Black Panther: Marvel's most grand product or Marvel's First Sociological Thesis?

Anyone feeling a bit nostalgic for some Magneto-Xavier love? Don’t worry! Marvel comes to the rescue packaging the good old X-Men fight-between-ideals story in a more world-relevant issue and throwing in a bit of monarchy and a whole lot of Africa into the mix. And wait, there’s a bit of James Bond and the Phantom as well (those who know it will see the connection).

And really though, it’s not at all bad. It might just be better than expected.

Wakanda as shown in the film.

So Marvel’s much awaited Black Panther came out this week, with a nearly all-black cast, with the exceedingly revolutionary concept of Afro-futurism, where we get to peek into life at Wakanda, a hypothetical and fictional African nation which is way more advanced than the rest of the world that shares a common Imperialist history, due to the availability of a resource (the metal Vibranium) that allowed them to leap - technologically and societally - ahead of other civilisations by several decades. To maintain their superior status without getting involved in the world’s chaos, this nation uses special technology to hide in plain sight and disguise itself as a third-world country, disconnected from world politics since the beginning of the Time of Man.

_________________________

             ...Black Panther is a principally commercial film from the Marvel banner with cliche’ film troupes sprinkled all over it – a monarchy in trouble, a fight for the throne between warring relatives, and the entire world somehow in danger; many might even find some fleeting similarities with The Lion King in terms of the general plot movement.

But that doesn’t mean that the film doesn’t have its merits...

_________________________

The film follows straight after the events of Captain America: Civil War, with Prince T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) gearing up to take over the Wakandan throne as well as the mantle of the Black Panther, a superhuman Wakandan protector, after the death of his father King T’Chaka. In the process of apprehending an old enemy from Civil War - Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis) – he comes across Erik Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan) a claimant to the throne with a radically different idea on how Wakanda should exist and what it should strive toward.

Black Panther is a principally commercial film from the Marvel banner with cliche’ film troupes sprinkled all over it – a monarchy in trouble, a fight for the throne between warring relatives, and the entire world somehow in danger; many might even find some fleeting similarities with The Lion King in terms of the general plot movement.

But that doesn’t mean that the film doesn’t have its merits.

Erik Killmonger (Right) challenges T'Challa (Left) for
the Throne of Wakanda

Unlike the typical fight-for-the-crown stories, there is no unilateral device of good v. bad in the movie, like the X-Men films. Marvel does a repetitively good job with the character development of its villains (except for a couple of 2D villains in the past (Obadiah Stane in Iron Man, that elf guy from Thor 2, Blonsky and General Ross in The Incredible Hulk)) and it shows here again with Erik Killmonger. The audience gets to sympathize with both the antagonist and the protagonist based on their respective back-stories and no character is an absolute shade of black or white. Shades of Character! CHARACTER!!

The film is not flimsy, and has it’s layers. Other than a good villain, we see the development of a king and the soon-to-be newest addition to the Avengers in their fight against Thanos in the upcoming Infinity War. The film starts with exploration into T’Challa’s relationship with his late father, the seemingly all-good, benevolent Mufasa-like king who taught his son the ropes of being a king, seemingly so benign he could be called a god, but as the film advances we see a deeper spiritual connection between father and son, through which the new king gets to learn that his seemingly great father made mistakes too, mistakes that could seemingly shatter the pedestal on which he placed his father, and mistakes through which he learns that however big or great the position of a man may be, in the end he is still a man, who must stay as close to the ground as any other. We see a mirror image of the same in Erik Killmonger who, though fighting for an arguably noble cause and possessing the elements of a far-reaching king, might not eventually possess the elements befitting a good man. Also the film reasonably answers audience’s questions regarding the source and reach of the Black Panther’s superhuman powers, which had been left unanswered in Civil War.

__________________________________                ...Marvel does a repetitively good job with the character development of its villains  and it shows here again with Erik Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan)...

__________________________________

In Black Panther, we get to see an amazing conceptualisation of Afrofuturism and get to imagine how the African continent might have turned out as a society with a similar or greater kind of advantage over their Imperial oppressors, and we see this take effect in their clothes, architecture, symbolism and it’s anything but spectacular. We see a good connect between the design of these elements in the film and the contemporary comic book depictions, and hats off to the entirety of the film’s costume and VFX team for providing this visual feast.

