This movie actually surprised me a bit. Two things I absolutely loved about it - Amal neerad's cinematography and fahad's Aloshey.the creative reconstruction of the Russian novel under the colonial period with the mesmerizing beauty of Munnar as background was totally unexpected. Iyobinte Pustakam gave more space to all the actors to perform as none of them seems to be less important. The movie brings to light some significant socio-political issues of the era highlighted by feudal mindset of Iyob and the rebell inside Aloshey. Lal,who is a proved actor have handled Iyob with ease and perfection. Padmapriya's Rachel is the real twist element in the story and she have done justice with it. This is perhaps the best reply to all the criticisms calling Fahad Fazil a highly typecast actor. The music suits the mood of the movie but could have been made better. The stunning visuals are the best part of the movie which is almost breathtaking. Amal neerad has freed himself from constant trolling over the extended slo-mo scenes. This is surely the best movie of his career so far.

"Iyobinte Pusthakam" derives its name from a story in the Old Testament called "Book of Job" (warning: Wikipedia trivia ahead), which is apparently about a man whose faith God and Satan decided to test by putting him through many sufferings. It looks like Amal Neerad chose this name for his movie, for he was planning to play God (or, rather Satan) to test the audiences' endurance for suffering. But sorry Sir, our faith ain't that strong! The posters and publicity material of "Iyobinte Pusthakam" set a tone for a stylized period drama and knowing Amal Neerad, one doesn't expect anything more than a good looking film with some decent action (with no substance or substance borrowed/stolen from Hollywood). Unfortunately, here one wishes the script was copied from somewhere, for there is absolutely none otherwise and no action either.The movie starts off with an ad film on Vagamon tourism, followed by some music videos, ads of retro cars, bikes and clothing (it even has a documentary-like montage of World War II) and ends with a demonstration of vintage weapons. Well, its not THAT bad :). The cinematography, for one is breathtaking, the locations are captured beautifully and some shots of graphic violence, though an overkill, are well executed. The costumes, of course way too stylized (for which peasant woman in 40's Kerala, other than Isha Sherwani, would wear an English skirt, I wonder!) lend a charm of the period and English romances. I particularly loved the references to the World Wars, the Royal Indian Navy Mutiny (something I wasn't aware of), the missionary influence and the nascent communism (which, though, looked force fitted for no reason).But once you get over the visual spectacle after the first few minutes, there is hardly anything to keep one interested in the goings on. The story, which is almost non existent, meanders from here to there, without a direction. There was a point when I thought this was going to turn out to be an adaptation of "Godfather" (the Hollywood one), but no, that would make it too good for the audience, won't it! It just eventually turns into a mess of unconnected events.There is a nice collection of characters though, all portrayed by competent actors, with some good one liners sprinkled among them. Unfortunately, all of them are left without any strong motive for their actions and their nature. Among the actors, Lal, who portrays the transition from slavery to power to weakness gets the meat of the acting portions. The only other actors who stood out for me were Jayasurya (cos I like him :P), Chemban Vinod and Padmapriya, whose character has been done great injustice by the double meaning references and objectification. Fahad has nothing much to do except one or two decent action moves. Isha Sherwani has the job of looking good, which she is competent at. The only other noticeable performance was from the girl who plays Fahad's tribal friend's wife (don't know her name). She has really expressive eyes and stood out in the 2-3 scenes she was in.The music and especially the background score is pitch perfect. But the songs, especially a totally unwanted item number by Amala Paul (who BTW, can't dance to save her life), are completely misplaced and just extend the suffering when one is waiting for the movie to somehow end. And that brings me to the one thing that the editor majorly screwed up on - 30 minutes shorter, and I might have disliked it a bit less.At the end of the day "Iyobinte Pusthakam" is a job half done. Great visuals, great costumes, nice background score, good looking actors, some interesting characters, a few good one liners but absolutely zilch in the form of a script or semblance of a plot. I wish Amal Neerad would get back to pure action in slow motion. At least, then, the slow pace made sense ;).Edit: It was after a good night's sleep that I realized, that this movie is actually an adaptation of William Shakespeare's "King Lear". With the knowledge, it does feel a little more respectable.

