SRI LANKAN FILM CRITICS

The Winds Of Change

2011-08-08T08:00:00.008+05:30

It's been a two years since our last official movie review. Life has been taking all kinds of turns for us during this time. All the while we have been expanding our continued involvement in our passion and pleasure; cinema. The biggest change has been gathering the effort to bring to life the next phase of SLFC. Being computer illiterate hasn't helped, not to mention being separated amongst three countries thus battling three different timezones.
After all the hurdles, we've taken the first step to entertain you with our favorite topic in a brand new way. Leaving the written word was a new and exciting move for us but being a work in process we may have a few shortcomings. For now the main postings will be on our FACEBOOK PAGE, that is until the new site is up and running. Please keep giving us your views, we rely on your thoughts, ideas and opinions.

Thanks for all the support along way and we certainly hope you will be there with us in the future. On that note we are thrilled to bring to you the newest medium of SLFC; The Movie Reviews Podcast. Be warned we will be holding nothing back in views or language.

Heres' a quote to capture the excitement we feel on our new venture; "...fasten your seat belt Dorothy, 'cause Kansas is...going bye-bye!"

AKASA KUSUM

2009-09-15T11:35:00.003+05:30

A Has-Been actress of yesteryear, a promiscuous actress of the modern era and an emotionally damaged nightclub hostess comprise the three main characters of AKASA KUSUM (Flowers of the Sky), a tale of regret, remorse and redemption.

AKASA KUSUM stars Malini Fonseka (Sandhya Rani), Dilhani Ekanayake (Shalika) and Nimmi Harasgama (Priya). The film is written and directed by Prasanna Vithanage.

AKASA KUSUM marks the directorial return of filmmaker Prasanna Vithanage. After a five year hiatus Vithanage tackles a topic that is closer to home than his previous stories, Sri Lanka's Entertainment Industry. The primary protagonist is an aging actress (Sandhya Rani) who has faded into anonymity. She now spends her days in a dreary repetitive cycle of renting a room out to entertainment folk, dealing with her self-centered sister, frying patties for the local "thé kadé" and feeding her cat. Her friend Shalika is a working film actress who frequents the room-for-rent with her lover. The plot begins when Shalika's husband catches his wife with her lover at Sandhya Rani's abode. Although this turns out to be a very embarrassing predicament, it is not necessarily the plot point that thrusts Rani back into the media spotlight. Rani reluctantly agrees to appear on a reality game show as a one-time judge; this reawakens fans of the forgotten actress. She then consents to work on a mega-teledrama series in the vain of Indian soap operas such as "Mahagedera" and "Praveena." This new found fame is what brings Rani to the attention of Priya a nightclub escort/prostitute. The most significant plot twist is when Priya claims to be Rani's daughter. The emotional state of pregnancy is cause for Priya's need to reconnect with the mother who abandoned her. This unravels the guilt and shame of Rani's past, which will consequentially change the lives of both mother and daughter.

The technical aspects of the film take a backseat because it is mainly a character driven piece but they do compliment the subject matter explored. The cinematography is subtle and unobvious, the style of editing is appropriate and the score matches the tone of the film with its somber melodies.

This is truly an actor's movie; where obviously the actors steal the show. Nimmi Harasgama's portrayal of Priya is articulate and captures the tainted fragility of her role. Dilhani Ekanayake is one of a few who can seamlessly work in both commercial and art house films. She gives a capable performance as Shalika. But it is veteran actress Malini Fonseka who deserves all the credit, her acting is filled with nuance and multi-layered emotions. This is a great example of getting the right person for the role.

AKASA KUSUM is a well made film by one of Sri Lanka's prominent filmmakers. But appreciation boils down to personal preference which is why I feel that it isn't a bad film but it isn't great one either. The director brings to surface a number of contentious themes that affect modern Sri Lankan society such as illegal abortion, prostitution, extra marital affairs, same-sex relationships and the two-faced nature of media and fame. But none of the above is prevalent in the overall story. Where Sri Lankan Cinema is concerned, I feel that local filmmakers try to misdirect the viewer with beautiful locations, gaudy wardrobes or lengthy songs. So it is refreshing to see that there are still some filmmakers who value "story" above all. Unfortunately this story in particular is not gripping and did not keep me at the edge of my seat. Nevertheless this film is far superior than the usual trite that’s produced by commercial filmmakers which is why it's worth watching. Support "true" Sri Lankan Cinema by watching it in theatres.

Rating: 3 COCONUTS

S. V. Fernando

JULIA

2009-08-15T10:47:00.003+05:30

JULIA is the story of a naïve girl who gets pregnant. It is the story of Dilru, a seductive and deceitful gold-digger. It is the story of Dev, a brother out for revenge but ends up becoming a knight in shining armour. JULIA is a story of impulsive decisions and its consequential heartaches.

JULIA stars veteran actors Robin Fernando, Sriyantha Mendis, Rex Kodipilli, Veena Jayakody and Ravindra Randeniya in a cameo appearance. The title character of Julia is played by Nadeesha Hemamali. The story and screenplay is by Sarath Samaranayake and the two male leads are played by Charith Abeysinghe (Dilrukshan) and Sampath Sri Roshan (Dev) who also happen to be the film's producer and director respectively.

Since Sri Lankan cinema is technologically far behind when compared to American, European and Indian cinema it is essential to concentrate on distinctive stories or styles of storytelling. And since JULIA is a film made by two young Sri Lankan filmmakers, I dared to form a speck of optimism thinking this might be a good movie. Unfortunately for my wallet I was dead wrong. JULIA is nothing but some old rubbish covered in High-Definition gift wrapping. The plot in a nutshell is about a poor-little-rich-girl who gets the old "Wham Bam Thank You Ma'am" treatment by a smooth operator and the subsequent repercussions of this act. The plot is so disorganized; it's difficult to articulate in a few sentences. Basically, Dilruskan (a.k.a. Dilru) is a manipulative player who loves 'n' leaves Julia. Dev has come to Sri Lanka in search of Dilru who happens to be responsible for the death of his sister, back in England. Meanwhile Julia's father unleashes his henchmen to find his daughter and her Romeo. And everything converges into an "Achchaaru" type plotline. It's as if the writer took the 5 most common plotlines from Lankan teledramas and jumbled it all up. This clearly created a number of potholes in the story that were painfully apparent. Such as; when an unknown guy knocks up your only daughter, the first words out of the father's mouth should NOT be "when are you going to marry my daughter?" After Dev gets tortured by the father's thugs for days and risks life and limb to escape, it's really hard to believe that Dev would forgive the father in a heartbeat and voluntarily agree to help him. In the second act the father is tearful and concerned about his daughter's unhappy life, I'm sure the idiot conveniently forgot that he only wanted to KILL his own daughter in the first act. These and many more noticeable blunders made the entire film absurd and amateurish.

The dialogue does not disappoint in its level of absurdity either. It is melodrama personified like only bad Lankan filmmakers can do. The mixture of English one-liners in the Sinhala dialogue is clearly a Bollywood fad that doesn't need to be imitated.

JULIA is another example of cinematic misdirection. If you can dazzle the viewer with shots of scenic or foreign locations, then they won't pay attention to the piss poor storyline. This is a strategy of mediocre filmmakers. With far too many aerial shots of London, crane shots of flower fields and song scenes similar to a Puff Daddy music video, the cinematography is simply trying too hard. The editing is no better, with its overdone split screen effects, the needless transition effects from one scene to the next and the annoying number of Fade-to-Black, it is evident that both the editor and director are beginners. The score is alarmingly disappointing because it sounds like a sample from an 80's Lankan flick, the chase scene is preposterous and the fight scenes are Charlie Chaplin-like.

The ensemble performance by the actors is certainly a sorry sight. Nadeesha Hemamali who is known for her roles in teledramas simply forgot that movie acting requires a degree of realism. Charith Abeysinghe's portrayal of Dilru is lacking in so many ways. He seems too concerned with posing than actually acting, modeling maybe a better career choice. Sampath Sri Roshan's performance as Dev is average but stands out in the sea of bad actors. What really blew me away were the three veterans who proved that acting is not like a fine wine; it doesn't get better with age. Statues carved in stone convey more vivacity than Robin Fernando. Sriyantha Mendis' performance for lack of a better word is LUDICROUS and downright stupid. He is unforgivably miscast as the leader of the henchmen; even his mannerisms appear fake and unnatural. But the Oscar definitely has to go to Ravindra Randeniya; his level of overacting, indicating and facial expressions is an all time low for the Lankan acting profession. It is just sad to see our so called professionals reduce performances to such miserable standards. Absolutely pathetic!

