muons

I saw the movie as a companion to my wife in a theater mostly filled up by women. Since the movie is based on a classic novel, there's only so much freedom for the plot to offer something new. Having not read the book, I had the initial impression that the script stuck to the original story which seems to spring from a Harlequin novel. In reference to Pride and Prejudice, I could tell this was a New England version of a Jane Austin's novel, whose theme was apparently in fashion in the 19th century. Later, I found out that the book has much more depth and nothing to do with the silly matchmaker theme which permeates the entire movie.

On the positive side the acting was good especially with an above the average performance from Saoirse Ronan who leads the story. The shots were mostly indoors, with the exception of a few street views of the time. So, there was hardly an effort and spending for the re-enactment of 1860s New England. The nonlinear narrative for the storytelling was acceptable only if it could go beyond a mishmash of flimsy subplots which lack drama and tension to keep the audience awake during the character development phase. Indeed, the flow was quite boring in the first hour. The story only became interesting in the last half hour or so, after a love triangle started to appear.

In a nutshell, the story is about a family with four coming of age daughters in American civil war years. The dad goes to the front and the mom takes on volunteer tasks leaving the girls at home most of the days. While the family supposedly goes through wartime difficulties (which we hardly notice in the movie) their next door neighbors (a middle age man and his grandson, Laurie) live a posh life in a big manor. Although the girls and Laurie are good friends, Laurie's affection for Jo is obvious. As a rich boy, he's a perfect candidate as a husband but Jo has other aspirations in life.

The film has some subplots to show the reward of kind spirits but indeed they are naive and stir resentment instead of admiration. In one scene, we see the girls at the breakfast table in a Christmas morning. The mom joins them and mentions a less fortunate family who are hungry in a cold house. She proposes giving breakfast food as a Christmas gift to the poor family. The girls happily agree and take food in baskets to the family's home. On their return to home, they see their breakfast table is abundant with all kind of decadent desserts and food beyond their means, apparently as a gift from their rich neighbor for their kind-heartedness. Now, this is supposed to be a heart-warming story but only annoys me with the thought of the rich neighbor not helping those poor people in the first place.

One doesn't need to read the book to tell that the feminist overtone in the dialogues between the publisher and Jo, Amy's speech to Laurie couldn't exist in the original story owing to its time. Even the inkling of feminism in 1860s is utterly absurd and oxymoron considering the whole subject matter of the film is about some middle-class country girls chasing a wealthy heir dearly for a prospective husband. This is nothing but a conspicuous bastardization of a classic novel out of director's zeal to play to the gallery.

Besides that, I found the characters too good to be real. Laura Dern is very boring in her single-dimensional angelic role. Everybody is kind to others at all times and nobody loses her temper. All four girls live in peace and harmony with no dispute. The only notable incident is Jo's natural reaction to Amy after she burns Jo's novel in a rage of jealousy and it is short lived. I didn't go to the theater with the expectation of seeing cracking bones, car chases or blood and gore, but still found the male characters too girly, soft and indeed somewhat wimpy as in the case of Laurie.

In an interview, I saw Greta Gerwig expressing her bitterness for not being nominated as the best director award despite other nominations of the movie, including the best picture. Her innuendo and some blatant criticism from other circles for the sexism in the movie industry were all over the place. In my opinion, the movie's nomination for the best picture award is a gross exaggeration. Considering the directorial flaws, leaving her outside best director nomination shows the existence of some sane people who can still judge an award for the merit rather than being subjugated to the rising tide of the day.

Mystery crime has long been a neglected genre in the movie industry with cheap and boring TV flicks like Murder She Baked, etc. With its star-studded cast and intelligent plot, Knives Out is certainly a refreshing and hopefully a revitalizing comeback. Although it feels like a modern day Agatha Christie adaptation with little new to offer, all its cinematographic qualities like acting, directing, scripting, editing are top notch. Despite the abundance of leading figures, the characters are surprisingly well developed and they are far from simplistic and single-dimensional. Take Joni, for example. When it comes to her personal interests and benefits, she sees nothing wrong with scheming a large sum of money from her father-in-law. Her political views on a polarizing subject like immigration, however, are progressive and humanitarian. Indeed, the subject of immigration is the permeating subtle theme of the movie although the main plot revolves around a crime puzzle. The protagonist is a daughter of an illegal immigrant family from Latin america. She works as a caregiver to a bunch of wealthy white people none of whom has no real accomplishments but lives a posh life by simply leeching off of the rich patriarch. Most of their qualities are pretentious and skin-deep. Even the impressive "ancestral manor" turns out to be an estate bought from a Pakistani tycoon some 40 years ago. I don't want to give away too much from the plot but the final scene metaphorically and hilariously clinches the underlying subject-matter. All in all, Knives Out is an entertaining movie which certainly deserves seeing.

Heleno is an outstanding biopic which excels in acting, directing, scripting and cinematography. With its nonlinear narrative and black & white cinematography, its artistic production values soar without making the movie artsy. R. Santoro's rendition is mesmerizing which doesn't do justice to the supporting cast who also display a great acting performance. Despite its challenges to an average movie goer, with B&W picture, subtitles (for foreign viewers) and a narrative laden with flashbacks, the story is very engaging and fun to watch. Perhaps the most important thing about Heleno is the director shows a movie can have highly artistic features without sacrificing on its entertainment value and without boring the audience to death. Hats off to this great cinema work.