Amal Neerad always had a knack for showcasing visually magnificent frames. But with this movie, he has crossed all limits. "Iyobinte Pusthakam" is a period film, pictured in the scenic background of Munnar, during Word War II.The story begins with Iyob(Lal), who is a great devotee of British rule. He rules the hills of Munnar, owns most of the lands & estates, all of which he gained from his English master. Aloshy(Fahadh Fazil) is his youngest son, preceded by Dmitri(Chemban Vinod) and Ivan(Jinu Joseph).Aloshy leaves home after witnessing his brothers murdering an innocent girl and joins the Indian Navy, but returns after he gets indicted because of the Naval Mutiny. Martha(Isha Shervani) plays his love interest, while Rahel(Padmapriya) is the wife of Ivan.In to this gruesome premises, enter Angoor Rawuthar(Jayasurya), a Tamil businessman. He meets Iyob for setting up a deal, but ends up creating a rift between them, which leads to a saga of vengeance between the brothers, accompanied by some locals and communists.Even though the films moves slowly, Amal Neerad manages to conceal it with his unbelievable work of cinematography. He creates a spellbinding painting with his frames. The film is a visual treat, and simply the best cinematography ever seen in Malayalam cinema.Neerad brings the best out of his actors. Lal is fabulous as Iyob, while Fahadh Fazil gives his best as Aloshy. Even though he has very less speaking part, he keeps the screen excited with his mannerisms and expressions. Isha Shervani does not have much to do. Chemban Vinod makes Dmitri come alive. Special mention has to be given to Padmapriya, who plays the role of a Femme Fatale. She shines in the role of a seductive wife with dark intentions.But no one can be compared to Jayasurya. He delivers the best performance, which outshines everybody else. You will never forget Angoor Rawuthur after watching this film.The music is nothing great, but it provides the essential mood for the film. One surprising part of the film is the item number by Amala Paul, of which no one had any information.Amal Neerad has changed from his usual use of slow-motion, larger emphasis on dialogs and action. But by adding a beautiful Munnar, stunning characters, a gripping tale(though predictable) and breathtaking Visuals, he has created the best movie to have hit the screens this year. Hats off!!

Munnar. Period. Drama. Epic. Lal. Fahadh Faasil. Jayasurya. Considering Neerad's filmography, there were many that were (genuinely) concerned with Faasil's production company placing its faith in him for bringing this to the big screen. But (and I'm happy to report) the end result, though not perfect, shows how well-placed it was, and how little the media and the other naysayers knew/assumed/guessed/dissed.The eye for period detail is fab (unless I'm missing something big, though I was not too sure about the rifles with telescopic lenses - there were snipers, sure, but in India at that time?) and never takes you out of the context of the movie, the way other mainstream efforts have done in the recent past. (Except for the choice of score during the delayed titles at the beginning - in my book, not very apt, but it did not take me outta the movie completely)The Casting's spot on, and Faasil easily sheds the skins of all other characters he's played thus far to don the skin of someone in the forces, pre-independence. He looks fighting fit, and we don't have to suspend disbelief when he gets into the eponymous fray, and gives as good, and better than he gets. Kick-ass.Lal, Faasil and Jayasurya do all the heavy lifting, and Padmapriya has to have one of the best roles in this ensemble, even though (in her case) it's more to do with how well her character is written, making the challenge of portraying her all the more easy. Compliments to both casting and direction, and kudos to the way she essayed her role too. Reminded me of Basu's turn in 'Omkara', though this one is more powerful and pulls no punches.In fact, that's one of the best things about this one - it simply refuses to pull any punches. No shying away from death, and the depths to which human nature can sink - Neerad simply shows the way it might have happened, and keeps the camera running. Bold, maybe not bold enough, but it's miles better than similar efforts who need to tint everything with some candy-floss.Isha Sharwani doesn't have much to do, but she does good with what she's given. And she's really easy on the eyes, so....no complaints. And why are leading ladies from the North better shot, better made up and look fab in all southern movies. I wonder. Maybe just me.An epic tale of violence, loyalty, betrayal, loneliness, love and vengeance, certain key aspects are left to one's imagination towards the end (when I was past wondering why they were introduced at all), which makes the final denouement all the more effective. Each twist and turn, though telegraphed for veteran movie-watchers, still has the capacity to keep us involved all the way through.Like I said though, its far from perfect. There are 2 songs that are retained in the final cut I got to watch at the local multiplex, and though it did not seem necessary for either of them to be included, they either could've just played 1 stanza for each and moved on, or eliminated them altogether. Major speed-breakers, both. And not good when your total running time comes to 159 minutes in all. Why do you need to pad it further? Epic does not mean epic runtime fo sho.During the climax, there is one cut that (quite abruptly) takes us from a key scene's end to another scene so incompletely that I felt it was one of 2 things: that it was either chopped off by the censors, or ended up (wrongly) in the editing room, since it starts up from mid-scene of another (supposedly) ongoing sequence, and then ends abruptly, again. Bad, shoddy editing in that instance. There's still time for them to correct, if someone pays attention. It did not look like the projectionist wrongly splicing stuff to me, since the print I watched was digital, and the splice directly from the makers. Haven't seen such sloppiness in a big- budget production for a long time.The change in the arc of one of the leads also didn't seem earned to me, and that was a disservice both to the characters as well as the actors essaying those roles. Perhaps of the makers had focused instead on these instead of those unnecessary songs...........Notwithstanding those, all in all, an enjoyable watch at the multiplex, and worth perhaps multiple viewings.