pinturicchio_juve

O Brother Where Art Thou was one film which had been intriguing me ever since I'd heard about it and its storyline immediately caught my fancy. A comedy- road movie about three escaped convicts who go in search of a missing treasure in the rural heartlands of 1937 Mississippi and how they end up becoming one of the state's most loved folk bands. I am told that it is inspired from Homer's epic ballad, "The Odyssey" and the film recognizes this inspiration in its opening credits. But since I've never read the Odyssey, I cannot comment as to whether the film stays true to it or not. But I can tell you that it is a beautiful comedy, a genre which the Coen brothers have dabbled in lately with movies such as "The Ladykillers" and "Burn after Reading". Unfortunately, their comedies are the only films I could relate to. I never really understood Barton Fink or The Big Lebowski, maybe they have many complex political and social undertones which are not perceptible to a first time viewer.

In O Brother.. George Clooney stars as Ulysses Everett McGill, a prisoner in a chain gang, who convinces his fellow inmates Pete Hogwallop (Turturro) and Delmar (Nelson) to come with him in search of a treasure buried somewhere in the heart of Mississippi. This starts off a long road journey where they meet a black guitarist, who claims he has sold his soul to the devil and they embark on a series of comic adventures, which include performing a single at a radio station calling themselves "The Soggy Bottom Boys", getting themselves swindled by an insurance salesman, disrupting a meeting of the Ku Klux Klan of which the Governor-Elect is a member, among other incidents. The film takes an extremely light hearted outlook on the depressing lives these people led and how they pulled on without any form of economic security whatsoever.

George Clooney's performance as the charming, all-knowing Everett, with a crazy obsession for neatly parted hair is wonderful, and to me invited comparisons to his character in "Leatherheads", which is also set around the same time. Everett is the kind of character Clooney could play in his sleep, and I sense that he enjoyed the role immensely. John Turturro as the ever-angry Pete Hogwallop is also a treat to watch, and Tim Blake Nelson as Delmar the Dunce is pleasing.

But I guess the real star of the film is its music. A wonderful soundtrack, consisting of several American folk songs of the time aptly complements the storytelling style of the film. Most notable among these are "The Man of Constant Sorrow" which is sung by the main characters in the film, and Harry McClintock's "The Big Rock Candy Mountains" which appears at the beginning of the film, and has now become one of my personal favourites. The tune and lyrics fit into the mood of the movie brilliantly and are part of the reason why its such an enjoyable watch. There is an almost constant background score throughout the film, and this gives you an impression of a magical land where everything was perfect and everyone was happy, far from what was actually happening at the time. But somehow the situations don't seem all that unrealistic and you end up loving the characters all the more. You just want to keep singing that song again and again. Until you watch the movie once more.

This was one film I had been wanting to watch for quite some time now, and I got around to it just a while back. I had some really good expectations from this movie, as I had read about it on IMDb and other movie sites, and I had thought it would be a courtroom thriller filled with suspense.

But I have to say I was a bit disappointed with what I saw. The film is about a hotshot Florida lawyer Kevin Lomax (Keanu Reeves) who has never lost a case in his entire career. A New York law firm enlists his help to select a jury for a case and recognizing his talent, offers him a job. Lomax accepts and becomes quite close to his boss, John Milton (Al Pacino) during the course of his work. But he gradually begins to uncover some strange facets of Milton's personality and finally realizes that he is none other than Satan himself.

Now, such a premise should surely set the stage for a riveting thriller filled with suspense and mystery. But sadly, it doesn't. I think the main reason is Keanu Reeves' performance. I couldn't really buy the idea of him being an argumentative lawyer who could acquit a rapist in spite of the pile of evidence staring him in the face, especially as this is what is shown in the first scene of the film. If the scene is supposed to convince the viewer of the talent of this young lawyer, it doesn't really pass the test. The only thing it does is invariably draw comparisons to the courtroom scenes in "A Few good Men", which had fabulous dialogues, coupled with one of Tom Cruise's finest performances ever. So it is asking a lot to make the audience believe that Lomax hasn't yet lost a case.

