Review: Joel Edgerton's "The Gift" offers satisfying drama but is strangely unmemorable.

There is something uneasy about The Gift. Right from the moment it begins, there is a cautionary touch to it, urging us to keep our eyes glued to the characters while it milks the stock scares of its genre. And this unease doesn't let go till the movie is done.

When you are watching a suspenseful film wherein you realize after a while that the director is and has always been miles ahead of you, you know you shouldn't trust what you see or hear. But the only way to truly relish the rest of it is to let it hoodwink you. And so, just for the sake of mere amusement, you let it unfold without luxuriating in guesswork. Personally, when I discover that the film I'm watching has matured into a full-blown mystery, where how much I end up enjoying it hinges on the last twist, I give up trying to one-up the director. But there are people who absolutely cannot accept defeat in this case. I suppose those are the ones who would really delve into the wicked fun that The Gift offers.

In the first few scenes, we get the impression that this is just another addition to the "stalker harasses a happy couple" type of films that brags of some genuine spookfests like Fatal Attraction and Cape Fear, but this is just a brilliant trick to throw us off. Yes, we get a happy couple whose lives are thrown into a tizzy by a seemingly friendly but obsessive stalker intent on invading their private lives for emotional attachment. Yes, we get the usual restless moments when he shows up unannounced, the usual tense details where something goes missing or incongruous sounds are heard. Dead one thing, displaced another thing, paranoid expressions and impassive glares. You name it. There is nothing that isn't squeezed for thrills; cheap, indeed, but effectual. And two proper jump scares thrown into the mix liven things up. In the first half, The Gift manages to stay loyal to the trappings of its genre. Joel Edgerton, who writes, directs and acts in this one, gives us a clear-cut picture of who the bad guy is and who the good guys are. What he doesn't do, however, is shed light on the intentions of his baddie. But why?

Every act of misdeed has a reason behind it. And in incompetent films involving stalkers as the primary villains, this reason is usually attributed to "well, those were wackos so they are capable of anything." Great films sketch backgrounds for them. This character sketch eventually becomes the difference between a hollow thriller and an intelligent one.

Thankfully, The Gift falls into the latter category. When I was expecting the story to burst into violence at any moment, I was treated to nervous chuckles. When the film veered dangerously close to becoming a savage drama involving a man with a disfigured childhood, Edgerton pulled the rug from under my feet and handled it with casual restraint. It's baffling to experience something as erratic as this, but it is satisfying, also.

The second-half keeps blowing off the steam the film gathered in the first gradually, allowing its dramatic ambitions to seep in what was until that moment a mean psychological thriller. Past revelations are made known and characters suddenly have backgrounds, uncommon for what we thought was just another cleverly done low-budget thriller. This disparity between the tones of the two halves is what makes The Gift is a great visceral experience. It forces you to put yourself in the shoes of the characters and question yourself.

Unfortunately, the film also manages to become insipid in a few places. The supporting cast doesn't have much to do except stress on the urgency of the increasingly volatile behavior of the baddie.

The final revelation, although dramatic, packs enough punch to make the film a satisfyingly sullen escapade. Edgerton's direction is sharp, constantly surprising us by reconstructing our impressions of the characters. Because a lot of elements work in tandem in his favor, The Gift manages to elevate itself above other thrillers in the same genre.


(Not For Reproduction)

Review: Nishikant Kamat's "Drishyam" is a loyal remake, but leaves much unexplored.

When I was reading Keigo Higashino's The Devotion Of Suspect X, I could see why this book intrigued countless filmmakers. With only a handful of characters, each of whom is relevant to the story in some way, and a meticulous plot packed with sly twists, it needed skill and a strong structure to be as effective in its adaptation. It was the perfect test of someone's filmmaking talent. And although it made great use of its setting of urban Tokyo, it was thematically universal. The story was versatile in the sense that it could just as easily have been set in any other city around the world and still have retained the essence of the original backdrop.

Indian filmmaker Jeetu Joseph recognized this trait. In 2013, he made Drishyam, a film that has been incorrectly designated as an adaptation of The Devotion Of Suspect X. It is no adaptation. The skin of the story is identical, yes, but Drishyam was a potboiler with a very "Indian" backdrop. It had the novel's craftiness replaced by light melodrama and its bright sleuths and criminals replaced by brutish cops and a weepy family. And yet, Drishyam was exceedingly clever and engrossing when it got busy unravelling. While The Devotion Of Suspect X plunged into the pulp of its story right away, Drishyam took far too long to establish its characters. But because of its ingeniousness, it lead to no less than four remakes in four languages.

Nishikant Kamat's Hindi remake is utterly faithful to the Malayalam original, so much so that the dialogues are direct translations, but somehow this one is afflicted by some of the old problems and some new ones. But the Hindi-language remake is also a specimen of how the presence of a great actor can hinder the film from being nothing but a hollow remake.

It is not for the first time that a Hindi film has misrepresented the scenic landscapes and antiquated cities of Goa, take it from someone who has his roots there. Like many recent films starring Ajay Devgn, the Goa in Drishyam bears a striking resemblance to some lush getaways not far from Mumbai. This fallacy is particularly interesting, because Higashino used the Tokyo setting in his novel to add layers to the story while Kamat does nothing of that sort. There is no indication that we are really in Goa except for the characters' continual references to Goan cities and the fact that the local restaurant (named "Martin's Corner," no less; you might find a restaurant called that on every turn in Goa) sells seafood. Those are not enough details to authenticate the pastoral Goan setting.

As mentioned before, this film is a loyal remake. Like the original, it takes its own sweet time, almost the whole of the first-half, to construct the characters, show them living a happy life before tossing in an incident that would crumble their world. It is the quintessential underdog story; a man is protecting his family from the ire of a top cop whose son is missing. Needless to say, a cat-and-mouse game ensues and things get deliciously twisty.

But post the intermission, Drishyam turns into a different film altogether. Long gone are the happy days and long gone are the happy faces. Each face in the film is marked by anxiety, which heightens the tension, undoubtedly. The pacing is brisk and the unravelling, meticulous and controlled, is superbly handled. It is almost surprising to see the second-half bolting toward an explosive showdown in contrast to the first-half tootling along like a carefree child toward nothingness. This change is so effective, in fact, that one probably won't notice the relentlessly cheesy dialogue or the cardboard characters when such delightful deftness is on display.

The only slight improvement in Kamat's Drishyam is, of course, Tabu's inclusion in the cast. The "top cop" character in the original wasn't as menacing or purposeful as Tabu makes it seem here, and her cold stares makes it difficult to predict the imminent turn of events. Casting Ajay Devgn opposite her as the desperate father may not have been the brightest of casting calls, but he is appropriately earnest. Though, I felt his brawny persona, a result of playing so many beefy characters for too long and hamming it up for all those entertainers, does affect an honest performance from him in a way.

But Drishyam's biggest goof is that far too much goes unexplored. Avinash Arun, who breathtakingly shot the recent Masaan and the terrific Killa (also directed) earlier this year, is curbed from doing much with his camera. The consequence? The picturesque locales remain a part of the landscape and we don't get regular eyefuls of them. The characters have suppressed emotion and angst and desperation, but nothing comes to the fore. The only emotion that comes to the fore is what drives the plot in that context, not what makes the characters human.

Eventually, skill and craft get Drishyam past the finish line. It needs to be said that it is nearly an hour too long. But in hindsight, one can't shake off the feeling that it could have been so much more. Still, this is a solidly entertaining potboiler.


(Not For Reproduction)