Clockwise to Center - General Okoye (Danai Gurira),
M'Baku (Winston Duke), Ramonda (Angela Bassett),
Erik Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan), Shuri (Letitia Wright),
Zuri (Forest Whitaker), Nakia (Lupita Nyong'o),
W'Kabi (Daniel Kaluuya) and T'Challa (Chadwick Boseman)

Then we have the biggest thing to speak about – the all black cast! For probably the first time, we have a film that builds upon and moves forward from its roots in the ‘blaxploitation’ subgenre, showcasing a story with a total of two white characters, and an advanced, rich society where blacks are not a minority but the superior people; not the criminal on the run, but the police force chasing him, complete with their own MI5-ish intelligence organisation and cool gadgets and their own king for a James Bond; and yet succeeding as both a mainstream universally awaited comic book film - catering to the millions of Marvel fans the world over by providing a neat standalone entry into the MCU’s continuity with an extremely likeable and kickass superhero – as well as a sociological concept that sets out to tap into a completely new audience who get a major superhero/action hero that they can actually relate with, after nearly a century of filmmaking history.

Andy Serkis as Ulysses Klaue

Coming to the performances, before we move on to the principal cast, we must concede to the energy-ball that is Andy Serkis. Serkis in playing Ulysses Klaue provides a haunting yet comically entertaining rendition of a South African black-market arms dealer, and easily one of the most welcome performances in the film, with a neat South African accent and a dangerously eccentric personality. As for the remainder of the cast, it was a commendable performance from the entirety, especially from the principal leads i.e. Boseman, Jordan, Wright, Lupita Nyong’o as Nakia (T’challa’s ex-lover and a Wakandan warrior) and Danai Gurira as Okoye (the leader of the Dora Milaje). We could have expected better from Angela Bassett who plays Ramonda, the queen-mother of Wakanda, and somehow fails to shed her American persona completely and sound more locally African like her co-stars.

VERDICT: 4 () out of 5 toots of The Bugle

Black Panther seeks to be much more than a simple cliche’d popcorn flick with an all black-cast. And despite all the familiar elements, there is eventually something new and absolutely lovely. 

P.S. - Throwback to the time we saw Black Panther first in Civil War

Crush and Throw: Death Note | Review

Death Note had taken the anime world by storm when it released way back in 2003. Quickly gaining a cult following, and a massive approval rating of nearly 99% on nearly every review aggregator website, it was about time a film adaptation was made, and if its to gain international viewership, who better than America to produce it, and who better than Netflix to distribute it? And who better than a seasoned viewer to <YAWN> through the entire thing? Yeah, you get my drift.

Borrowing from the original story of the Manga/anime series, a genius high school student and recluse by the name of Light Turner finds a book titled ‘Death Note’ dropped by Ryuk, a Shinimagi (Japanese demon of death) with which one can kill anyone on the planet by just writing his name and mode of death on the book. Having misguided yet seemingly noble intentions, Light adopts the identity of Kira, and goes on a murderous spree, killing everyone and anyone he deems to be ill-fitted to exist in society, safely from the comfort of his desk. He enjoys his anonymity for some time, until an enigmatic detective ‘L’ takes up the challenge of revealing Kira’s true identity.

The original Death Note manga 

A good, just thing to do when evaluating such a movie, is to see how well it connects with a viewer being introduced to the story for the first time, and hasn’t seen the original manga, because an adaptation is rarely successful in keeping up with the standards set by the original and accordingly expected by the fanboys.  Death Note falls flat on its face, either way. Too much story has been tried to be cramped in between 1 hour and 40 minutes of runtime, and the result is a speeding train missing nearly all points of coherence. I know I said we should do otherwise, but if we talk about the original series, there is enough creative content to stretch out to at least 2 well engineered movies. The way the original manga skirted along the thin line between good and evil, moderate and extreme, eventually making us side with the conflicted murderer, is completely absent from the movie.

Nat Wolff as Light Turner

Nat Wolff, known for his performances in Paper Towns and The Fault in Our Stars plays the angsty teen, Light Turner. Where playing a good-natured, normally behaving boy seemed right up his alley, playing a self-righteous murderer doesn’t. Most of his performance is plastic, and he seems like the stereotypical weak teenager who’s angry at his father, gets beat up by bullies, and speaks at a flat single scale unless acting out, and there’s a LOT of acting out. Weird, random acting out. Rather than the genius his character was supposed to look like, he comes off more as a meticulous, socially awkward boy trying to find kicks in murder.

Ryuk, voiced by Willem Dafoe 

Willem Dafoe voices Ryuk, the Shinimagi who is the antagonist of the film and the series. A bored demon of death, he passes on his notebook to anyone and merely enjoys the show. Dafoe is probably my favourite choice for a negative character – the man’s voice has this natural creepy touch, it couldn’t work more perfectly. And he was the only redeeming factor in the character of Ryuk, a cheap CGI rendition of the original saga’s primary villain, who turns out to be more of a Sesame Street stock character, than the demon apathetic to any concerns of man and his world.

