SEILAMA

When a truck driver (Sira) from the city begins to help a village farmer (Banda) to start up a grocery shop, the wheels of change are set in motion. The events that follow will lead the farmer to suicide. Subsequently his helpless wife (Siriya) agrees to marry the truck driver and move to the city. Unfortunately for her this is not the end of her woes.

SEILAMA (The City) is directed by H. D. Premaratne, written by Simon Navagaththegama and stars Ravindra Randeniya (Sira), Anoja Weerasingha (Siriya), Cyril Wickremage (Banda). The supporting cast includes Daya Tennekoon, W. Jayasiri, Menike Aththanayake and Dilani Abeywardena.

This story represents the fundamental differences of city and village life. The story is also a depiction of the two-faced nature of capitalism and what a necessary evil it is to any society. Although the financial benevolence of Sira is regarded by Banda as a blessing, it is the catalyst to his ultimate ruin. The plot masterfully examines the influence the city folk have on the untainted village family. Vices are forcibly introduced into the family. Banda is seduced by the affects of alcohol, a drink he did not partake of prior to meeting Sira. Banda's wife Siriya is raped by one of Sira's helpers and even their son is captivated by the sounds of radio.

These subtle social and behavioral changes are presented fascinatingly. Most Sri Lankan film plots begin to fizzle by the second act, but this not the case with SEILAMA. The plot is mature and complicated. It kept me interested and gripped until the end.

The script compliments the story with its use of straightforward dialogue.

Although the cinematography isn't spectacular, the appropriate use of close-ups made the characters more intimate. Certain shots stood out more than others, but all in all the atmosphere of the village and city is captured well.

The acting is natural and full of nuance. Veteran actors Ravindra Randeniya, Cyril Wickremage and Daya Tennekoon are impressive in their respective roles. But the stand-out performance is Anoja Weerasingha's portrayal of the innocent and tormented Siriya. It's 'method acting' at its best.

H. D. Premaratne's direction is competent but what makes this a unique film is its story.

Simon Navagaththegama's script is fresh and the entire story is paced well. The collaboration of the writer and director has produced an interesting film definitely worth watching.

Rating: 4 COCONUTS

S. V. Fernando

MACHAN

A group of impoverished friends concoct a scheme to obtain visas to Europe by posing as a phony Sri Lankan National Handball Team. They do this as a means to escape their destitute lives in Sri Lanka and pursue financial happiness in the West. This is the true story of the 23 men who went to Bavaria but never came back.

MACHAN is directed by Uberto Pasolini. The film is co-written by Pasolini and Ruwanthie De Chickera and co-produced by Pasolini and Prasanna Vithanage. The cast is comprised of Dharmapriya Dias (Stanley), Gihan De Chickera (Manoj), Dharshan Dharmaraj (Suresh), Namal Jayasinghe (Vijith), Sujeewa Priyalal (Piyal) and Mahendra Perera as Ruan.

MACHAN is the second Sinhala language film that deals with the subject of illegal/ fraudulent immigration, the first being Boodie Keerthisena's MILLE SOYA. The plot is near perfect in its simplicity. Stanley and his friends are destined for a bleak future if they remain in Sri Lanka. Dead-end jobs coupled with the rising cost of living is reason enough to try for greener pastures in the West. Unfortunately for these guys, the German Embassy isn't gifting out visas. Stanley comes across a printed advertisement for a handball tournament to be held in Bavaria, Germany. The advertisement is more like an invitation. The friends are not only clueless to the rules of the game, they have absolutely no idea what handball is. But that doesn't deter the group from declaring themselves the "Sri Lankan National Handball Team" in order to acquire the visas. And so begins a 'True (pun intended) Sri Lankan Underdog' story. Although MACHAN was mostly filmed in Sri Lanka, co-written/co-produced by Sri Lankans and boasts an all Sri Lankan cast, this film truly belongs to its director. It is apparent that Pasolini has the ability to determine an interesting story. The hook of the film is based on the true incident of a handball team disappearing during a tournament. This mere premise in the hands of an astute storyteller is what spawned this extremely interesting and enjoyable film. The story focuses on the harsh realities faced by the poverty-stricken population. The lack of financial stability drives these characters to drastic measures. This is poignantly presented in the film. Scenes of desperation bring out the fragility in the characters, such as the scene where Stanley contemplates on selling a kidney. The realism of Sri Lankan poverty is varied with the subtle humour of everyday life, giving the story sincerity.

The dialogue is concise and to the point. It is refreshing to hear characters on screen speak like everyday people. The use of Sri Lanka slang and colloquialisms is appropriate and gives authenticity to the film.

Stefano Falivene's cinematography captures the beauty of the slums and its inhabitants. The claustrophobic environment of the slums is shot meticulously, undoubtedly adding to the realism of the subject matter. It is refreshing to see backgrounds like this on screen, instead of the usual bombardment of botanical gardens and hill country scenery.
The original score by Lakshman Joseph De Saram and Stephen Warbeck deserves mentioning because it simply enhances the bitter sweet lives of the characters.

If I were to describe the acting in one word, it would have to be 'impeccable.' The film has been cast brilliantly. These actors indeed deliver an ensemble performance in their respective roles. The only notable face is that of veteran actor Mahendra Perera, but even his capable performance is equally matched by his cast members. Dharmapriya Dias' portrayal of Stanley is outstanding. MACHAN is proof that when you provide good material to great actors, cinema magic is inevitable.

MACHAN is the directorial debut of Italian-born Pasolini. He is better known as the producer of the 1997 sleeper hit THE FULL MONTY. Pasolini like many of his European peers has a knack for capturing the essence of humanity. The film is touching and heartfelt because the director has highlighted the joy and pain within each character. There are many such moments where Pasolini reveals the vulnerability in his characters. The use of humour during adverse situations can backfire if done inappropriately, but Pasolini seems to have a genuine aptitude for subtle humour. What really stands out is that although MACHAN is basically a Sri Lankan film, it doesn't feel like one. The same material in the hands of a typical Sri Lankan filmmaker would have produced a considerably different film. In fact, I'm willing to bet that it would be a dreadfully boring flop of a movie. Generally speaking the typical Sri Lankan director has a habit of letting the film die by the third act. Sometimes these directors are more concerned about conveying the controversial message of the movie and fail to explore their characters. The biggest mistake made by many local film directors is that the stories they tell are confined to a "Sri Lankan Context." Simply put, you have to live in Sri Lanka in order to get the meaning of the film. This narrow-minded approach can be blamed for the insignificant impact made by Sri Lankan films in the sphere of World Cinema. Pasolini does not make these mistakes, the three acts are structured precisely, the ending is spot-on, character exploration is just right and the subject of illegal immigration is tackled with compassion and acumen. I truly cannot find any dramatic flaws in MACHAN and this is why with the Sri Lankan Context in mind, I whole heartedly recommend this film to every Sri Lankan (Living at home or abroad).

Rating: 5 COCONUTS

S. V. Fernando

WANTED

A frustrated office worker tired of his dead-end life suddenly is faced with the news that he is really the son of a legendary assassin, and is drawn into the secret society that bred his father. The film stars James McAvoy, Angelina Jolie and Morgan Freeman.

Now that Hollywood has accepted the comic medium as a viable source for great stories and interesting characters the queue begins. The source material for WANTED is an adult graphic novel(later turned series) about a society of assassins and the emotionally challenging lives they lead. The movie unfortunately has very little in common with Mark Millar’s grungy tale.