I have given some leeway to the pitfalls made by the director (Sampath Sri Roshan) because this is his directorial debut. But what struck me like a shock to the system was how haphazardly the story unfolded. It's as if these filmmakers have never seen a Hollywood or Euro movie. The lack of structure is clear, the recycled plot is unmistakable, but what sticks out like a sore thumb is the brazen disregard for character development or growth. Many characters just change their minds and opinions in a flash. Julia suddenly doesn't love Dilru anymore, but all of a sudden marries him? Dev is nearly killed by Julia's father but swiftly forgives and decides to help him? Dilru takes advantage of Dev's girlfriend but Dev forgives him for the sake of Julia and her unborn child? These are signs of infantile storytelling and the writer and director are solely responsible. If these guys are the so called future of Lankan cinema, then indeed the future looks bleak.

Rating: 1 COCONUT

S. V. Fernando

WATCHMEN

2009-07-17T08:59:00.002+05:30

The year is 1985, the place is an alternate America in which masked vigilantes have been outlawed and the U.S. and Soviet Union are on the brink of nuclear annihilation. This is the backdrop in which the murder of an ex-superhero prompts his former teammate (Rorschach) to investigate the crime. The investigation will uncover a larger and sinister conspiracy that will determine the fate of humankind.

WATCHMEN feature actors Billy Crudup (Dr. Manhattan), Patrick Wilson (Night Owl 2), Jackie Earle Haley (Rorschach), Jeffrey Dean Morgan (The Comedian) and Malin Ackerman (Silk Spectre 2). The film is written by David Hayter and Alex Tse and directed by Zack Snyder.

The plot of the film is a murder mystery, a Who-Dunnit and that’s what kept me glued to my seat. The opening collage of scenes that establish the film's reality as parallel to our own is intricately done. In this America costumed crime fighters were commonplace but are now outlawed by President Nixon who is serving a fifth consecutive term in power. The film begins with the murder of ex-Watchmen team member, The Comedian. This initiates Rorschach's inspection into the killing and into his suspicions that ex-superheroes are being targeted. The characters are portrayed as imperfect and therefore more human. They are not typical superheroes like Spiderman and Superman; they are flawed individuals with their share of social and psychological problems. Rorschach can be considered the protagonist of the piece and the mystery unravels through his eyes. The back stories of the main characters are explored at opportune moments. Simultaneously clues are provided to answer the nagging question…who's behind this hullabaloo? Although a few exaggerated slo-mo action scenes and an extended sex scene jolts you into attention, keep in mind that the pace is of a drama and not an action blockbuster.

The dialogue is rich and constantly reminds us that this is a mature drama made for adults. Rorschach's monologues are complex, Dr. Manhattan's lines are filled with philosophical depth and even the other characters bring a gritty realism with the dialogue.

The cinematography is a feast for the eyes, but certain scenes unintentionally appear cartoonish. The editing is adequate but something that hinders it is the repetitive slowing down and speeding up of many scenes. I understand that every director strives for a visual trademark, but Snyder simply over does it to the point of being annoying. Something else that is overused is the soundtrack; a moody original score is replaced by song after song from the 60's, 70's and 80's. Yes we know its 1985, but we don't need to be reminded of it every scene.

The acting is definitely this film's strong suit. The male actors have been perfectly cast in their respective roles. The stand out performance is by Jackie Earle Haley who plays Rorschach. Even wearing the mask doesn't diminish his acting and screen presence. But the only kink in the armor is Malin Ackerman, who is clearly incorrectly cast as a key figure in the story. Her portrayal of Silk Spectre 2 is superficial and stands out like a sore thumb.

WATCHMEN is based on the beloved graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. Having not read the novel prior to viewing the movie, I cannot comment on how faithful the film adaptation is to its source material. What I can say is that the film experience is indeed novel (pun intended). The film isn't great, it isn't bad either it's just an ok movie. Director Zack Snyder (300) has come reasonably close to making a good film. Probably the most significant dilemma faced by the director was trying to compress the expansive story from novel to film. Snyder's attempt is commendable although many of the revelations in the plot came as no real surprise. Even the ending seems like much ado about nothing but I'm sure the version in the novel is dissimilar. This is Snyder's Watchmen and not Moore's so some credit is deserved by the filmmaker. Whichever way you view it, cinema or rental WATCHMEN is unique and worth the watch.

Rating: 3 COCONUTS

S. V. Fernando

FAST AND FURIOUS

2009-07-04T09:28:00.003+05:30

The murder of his girlfriend forces fugitive Dominic Toretto out of hiding and back into Los Angeles. In order to avenge her death Toretto must reluctantly join forces with onetime friend and betrayer Brian O'Conner. Together they must infiltrate a drug cartel to flush out the killer.

FAST AND FURIOUS reunites the original cast which includes Vin Diesel (Dominic Toretto), Paul Walker (Brian O'Conner), Jordana Brewster (Mia Toretto) and Michelle Rodriguez (Letty). John Ortiz (Ramon Campos) rounds up the cast as this film's villain. The film is written by Chris Morgan and directed by Justin Lin.

FAST AND FURIOUS picks up five years later from where the original THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS left off. It can also be considered as a prequel to the sequels 2 FAST 2 FURIOUS and TOKYO DRIFT. If that didn't confuse you just think of it as Part 4. Judging from the title alone, the filmmakers really couldn't care less about making this version bigger or better. The film's tagline declares "New Model, Original Parts," but after watching it the more appropriate tagline would be Salvaged Model, Bootleg Parts. The film opens in the

Dominican Republic

where Modern Day Robin Hood, Dom Toretto leads his band of thieves in a daring convoy heist of something they like to call "liquid gold." All that trouble to steal some petrol? I guess that's the Hollywood method because simply knocking the driver out cold and speeding off with his tanker truck would be too humdrum. The plot is just a hybrid of the first two movies, minus the cool cars, the urban humour and the underground street racing world. What remains is a washed up thug looking for revenge and a confused FBI agent trying to make amends. Toretto and O'Conner are conveniently looking for the same drug lord and the only way into that world is to win an audition race. This little plot point is identical to that used in Part 2 of the series. Even the entire dynamic of distrust between Toretto and O'Conner has been cloned from the first movie. The death of a loved one being the cause for revenge (Letty) and the rekindling of a long lost love (O'Conner and Mia) are clear examples of the generic plotlines exploited in the film.

The dialogue is a treat for the true lover of clichés. With such lingual gems like, "ride or die," "this is where my jurisdiction ends…and this is where mine begins," and my personal favourite "to the ladies we've loved, and to the ladies we've lost," the talk is a mix of the Old West and a Julio Iglesias song. It is understandable that movies like this cater to a certain demographic, but Hollywood writers need to desist from insulting the audience's intelligence so deliberately.

The technical aspects of the film also fall short when compared to its predecessors. The cinematography is unoriginal, the sound is forgettable, the editing is passable and the soundtrack does not enhance the images. It's as if the director used one of his I-Pod Playlists and selected some random hip hop songs to give the film some urban flavour. What really stands out is the videogame-like action scenes used in the race sequence as well as the cave-drive sequence. It didn't feel like I was watching a movie, instead it felt like I was watching someone play a game of Gran Turismo.

It seems the actors put in exactly the same amount of effort into their roles, as did the filmmakers in trying to come up with the title for the film. Michelle Rodriguez as usual is playing the same role she has played in every single film she has ever done, the tough girl. Jordana Brewster is proof that good looks will not get you everywhere. If you were to replace Jordana with a mannequin, I'm sure none would be the wiser. Paul Walker gives his trademark Surfer-Dude delivery and Vin Diesel gives his typical stone-cold performance. Having acted in such primo films like MIAMI VICE, AMERICAN GANGSTER and the upcoming PUBLIC ENEMIES (with Johnny Depp and Christian Bale) it is surprising to see John Ortiz playing a mediocre role in Part 4 of a waning franchise.

Since this is a conventional formulaic Hollywood action flick, one cannot be too critical. The fact is this entire thing had been done before, but Universal Studios still went ahead and did another one. This is evidence that the Hollywood Idea Machine is running out of concepts. Justin Lin is merely a director for hire, having helmed the third film THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS: TOKYO DRIFT he is the logical choice for directing this one. Lin is better suited for directing automobiles and not actors. But all the blame should not be placed on Lin alone; Chris Morgan the writer deserves much of it for penning such a shameless script. FAST AND FURIOUS is an unashamed copy of an uninspired, uninteresting and purely unexciting film. Try saying that 4 times, really fast and furiously!

Rating: 2 COCONUTS

S. V. Fernando

X-MEN ORIGINS:WOLVERINE

2009-06-28T11:12:00.017+05:30

The rabid Wolverine is back in his fourth film installment, but where as the first three was a team effort WOLVERINE is all about the man with the claws. The film opens in 1845 in the North-Western Territory of British North America. A young James Howlett (future Wolverine/ Logan) witnesses the slaying of his father John Howlett by his friend Thomas Logan (Victor Creed's father). This traumatic event is the catalyst for James' latent mutant power to rise to the surface and so does his claws of bone. In a fit of rage young James plunges his claws into Logan. But with his dying breath Thomas Logan reveals to James that he is his biological father. The young Victor Creed helps his half-brother James to escape the clutches of an angry village mob and the two brothers pledge to look after one another. Preceding the scenes in 1845 the two brothers now adults, are shown battling in a montage of historical wars. During the Vietnam War they are recruited by William Stryker into Team X, a motley crew of mutant mercenaries. The mayhem the team is forced to commit takes a toll on Logan's conscience and so he quits and disappears. This is the end of Act 1 and the actual beginning of the plot.

