Change Your Image
hamsa-43622
Reviews
Chekka Chivantha Vaanam (2018)
Slick commercial entertainer
Mani takes a break from his usual visuals and BGM-heavy narrative style to make a dialogue-driven, out and out action thriller with just a smattering of amma, pondaati and anna-thambi sentiment to satisfy the masses. Characterization is superficial, given the tight run time and array of characters. Character psychology remains unexplored, with the end leaving the audience with several unanswered questions. Sreekar Prasad's editing is jerky and makes the movie seem episodic and lacking in flow. Rahman's BGM is top-notch. Both twists in the movie are obvious, but motivations remain foggy and serve as a revelation in the climax, sufficient to keep interest alive.
Amongst the cast, Arvind Swami makes use of his ample screen time and his effort shines. Ditto Arun Vijay, whose hard work pays off. In contrast, Sethupathi and STR deliver effortlessly compelling performances. The women are under-utilized caricatures, with Aditi Rao Hydari's character in particular coming across as completely unnecessary. In spite of its flaws, CCV wins because it is eminently watchable. The ease of the viewing experience and the fact that it holds your attention from start to finish make it a sound entertainer, that can definitely be watched once.
Poirot: Five Little Pigs (2003)
A haunting tale of obsession and betrayal
What a sorrowful, haunting tale. It's rarely that an adaptation is better than the original piece of work, and this is one such example. The movie is far more poignant and moving than the book, and possibly the best of all the Poirot adaptations.
Painter Amyas Crale is murdered, and his wife hangs for the crime. A decade and a half later, their daughter enlists Hercule Poirot to uncover the truth and clear her mother's name. Thus begins the journey of Poirot, who proceeds to interview the 'five little pigs' - the five other people who were present when the crime took place, thus donning the role of both suspects and witnesses, each with a different motive and a different version of the events that transpired.
The casting here is spot on and everyone does a fabulous job. The most riveting performance is undoubtedly Rachael Stirling's, who is pitch-perfect as the ill-fated Caroline Crale. Julie Cox as Elsa Greer is also very good, coming across exactly as the part was written by Christie herself.
Overall, this is one of the most beautiful episodes of Poirot and a must-watch. The 9/10 is only because Sophie Winkleman's 'bad eye' (her character, Angela Warren, has a disfigured, blind eye throughout the movie) isn't done up correctly in the denouement. In one particular shot, the makeup is off and both her eyes look fine. A rather noticeable flaw in a production that has otherwise been done with such painstaking attention to detail.
Poirot: Murder in Mesopotamia (2001)
C'est impossible!
OK, I might be in the minority here, but this is one of my favorites from both the series and the books. This adaptation is quite faithful to the original, save the addition of Hastings. And Hugh Fraser as Hastings is always such a delight to watch that I would hardly call that a minus.
Poirot and Hastings are out in Iraq on an archaeological dig, when the lead archaeologist's wife is murdered. This wife was married in her youth to a shady figure who seems to have been stalking her from the grave for decades. Naturally, this purportedly dead ex-husband and a mysterious brother he had are first on Poirot's list of suspects when she is found murdered. Is a member of the expedition this ex-husband or his brother, skulking around with the aid of a different name and some expertly-performed plastic surgery? Or is the motive for the murder altogether different?
I wouldn't consider this the best supporting cast in a Poirot by any means, but they weren't the worst either. Everyone certainly came across exactly as described in the book, for example Ron Berglas who does a fine job as Dr. Leidner, but Barbara Barnes isn't convincing as Louise Leidner. Louise's characterization is beautifully done in the book - charming and lovely, complicated to the extent where people are unable to make out whether she's a liar or a humbug, a victim or a villain. The contradictory accounts Poirot receives about Louise add to the layeredness of her characterization, and render the murderer and his motive foggy at best, indecipherable at worst. But with this miscast part we have just a very one-note, flat performance.
The denouement is certainly wildly implausible, but it's a work of fiction - meant to entertain, not to be taken seriously. Overall, this was a great adaptation that was true to the original and beautifully shot - highly recommended!
Poirot: The Mystery of the Spanish Chest (1991)
Was the opening sequence necessary?
This is certainly one of the best episodes of Poirot; the crime is grisly, the music chilling, the cinematography perfect as always, the supporting characters' well-cast, and David Suchet and Hugh Fraser are in top form. I particularly enjoyed the comedy track centered around Poirot's blatant conceit.
The remainder of the episode save the Poirot-Hastings scenes is quite bleak. The murderer is unusually ruthless and cruel as evidenced from his chosen method of crime, and the haunting beauty of the central character lends itself to the somber feel of the story. Caroline Langrishe looks as lovely as a Vermeer portrait in her role as Marguerite Clayton. But although this episode is enjoyable for all the reasons stated above, was the inclusion of the opening fencing sequence really necessary? I agree that the scene was well-shot, but it clearly reveals the identity of the murderer. He is instantly recognizable as one of the participants when he appears later on in the story, and what would be the point of the opening sequence if not connected with a very important character (the murderer)? It's at least a little difficult to guess the identity of the murderer when reading the actual story, and this episode makes it all too easy. Also, the fencing sequence at the end is equally needless and seems almost cartoonish - totally not in keeping with the tone of the rest of the episode. Poirot is dealing with a dangerous murderer here and instead of calling the cops, he chooses to let the killer fence out his differences to his heart's content with the other chap vying for his girl. More than a tad ludicrous.