At times like this I wish the script was straight out of a comic book. The dialogue was very preachy. Some movies that rely on voice-over end up giving a running commentary as things occur. This takes away from the journey of discovery the audience is on. The characters needed to stop ‘saying’ what they were doing, and take Nike’s advice; ‘just do it!’ I did expect more from writer Michael Brandt who words filled the screen in the recent stylish western 3:10 TO YUMA.

The cinematography is somewhat active, but it gave nothing new. This is the very reason Russian director Timur Bekmambetov of NIGHTWATCH, DAYWATCH fame was chosen to helm this film. The action is very vivid, with long actions continual sequences. But the overuse of slow-motion does get old as it’s clear he depends on this gimmick to progress the film. The look of the film is nothing new, and has been done better by prior successors. In fact the look of WANTED seems to a resultant sordid lovechild of a gang rape of MATRIX, SHOOT’EM UP and TRANSPORTER.

Considering the acting talents in this movie, I did expect more than the unemotional and stiff followings of the cast. Angelina Jolie, while weighing less than the guns she carries in the film, simply can’t stop winking and smiling at the camera. Someone forgot to tell her she was on a film set, not a runway catwalk. She has more poses than a issue of playboy. No one is in love with his own voice right now than Morgan Freeman, that being said the man could make a dvd instruction manual come to life. But he’s just playing the typical role of mentor (or helper) that he usually does. Even making him swear was simply to make sure the audience is actually listening to his long drawn speeches (as that is the man’s substitute for talking). Despite the thin material James McAvoy was able carry himself and the film. Since he has shown us what he can do with serious material(ATONEMENT, LAST KING OF SCOTLAND), he is showing us that he can be taken seriously as a surprise action star. I for one can’t wait to see his next fight sequence.

The story revolves around Wesley a boring, complaining office chump who has no hopes, dreams or ambitions. This is all too familiar as we have met this same character in FIGHT CLUB, MATRIX or even OFFICE SPACE, but all those movies took the character on a more original and entertaining twist than WANTED. As Wesley is rescued by the skeletal remains of Angelina Jolie, who inturn introduces him to Morgan Freeman, who is in typical instructional tuition-master form. The superpowers, whose source is never explained, is when some people have the inborn ability to make bullets turn in mid air, and have lighting quick reflexes. The other noble cause the society enforces is the magical selection of whom to kill, for the betterment of humanity. The fact the weaving threads are used to select names in such a modern time is an immature attempt at ‘spirituality’ in a movie shouldn’t even say the word. Even the slight surprise turns in the story simply make your shrug your shoulders apathetically. And the ending is truly a twist of micro proportions, just like the movie, leaves one feeling quite unaffected.

The directing can’t be blamed too much because this is exactly what Timur Bekmambetov became popular for; slow-motioned, long edited action sequenced. He did what he was asked to do, and this being the Russian directors first English feature, I’m surprised the cast understood when he shouted “cuuut!” I did feel he didn’t know how to get the best out of his actors, cause clearly everyone was giving quite a mediocre performances(with the exception of McAvoy). He hasn’t shown he has anything special to offer Hollywood, but apparently the Russian audience disagrees.

There is no doubt with the limited success of this movie there is an audience for this type of action exhibits. But I do feel that some justice must be done to graphic novels if they are going to use them as the backbone of a film. There is very little creativity in any of the main elements(story, action, dialogue etc). End of the day the producers at Universal knew exactly what they were doing in making a simple film with sufficient action and enough style to keep sales alive. It is a forgettable film, and in the hands of a better director with some effective writing could have been a fun summer hit.

TEASER

RATING: 2 COCONUTS

D.M Pieries

ABA

A prophecy is foretold that the son of Unmada Chithra will slay her ten royal brothers and claim the throne. Subsequently the brothers seek to kill the child upon his birth. In order to save his life, the newborn Prince Aba is whisked away to safety by a man named Habara. He is spirited away to the quaint village of Doramadala. There Aba grows into a young man under the watchful eye of his adopted parents and Habara. Meanwhile the blood thirsty uncles receive word that Aba lives. A death squad is dispatched to Doramadala, simply ordered to kill every child and burn the village. From the ashes of this dark incident rises Aba, the future Prince Pandukabhaya.

ABA is written and directed by Jackson Anthony and stars an ensemble cast which includes Malini Fonseka (Bhadra-Kachchayana), Ravindra Randeniya (Pandula Brahmana), Sabeetha Perera (Unmada Chithra), Saumya Liyanage (Habara), Sriyantha Mendis (Parumukhaya), Bimal Jayakody (Chiththaraja), Kingsley Loos (Thissa), Madhumadhava Aravinda (Girikhandashiva) and Sajitha Anuththara as Aba.

I am not a Historian, only a humble film critic so I will not endeavor to criticize the historical inaccuracies in the film, if there are any. I merely attempt to analyze what I observed on the silver screen. The plot revolves around the tried and true facets of political conspiracy, betrayal, treachery and murder, the hallmarks of an epic movie. Unfortunately what worked for films such as BRAVEHEART and GLADIATOR does the opposite for ABA. The plot simply dies by the end of Act One. The plot in a nutshell is as follows; a grim prophecy is foretold, the uncles try to kill their newborn nephew, Aba is smuggled away and hidden for many years, Aba yearns for the company of his biological mother, the uncles get to know he is alive and consequently order their soldiers to wreak havoc on the innocent village. Although the themes of the plot are similar to the above mentioned films, the tone set at the beginning makes it difficult to take the story seriously. A dire and gripping tone is replaced by a silly and comical atmosphere. This can be attributed to the accidental expressionistic style of acting by many of the actors. The same plot in the hands of a skilled storyteller could have produced a completely different film. The lack of twists and turns in the story is apparent. The story felt dragging and extremely boring.
The script is complacent in its dialogue because the writer has chosen flamboyance over subtly.

The cinematography is probably this film's only redeeming quality. Frame composition has taken precedence because all the visual elements have been arranged according to specifications. Set design and wardrobe have also contributed to the visual spectacle that is ABA. The typical Sri Lankan cinemagoer has been programmed to applaud films according to how many beautiful images are shown. With that in mind ABA does not disappoint for it is a visual feast for the eyes. But I must reiterate the fact; beautiful scenery does not make up for an inadequately told story.

ABA is notable in the fact that the performers have set the tone and not the story. That was not a compliment to the actors. As far as acting is concerned, it looked as if a stage play was filmed. This motley crew of veteran and amateur actors are simply too many to write about so I shall paraphrase the stand out performances. Malini Fonseka's and Bimal Jayakody's portrayal of their respective characters is outstanding in a sea of mediorcre acting. Ravindra Randeniya in my opinion is a "Hot & Cold" actor. Sometimes he's hot and sometimes he's an igloo. His Lankan version of "Gandalf the White" is ridiculous to say the least. Saumya Liyanage's brand of 'performance art meets monkey imitations' is inappropriate and does not belong in this film. Sabeetha Perera's hiatus from acting really proves that it wasn't long enough. Ladies and gentlemen the queen of melodrama has returned. Local singer, Madhumadhava Aravinda's attempt at serious acting is only second in hilarity to the attempt still being made by Anarkali Akarsha. And alas Sajitha Anuththara proves that nepotism is alive and kicking in Sri Lankan cinema. The son of Jackson Anthony gives an ineffectual and unmemorable performance in the title role. The lack of screen presence is evident and absolutely no depth of the Aba character was presented.