Released in the U.S. on May 1^st 2009, X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE stars Hugh Jackman (Wolverine/ Logan), Liev Schreiber (Sabretooth/ Victor Creed) and Danny Huston (William Stryker). The supporting cast includes Ryan Reynolds (Deadpool/ Wade Wilson), Taylor Kitsch (Gambit/ Remy LeBeau) and Lynn Collins (Kayla Silverfox). The screenplay is co-written by David Benioff and Skip Woods and the movie is directed by Gavin Hood.

SVF: The entire first act feels like a documentary, similar to something you would see on the Biography Channel. By centering on the history of the Wolverine character a number of questions are answered. Such as his approximate age, the beginnings of Logan's and Creed's relationship and the discovery of the metal called adamantium. Only after the history lesson does the actual plot begin. Now going by his biological father's last name, Logan lives a quiet and quaint life with his girlfriend Kayla up in the Canadian Rockies. But the murder of Kayla ignites the inner rage in Logan and brings his sibling rivalries to a boil. This is ultimately a revenge flick and there's nothing wrong with that. The plot is unpretentious and the narrative is straight forward. Wolverine is portrayed as a complex character with his share of inner demons and dreams for the future. Sufficient subplots such as treachery, revelation and payback keep the story moving forward without any areas of lag.

DMP: The character of wolverine first graced the covers of Marvel Comics in 1974, and has become the second most popular Marvel Character of all time (right behind Spiderman). He was the first anti-hero & the quintessential bad boy in the marvel gallery. It is not over complimentary to say he is a icon of American literature. He has been known as an superhero for the average joe, with a tough exterior and animal/primal instincts, but it’s his mysterious past that has been continuous appeal for avid readers. In fact since this was such a major attraction to readers, his origin was not written until much later in 2002. This was done with great care so not to upset history & persona of the character.

I wish the writers of this film took the same care to bring the origin to life on screen. Considering the audience unfamiliar with comics had come to love the character over the past 3 X-MEN films, deserved a great origin story.

The ‘brothers’ montage in the beginning was a useful plot tool to fast forward the story to it’s current point. Unfortunately the whole first act moved way too quickly. The remaining 2 acts were just a mess as they attempted to jigsaw puzzle subplots incoherently. There is no character development whatsoever! For a character driven film surprisingly all the characters here played on a single note, there is no arc in their evolution, very 1 dimensional! They are either bad or good, and when there is a change it is literally a flip of a switch rather than a slow growth. It’s only fair to expect more coming from a series (X MEN 1 & 2) which despite having over a dozen characters in each film focused on the story of about 3 at time, and let them grow and evolve. Other than Logan, Creed and Stryker all other characters didn’t even serve a purpose for being in the film!

The characters have absolutely no motive for any of their antics and in some cases a feeble explanation. Sabertooth never gives a reason for why he turns on Wolverine other than their senseless sibling rivalry. The ‘special’ team characters also seem so bland whether they are slaughtering a village of African innocents or confronting each others personal bouts. Deadpool was comic relief, Agent Zero(probably a reference to his personality score), The Blob(aka Fatbastard), Bolt, John Wraith(who’s as stiff and awkward as Black Cowboy Robot), were all moving props! They are void of any real emotion. The heart of the main character is based on the animal/human element….but this movie lacks any human element...hell there’s barely any humans in the film! This was another mistake which previous XMEN films didn’t make, their characters were all very human in their insecurities, hurts and frustrations. The simple proof that this movie had no heart was the lack of empathy or concern I had when any of the characters died!

SVF: The dialogue is succinct and to-the-point. At times overuse of clichéd one-liners seem to dumb down the movie. But it is worth mentioning that the character of Wolverine is not a prolific orator, he's more of a "Dirty Harry meets John McClane" and you can't expect him to be verbally eloquent just because he's in a more serious film.

DMP: Dialogue was kept simple and to the point. An animalistic yell of “RUAWWWW!” would have been effective if used once maybe twice by our wild lead. But after the 10^th & 11^th time the sense of menace is gone and becomes laughable(and also makes for a great drinking game:). In fact Wolverine never truly became fearful to anyone. He was supposed to become a frightful and intimidating force deformed nature to his foes, friends and even the audience. This was especially important as he became the ‘animal,’ but this transition happened with no significance or threat.

SVF: The cinematography is mediocre, the Special FX is surprisingly average for a big budget movie and the action scenes are repetitive.

DMP: The special FX was horrendous and cheap; a few memorably bad examples are Zero jumping into chopper, Gambit climbing up the ladder like a lemur, jumping into the water from the helicopter, Patrick Stewart's de-aging face, the CG helicopter and ‘jungle book’ painted background Patrick Stewart steps out of, The Blob wearing the borrowed FAT BASTARD's suit didn’t help. Making the claws CGI (as opposed to the perfect prosthetics in X1 & X2) was a fatal mistake. The claws looked like a rendering from ‘Roger Rabbit’, the bone claws were worse and looked like ‘chopsticks’ borrowed from Chinese Dragon, every mutant’s ability to jump a round as if their shoes had ‘blubber’ was very ‘video-game-like’ behavior. Forget that they messed up a currently popular character Deadpool, but the whole last action sequence was straight out of MORTAL COMBAT. The sword/action sequences in BLADE ’98 from 11 years ago were far superior to this scene.

The action was simply poor and clichéd giving us nothing new. All 3 face-off fight scenes with Creed & Logan begin the exact same way, the unoriginal, over dramatic 100 meters sprint, I’ve seen more brutal fights with similar scenes courtesy of JCVD in UNIVERSAL SOLDIER’ 92. It doesn’t matter how brutal the fight scenes are when we are told at the opening credits that both characters heal to the point of invulnerability, there is no tension about the damage they might receive in a battle. This is where creative ideas are supposed to come from the directors/writers to make us feel tense about the mortality of these characters. It’s also a little silly to find so many characters with blades, claws, swords but we never see any blood!

The explosive action of the chopper was probably the most prominent but certainly unimpressive. I would like to think BLACK HAWK DOWN or THE MATRIX had better, similar scenes! Each action sequence has been bettered by prior films.

SVF: WOLVERINE is a well cast film. Liev Schreiber is surprisingly sinister as Victor Creed/ Sabretooth. Danny Huston is perfect as the ambitious and ruthless William Stryker. Lynn Collins' performance is natural displaying sexual chemistry with her leading man and Hugh Jackman takes this version of Wolverine to another level. Sadly the supporting cast is forgettable, especially Will I. Am's one-dimensional portrayal of John Wraith. The Black-Eyed Pea certainly needs to stick to his day job.

DMP: The 3 leads of Logan, Creed and Stryker were well cast. The sad thing is even the supporting cast despite being all good actors put up a poor performance(except the will.i.am who was a God awful mannequin throughout). Even Lynn Collins had potential as a good love interest, she played a single note throughout. The total blame for this falls on the director for not getting the best out the actors and writer for not giving these thespians better material.

SVF: WOLVERINE is definitely not a faultless film. Many comic book fans will whine about the screen writers not being faithful to the source material. Stuck-up Armchair Film Critics with their turtle-neck t-shirts and cups of cappuccinos might say that the film is unmemorable, lacked quality dialogue and there are no lessons to be learnt. To all I say "This is WOLVERINE not FORREST GUMP." Wolverine has been voted the No. 1 comic hero of all time so audiences will continue flocking into theatres to watch the sequels.

DMP: The unimpressive plot provokes a few rhetorical questions; Why would Stryker spend all the time/effort/money to find a rare metal, find a 1 in a million matching subject for procedure with little chance at success. And when it works out and the subject gets uncontrollable immediately (after the experiment) try to kill him? Initially Stryker was trying to hunt/kill Logan using his best mutants/weapons/machinery, but waited till the end to use the special gun with the ‘silver’ bullets (very clichéd Werewolf nuance!)? And even when he was told that it wouldn’t kill him, he’ll settle for ‘taking away his memory?

There are no answers to these questions as they are the plot holes existent due to sloppy writing and hurried production.

SVF: This is the first big budget film directed by Gavin Hood who previously directed character driven dramas such as TSOTSI and RENDITION. You would think that Hood was the ideal choice as director to help explore a character more elaborately but he fails in his attempt. WOLVERINE suffers from the same dilemma as SPIDERMAN 3 and X-MEN 3; too many characters, so little time. Why is the kid Cyclops even in this movie? The film's biggest mistake is that it's merely a shallow back story. The story could have been better if more in-depth concentration was placed on the psychological elements of human nature versus animal nature. The "feral or primitive side" could have been to Wolverine what "fear" is to Batman and what "rage" is to The Hulk. This would have enriched the character incredibly. Alas X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE is a well made action film, all the loose ends in the subplots are tied up and the ending is spectacular. But if THE DARK KNIGHT is the new benchmark for the superhero genre, then WOLVERINE needs a century worth of evolution.