One aspect the film does fine is its cinematography and establishing the mystique around the detective ‘L’ played by Keith Stanfield, who appeared last in the Jordan Peele-directed film ‘Get Out’. He does fine. Just fine.

Verdict: 1 and a ½ / 5 toots of the bugle

You don’t need a Death Note to be able to passively kill someone. Show them this movie, and boredom will do it.

Revenge of Birdman! - Review of Spiderman Homecoming

“After the blazing success of Birdman, Michael Keaton returns to don the wings and become the

feathery super character once more, with this sequel...”

“Wait, what is this?”

“What? It’s the review for Birdman 2.”

“There’s... no such movie. What’re you smoking?”

“But Michael Keaton plays this winged bird-like character, in New York City? So I thought, naturally... Birdman, you know...”

“It’s Vulture, goddammit!! And it’s the villain in SPIDERMAN: HOMECOMING, a SUPERHERO film in the MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE!! Get your head out of your bugle! Sheesh!”  

“... My bad.”

 

So Kevin Feige presents us with the 16th installment under the MCU with a completely new film on a superhero we’ve... seen before. 2 of them, as a matter of fact.

So... what’s new and improved over the predecessors?

EVERYTHING! <almost>

Like we all know, Peter Parker is a high school student who was bitten by the radioactive spider and became extra sticky and whatnot, and eventually dons the red and blue to prevent crime in New York City. But being a high school student in the 2010s, especially in the super-advanced Marvel Cinematic Universe, the character and his world needed some upgrades. Technical, and cultural. Being a millennial high school student, Peter Parker has finally been tailormade as one.

The film starts with the video chronicle created by Peter Parker (Tom Holland) while fighting #TeamCap in Civil War, self-bragging about his adventures after being temporarily being recruited by Tony Stark, up until the point where Tony drops him home in Queens with a high-tech spidey suit with the veiled promise that he ‘might’ be called upon to be an Avenger. The rest of the story covers his journey as a high-school student who must try and fit his alter ego somewhere between his ordinarily complex life.

Being one of the most successful superhero names of all time, and the company mascot for Marvel, AND being a original member of the Avengers, it was about time that Marvel inducted the character into their current Avenger universe. Where Spiderman: Homecoming rises above its predecessors, is realising and poking fun at some of the most obvious questions that have been asked by the prudent fans since a long time, such as –

·         How effective a superhero would he be in the suburbs, where there is an obvious lack of tall buildings to swing from?

·         How effective a superhero would you be on a boat, WHERE there is an obvious lack of any structures whatsoever to swing from?

·         How the heck is he able to avoid all sorts of nosey questions about being missing without explanation from crucial social situations?     

The most commendable feature of this movie is that at no single point, does it dwell. Like I said, it starts off by the video chronicle by Peter, and the rest of it is told in the same way as a teenager verbally recounting his far-fetched experiences after an exciting day, and though the same tends to get boring, it works extremely well here because we’re able to grasp the visuals of that story, with no unnecessary extra detail, and moving on with rambunctious energy toward the next sequence. Sometimes this pace is too fast for comfort, but it works mostly.

The narrative and the characters are like a sitcom at so many places, they could actually rename this movie as “Spidey and Friends”. Marisa Tomei as May (no more ‘Aunt’, because younger and hotter), Zendaya as Michelle Jones and Tony Revolori as Flash Thompson provide quick, random and wacky comic relief reminiscent to the side characters in some television sitcom.

Fans get introduced to a new side of Tony, who seems to be nurturing a mentor-protege relationship with Peter, who he can’t simply drop back into his world upto his own devices, after using his help in Civil War, and knowing the possibilities and extent of Peter’s Powers, and the situations the latter could find himself stranded in without the proper training and guidance of a veteran (not that Tony himself is a golden example, but anyhow).

Getting to the new Spiderman, Tom Holland, all praises fall short to express the good time that this guy provided as the titular character. The young English actor and dancer completely drowns himself into the character Spiderman, quite literally, performing nearly all the stunts and action sequences himself, and having fun at his job with boisterous, energetic and youthful appeal. To be able to steal the show surrounded by a cast of industry veterans is a feat that requires no validation.

Speaking about the villain, Birdman... sorry, ‘Vulture’ who is quite aptly named, considering the fact that he literally lives off the alien and robotic scraps from the battles involving the Avengers in New York (Avengers, 2012) and Sokovia (Age of Ultron, 2015) that he salvages and sells as high-tech black-market weapons (to street thugs?), Michael Keaton looks good as the same. Though his performance more-than-often verges on textbook-comic-book-supervillain, he possesses a natural element of intimidation that works pretty well, particularly in the scenes involving him and Peter. His characterisation is quite spot-on as it combines the stereotypical comicbook sense of evil, but lacking the megalomaniacal attitude, and having the grounded reasonability of Willem Dafoe’s Norman Osborn (Spiderman, 2002).