"The Epic Tradition of Sri Lankan Cinema," "Jackson Anthony's Grand Cinematic Composition," and "Jackson Anthony's Cinematic Saga" are the marketing gems being used by the ABA publicity campaign. Jackson Anthony has the dubious honour of continuing the epic tradition in Sri Lankan cinema known as self-glorification. ABA's marketing department has bamboozled, flimflammed and hoodwinked hordes of unassuming cinemagoers into thinking this is an epic movie. To be honest it isn't even an "Okay" movie. Deluding the viewer with a false sense of patriotism and dazzling them with the amount of money spent does not compensate for the defectively told story. As an avid supporter of Sri Lankan cinema, I too was impressed at the lavish sets built from scratch and the sheer magnitude of this filmmaking enterprise. In fact I was thrilled at the film's box office profits because this will eventually promote production of more Sri Lankan films. But alas, thirty minutes into the first half of the film my stomach began to churn. Call it my "Spidey-Sense" warning me that the film I'm watching is going to turn out horrid. I felt no tension or anxiety during the opening scene where the uncles stand outside Chithra's room awaiting to murder the newborn. I was not at the edge of my seat when Habara and the infant Aba narrowly escape the royal guards. And I truly felt like leaving the cinema during the lethargic middle period of the film. But the true slap in my face was the ending. (SPOILER AHEAD: Do not read further unless you actually intend to waste money and time watching ABA). Normally every epic movie has a few of this key ingredient thrown in for good measure. This ingredient is called "A Battle Scene." I guess Jackson Anthony didn't read that chapter in his copy of "Making Epic Movies for Dummies." The epic battle scene is replaced by a depressing massacre scene where every little village boy and girl gets killed, villager's houses are burnt to the ground and all the while Aba hides inside a hollow tree.

When the President of Sri Lanka feels compelled to go on national television and speak about his ABA experience, I too am compelled to watch. The president referred to the film as a "monumental movie with a strong theme." He further stated that it is monumental for two reasons. The first is its "strong theme' and second "the patriotic spirit contained in the movie." I am unaware of how the history books depict Aba, but the cinematic depiction certainly did not induce patriotic spirit in me. Trying to kill your baby nephew and hiding inside a tree while your friends are massacred are not examples of patriotic spirit. The writer/ director has made a glut of mistakes; casting your own son as the lead, speeding up the movement during the "Pig Attack Scene" (Yes, you read correctly, Pig Attack Scene!!!), and the use of ridiculously unnatural wigs are a few of Jackson Anthony's epic blunders. But the biggest mistake was making every single character indifferent and distant to the audience. There is no personal connection with the characters on screen. No remorse was shown on Aba's face after the slaughter of his friends. No anger was displayed by the villagers after their houses burned down. Cinema is an intimate medium, where use of the "close-up" can reveal the deeper feelings within the characters. This tool is rarely utilized in ABA. If Disney can make an animated robot named WALL-E endearing why couldn't Jackson Anthony make his live actors accessible? I'm sure ABA is merely the beginning of a LORD OF THE RINGS type saga. Judging from its box office success, I believe a sequel or two is inevitable. ABA is a good example of big budget compensating for small directing. The immortal words of another great President come to mind.

"Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me, you can't get fooled again."

George W. Bush

Rating: 2 COCONUTS

S. V. Fernando

To view the President's entire speech visit: www.aba.lk

ONE SHOT

The near massacre of a bus full of school children is foiled by a man known simply as Vijay. The school children's death warrant was issued by the corrupt politician Walisundara. But now he focuses his anger and revenge on Vijay, actions which will eventually bring out the vigilante in hiding named One-Shot.

ONE SHOT is written and directed by Ranjan Ramanayake, produced by Soma Edirisinghe and stars non other than Ranjan Ramanayake (One-Shot/Vijay), Wilson Karunaratne (Walisundara) and Anarkali Akarsha (Shereen). The supporting cast includes Anton Jude, Rex Kodippile, Kanchana Mendis and Menike Aththanayake with special guest appearances by Anoja Weerasinghe and Ravindra Randeniya.

Once in awhile a film comes along that purely blows you away. THE SIXTH SENSE, THE MATRIX and in recent times THE DARK KNIGHT are examples of brilliantly crafted films. If these films fall into one end of the spectrum, then at the very opposite end is ONE SHOT. This film is mind blowing in a completely "bad" way.
The plot seems to have been created by a ten year old. It is the mixture of an exaggerated 1980's Hindi film and a patronizing speech given by a fake patriot. In a nutshell, Walisundara orders a bus load of innocent kids to be slaughtered as means to gain more votes. Vijay (a.k.a. One-Shot) saves the day by performing a stunt even Tarzan would be envious of. Walisundara retaliates by humiliating and assaulting Vijay. Walinsundara's daughter, Shereen falls in love with Vijay. The origin of One-Shot is revealed. The couple practically elopes and finally Vijay does his lover proud by killing her father. What more could you ask for in a Ramanayake plot.

The opening credits of the film said "Story, Dialogue, Script and Direction by Ranjan Ramanayake." Could someone please inform Mr. Ramanayake that he needn't blow his own horn too hard because no one in their right mind would take credit for a story like this. The narrative is pathetically infantile and the references to corrupt actions of Sri Lankan politicians are blatant. The lack of complexity in the story is clearly evident. It's as if the film was made by a child, for children. The story has been clearly designed in between scenes of Ramanayake taking his shirt off and modeling. The humour is painful and proves that the comedy genre is de-evolving in Sri Lankan cinema. ONE SHOT displays immature slapstick comedy, where a character falling on his face is still considered funny. To prove this fact here is my official count; number of times characters farted = 2, number of times characters urinated in fear of One-Shot = 5 and number of times male characters kissed One-Shot in fear = 7. (Not including the " GODFATHER style hand kissing scene")

This film is unique in the fact that the dialogue is completely devoid of subtext. Any book on screenwriting for beginners will state that the inclusion of subtext in the dialogue is what enriches a story. I guess Ramanayake didn't read that book(s). Subtext is replaced by transparent preaching to the audience. There are three different characters that look into the camera and directly address the audience. This spoon feeding of the story is insulting to viewers. Why do nearly all "Sri Lankan Commercial Film Directors" assume that their audiences are idiots and that the message of the movie must be forced fed? The story moves from scenes of babyish comedy to scenes of utter bloodshed. A proper tone for the film is never established. This callous method of storytelling shows the screenwriter's lack of creativity and imagination.

The cinematography is trivial. The pointless zooming in and out as a visual effect is annoying and the slow jerky zooming in a number of scenes is unprofessional. What really stands out like a sore thumb is the use of ridiculous sound effects to induce comedy in many scenes. I felt bombarded by these dim-witted sounds throughout the entire film.
YU! YU! YU!

Some have honed the art of Method Acting, others have practiced Expressionist Acting but it is only Ranjan Ramanayake who has perfected the art of Over Acting. He does it so well in fact; all the actors in the film have adopted his unique style. Even thespians such as Anoja Weerasinghe and Menike Aththanayake who are considered exceptional method actresses have tried the "Ran-Ram Method." I could probably write a short story on how bad the acting in this film is but I shall give you the condensed version. Wilson Karunaratne's acting is as always similar to The Incredible Hulk with a beard and a sarong. Rex Kodippile exhibits less emotions and facial expressions than Frankenstein. Kanchana Mendis proves that the only requirement to becoming a Sri Lankan actress is having the ability to cry and wail like a Banshee. Menike Aththanayake's parody of Chandrika Kumaranatunga is forgettable. Anton Jude's character is the clichéd sidekick, also known as Half-Shot. Anarkali Akarsha gives hope to all the burgeoning bimbos of Sri Lanka with her trademark Singlish dialogue and retarded smile. But it is Ranjan Ramanayake who truly steals the show. This character has been tailor made to highlight Ramanayake's lack of expressive intensity and at the same time highlight his man-breasts. He desperately tries to appear cool and noble but ends up being stilted and aloof. But then again acting like a stiff is his forte.