DMP: Fox had been going head to head with Gavin from the beginning. Considering he’s South African , politico/war issues were very real to him. His prior films TSOTSI and RENDITION both had elements of dealing with government or decay of human society. He had attempted to bring this (along with other elements) to WOLVERINE but Fox shut him down. This article gives some insight to his inner workings.

Deadpool’s character was thrown in here as a plug for XMEN ORIGINS: DEADPOOL Gambit was introduced cause he too will co star with Deadpool, plus the fanboys have been waiting for his on screen debut since 2000. The young Cyclops along with the weird pre-aged Prof X was there to introduce their spin off XMEN ORIGINS: FIRST CLASS. Actually this was the reason for the unnecessary imprisoned young mutants, as they will all be part of the series/movie which will get the typical Fox treatment of DAWSONS’CREEK meets TWILIGHT!

It was rumoured that Fox had capped their production budget, this clearly showed with the piss poor special FX. Especially when comparing to films from last year such as IRONMAN & HULK which had ‘quoted’ the same amount ($150 mil) but gave us far better, polished products. I feel this will be the result of all future XMEN films from Fox until the movie rights come back to the capable & faithful hands of Marvel Studios. This is sadly a very forgettable film for an unforgettable media icon.

S. V. Fernando: 3 COCONUTS

D. M. Pieries: 2 COCONUTS

THE ESCAPIST

2009-06-08T08:58:00.006+05:30

A hardened convict (Frank Perry) serving a life sentence decides to escape from prison in order to reach his alienated daughter. The daughter's life hangs on a thread after suffering a drug overdose. Time is of the essence, as Perry puts together a motley crew of convicts and sets in motion an impetuous plan to escape.

Released in the U.S. on March 30^th 2009, THE ESCAPIST features a capable cast of actors led my Brian Cox (Frank Perry), Joseph Fiennes (Lenny Drake), Dominic Cooper (Lacey) and Steven Mackintosh (Tony). The screenplay is co-written by Daniel Hardy and Rupert Wyatt and the film marks the feature length directorial debut of Wyatt.

The plot of THE ESCAPIST utilizes an incomplex tried and true recipe. Take one 'Jailhouse Savvy Lifer,' give him a reason to escape, mix in a few colourful inmates, a plausible escape plan and Voila! Add to that the 'Typical Penitentiary Sexual Predator' along with the 'Scared Straight Newbie' and then we have subplot. Frank Perry receives a letter from his estranged wife saying that their daughter is in a bad state following two heart failures. Unable to do anything while incarcerated Perry has nothing to lose and everything to gain, so the decision to escape is obvious. The plot is elementary when compared to such great prison break movies like THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION and THE GREAT ESCAPE. But what sets this film apart is purely plot structure. The film opens simultaneously by showing Perry's reason for escape and the beginning of the actual escape. This clever order of storytelling gives the film a fresh feel. Instead of using the entire first act to build up to the escape, this inventive use of parallel storylines keeps the film spontaneous. The story prevents itself from becoming lethargic with these sudden bursts of tense scenes.

The dialogue is a mish-mash of English and Irish slang providing authenticity to its characters. Simple dialogue for a simple plot.

I am a fan of films that display a unique visual atmosphere. The cinematography does not disappoint, it creates a harsh prison environment. The colour palette is faded and almost has a matte finish to it. It highlights the cold and dingy mood of an old prison. The editing is also a contributing factor to the overall feel of this movie. But what stands out is the unique score of the film. With its gritty violin riffs and fast paced drums, the score is the most memorable element of the film.

THE ESCAPIST is clearly an Actor's Movie. Comprised of a number of recognizable but unknown actors, this film relies on its ensemble cast. Joseph SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE Fiennes tries his hand as the 'Tough Guy,' but at times he seems too concerned about trying to look rugged. Dominic MAMMA MIA Cooper plays the new con on the block with fragility and nuance. Steven UNDERWORLD: RISE OF THE LYCANS Mackintosh gives a sinister and engaging performance as the resident sexual predator. But much of the acting praise is deserved by Brian X MEN 2 Cox, who also Executive Produced the film. Cox's role of Frank Perry was tailor-written for him and his commitment to the character is evident. I am unaware as to the extent of Cox's character research but he gives a believable performance as the 'slammer seasoned' Perry.

THE ESCAPIST is a good first time effort by director Rupert Wyatt who had only previously directed a few short films. Unfortunately the subject matter has been overused, and the characters are somewhat clichéd. But the ending gives this film a bit of redemption. The crafty twist at the conclusion sets this story apart and links the flashback scenes with the present scenes. The directing is well rounded and competent. Although the film is lacking in certain areas this is one of those British Indie Flicks that is worth the watch.

Rating: 4 COCONUTS
S.V.Fernando

FUTURE SRI LANKAN FILM MAKERS

2009-04-02T10:58:00.006+05:30

The SLKN films reviewed in the past have been given many negative ratings by the SLFC. Needless to say some of the films that come out are appalling.

This is why we feel it appropriate to direct our readers to the works of some future SLKN film makers. Call it a "ray of cinematic hope."

We've selected 6 short films made my Sri Lankans that display some originality. Of course Art is Subjective, so please take the time to view each short film.
Then let us know which one is the best and why in our "comments" section.

Afterwards He Fell Asleep

Rock'n'Crack

Muzzle

Life Circle

Valentine Crush

The Isle Of Hypocrites

LEADER

2009-03-17T10:11:00.001+05:30

When a daughter (Pooja) witnesses the murder of her politician father, she is forced into hiding for her own safety. The Underworld thug (Soththi) responsible for slaying the father is hell bent on doing the same to the daughter. This is why a "pure hearted Rambo" simply known as Leader is hired to guard Pooja, the only witness whose testimony can convict Soththi.

LEADER is written and directed by Ranjan Ramanayaka, produced by Ronney Bevan Perera and stars (quite obviously) Ramanayaka in the lead. The supporting cast includes Anusha Damayanthi, Anton Jude, Janesh Silva, Chathura Perera, Robin Fernando and Sandun Wijesiri. The female love-interest and villain are played by Indian actors Adeen Khan (Pooja) and Babu Anthony (Soththi) respectively.

As a film critic there are two simple pleasures I get from my work. The first is the pleasure of reviewing a film I absolutely love and the second is reviewing a film I unequivocally scorn. LEADER is one of those cinematic gems that undoubtedly belong in the latter category. Where O' where to begin? There are numerous factors a critic takes into account when reviewing any film. Call it our basic tools for textual analysis of fictional film. These factors allow us to recognize the techniques used in any given film to create meaning. But what if you come across a film that doesn't contain a shred of meaning? Then it is only fair to throw the textbook out the window, but in this case slapping the writer/ director across the face with it would be more appropriate. If man can train a chimpanzee to operate a space craft then why can't Ranjan Ramanayaka train himself to devise a better plot? Obviously chimps have a higher IQ than the typical Sri Lankan Commercial Film Maker (SLCFM).

The plot can be described as THE BODYGUARD meets THE THREE STOOGES. The story is shallow, the dialogue is infantile and the entire film feels wet behind the ears. The film begins with a sanctimonious narration of Sri Lanka's political history. The prologue is ideally catered to a seven year old mind and ironically this preachy start has nothing to do with the film's middle and end. It's as if Ramanayaka is making fun of corrupt politicians just for the sake of being controversial. He then conveniently forgets the bold beginning to his film by focusing on flexing is pectorals and trying to look cool for the remainder. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Pooja falls madly in love with Leader, he rescues her from a few close calls, defeats the dastardly Soththi, saves the day, and gets the girl all in time to get his chest waxed at the local beauty parlour.

"MORON: a person of borderline intelligence in a former classification of mental retardation." The dialogue is a clear indication that Ramanayaka the script writer believes all Sri Lankan cinema-goers to be morons. This is the only logical explanation I can fathom as to why the dialogue is so ridiculous. The words 'pathetic' and 'flaccid' come to mind when describing the humour and jokes in LEADER. I truly felt disgusted listening to the verbal interactions of the characters because it is evidence that comedy in Sri Lanka has not evolved in decades. That space chimp could have written a better script.

The cinematography is average at best and tries to visually annoy the viewer with triple split screen shots, zooming in and out and close-ups of Ramanayaka's flabby muscles. The film utilizes "Tom and Jerry" styled sound effects to remind us where and when to laugh. The dubbing of the lead actresses' dialogue is out of sync and unprofessional. Something every SLCFM does is copy or duplicate works of international filmmakers. Ramanayaka does not fail in this because as always he has blatantly sampled score music from MORTAL KOMBAT, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, ripped off the 'machine gun guitar case' from DESPERADO and tried to re-create the slow motion gun battles from THE MATRIX.