Apart from this, the film does have a few things going for it. The pace is fast and well set, and for a first time viewing, there is no scene which makes you feel bored, irksome or irritable. And, of course, there's Al Pacino. His thunderous voice and arrogant demeanour are enough to make the viewer feel uncomfortable about him, and it isn't really hard to associate his character with that of the Devil.

The other characters merely serve as pretexts for Lomax's wife to lose control over herself and imagine things related to hell, Satan and all that stuff.

All in all, I wouldn't recommend this as a must-see, but probably something you might just rent at a DVD store when your other choices aren't that appealing.

I just love Brian De Palma films. They're just so good to watch and have the right mix of good dialogues and an appealing storyline to get the viewer hooked. Scarface and The Untouchables would serve as worthy examples to this fact, and now that I've watched it, I guess Carlito's Way does too.

The film is an adaptation of Edwin Torres' novel "After Hours" which follows the story of ex-con/gangster/drug peddler Carlito Brigante (played by Al Pacino), who tries to shun away from a life of crime after being released from prison.

Brigante had in actuality been serving a thirty-to-life sentence, which had gotten reduced to five years, owing to the influence his lawyer, David Kleinfeld (Sean Penn) had with the jury.

Once out on the streets, Carlito pledges to live life the right way and reluctantly agrees to co-own a nightclub so that he can save just enough money to leave New York and start a car rental business. But inevitably, he's lured into crime once again, and how he fights the odds forms the rest of the plot.

One thing that struck me as I watched the film was that everything was very direct. There is not really much for the audience to interpret. Each character is sketched out quite well at the beginning itself, and one kind of knows what he/she would tend to do under the given circumstances. For example, Sean Penn's character, David Kleinfeld is exposed as a corrupt lawyer, and subsequent events throughout the film show him as one, with all his shady dealings and money laundering activities coming back to haunt him. I liked this about the movie, because one is not left wondering what a particular scene means, or what that character was trying to say. Its all said and done. There. Take it or leave it. Of course, this kind of storytelling will not work in all situations, but here, it feels just right.

Then there's that aura of the gangster about Carlito. In the beginning, he accompanies his cousin to a drug dealer's hangout for a transaction. As the scene develops, one can feel Carlito sensing that there's something amiss about the place. The tension is brilliantly captured by De Palma here and you can just feel Pacino getting into the skin of the gangster he's portraying. He knows exactly what's going to happen, he's prepared for it, and when it does happen, he knows what to do. This gut instinct comes to the fore in the latter half of the film as well and is part of the reason why this films works for me.

There are a lot of scenes and characters which contribute to making the film what it is, such as John Leguizamo as "Benny Blanco" the young upstart who tries to get chummy with Carlito but fails, Gail, Carlito's former lover, with whom he rekindles his relationship and Luiz Guzman as "Pachanga", Carlito's right hand man. But to me, this one is Pacino all the way. He carries the film on his shoulders and commands respect in almost every frame. You can see that he's always in control and this again points to the direct nature of the storyline.

The De Palma-Pacino-gangster plot combine gives rise to obvious comparisons with Scarface. But the two are so different. While Tony Montana is just a drug dealer, Carlito Brigante is much more than that. He's a larger than life personality with a heart, remorse, and a conscience. He believes he has a shot at redemption. Montana has none of this. He's arrogant, ruthless and has absolutely no feelings of guilt or regret. The differing nature of their characters make the two films widely different, thus making a comparison would just be a wasteful exercise. The climax sequence, shot at a railway station does bring back scenes reminiscent of The Untouchables, though the events that unfold in the two films are entirely different.

Carlito's Way might have its share of flaws which may not put it in the league of gangster flicks such as Goodfellas or The Godfather movies, but it is still a classic, and a highly underrated one at that. De Palma himself is a hugely underrated director (It is a surprise to me how he hasn't won an Oscar yet), and this film just underlines his capability. This one's a must watch for all fans of mob films, but I think that at its very basic level, it's just a story about a man with a heart.