There are so many things wrong in this film; it's difficult to disregard them all. This is why I have compiled a Top Five "Mistakes-Made by the Director" List.

5. Choosing a wardrobe similar to that of a Gay Pirate.

4. Making a full length feature film just so you can flex your muscles and sport your wigs on camera

3. Shamelessly believing you have a talent for screen writing and directing.

2. Deluding yourself into thinking you are comparable to Vijay Kumaranatunga and/or Jesus Christ by including a ridiculous crucifixion scene.

1. Violating International Music Copyrights and Intellectual Property Laws by stealing:
· Bailamos – Enrique Iglesias
· "Terminator 2: Judgement Day" score music – Brad Fiedel (Composer), James Cameron (Producer)
· "Mission Impossible" theme music – Lalo Schifrin (Composer), Bruce Geller (Creator).
· Song from "Asoka"- Sunidhi Chouhan (Vocals), Anu Malik (Composer).

The alarming fact is that ONE SHOT is the Highest Grossing film in Sri Lankan Box Office history. This is a wake up call for the cinema audiences of Sri Lanka to demand better films from our filmmakers. In my opinion I have never witnessed such a cinematic travesty, then again I still haven't seen Ramanayake's third film entitled LEADER. A wise man once said "I have seen better film on teeth," which is why I confer on ONE SHOT the inaugural new rating.

Rating: 0 COCONUTS

S. V. Fernando

HELLO

A young boy uses a payphone at school to call his mother. But before the boy can ask his mother to pick him up, the phone disconnects. Fortunately the distraught boy will find solace in the kindness of a stranger.

HELLO is a short film directed by Lakpathy Wijesekara, produced by Thamindu Ranasinghe and the actors are Nilesh Narendran with Tharindu Jayakody.

This is the first short film critiqued upon the request of the director. Lakpathy Wijesekara is a 16 year old filmmaker based in Colombo, Sri Lanka.

The plot is straightforward yet effective. I assume that the younger and older boy both reside in the school boarding house. This is why the younger boy informs his mother via the payphone that he is well and studying hard. Meanwhile the older boy is talking to his girlfriend through his mobile phone. The conflict of the story arises when the money in the payphone runs out, before the younger boy can ask his mother to pick him up. Simultaneously the funds on the older boy's mobile phone depletes, resulting in him walking towards the payphone. The older boy observes the distress on the younger boy's face and decides to help him.

This is a touching story similar to the tale of the "Good Samaritan." The older boy's act of unselfishness is a simple but heartfelt message for the viewer. The opening credits sequence is attention-grabbing. Imaginative selection of the score music gives the short film a magical feel, like a Tim Burton film. Close-Ups and Wide-Shots are utilized appropriately to focus on key mannerisms and reactions. My only criticism is the shaky backward movement of the camera in the final scene. But all in all a fine effort by a future Sri Lankan filmmaker who displays attention to detail and a natural ability for storytelling.

For those interested in viewing HELLO, follow the link below.

http://www.youtube.com/lakpathy

S. V. Fernando

SULANGA

The collapse of a marriage leads the distraught couple to a divorce court. During the court proceedings, three viewpoints are heard which may impugn to the breakdown of the marriage. The wife's, the husband's and the mistress' perspectives are exhibited thus beginning an exploration of the concept of 'truth' as it relates to each character's personal story.

SULANGA (The Wind) is written and directed by Bennett Rathnayake and stars Sanath Gunathilake (Senarathne: the husband), Dilhani Ekanayake (Krishanthi: the wife) and Sathya Erandathi Rathnayake (Kumari: the village girl/mistress). The supporting cast includes Palitha Silva, Chandani Senevirathne and Sriyani Amarasena.

Since the exploration of 'truth' is the theme of this film, the simple truth is that this is an immature plot in the guise of a serious adult story. This is yet another film that deals with the "Typical Cheating Sri Lankan Husband" storyline. It makes you question the actual existence of the rare and endangered species known as the "Faithful Sri Lankan Husband." The lack of depth between the married couples' relationship is shamelessly obvious. Scenes of adult conversations are replaced by trivial scenes such as preparing the morning tea and making a lunch packet. Why do present day Sri Lankan filmmakers continue to visually represent love with images of the wife cooking food? "The way to a man's heart is through the stomach," is an overstatement.
The relationship of Senarathne (the middle-aged professor) and Kumari (the very young village girl/mistress) seems unbelievably childish and juvenile. The plot attempts to be original but fails due to the mundane subject matter.

The first act of the screenplay does not waste time with unnecessary scenes, but half way through the second act the progression of the film comes to a screeching halt. Excessive narration seems to spoon feed the story without permitting self discovery. This is yet another film that squeezes the melodrama to its last drop. The fact that the cheating husband displays himself as the victim of the divorce is just hilariously absurd.
What is the screenwriter thinking?

The cinematography is the only redeeming quality of the film. The frame composition is exceptional and executed with artistry. All interior scenes have been meticulously lit and the attention to detail in the shots is evident. The visual images of the garbage dump are particularly spectacular and show the professionalism of the cinematographer Biju Vishvanath.

Dilhani Ekanayake proves that experience in the art of acting does make a significant difference. Her performance as the distressed wife is heartfelt and empathetic.
However Sanath Gunathilake's portrayal of the husband proves that all the experience in the world cannot help a mediocre actor at best. His performance is ludicrous and takes overacting to another stratosphere. But the stand out performance of the film is by newcomer Sathya Erandathi Rathnayake, who gives new meaning to the word 'robotic.'
There was more emotional depth on the face of the robot "R2D2 from Star Wars" than there was on Sathya's face. She delivers dialogue as if she was reading it directly from the script. Her monotone expressionless face is excruciating and makes you wonder how the hell she got this role? She has to be related to either the director or one of the producers, because it's difficult to comprehend that anyone would pay money for that performance.

If there's anyone that deserves the bulk of the blame for the shortcomings of this film, it's Bennett Rathnayake. The producer, writer, director really should have tackled less mundane subject matter. The score is irritating and inapt, the casting of Sathya Erandathi Rathnayake in a prominent role is a monumental mistake, but the final nail in the coffin was the pointless open-ended resolution to the ending of the film. Simply giving up on the ending does not make this an artistic film.

Rating: 2 COCONUTS

S. V. Fernando

THE DARK KNIGHT

The highly anticipated sequel to the 2005 sleeper hit BATMAN BEGINS, has finally arrived. Directed by Christopher Nolan, who also did the prequel, THE DARK KNIGHT stars Christian Bale, Aaron Echart and the late Heath Ledger to name a few. It follows the path of billionaire Bruce Wayne one year after the events of BATMAN BEGINS. Despite the Caped Crusaders efforts Gotham city’s worst has only become more ferocious. While dealing with mobsters an unpredictable clown, The Joker, seems to have a powerful effect on the citizens and the batman.

I doubt there are many who are unfamiliar with concept of batman. The character has spanned over 70 years through media ranging from the comics, TV shows, cartoons, movies, and novels. Something common to the true batman story to at it’s center is a detective dissecting crime. This was also the heart of this story.

The plot was a true crime drama of epic proportions. Rather than comparing this to another superhero film, I found myself reminiscing of HEAT or THE DEPARTED.
The story is well thought-out despite it’s speedy pace. There are a few subplots that extend a bit longer than it should, but eventually they all tie in together. Fantastic turn of events kept me at the edge of my seat throughout.

The script is simply crisp and smooth. The dialogue is appropriate and seems to gel the characters to the gritty world they are enveloped in. Although some characters are more colourful than others, all of them have an equal share in adding a significance to the story. Screenwriter Jonathan Nolan has truly brought appropriate and mature conversations to the characters.

The acting overall is just amazing. Christian Bale is in top form, just as he was in the prequel, forceful as the Batman but stressed out as Bruce Wayne. Aaron Echart was excellent playing the charismatic and troubled Harvey Dent. Even Gary Olman give an empathetic view to the plight of James Gordan. Maggie Gylenhall is a pleasant replacement to the still childlike acting of Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes. However I do feel all of these of these roles will be unfairly shadowed by the star of the film, the late Heath Ledger. His rendition of the Joker was simply astounding, and chilling. In the likes of Hannibal Lector, Tony Montana'Scareface' and Darth Vader, this Joker will go down in history as one of the most memorable and unforgettable villains. The relationship of The Joker and Batman is an intricate and complex one, I was impressed at how Nolan managed to keep it fresh and familiar. Throughout the film, the Heath’s performance made me wince in discomfort as he slices flesh and norms, but he also made me laugh at his over the top antics. I found myself cheering for him simply to see what he’ll do next. Leaving aside the much publicized death of a talented actor, he gave the performance of his life. I will be surprised if he does not get an oscar nomination.

The cinematography was simply eye-opening. In BATMAN BEGINS we are introduced to a dinghy, vicious ambiance of Gotham city after dark. Here we are shown Gotham’s gritty life with an atmosphere of danger during the day. The wide angle shots truly allowed grand scope of the city, and in many of the high angle scene there are elements of vertigo. The action sequences had me holding my breath in excitement. Not only were they effective in keeping you in awe visually but it was potent to match the story as well.

This is Christopher Nolan’s 6th movie and 5th commercial success. He has always been a director to bring a real life feel to all of his films by keeping things relatively simple. No grand illusions, no complicated storylines, no surprise ending, no special fx or CGI, and no gimmicks have been used in any of his films and THE DARK KNIGHT is no exception. The man knows how to tell a story, but also create a dark real life mood. I was truly spellbound from beginning to end. The quality of the film is on par with any drama of recent times.

It is no surprise the film just set a box office precedent of having the highest movie opening in history, a record formerly held by SPIDERMAN 3. Since of late the standard for comic films have been raised to a new level, mainly thanks to the new MARVEL STUDIOS. Warner Bros/DC has not only manged to reach this level,... but exceeds it. In spite of being a fan of Batman, without any bias I can truly say this is not only the greatest superhero film I have ever seen, but also one of the best films of the year. The adult and the child in me were both gleefully satisfied at this cinematic marvel.

RATING : 5 COCONUTS

D. PIERIES

TEASER

BAHU BHARYA

A married couple desperate to conceive a child of their own is given an unexpected solution to their dilemma. The husband's adulterous affair with another married woman results in the birth of an illegitimate child. The husband proposes that he and his wife permanently raise the new born, under the stipulation that she (the mistress) promises to never see her child and accepts the monetary compensation provided.
But this agreement is broken and the story takes a dramatic turn for the worst.

This film is written and directed by Udayakantha Warnasooriya and features Ranjan Ramanayake (Kapila: the husband), Wasanthi Chathurani (Navoda: the wife) and Sangeetha Weeraratne (Theja: the mistress).

The plot is probably the only redeeming quality in the entire film. The themes are mature, adult oriented and quite relevant. The story moves at a brisk and steady pace.
Unfortunately the screenplay does not compliment the interesting plot. The dialogue is melodramatic and mediocre at best. For complicated situations the characters do not have many thought provoking conversations.

The cinematography is extremely poor for a film made in the past decade. Unnecessary close-ups and jerking the camera were repeated mistakes. Probably the most unforgivable blunder was during a love making scene; where a close-up of Theja's breasts are photographed with a black background and immediately cut-to a medium-shot with a white background (white coloured paint on walls). This lack of photographic continuity is amateurish. I don't know what's worse, the above error or the use of a pair of ridiculous prosthetic fake female breasts in that scene. Either use real breasts (the actress’s or a body double’s) or simply don’t show breasts. But to show something out of puppet show is simply insulting the audiences' intelligence.

Veteran actress' Wasanthi Chathurani and Sangeetha Weeraratne stand out in their designated roles. Suitable casting of the two female characters can be attributed to their poignant performances. But what stands out like a sore thumb is the ridiculous and wooden portrayal of the 'Kapila' character by Ramanayake. Overdramatic reactions and exclaimed expressions are a few of Ramanayake's acting traits, neither one should he be proud of. It seems that he is incapable of portraying complex emotions which are needed in many of the intricate scenes. It is clearly evident that being a ‘Movie Star’ doesn't necessarily make one a ‘Professional Actor’. The immortal words of the late-great Mr. Bruce Lee come to mind in what was missing, "We need emotional content!"

Part of the blame for Ramanayake's absurd acting falls upon the director; Warnasooriya. The director fails to mold his leading male actor, which proves detrimental to the end product. There are many scenes that required deeper reactions from the characters. The lack of hesitation during the first marital infidelity, the lack of remorse when Kapila accidentally pushes Theja off a cliff and the lack of guilt in Kapila when his wife finds out about his cheating ways are examples of blatant directing inaccuracies.

The original score by Dulip Gabadamudalige is intolerably inappropriate, not to mention the songs by Samitha Mudunkotuwa and Athula Adikari. Sound mixing and dubbing are a complete mismatch with the visuals.Bahu Bharya is a poor man's Sri Lankan version of 'Fatal Attraction'. Although there are many reasons for the downfall of this film to its English counterpart the most noticeable one is that Ranjan is no Michael Douglas.

Rating: 1 COCONUT

S. V. Fernando

ASANI WARSHA

Pradeep is an impulsive young man, from the wrong side of the social tracks who does dirty work for a local politician. With the help of this politician Pradeep manages to locate the whereabouts of his biological father (Sanjeewa). Pradeep confronts Sanjeewa and tells him that he is the result of a fleeting relationship between Sanjeewa and his mother Renuka, decades ago. Due to the fact that Renuka was of lower social class, Sanjeewa's mother convinced him to break up the relationship and travel abroad for an indefinite period of time. Now Sanjeewa has returned to Sri Lanka with his wife and two young children, only to have his life turn upside down by Pradeep's revelation. Pradeep was relentlessly taunted as a young child. 'Bastard' was one of many insults he had to bare, which lead him to drop out of school by the fifth grade. Now an uneducated young thug, Pradeep is faced with an uncertain future. This is why he begins to ask for money from his biological father, who happens to be a successful businessman. The small amounts of money requested proceed into larger sums and for Sanjeewa this small problem has escalated into a much more dangerous and threatening crisis.

ASANI WARSHA (Wrath and Rain) is written and directed by Vasantha Obeysekera and features Jagath Chamila (Pradeep) and Kamal Addaraarachchi (Sanjeewa) as the two leading characters. The supporting cast includes Meena Kumari (Renuka), Sanath Gunathilake (Sirimanna, the politician) and Mahendra Perera.

The plot has been masterfully crafted by an experienced writer/ director. The story is simple yet cleverly paced with the progression of plot points seamlessly increasing in importance. The story kept me interested and engrossed in the film until the very end. The story encompasses many social dilemmas and double-standards still occurring in present day Sri Lanka. It highlights the most common quandary of all, how can an uneducated man make a living in a country where economic strife is widespread?
What makes this story unique and sets it apart from other films is that it contains subtext. Whereas many other films present superficial conflicts, this film shows a deeper and mature discord. The character of Pradeep is constantly defeated by external forces but in the end Pradeep's greatest enemy is himself. This veiled layer to the story is what makes this a superior film. As with many of Obeysekera's films, the screenplay is meticulously designed to convey the exact information at the correct time. The dialogue is intimate and heartfelt and the use of clichés is non-existent.

The look of the film matches the subject matter undertaken. The cinematography is understated with the use of appropriate camera angles for each scene. The photography does not try to overcompensate for the slow moving plot by increasing the movement. Many Sri Lankan cinematographers are guilty of doing too much or too little, but Director of Photography Jayanath Gunawardana has done is job just right.

Besides the plot, the best part of this film is the acting. Jagath Chamila who plays the lead character of Pradeep gives a complex performance. Although he is a recognizable actor today, he was a fairly unknown actor during the making of this film. But judging from his conflicted portrayal, there is no doubt why Obeysekera cast him in the lead. He is truly in the forefront of the new generation of talented actors in Sri Lanka.
Kamal Addaraarachchi is consistence as always, adding a sense of restrained intricacy to his role and the supporting cast members purely enhance the quality of the film by their individual performances.

Vasantha Obeysekera is considered one of the best film directors in Sri Lanka by journalists, film reviewers and cinema-goers alike, I wholeheartedly agree with this. But in my opinion his consistency is debatable from film to film. As far as ASANI WARSHA is concerned he's proved his aptitude and ability. The film is exceptional, from the script, to casting, to cinematography, to editing, to scoring; the director has pooled the individual talents of his cast and crew and created a memorable film.

Rating: 4 COCONUTS

S. V. Fernando

HIRIPODA WASSA

This is the tale of three school friends on the verge of doing their Advanced Level Examinations. Sithum comes from a lower middle class family; his father is a Postman and mother a housewife. His story is about a budding relationship he initiates with Pooja. Ramith is from a middle class family and his father is the owner of an automobile repair garage. His story is about a crush he has for his teacher; Ms. Arosha and the bizarre dilemma he faces in order to please her. Prageeth lives in the lap of luxury because his father is a successful businessman. His story is about the events that follow after the sudden death of his mother. Each friend has their share of problems and aspirations and this film focuses on their lives for a brief moment.

HIRIPODA WASSA is written and directed by Udayakantha Warnasooriya. The film features a cast of young and fairly unknown actors such as Pubudu Chathuranga (Sithum), Jayantha Athapaththu (Ramith), Roshan Ranawaka (Prageeth), Chathurika Pieris (Pooja), Harshani Perera (Ms. Arosha) and Anarkali Akarsha (Veena).

What is the plot of the film…you ask? Well this film is unique because it has NO plot. It's just about the infantile antics of three so-called young adults. The storyline as far as Sithum and Pooja are concerned is the good ol' "rich boy/girl falls in love with poor boy/girl, but rich boy's/girl's parents try to break them up." In their case it's Pooja's brother who takes it upon himself to break this relationship up, probably because he's jealous his sister is getting more 'shlong' than he does. Ramith's storyline is probably similar to something we've all been guilty of; having a crush on a sexy teacher. But that’s as far as it went because I certainly don't recall trying to dispose of a dead body with my sexy teacher, which is what Ramith ends up doing. Unfortunately Prageeth's storyline is not better or interesting, either. He's just dating the most annoying girl in Sri Lanka (haven't we all been there!), oh and he just suspects his father of killing his mother…no biggy!

I thought I'd be accustomed to immature dialogue in Sri Lankan films by now, but no this film receives the dubious honor of having the 'most immature dialogue' I have ever heard. Warnasooriya's script is ridiculously puerile. It is obvious that in any country Kids and/or Teen Movies are written and made by adults. But these adults have the ability to relate to their subjects, prime examples are the Teen Movies by the American filmmaker John Hughes (THE BREAKFAST CLUB & SIXTEEN CANDLES). But it is painfully apparent that a clueless adult has written this script without an inkling of applicability to his targeted audience. The episodes of childish dialogue in the script are just too many to even quote in this review.

Once in awhile a movie comes along where nothing works except for the cinematography. This is NOT one of those films. There is nothing original about the photography but the clear and refined picture quality is appreciated.

The acting is just a train wreck of exaggerated overacting and performances riddled with stiff, unnatural (reading directly from the script) delivery. Many of the actors simply recite their dialogue. Of course some leniency is given to the actors because for many of them this is there film debuts. But that’s no excuse for the horrid acting this film displays. The only two exceptions are Chathurika Pieris and Pubudu Chathuranga who show a hint of natural acting ability. But it is Roshan Ranawaka and Anarkali Akarsha who provide the worst performances in the entire film. They are both in desperate need of professional acting training, unfortunately in this critic's opinion; not even 4 years at the Actors Studio in New York could help this talent less duo.

Although Udayakantha Warnasooriya is a capable director, he is clearly out of his element with the 'Teen' subject matter. The first act of the film is divided equally among the storylines of the three male characters but once the second act begins each story just moves along a tangent. After Sithum's story ends, Ramith's story begins and once that story closes Prageeth's story starts. There is no intersection of the three stories and the narrative seems to flow in a sort of straight tunnel vision, oblivious to the coinciding sub plots. This type of storytelling is similar to mistakes made by a first time director and not an experienced one. It is obvious that this is a commercial film and the main goal is to make a profit at the box office, but a director should have some scruples as to how much product placement he will allow in his film. This film is like a two hour advertisement for Rexona products. It is astonishing that a writer/director would make a film that has hardly any character growth or development. The film simply presents the daily existence of the characters and even the conflicts faced are forgettable. It is noticeable that this is a formulaic commercial film targeting the youth, with the use of clichéd plotlines, young new actors and original songs composed by Bathiya and Santhush but I feel that this film insults the youth of today as opposed to entertaining them.

Rating: 1 COCONUT

S. V. Fernando

DORAKADA MARAWA

The suspect motor car accident involving a newly married couple, lead relatives and friends to speculate whether it was the result of suicide, homicide or a genuine accident? This is the end result of Priyantha's and Subashini's tumultuous relationship filled with disputes over social class, wealth and emotional incompatibilities.

DORAKADA MARAWA (Death at the Door Step) is written and directed by Vasantha Obeysekera. Sanath Gunathilake (Priyantha) and Sangeetha Weeraratne (Subashini) play the lead roles and the supporting cast includes Veena Jayakody,

G.W. Surendra and Sathischandra Edirisinghe.

This is a simple plot examining Priyantha's and Subashini's rocky relationship and the subsequent events that lead to their untimely death. The plot not only focuses on the point of view of the couple but also presents the views of friends and relatives. The narrative explores the trials and tribulations of these doomed lovers in an intimate approach. The screenplay is the work of a skilled writer; Obeysekera captures the emotional depth of his lead characters with great maturity. The dialogue is concise, to-the-point and does not waste time on melodramatic nonsense.

The cinematography is certainly nothing to brag about; the mixture of ordinary camera angles, overly lethargic camera movements, poor lighting and the simple lack of use of these vital cinematic instruments are evident. Of course the subject matter isn't really conducive to dynamic cinematography either, but this is a FILM and not a stage play so I feel the camera is grossly misused.

The acting is top notch. Sanath Gunathilake and Sangeetha Weeraratne prove their acting talents and prowess with masterful ease. Their performances are both moving and heartbreaking. It is a good example of actors playing to their personal strengths and not trying to over reach. The supporting cast purely compliments the two leads by their respective performances.

The best part of the film is that it's directed expertly. Obeysekera makes up for his lack of technical artistry by displaying his story telling abilities. The use of flashbacks is seamlessly interlaced with scenes from the present. The overlapping of a different audio track with a different visual is extremely creative. For example, when the ill fated couple is seen on screen for the first time (at their friend's wedding) the natural audio track is replaced by the audio track of the mourners weeping at the couple's future funeral. This is an ingenious method to give the audience a sense of foreshadowing. Another display of the director's inventiveness is the scene where friends and family are shown looking directly at the camera while the audio track of them gossiping is heard. Obeysekera exercises his creative muscles subtly and with artistic quality, this is indeed a director's movie.

Rating: 3 COCONUTS

S. V. Fernando

THE HAPPENING

The first stage is loss of speech, the second stage is physical disorientation and the final stage is bloody suicide. This is the result of a mysterious phenomenon that initially affects larger cities in the East Coast and creeps its way into smaller towns. A little group led by high school science teacher Elliot Moore tries to outrun this inexplicable event.

THE HAPPENING is the latest cinematic offering by writer/director M. Night Shyamalan. Actor Mark Wahlberg plays the protagonist (Elliot Moore), his wife (Alma) is played by Zooey Deschanel and John Leguizamo with many others makes up the supporting cast.

Film/cinema is a little over a hundred years old so needless to say everything that can be done has already been done. This medium of art has come full circle because audiences of today cannot be fooled by gimmicks. This is why it is critical for present day filmmakers to get back to basics and formulate that indestructible plot. Unfortunately M. Night feels that posing questions and creating an eerie atmosphere will suffice the lack of a conclusive storyline. From the theatrical trailer itself, I began to ponder as to what this happening may be.
(Spoiler Alert! Do not read any further if you have not seen the movie) Is it a terrorist attack, some kind of biological weapon, is it an airborne virus, is it aliens or is it the work of a bunch of pissed off elves and pixies? NO!!! It's just Mother 'freaking' Nature, that’s who. As I'm seated in the theatre watching the movie, I think to myself "Please let there be a good reason for all this." but to my horror the writer/director of THE SIXTH SENSE could only muster a ridiculously ordinary and obvious explanation for all the mayhem. The film is similar to Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS because the story revolves around a family on the run from a global killer. In fact, the interaction between Elliot Moore and the psychotic old lady (Mrs. Jones) is reminiscent of the interaction between Tom Cruise's and Tim Robbins' respective characters. Although in the real world Mother Nature is the cause of much destruction, it is certainly unconvincing to use it in a mystery/thriller movie.

The script is concise and to the point. It does not give anything away, but then again there isn't anything to give away. This is the first M. Night movie that contained absolutely no surprise twists.
Tak Fujimoto's cinematography fails to leave a visual mark. THE HAPPENING is a mixture of generic shots featuring forgettable locales. Compared to his previous collaborations with M. Night, namely THE SIXTH SENSE and SIGNS, Fujimoto could not create a unique mood through the camera lens on this endeavor.

All the actors contributed lackluster performances to an already uninspiring story. Mark Wahlberg proves that he is not leading man material, Deschanel gives an indifferent portrayal as the wife, Leguizamo is underused and his character's young daughter is probably the most undistinguished of all M. Night's child characters.

I have been a devoted fan of M. Night Shyamalan movies. I would go so far as to consider him a modern day Hitchcock. In fact I have enjoyed each and every film he has made since THE SIXTH SENSE and yes that includes his last film LADY IN THE WATER. But I have to admit his new movie is the first major flop on the resume.

The film is simply build-up after build-up of unexplained suicides and at the end all I got was a pathetic resolution. It's like getting a massage, only without the happy ending. M. Night needs to stop trying to replicate the feeling he gave audiences in his previous films and just stick to a solid story. Perhaps switching genres may get his creative juices flowing, or just direct a screenplay written by somebody else. Whatever it may be, M. Night Shyamalan's filmmaking is in desperate need of a reboot. I too suffered from loss of speech during the suicide scenes, I later felt physical disorientation when I realized that there was no reason to the madness and ultimately I contemplated suicide after recalling the money I spent for the cinema ticket.

Rating: 1 COCONUT

S. V. Fernando

TEASER

THE INCREDIBLE HULK

When Dr. Bruce Banner is forced out of hiding, the dormant monster within him awakens. Banner escapes the initial encounter with the relentless General Ross and his soldiers in Brazil and journeys to the U.S. in the hopes of finding a cure for himself. But his efforts are constantly thwarted by Ross and his right hand man Blonsky. Ironically the very thing that Banner is trying to free himself from is the only thing that can be utilized to defeat a more deadly foe.

THE INCREDIBLE HULK is directed by Louis Leterrier (THE TRANSPORTER 1 & 2), written by Zak Penn (FANTASTIC FOUR & X-MEN: THE LAST STAND) and boasts the acting talents of Edward Norton, Tim Roth, William Hurt and Liv Tyler.

Let me begin by stating for the record, that I am one of the few who consider Ang Lee's HULK (2003) to be a comic-to-movie masterpiece. It is to me the CITIZEN KANE of comic book movies. I could write a thesis in appreciation for HULK, which is why I was skeptical going in to watch its reboot. But I had a feeling that its successor could not be too bad because of the fact that Edward Norton contributed to the screenplay with the use of a nom de plume. When a talented actor does that, it's an indication that he has a vested interest in the story and the final product. The movie begins with an opening-credits-montage presenting a recap of the events that result in the genetic accident. This is a clever technique to refresh our memories and not waste time with repetition of the origin story.

Although this film is a reboot, it is a smart move by the filmmakers to continue from where its predecessor (HULK 2003) left off, namely in South America. This seamless transition from the old film to the new isn't apparent in only the continuity of location; it is also evident in the continuity of the main character. Where as Eric Bana's ‘Bruce Banner’ tried to comprehend the beast within by psychological and spiritual methods, Edward Norton's ‘Bruce Banner’ seems to have come to terms with his affliction and is now merely determined to find a cure through science. This shows continuity in character growth because Banner is done with his emotional curiosity/discovery for the transformation and is now focused on controlling and/or eradicating it. The OLD Bruce Banner was similar to Freud; 'WHY do I like this rage and at the same time hate it?' but the NEW Bruce Banner is like Einstein; 'HOW do I get rid of the rage?' Indeed the plot of the reboot is simpler and more accessible to even the hoards of young boys who came out of theatres in 2003 and collectively said "What the f@#k???"

THE INCREDIBLE HULK's storyline is appealing to every age group because it’s basically THE FUGITIVE meets SWAMP THING (Literally!). Die hard comic book fans will appreciate the obscure tit bits of connectivity to the Marvel Universe. Such as ‘The Super Soldier Serum’ injected into Blonsky which is the exact serum that gave Captain America his powers and when Dr. Samuel Sterns' skull begins to expand (towards the end of the movie), is a foreshadowing of the super villain he is fated to become (The Leader). Non-comic book readers will value the unyielding actions scenes which are strategically placed so as to maintain the brisk pace of the movie. The choice to make ‘Abomination’ the villain is inventive because he is clearly more lethal than the Hulk, which makes him a superior opponent. Watching Hulk getting beaten to pulp kept me on the edge of my seat until the very end. The story gives a little something for everyone.

The cinematography is vivid because of the distinctly different locations photographed. From the Brazilian favelas, to the Guatemalan rainforest, from a Virginia University campus, to the streets of New York City and finally to the plush scenery of British Columbia. The only debatable aspect of the cinematography is the CGI Hulk. I feel that the new version also fell short in visually creating the Hulk in a more realistic manner. But if I had to choose between the over grown baby or the steroid freak, I'll take the Schwarzenegger version any day.

Edward Norton is perfectly cast as the conflicted Bruce Banner. He displays the physical and emotional vulnerability of his character with accuracy. William Hurt (General Thaddeus Ross) as always is exceptional in every role he undertakes. Tim Roth (Emil Blonsky) is an interesting casting option for a blockbuster movie, but it works. He brings a sinister tone to his character which makes his change into Abomination more believable. The casting of Tim Blake Nelson (Dr. Samuel Sterns) is ingenious provided that he reprises the role in any future sequel and also returns as the villain ‘The Leader.’ The only disappointment in acting is Liv Tyler (Betty Ross), although a capable actress she has been given a two-dimensional character and his purely the love interest/ beauty to the beast.

I regard Ang Lee's HULK as an art house film but clearly Louis Leterrier's THE INCREDIBLE HULK is an all out, balls-to-the-wall action flick. The movie contained an absorbing plot, moments of sheer awe and scenes that make you hold your breath. As much as I love the old one, the new one has all the elements of a good comic book movie. Leterrier's past experience in directing action such as THE TRANSPORTER films and UNLEASHED starring Jet Li has come in handy. He knows when to hold a scene and when to cut. This is the second film that has been released under the ‘Marvel Studios’ banner, the first being IRON MAN. This is why I feel it appropriate to conclude with a comparison of these two films although a few comparisons to Ang Lee's version were made.
Although the FX of IRON MAN was flawless and the story was fun, I never felt that the Stark/Iron Man character was faced with any real conflict or danger, internal or external. The story was basically black and white and fairly superficial. This is not the case where the Banner/Hulk character is concerned. Conflict is what drives this movie and it is the reason that makes me care about the character. If I love or hate a movie character, I automatically develop an interest in his, her journey and ultimately this is what makes THE INCREDIBLE HULK more enjoyable on a personal level.

Rating: 5 COCONUTS

S.V. Fernando

TEASER

ANJALIKA

When a young man (Thivanka) returns home to Sri Lanka, after many years in England he becomes enamored by a village girl named Anjalika. This puts Thivanka in a complicated predicament because Anjalika happens to be the daughter of a plantation caretaker employed by Thivanka's father. To make matters worse Thivanka's childhood friend Kavya harbors hopes of taking their relationship to a more intimate level. The inevitable clash of social classes results in the kidnapping and subsequent death of Anjalika. Thivanka still reeling from his grief decides to accompany a friend to Malaysia in order to clear his mind. While in Malaysia, Thivanka runs into a girl who looks identical to his deceased Anjalika. This revelation will lead Thivanka to the answers he desperately seeks.

ANJALIKA is the movie directorial debut of Channa Perera who is better known as a popular television actor. Perera has co-written the script with Mahesh Rathsara Maddumaarachchi. Perera also plays the male lead (Thivanka) and the title character of Anjalika is played by Pooja Umashankar, an Indian actress in her Sri Lankan film debut.
Anarkali Akarsha (Kavya), Rex Kodippili, Narada Bakmeewewa and Sanath Gunathilake (Thivanka's father) comprise the supporting cast.

If I had a rupee for every time I saw the storyline of "rich boy/girl falls in love with poor boy/girl, but rich boy's/girl's parents try to break them up" I'd be filthy rich. This plotline is probably the most overused in Sri Lankan Film/Television history and Channa Perera displays his lack of originality by regurgitating it. It is ridiculous that in this day and age, an educated and wealthy character such as Thivanka would fall head over heels in love with an immature, uneducated and socially opposite character like Anjalika. Perera breathes new life to the 'Cinderella Syndrome' where a new generation of female cinema-goers will dream and await the arrival of their future Prince Charmings. Numerous scenes of blatant immaturity on the part of the male and female leads prove that although we live in the 21st Century, Sri Lankan film plots are still stuck in the 1980's. I felt that Thivanka is merely infatuated by the outer appearance of Anjalika and doesn't take the time (not shown in any scene, either) to get to know the real girl.
The most significant plot twist in the entire film is unbelievably coincidental. By the end of the film I felt that if Thivanka's friend did not force him to come to Malaysia he (Thivanka) would never have found Anjalika, he would never have known the truth and he would never have married her. The plot seems to have been pieced together by using snippets of plot points from old Sri Lankan teledramas and Bollywood films.
'Childish' and 'Juvenile' are the only words that come to mind when describing the script. The dialogue between Thivanka and Anjalika insults the intelligence of even thirteen year olds. It is alarming that this story and script is the result of two screenwriters' efforts.

The cinematography is what makes this film tolerable. The crisp clear images are refreshing to the eyes, especially the shots where the scenic beauty of Sri Lanka is captured. But showcasing the flora and fauna of Sri Lanka has become a common ploy by many filmmakers to misdirect the audience from the miserable storyline. When will they realize that hypnotic shots of scenery are no substitute for a class plot?
Three out of the four veteran actors give a worthwhile performance to their respective roles, namely Sanath Gunathilake, Luxman Mendis and Maureen Charuni but Rex Kodippili is proof that a wealth of experience cannot replace natural acting ability.
His brand of "Domo Arigato Mr. Roboto" type acting is hilariously evident. TV Presenter turned actor Narada Bakmeewewa gives a forgettable performance as Thivanka's best friend, Pooja Umashankar is clearly out of her element as Anjalika and Channa Perera's acting is acceptable as Thivanka. But the award for the 'Worst Performance of the Film' goes to Miss Anarkali Akarsha, her babyish portrayal of Kavya is mind boggling. How and Why in the name of sanity does this "Alleged Actress" get hired? Her dialogue delivery is awkward and her mannerisms are retarded. Her performance alone makes the film appear silly.

The only person who can be held accountable for the travesty that is ANJALIKA is the co-writer/director Channa Perera. His first mistake was writing a generic story and screenplay, his second mistake was taking the production to Malaysia and shooting mundane exterior locations such as sidewalks, concrete parks and the center divides of public roads. Why not photograph more of Malaysia's natural scenery or even the world famous Petronas Twin Towers (not from a distance, though)? His third mistake was hiring Anarkali Akarsha and forth was casting himself as the lead actor and using it as a device to pose and strut-his-stuff like a model on the catwalk…on the catwalk…yeah on the catwalk!
The fifth mistake was the absurdly rushed climax of the film, the story moves from conspiracy, to incest, to confession and to happily ever after within a few minutes. This displays the director's lack of storytelling ability.
On the television interview show "Hard Talk" (MAX TV), Channa Perera was asked why he hired a South Indian actress for the title role of Anjalika? He answered "because I couldn't find a Sri Lankan actress suitable enough to play the role." And this brings us to his biggest error, why would you hire a foreign actress who cannot speak a word of Sinhala to play a Sinhalese village girl and then hire a Sri Lankan actress (Nadeesha Hemamali) to voice/dub the dialogue of the first actress? Basically Channa Perera hired one actress for her visual appeal and the other for her vocal appeal. I find this deed insulting to every struggling and unemployed young actress in Sri Lanka. The hiring of foreign actors or actresses simply disheartens local thespians not to mention weakens Sri Lankan Cinema in general. The 'role of Anjalika' should have been given to the 'voice of Anjalika' Nadeesha Hemamali, this would have alleviated a considerable expenditure in the budget and also would have improved the film entirely.

Rating: 1 COCONUT

S. V. Fernando