The acting in LEADER simply takes "Bad Acting" to another level completely. Robin Fernando, the poor man's Abitabh Bachan shows that just because you're sporting the silver goatee don't make you "The Big B." Sandun Wijesiri is a disgrace to bad actors around the world. He is so inept in his performance (comedic or dramatic), even a coma patient could have done a better job.

Anusha Damayanthi's portrayal of her character is painful both physically (due to the sound of her voice) and mentally (due to why the hell is she still acting?). If I had a choice between watching Anton Jude's, Janesh Silva's and Chathura Perera's performances or receiving an enema…stick it in me doc!

The two Indian actors confirm that miscasting can be detrimental to a film. And last but not least Ranjan Ramanayaka proves that acting in a 100 films does not make you even capable, unless one possesses a biological cell of talent.

There are two types of cinema in Sri Lanka, Commercial Cinema and Controversial/Art House Cinema. Although there is a lack of art house films, there is indeed an abundance of commercial films. These commercial films can be divided into the sub-categories of Action, Comedy, Love Story and Kids Movie. Sri Lankan commercial cinema steals ideas from Bollywood, Bollywood steals ideas from Hollywood and ironically, Hollywood steals ideas from European cinema. Film is a medium that constantly recycles ideas, but the trick is to give the old idea a new spin. Unfortunately SLCFM's are oblivious to this concept. They choose to regurgitate the same old stories and have the gall to lie to audiences saying they've made a unique film.

LEADER is no exception, if there's anyone to blame it is certainly Ranjan Ramanayaka. The hiring of two unknown Indian actors is pointless and merely a failed gimmick to attract local audiences. Not only did the makers of LEADER take two acting jobs away from Sri Lankan actors, they increased expenditure by having to hire actors for dubbing. This film is a true example of narcissism at its best, not only is Ramanayaka the lead actor, screen writer and director he is also the costume designer, dance choreographer, song lyricist and playback singer. I'm surprised he didn't take up the role of on-location caterer as well. If that wasn't enough Ramanayaka has proclaimed himself to be the "Sri Lankan People's Actor," (shown during the opening credits). This level of self centered and egocentric behavior is probably a first in film history. Nearly half the film's duration is comprised of scenes where either Ramanayaka is flexing, posing, close-ups of his muscles, trying to look cool and also trying to look tough. The intro-scene alone, when Leader gets off the helicopter drags on for an eternity. The entire scene is Leader getting off the helicopter repeated 5 times (for our viewing pleasure), cut-to walking in a desert, walking up to an elephant, walking past a Buddhist temple, walking past a Hindu kovil, walking past a Catholic church etc. etc. etc. If I were suicidal, I would have probably slit both my wrists before he got to the temple.

LEADER is fundamentally a primitive film made by a bunch of amateurs. The story is boring, the action is absurd, the comedy is tragic, the love story is adolescent, the acting is unbelievably incompetent and the direction is frighteningly void of talent.

The most hilarious part of the LEADER experience is the fact that producer Ronney Bevan Perera intends to promote the film worldwide including some satellite television channels. I can understand a producer trying his best to get a profit from his investment but Ronney, you probably picked Ramanayaka's worst film to produce. If PARLIAMENT JOKES was bad and ONE SHOT was worse, then LEADER is by far the worst.

We the Sri Lankan People demand that Ranjan Ramanayaka stop ruining our cinema, stop humiliating us by screening your films abroad and JUST STOP MAKING FILMS ENTIRELY!!!

0 COCONUTS

S. V. Fernando

For more hilarity check these out!

http://www.leaderfilm.com/

http://www.spot.lk/spotarticle20-ranjan-ramanayakes-leader-soon-in-theaters.html

Oscar Winners?

2009-02-21T17:27:00.000+05:30

A certain member of the press working for a well known entertainment website has published a document obtained from the academy.

Whether it is true or not we will only know for sure tomorrow night. We at SLFC want to keep you informed about it. The list bares little surprises to our predictions. Click below if you want to find out.

Supposed List

Would love to hear your comments

And The Oscar Goes To...

2009-02-20T11:24:00.000+05:30

The 81st Annual Academy Awards are just around the corner so we at the S.L.F.C. feel it's appropriate to make our picks for who should win Oscar gold. For those of you who are unaware of this little fact then let it be known; the Oscars is merely a popularity contest and those who deserve to win… rarely win. Actors, directors and film studios initially campaign for their films to get nominated and once that is accomplished they campaign themselves to death in order to utter those 6 magical words "I'd like to thank the Academy…"

So we took it upon ourselves to filter out all the Hollywood bullshit and simply pick the actor who gave the better performance, the director who did a better job, the picture that is justly the 'Best Picture' etc. But due to popularity campaigns the best choices may not necessarily win, we have noted this as well. So here are our picks;

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Amy Adams for DOUBT

Penélope Cruz for VICKY CRISTINA BARCELNOA

Viola Davis for DOUBT

Taraji P. Henson for THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON

Marisa Tomei for THE WRESTLER

SVF PICK: Penelope Cruz (Because; the other four roles were less impressive)
DMP PICK: Amy Adams (Because; she is showing diversity as opposed to others)

POPULARITY: Penelope Cruz(Because; she has been campaigning like she's running for office)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Josh Brolin for MILK

Robert Downey Jr. for TROPIC THUNDER

Philip Seymour Hoffman for DOUBT

Heath Ledger for THE DARK KNIGHT

Michael Shannon for REVOLUTIONARY ROAD

SVF PICK: Heath Ledger (Because; HAVE YOU SEEN HIS PERFORMANCE???)
DMP PICK: Heath Ledger (Because; sympathy excluded,he truly was the Joker!!!)

POPULARITY: Heath Ledger (Because; other than his performance everyone votes for the dead guy)

BEST ACTRESS

Anne Hathaway for RACHEL GETTING MARRIED

Angelina Jolie for CHANGELING

Melissa Leo for FROZEN RIVER

Meryl Streep for DOUBT

Kate Winslet for THE READER

SVF PICK: Kate Winslet (Because; she gave the more superior piece of work)
DMP PICK: Kate Winslet (Because; her maturity of talent truly shows, plus about time she won)

POPULARITY: Kate Winslet (Because; she won both golden globes this year and is a 6 time nominee)

BEST ACTOR

Richard Jenkins for THE VISITOR

Frank Langella for FROST/NIXON

Sean Penn for MILK

Brad Pitt for THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON

Mickey Rourke for THE WRESTLER

SVF PICK: Sean Penn (Because; Penn isn't acting a role, he is the role)
DMP PICK: Sean Penn(Because; he made me empathize with the character)

POPULARITY:
Brad Pitt (Because; he has never won and only been nominated once 13 years ago)
Mikey Rourke (Because; he won the golden globe and has resurrected his career and life similar to the movie)

BEST DIRECTOR

Danny Boyle for SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE

Stephen Daldry for THE READER

David Fincher for THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON

Ron Howard for FROST/NIXON

Gus Van Sant for MILK

SVF PICK: Gus Van Sant (Because; his film has more poignancy)
DMP PICK: Gus Van Sant (Because; he created a noble and personal film)

POPULARITY: Danny Boyle (Because; it is the 'feel good movie of the year')

BEST PICTURE

THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON

FROST/NIXON

MILK

THE READER

SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE

SVF PICK: MILK (Because; it is honestly the Best Picture)
DMP PICK: FROST/NIXON (Because; overall it is well made)

POPULARITY: SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE (Because; everyone loves to jump on the bandwagon)

-
S. V. Fernando

D. M. Pieries

QUANTUM OF SOLACE

2009-01-13T12:48:00.001+05:30

Deeply affected by the death of his one true love, agent 007 is out for revenge. He discovers that a secret organization is responsible for her demise and subsequently unravels a scheme to control Bolivia's most vital resource.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE is directed by Marc Forster. Daniel Craig stars as James Bond, with Judi Dench (M), Jeffrey Wright (Felix Leiter) and Mathieu Amalric (Dominic Greene) comprising the supporting cast. The latest "Bond Girl" (Camille) is played by Olga Kurylenko.

Although QUANTUM OF SOLACE is the 22^nd film in the Bond franchise, it is only the 2^nd film that uses the new "prequel" formula. This revamped modus operandi which places focus on 'realism' as opposed to 'spectacle,' may sound interesting on paper but it falls far short visually. The film begins a few minutes after the end of CASINO ROYALE, with a car chase through Nice and Monte Carlo, ending in Italy. This action sequence is chock full of music video style quick cuts that'll even make the Video Game Generation feel nauseated. The plot tries so hard to have a gritty real world conflict but ends up being a mind numbing bore. Gone are the days where Bond Villains aspired for world domination, no this villain is content with getting control of a developing country's water supply. I certainly hope that the 23^rd Bond flick will not have its villain trying to control the supply of Sri Lanka's coconut arrack; now that would be an apocalyptic situation for us islanders. Watching the trailer, I felt intrigued by this sinister organization that has even managed to elude MI-6, but sadly the film depicted this secret establishment as a group of greedy chicken-shit businessmen. I felt that the writers were more concerned about how to present the clue or incident that will lead Bond to a new locale and simply failed to develop a plot. Having Bond travel from Italy to Haiti and then to Bolivia misdirects the audience into thinking there's a reason for all those frequent flyer miles.

