricate her.” The screenplay teases out the ambiguity as to whether Kathryn would do the same for George, or even if she’s laying a trap for him.

The drama is densely plotted, to the point where details at times get hazy. But the central dynamic of George and Kathryn’s relationship is a well-oiled machine that keeps everything else humming.

Fassbender and Blanchett’s characterizations are both distinct and perfectly synched. He’s icy and robotic, almost a cross between the actor’s roles in Prometheus and The Killer. In one dryly amusing moment, George gets the tiniest spatter of curry sauce on the cuff of his crisp white shirt, and in his usual affectless delivery, says, “I need to go change.” When it emerges that George surveilled his own father, who preceded him in the espionage business, he simply offers, “I don’t like liars.”

Blanchett, by contrast, makes Kathryn sultry and enigmatic, an ineffably poised operator whose posh intonations and erudite conversation give her the air of someone entirely free from self-doubt, carefully assessing every situation and her position in it. Her effortless old-world glamor doesn’t hide her anxieties about money, another factor that feeds the suspicion around her.

Blanchett’s many scenes with Fassbender are what make the movie’s motor purr. George and Kathryn are both circumspect, as their profession demands, but bound together by a charged sexual and emotional connection that makes Black Bag as much a close study of a marriage as a spy tale. When she asks, “Would you kill for me, George?” it seems more like foreplay than a test of loyalty.

Advertisement

Blanchett’s one moment of explosive anger (“Don’t ever fuck with my marriage again!”) is a welcome jolt of fire in a movie that mostly sticks to room temperature — a precision drone strike on Russian operatives notwithstanding. The attention required to keep up isn’t always rewarded by the most scintillating developments in a plot that tends more often to simmer on a medium flame than come to a boil.

The other members of the cast all have moments and all slot smoothly into the film’s intricate puzzle structure. The standout of the core group is Abela, making good on her head-turning work in Back to Black and Industry with a performance indicating at every turn that despite being a relative newbie, she’s as savvy as the veterans. And Pierce Brosnan is a zesty addition in his few scenes as NCSC head Arthur Steiglitz, an exacting boss in impeccably tailored suits whose directives come with the undisguised menace of someone with no tolerance for failure and a ruthless instinct for self-protection. Having him sit down to a plate of illegal Ikizukuri is a delicious touch.

Serving as DP and editor under his customary pseudonyms, Peter Andrews and Mary Ann Bernard, respectively, Soderbergh gives the film a lustrous look, with lots of sinuous tracking shots and slashes of lens flare. The jazzy rhythms are echoed by David Holmes’ moody, percussive score.

One sequence, cutting among a series of polygraph tests conducted by George, is Soderbergh at his snappiest, taking a cloak-and-dagger scenario and toying with our perceptions of truth and obfuscation. If Black Bag isn’t always at that level, it’s a tight hour-and-a-half of a type of sophisticated grownup entertainment that we don’t get enough of anymore.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

The Monkey Movie Review: A chilling yet darkly hilarious horror film that embraces the absurdity of its premise

Published

on

The Monkey Movie Review: A chilling yet darkly hilarious horror film that embraces the absurdity of its premise
Story: Twin brothers Hal and Bill Shelburn stumble upon an eerie, mechanical cymbal-banging monkey as children, only to discover that every time it plays, someone dies. Terrified, they dispose of the toy, hoping to leave its horrors behind. But years later, as adults, Hal finds that the sinister relic has resurfaced, bringing death in its wake once more.

Review: Osgood Perkins takes a unique approach to The Monkey, blending supernatural horror with a wicked streak of dark comedy. While the premise—a toy monkey that triggers violent deaths—could be pure nightmare fuel, Perkins leans into its absurdity, allowing for moments of bleak humour amidst the tension. The film often revels in the ridiculousness of its concept, crafting death scenes that are so exaggerated they almost become morbidly funny. This tonal balancing act between horror and satire is one of the film’s most intriguing elements, though it may not land for all audiences.

Theo James delivers a committed performance as both Hal and Bill, capturing their contrasting reactions to the trauma they endured as children. His portrayal of Hal, the more straight-laced of the two, plays well against Bill’s more jaded, almost detached demeanour, adding an extra layer to the film’s comedic undertones. In a supporting role, Elijah Wood brings an offbeat energy that further reinforces the film’s darkly humorous sensibilities, while Tatiana Maslany adds emotional weight to the story. Colin O’Brien, as Hal’s son Petey, serves as the innocent heart of the film, grounding the supernatural chaos in something real.

Visually, The Monkey is as much a horror film as it is a grim parody of the genre. Perkins and cinematographer Andrés Arochi craft an eerie yet playfully exaggerated aesthetic, using heavy shadows, surreal framing, and unsettlingly bright moments of colour to highlight the monkey’s presence. The sound design is particularly effective, with the monkey’s cymbals becoming an almost comedic punchline—an ominous sound cue that signals doom in the most absurd circumstances. Perkins is aware of the inherent ridiculousness of his premise and leans into it, allowing the film to have fun with itself rather than taking everything too seriously.

However, the film’s biggest gamble—its tonal shifts—may also be its most divisive element. The transitions between horror, tragedy, and black comedy aren’t always seamless, and some viewers may be unsure whether they should be terrified or laughing. Additionally, Perkins’ signature slow-burn storytelling occasionally clashes with the film’s more playful moments, resulting in pacing issues that could test the patience of some audiences. While the film delivers many eerie moments, its humour may not land for those expecting a more straightforward horror experience.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Film Reviews: My Dead Friend Zoe and Ex-Husbands

Published

on

Film Reviews: My Dead Friend Zoe and Ex-Husbands

‘My Dead Friend Zoe’

An Army vet is haunted by a fallen comrade.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending