Leo, The Royal Hotel and Anatomy of a Fall

Why are these films from India so LOUD. Even another on the trailers was the same. I found it strange that a film in the Tamil language (which is from the south of India) was shot in the far north in Kashmir. I guess the reason is that Leo is hiding from his gangster family and this was as far north as he could get. So here is the acknowledged plot from the superb A History of Violence ramped up several if not more notches. The best thing about the film for me was the cinematography, some of the aerial shots were outstanding, and the colour was very good. The acting would be considered extremely hammy by Western standards, (the Roger Ebert website says about Vijay who plays the lead "a former child actor - still does not have much range) that was not the point of the movie. There is too much violence for me, the fights go on far too long. The plot about Leo denying his background to the very end was ridiculous. So turning an almost believable story into something that is just a fantasy was there from the very first minute.

The most ironic film title ever. The tension is there from the start in The Royal Hotel as the two Canadian backpackers stupidly agree to supplement their dwindling savings by waitressing at a bar in the outback of Australia. The locals are not exactly hostile, but the threat is always there. The 18 certificate is not there for any kind of violence but for the language of this mining community. Only a little toned down might have got a decent 15. Julia Garner and Jessica Henwick are fine, the latter takes no nonsense which gives the film it's most realistic feel. Writer and director Kitty Green has made an intelligent drama that leaves us on the edge of something ugly. I still don't know why they just didn't turn around when they arrived. 

This 2023 Palme d'Or winning French film is set in the Alps which is why there is so much snow. Anatomy of a Fall turns into a courtroom drama after Sandra is accused of the murder of her husband after he falls from the attic window of their chalet. Only their eleven year old son Daniel is there, but he is out walking the dog. I am no longer a fan of courtroom scenes, but here the dialogue is brilliant as we all try to work out, did he jump or was he pushed. Most of the time we think the former, but there are times we just do not believe Sandra. If he jumped why? No suicide note (but that could have been burnt) or was Samuel just trying to implicate his wife. Neither of these was ever discussed in the film. Director Justine Triet keeps you guessing till the end. We are never shown what happened apart from the police reconstruction. That was superb. But the real point of the film is about the fault lines in a relationship that comes out in the testimony. And that is what makes the film so enjoyable. although at two and a half hours I found it too long. It was interesting to see the French judicial system in action. apparently there is no beyond reasonable doubt. The cross examination of Sandra (the terrific Sandra Huller) is full of speculation that would never be allowed here. But it makes for an excellent drama.