The simple truth is that the plot is absurdly boring and pretentious, similar to another film co-written by Paul Haggis, CRASH (2004). Haggis is also responsible for penning this film's predecessor CASINO ROYALE, which was even more dreadful. Those witty one-liners that Bond is known for have been replaced by very little and at most times no dialogue at all. In fact Judi Dench's M speaks more than Bond. The suave secret agent of yesteryears has been swapped for a thuggish assassin hell bent on being a 'fighter, not a lover.'

The cinematography is needless to say faultless because this is after all a big budget extravaganza. It is clear that the money was mostly channeled into the special FX and set design departments. There are no complaints in regards to the technical aspect of the film.

Daniel Craig is undoubtedly a talented actor, he does justice to the material he has been given. Judi Dench and Jeffrey Wright are believable in their respective roles. Mathieu THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY Amalric is sorely underused as the two dimensional villain, who probably may be the most dreary villain in Bond history. But it is fact that Olga Kurylenko is by far the dullest and unexciting Bond girl of all time. Why do filmmakers delude themselves into thinking models can act, they shouldn't be even offered roles as movie extras. Confucius says, "a model to acting is like sumo wrestler to ballet dancing."

The only reason I was anxious to watch the 22^nd installment of Bond is because it was directed by Marc Forster. He is definitely in my Top 3 of "Exceptional German Directors, working today." Forster's record speaks for itself by having directed quality films such as MONSTER'S BALL, FINDING NEVERLAND and more recently THE KITE RUNNER. But unfortunately for Forster, he seems to have been merely a director for hire which is why he cannot be entirely blamed for this horrid film. He too would have been forced to adhere to the new Bond rules which consequently constricted his natural creativity. Ultimately it is the producer's of the franchise who need to go back to the drawing board. Although Daniel Craig is a good actor, he is still not the best pick for the Bond character. The producers need to bring back the corny formula but give it 21st Century flair. Bring back the diabolical megalomaniac super villains with their scary and colourful henchmen. Bring back the cool Bond-Villain names like Goldfinger and Scaramanga. Bring back the sexy Bond-Girl names like Pussy Galore and Honey Ryder. Bring back Miss Moneypenny, bring back Q and his spy gadgets. Bring back Bond the misogynist dinosaur that treats women like disposable underwear. Bring back the foreplay; in fact bring back the freaking SEX. But most importantly bring back the grandeur and tone down the realism, because if I want realism I've got Jason Bourne, Ethan Hunt and even Johnny English for that.

Rating: 2 COCONUTS
S.V Fernando

SEILAMA

2008-12-23T09:00:00.000+05:30

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

2008-11-21T09:54:00.000+05:30

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

2008-10-14T22:43:00.000+05:30

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

2008-10-02T08:36:00.000+05:30

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

2008-08-31T19:28:00.000+05:30

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

2008-08-27T13:13:00.000+05:30

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

2008-08-24T09:39:00.000+05:30

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

2008-08-09T12:43:00.000+05:30

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

2008-08-03T20:23:00.000+05:30

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

2008-08-03T20:15:00.000+05:30

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

2008-06-27T11:07:00.000+05:30

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

2008-06-27T11:01:00.000+05:30

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

2008-06-23T06:26:00.000+05:30

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

2008-06-17T01:37:00.000+05:30

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

2008-06-09T11:18:00.000+05:30

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

PURAHANDHA KALUWARA

2008-06-09T11:08:00.000+05:30

A young army soldier is killed as a result of a bomb explosion in the ongoing war between the Sri Lankan government and the L.T.T.E. The remains are placed in a sealed coffin and delivered to the soldier's distraught father and sisters in their rural village. Upon completion of the funeral proceedings the father (who happens to be blind) is notified by the local village official (Gramma Niladari) that he is entitled a monetary compensation by the government. But the grieving father refuses to complete the required paperwork. He believes that his son is still alive and will return shortly, which makes accepting the money unethical. His indifferent attitude is cause for concern by the two daughters, each in need for money. But the shocking reason to his behavior is revealed at the end.

PURAHANDHA KALUWARA (Death on a Full Moon Day) is written and directed by Presanna Vithanage and features the acting prowess of Joe Abeywickrama (as the blind old man), Linton Semage (as the old man's intended son-in-law), and Mahendra Perera (as the local village official).

Although the main plot is gripping and makes us wonder why the old father is behaving his way, regrettably it is the only question posed in the film. The lack of sufficient plot points made the story progression drawn out and tedious. The film stretches the blind (no pun intended) hope of the old man as he clutches to the delusion of his son's existence and impending arrival.
The screenplay compliments the story with succinct and authentic village dialogue. But additional scenes would only have improved the end product. Flashback scenes showing how essential and irreplaceable the son/brother was would have helped to visualize the great loss felt by the family. This missing link to the son/brother was clearly apparent. Displaying the father's thoughts and fears would have also enhanced the development of the story.

The cinematography is exceptional. The quality and talent of the director of photography M. D. Mahindapala is unmistakable by his use of long shots and deep focus.
The background and foreground are seamlessly captured, to present the scenic beauty of the quant village isolated from civilization.

It is truly a pleasure to watch master thespians at work. Joe Abeywickrama,
Linton Semage and Mahendra Perera are flawless in their performances. Good actors make you feel like you're watching a documentary as opposed to a narrative film.

Presanna Vithanage's technical direction is outstanding, but his method of storytelling is debatable. The film's running time is a mere sixty eight (68) minutes, which proves that the addition of sub plots or parallel storylines would have augmented the pace and duration of the film. The simple lack of conflicts made it slow going. The director could have explored the troubles faced by the two sister and their significant others.
More emphasis could have been placed on how crucial the money is for the lives of the family members. And surprisingly the controversial ending was not utilized to its optimal dramatic affect. But regardless of these shortcomings, I definitely recommend this film because it's a work of a capable filmmaker.

Rating: 3 COCONUTS

S. V. Fernando

PRINCE CASPIAN

2008-06-03T04:32:00.000+05:30

Following the path of fantasy PRINCE CASPIAN is the second chapter in the series of THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA written by C.S Lewis. The series is known for it’s magical stories interjected with Christian ideals. Director Andrew Adamson (who also directed THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE) explores the four children who are called back to NARNIA a year after their first adventure. They find that time in NARNIA has unraveled a more savage and treacherous adventure for them to deal with.

Considering I was skeptical about how much I would enjoy a children’s fantasy film, the first NARNIA movie left me quite entertained. I was actually looking forward to second as there was promise of a darker and more engaging storyline. I was disappointed.

The dialogue sounded out of place. Screenwriters need to be aware that some dialogue only fits the written word, not the spoken word. The screenplay felt like I was reading a book, as it was clear not much ‘adapting’ had been done. The actors were not natural in their skin.

I’m sure the plot was drawn close to the book, but there certainly seemed way too many scenes that did not allow character development. The villains’ evil presence seemed mismatched when they are head to head with the immaturity of the leading four heroes. Having battle scenes where the leads keep shouting “NARNIA” does not convey a BRAVEHEART moment. Despite the variety of sub-characters none were explored or developed. There needed more interactions that allowed depth. Even the darker moments of failure were simply brushed along. The romantic implications were not dealt with to play up emotion. It says alot when i was looking forward to the appearance of valiant mouse to keep me entertained.

The cinematography was one of the more successful elements of the movie. The locations were well suited to the story and the filming in it’s wide angles. It did have a grand view throughout.

I did not expect bad acting in a Hollywood blockbuster such as this, but that was one of the major downfalls. The young actors were in over their head, they could not keep any charisma on their on-screen counter parts. Their actions and emotions lacked any heart what so ever. Even during the moments of peril I was not conveyed the fear or frustration they felt. The only stand out performances were from a few indie actors (Peter Dinklage, Warwick Davis) and a still cute and adorable Lucy played by Gerogie Henley.

The director who is clearly satisfied with this success with of the first NARNIA film, felt he could do the same with this one. Rather than learn lessons from the more successful HARRY POTTER series, he did not leave room for the characters to mature with age. Despite being physical bigger there was no character growth. I was surprised at how many times i glanced at my watch hoping the end was near. The movie was quite boring and far too long.

Walt Disney has jumped on the ‘fantasy’ bandwagon as it is in fashion right now. Disney is trying to gain the same popularity of Warner Brothers HARRY POTTER series, and New Line Cinema’s LORD OF THE RINGS. But unlike the latter THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA will need some ‘real’ magic to keep the interest of an on going fantasy series.

RATING: 2 COCONUTS

Pieries

TEASER

SPEED RACER

2008-06-03T02:54:00.001+05:30

After much hype the highly anticipated Watchowski brothers live action anime blockbuster is here. A popular children’s cartoon from the late 60s, the story follows the trails of a young racing enthusiast destined for greatness. He is called to aid a secret agency to help bring down the evil conglomerates that corrupt the racing world.

When dealing with any adaptations to film, no matter what the medium (books, comics, tv shows, cartoons, video games) I do not believe one has to be a fan of the source to enjoy the film. This is something that the Watchowskis needed to remember, as the movie seemed to be made for either the kids of today or the kids of original series.

The story was truly kept simple. There seems to be no interesting plot much like original series. The story only allowed a world of racing, but never gave us a glimpse into the lives of the characters outside the speed realm, very 1 dimensional. The characters were kept even more simpler…only to deal with the racing aspect with no opportunity for growth. The villains of the evil companies seemed to have their own rivalries that takes importance along the way.

The script was poor as they screenwriters seemed unsure what style to keep. At times it was retro at times it was modern day, quite in consistent. There was never any mixed emotions that were conveyed through any of the conversations. Although topics of death and parental problems were mentioned, they weren’t ‘acted’ out. The straightforward conversations left me quite detached.

Considering how simple the material was, the acting was actually good amongst a few. Emile Hirsch has a bright future as he was a pleasure to watch. Fresh from the success of the more adult INTO THE WILD, it’s clear this young man will be careful in selecting his role. Another actor who held his screen presence was TV’s LOST star Mathew Fox. He was without a doubt the most interesting character in the movie, that was left under developed. Spritle’s interactions were the most annoying of all. I honestly found Chim-Chim more entertaining than the boy! The Asian superstar Rain needed more elocution classes before his first English appearance. He was clearly cast in the movie to gain Asian favor in the worldwide box office.

The cinematography was quite spectacular. One thing the Watchowski’s did achieve is creating an alternative world of color and brightness. The race sequences although overwhelming at times, was visually entertaining. The interaction of the cars, gadgets and the tracks were quite stunt filled and exciting.

I could not believe the people created some of my favourite movies (THE MATRIX TRILOGY, V FOR VENDETTA) had anything to do with this. Although their past work also had a lot of special effects, it was not substitute for good writing and story. This was not the case in SPEED RACER as the effects not the characters, seemed to be the heart of the film. There were so many redundant flashbacks I forgot what time frame I was in! This is due to a lack of confidence on the part of the directors. It is an attempt to ‘spoon-feed’ the thoughts of the characters rather than allow growth.

If the Watchowski's wanted to make a live action video game/cartoon, with a simple script with matching characters then they have achieved their goal. I for one need more than just visual entertainment in a film.

RATING: 2 COCONUTS

Pieries

Teaser

MARUTHAYA

2008-05-30T12:45:00.000+05:30

The untimely death of a defeated politician leads his wife and two teenage daughters spiraling into a world of poverty, shame and humiliation. The trio is shunned by friends and family and without a proper income the mother's only course of action is to become a prostitute. Lacking the formal education and training required for an administrative job, the mother sells her body for the betterment of her two daughters. But ironically the ill-fated daughters will follow in their mother's footsteps. This is the story of their tainted lives.

MARUTHAYA (The Storm) is written and directed by Vasantha Obeysekera and stars Sangeetha Weeraratne (the elder daughter), Yasoda Wimaladharma (the younger daughter) and Veena Jayakody (the mother) in the three main roles. The supporting cast consists of Asoka Pieris, Lucky Dias and Kamal Addaraarachchi.

Obeysekera seems to be a feminist at heart due to the reoccurring theme of
'The Plight of the Woman' in many of his films. It is commendable that he is one of the few Sri Lankan film directors who champion the fairer sex because it is apparent that sexual equality although preached in Sri Lanka is seldom practiced. Obeysekera uses this film as a tool to voice his opinions on prevalent sexual double standards, the hypocrisy of the religious institutes and the double-edged sword that is Sri Lankan politics. But unfortunately when directors focus on preaching, they tend to forget to pay attention to the all important plot. The story at times is truly ridiculous, are we to believe that the mother has absolutely no alternative but to become a prostitute? And didn't the daughters have more options besides following in their mother's path? It seems that logic in the plot has been replaced by far-fetched ideas. I felt as if the filmmaker was purposely leading me through increasing stages of depression. Although I did sympathize with the three female characters at the beginning of the film, towards the end I just felt annoyed with this boring self-pitying bunch of hookers. Surprisingly, Obeysekera has a knack for realistic dialogue, which is what made the plot tolerable.

Cinematography is second-rate with dimly lit shots and pedestrian frame compositions. The only thing out of the ordinary is the shots where the actors are in the foreground with a completely black background as if they are being interviewed.

Yasoda Wimaladharma and Veena Jayakody offer agreeable performances in their respective roles. But Sangeetha Weeraratne's performance is debatable. Although Weeraratne seems natural as her character's teenage version, it is during the scenes when she plays her older self that sheer absurdity comes into play. She can pull off a naïve but head strong teenage girl but lacks the depth to portray the disenchanted madam (her future self).

The only originality in direction is the use of overlapping dialogue while the actors look directly at the camera. It gives a documentary style to this narrative film. But that's the extent of this film's uniqueness. Obeysekera excessively uses the voice-overs of the two daughters, to a point where he simply begins to tell the story instead of actually showing it to the viewer. Cinema is fundamentally a visual art, this is forgotten. Deeper questions like, which is the lesser of two evils, political corruption or prostitution fall on deaf ears due to the two sisters constantly complaining about how bad and horrible their lives are. The mother's funeral scene was just absurd, why bring the deceased home if you are not going to let anyone into the house to pay their final respects? The entire modeling sequence was nonsensically inappropriate and unnecessary. I'm sure the director has his reasons for including these scenes but looking at the whole picture (no pun intended) this is yet another film that needs to be locked in the vault of Depressionism.

Rating: 2 COCONUTS

S. V. Fernando

INDIANA JONES & THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL

2008-05-27T01:18:00.000+05:30

After you’ve taken a fresh breath from the lengthy title, suck in the awe of the longest awaited sequel since STARWARS THE PHANTOM MENACE. After a near 20 year hiatus the master movie maker Steven Spielberg and his pal the Sci-Fi icon George Lucas have reunited. They were also able to get an A team of actors (Harrison Ford, Cate Blanchet, John Hurt, Ray Winstone), and a talented writer (SPIDERMAN, JURASSIC PARK). Then why DIDN’T it feel like a million bucks?

The story follows good’ol Indy who is still the lovable, geeky university professor who is aging in peace. When along comes the Russians who kidnap him in search of the mysterious Crystal Skull. Why you may ask? Set in ‘57 midst the cold war, of course… ‘power’! Thus the adventure begins.

The screenplay was done adequately but failed to create much interest. Indiana Jones films are full of corny but funny lines and moments. Those moments were replaced by a few jokes and slapstick that didn’t quite tickle. The characters were average and didn’t have any real charisma. They were not allowed to develop at all, but simply kept them at a 2 dimensional level to give time for all the ‘fun’.

The plot was simple and usually needs to be in adventure movies. But this was pretty weak. I don’t know if a lot of people will enjoy the twist of the plot(as there is a turn in the second act), but I for one thought it was alright. The Crystal Skull itself was a true Macguffin, not serving a real purpose. There was not enough exploration to each of the elements introduced, it simply announced the idea and just kept going.

The acting of Harrison Ford was as usual up to par. He truly was an aged Indy, but was not hiding the fact at all which worked well. The Shia Labeouf character (looking like Marlon Brando in THE WILD ONE) playing the side kick was good but never really matched the rest of the cast. He seemed to have walked off the GREASE reunion set by accident. John Hurt, one of the best British method actors was clearly underused. Ray Winstone who is known for his tough characters was also miscast. The only proven talent that matched was Cate Blanchet, giving a great over the top, icy, fun villain(with a delicious accent).

The Cinematography was good at times. The Amazonian locations were quite breath taking, and so were the first few chase/fight scenes. But the rest of the time it was substituted for standard quality CGI, which did not reflect well.

The directing was surprisingly average. There was nothing special about anything in this film. I felt Spielberg & Lucas were having so much fun making this film, they didn’t put their heart and soul. Harrison Ford is literally winking at the camera! There were many scenes where you are ‘supposed’ to feel amazed or excited…but just aren’t! They cut too many financial corners with CGI instead of stunts. That is what transforms an ‘adventure’ movie to an ‘action’ movie. There was so much CGI it ended up looking like THE MUMMY RETURNS!

If I had walked into an unknown adventure movie called THE CRYSTAL SKULL, without any prior knowledge of INDIANA JONES, I would have found this movie very satisfying and extremely enjoyable. But it's a series that's grossed more than 600 million, spawned a cult following, created cartoons, video games and memorabilia. As an avid fan I was disappointed.

The movie was fun and there is no one technical element that was lacking. But it is more of a spiritual aspect that only veterans like Spielberg & Lucas can bring. It’s that little thing called ‘magic’, which this movie had none of!

RATING: 3 COCONUTS

Pieries

TEASER

IRON MAN

2008-05-15T20:47:00.000+05:30

The blockbusters of the summer season have begun with IRONMAN. Directed by Jon Favreau of SWINGERS and ELF fame, this is his first big budgeted action project. Considering this is a Superhero movie the cast is filled with academy award alumni.

The story follows the path of Tony Stark a wealthy industrialist weapons producer who after surviving a near death accident is forced to build a missile against his will for a terrorist group. This needless to say is a life changing event for him.

The dialogue makes one forget that we are watching a typical superhero film. It is well written by the same people who gave us the drama CHILDREN OF MEN. The script has just enough depth to make Tony Stark (and the others) real but just enough humor to keep the subject matter entertaining. There’s plenty of funny and well timed one-liners!

The plot was well thought out and nicely adapted to current day. Smart use of Taliban-like villains and the issues touching on arms trade. Even the technical information of the suit is quite scientific. No direct explanation of the suit is given, only quick instructions within the action scenes instead of lengthy speeches of ‘how things work’.

Great use of quick introductions to future events, such as S.H.E.I.L.D, Rhodes' admiration of the suit, and plenty of hints to his ‘liquid diet’(future alcoholism), exploring these angles in the sequels will keep the story quite adult.
(For the Comic geeks there is a great little surprise…but you must be patient after the end credits roll to see that!).

The cinematography was well done for a flight/fight style film such as this. Favreau surprised me with his ability to keep all the action sequences clear, and not just simply action with fast swishes. Considering this movie only had 3 main action sequences, the excitement NEVER lets up. His first flight in the suit was somewhat of a ‘TOPGUN’ style thrill.

The acting was just a pleasure to watch with all concerned. Downey Jr. was perfectly cast as the billionaire playboy genius who has a change of life purpose, but not a change of personality. He keeps us cheering for him no matter how promiscuous or cocky he gets. His banter with Gwyneth Paltrow was smoother and more enjoyable than most of the romantic comedies this year. The ever talented and very funny Jeff Bridges surprised me with his villainous and larger than life presence as Obadiah Stane/War Monger. Even the chemistry with future sidekick Jim Rhodes played by Terrence Howard was very charming. Whether they are joking about transsexual hookers or admiring the stripper pole on his private jet, these two clearly translate as great friends.

Favreau still needs work as an action director, but has done a great job. He has brought to the big screen something of style and unofficially given Marvel a much needed reboot in their comic book based movies.

In the world of superhero movies I would like to think SPIDERMAN was Pop music; it’s catchy, wholesome, simple but fun. BATMAN was Opera; deep, dark, tragic, and masterly crafted. IRON MAN is without a doubt the 'Rock n Roll'; toe tapping, head’bangin, air guitaring, shouting along in the mosh pit FUN!

Rating: 5 COCONUTS

Pieries

TEASER

UPPALAVANNA

2008-04-06T11:21:00.000+05:30

This is the latest film by director Sunil Ariyaratne, who is better known as a lyricist and playwright. The film stars Sangeetha Weeraratne, Malini Fonseka and new comer Roshan Ravindra.
The story follows the protagonist; a young Buddhist nun (Sangeetha) who is attempting to live the monastic life. Her peace is disrupted when she encounters a young insurgent (Roshan) who is a member of a Marxist party as he flees from a murder scene. This begins a taboo relationship that will change the lives of all concerned.

While watching this film it was apparent that the style and format of storytelling has not changed since the 1960s. The pace and mood of the film was miserably slow.
American cinema is renowned for its fast paced storytelling, due to the fact that instant gratification is needed by the audience. European cinema is comparatively slower as its audiences require more character depth in its stories. Asian cinema is even slower as their audiences tend to be passive in the absorption of the film.
But even by Asian film standards, Sri Lankan cinema is at snail speed. The filmmakers have held strong to the delusion that slow pace evokes emotional depth. It’s high time the filmmakers realized that speeding up the pace does not sacrifice story or character growth.

Veteran actress Malini Fonseka is out of her element as the chief nun. Her character’s existence is simply to remind the audience of the do’s and don’t of monastic life. She simply reiterates the rules of the nunnery throughout the film without any character development. Another meaningless character in this film was the little nun. Her sole purpose was to be the model of correction.
The male lead (Roshan) was incapable of acquiring any empathy from us. He was the epitome of an uncharismatic actor. Roshan Ravindra who is a noted TV actor needs to stick to his day job!
The experienced actress Sangeetha fell far below the standard of even amateur dramatics. She was clearly miscast as she had a consistently dazed look throughout the film. Sangeetha’s indifference to the role left the inner turmoil of her character unexplored. A note to Ms Weeraratne; merely shaving your head does not automatically make you the character, you have to commit to the role physically as well as mentally!

Dr. Tissa Abeysekara's screenplay was so bland it left little for the actors to work with. The dialogue was monotonous and at times redundant. Besides having many uninteresting story arcs, this screenplay included the clichéd, overused "rich girl falls in love with poor boy but rich girl's parents try to break them up" storyline.
“No sleeping on back, no bodily touching, no water frolicking, no scrubbing feet,” etc were some of the many absurd attempts to express Buddhist piety. This is a good example of Buddhist theory without practice. There were far too many monologues and not enough dialogue.
One of the many meaningless plot points was the murder of the son-in-law at the funeral of the mother-in-law. Although this is a key plot twist it was very artificially constructed and was out of place. The mother character's (Chandani Seneviratne) attempt to kill her son’s murderer in a blind rage, only to be stopped by a monk with a simple word of restraint was ridiculous and altogether laughable.
Sri Lankan screenplays tend to become preachy and this hinders the story development. The screenwriters need to stop the melodramatic, drawn-out, pathetic story arcs and create something fresh.

The only redeeming quality was the use of landscape in the cinematography. The filmmakers were able to capture the natural beauty of the village environment.

A film actor is only as good as the guidance received by their director. With this rule in mind Professor Sunil Ariyaratne truly displays his lack of formal, institutional training in the cinema arts. The dubbing was amateur at best, and totally mismatched the synchronization of video and audio. Sound design/editing was so poor the jungle sounds effects over the dialogue was repetitive and annoying! The director is at fault for the constant indication by the actors. Indication is the flaw when an actor overacts to a situation rather than ‘react’!

The French Cinema birthed ‘New Wave’, the Germans created ‘Expressionism’, the Italians fashioned ‘Neo Realism’, the Americans spawned the ‘Hollywood Blockbuster’ and even the Indians produced their brand of ‘Bollywood Music Video/Fashion Show Musicals’. But what has our beloved Sri Lanka contributed to the sphere of World Cinema? We have ceremoniously named it, ‘Depressionism Cinema’, where the most happy-go-lucky guy will seriously consider suicide after watching a Sri Lankan art-house film. Unfortunately UPPALAVANNA continues the long tradition of our ‘Depressionist’ film movement.

Rating: 1 COCONUT

Pieries & Fernando

HOW WE DO WHAT WE DO

2008-04-06T07:36:00.001+05:30

PS-TAD TEST

There are many layers to a film and there are many levels of audience gratification. Although there are numerous elements that make up an excellent film, these are the five that we consider important. This is our format for analyzing and deconstructing film. We have conveniently dubbed it the “PS-TAD” test

P - Plot

S - Screenplay

T - Technical (Cinematography, Editing, Sound, Score, SFX)

A - Acting

D - Directing

OUR RATING SYSTEM

This is our rating system to measure the level of enjoyment(or lack there of) of each film. The arbitrary unit used is ‘COCONUTS’ between the scale of 0 – 5;

5 COCONUTS = This was excellent, I'm buying the DVD!

4 COCONUTS = This was good, worth watching.

3 COCONUTS = This was merely 'OK.'

2 COCONUTS = This was poor, could have been better.

1 COCONUT = This was bad, I rather watch paint dry.

0 COCONUTS = I've seen better film on teeth!

THE RANT

2008-03-05T05:38:00.000+05:30

Since there is such little time and so many movie, we will no doubt miss out on a quite a few.

So as we can't critique them we would like to invite you the reader to review them.

Talk about any movie that we have NOT critiqued already.

Whether it be an old film on VHS or an new upcoming film, say whatever you feel.

Feel free to congratulate or berate, debate or debrief, question or challenge, mock or insult, this is for you the reviewer.

Also this is a chance for you to say anything about us at SLFC. What you like/don't like about us...say it all.

Your thoughts are important to us and we want to hear them!

S.L.F.C