Additional talent includes Jennifer Connolly who voices Karen, the Artifical Intelligence in Peter’s suit.

<FUN FACT: Jennifer Connolly is the wife of Paul Bettany, who voiced J.A.R.V.I.S. and played the Vision>

VERDICT: 3  and a half/5 toots of the bugle

Keep hangin' in there, Pedro!

Marvel Studios maintains its impeccably premium track record with Spiderman: Homecoming. With a wee bit room for growth.

P.S. As is usual with any Marvel movies, you don't want to miss the end-credit cookie by Captain America! At. Any. Cost. 

In the name of all things Wonderful - Review of Wonder Woman

The people at the helm of the DCEU can finally take a collective sigh of relief, because finally they will be able to salvage some of that competitive dignity that they lost with Man of Steel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. And after 2 pathetic attempts at making films on female superheroes, with Catwoman (2005) <ugh> and Supergirl (1984), they finally gave us Wonder Woman, AND AM I GLAD! And should YOU be! And that's a lot of ands. And I should stop. And you should read on ... and so. 

However, not getting carried away, there are both pros and cons of the movie: PROS in terms of the story’s consistency, comic timing, acting and background score; and CONS in terms of what is the bane of every DC movie till date. Rest assured the PROS outweigh the CONS.

It is quite a task to take one of the hottest comic book superheroines and render them on screen in such spectacular fashion, because it’s easy to hire an attractive actress to fit into the stereotypically tight clothes of a typical comic book superhero, but it’s absolutely another task to make her look so convincing in the role, it’s as if she was born into it. 

Words fall short in praise of Gal Gadot, or as I call her, “DC’s gift to the cinematic world.” Gal Gadot flirts very gracefully with the line that defines Wonder Woman as a pin-up girl on one side and as a symbol of female empowerment on the other. This is not the first role the Israeli girl is known for though , who you may remember behind the driving wheel in the multi-million dollar Fast & Furious franchise, in a comparatively lesser significant role. She perfectly fits the bill as the curious young Amazon demigoddess trying to come to terms with the reality of her birth and the extent of her powers. Superman and Batman have us used to a particular dark, grim brand of superheroes. Gal Gadot as Diana restores an inherently childish and grounded element of humanity into the DCEU that was much, much required after their last 2 offerings (not saying that those were bad films, those were some pretty good, mildly underappreciated (okay, quite underappreciated) films) which had been trying to establish themselves in the shade of the massively successful and ingeniously rooted Marvel Cinematic Universe.

The movie explores the origin story of Diana, the Princess of a race of Greek women warriors that live on the island of Themyscira, who are hidden from and exist for the destruction of Ares, the Greek god of war. When fate lands American spy Steve Trevor (played by Chris Pine) on the beaches of Themiscyra followed close behind by a fleet of German soldiers, Diana comes to know about men, and starts on a journey of rediscovering a world embroiled in World War 1, and the true purpose of her mysterious birth.  

A beautiful spectacle of a film, with fluid fight correctly timed fight sequences, choreographed to a power-packed background score by Junkie XL and Hans Zimmer, DC and Warner Bros. have provided a grounded film that sticks as close as possible to its comic book roots, with classic forgotten villains and yet dissipates information in a way that even a layman audience getting introduced to Wonder Woman for the first time can tune into.

The only CON that seems to have become a running disease for every DC movie, is its cinematography and green-screening. Bringing in the MCU at this point, it must be pointed out how realistic all of their films appear, making it very easy for a viewer to imagine those same characters in front of themselves in reality, because that’s how close to reality their sets and their world is. DC has this penchant for featuring fights in the dark, something one can observe even in the trailer of the upcoming Justice League.  And not wanting to be harsh, but DC’s cinematography is more like a video game rather than a film. This becomes a huge problem, even with a movie like Wonder Woman, who has a monumental build-up to a climactic reveal, to feature a boss-fight in a night-sky that looks so artificial, it very nearly kills the entire momentum it had built up till that point.

VERDICT – 4  /5 toots of the bugle 

Probably the best thing by DC after the Dark Knight trilogy, in the name of Hera!!

Gal Gadot is truly a Wonder Woman for one of the most earnest and immersive performances of her career, and for restoring faith in the DC universe, one which is hoped shall not diminish with Justice League. 

Suicide Squad: A Lesson in genius marketing, and suicidal storytelling

When you – hell, the whole world - wait for something for over a year, you expect it to be sky-blazin’ amazing. Suicide Squad was riding on a zeppelin of expectations. Shame, that it had to crash and burn the way it did. Time for an autopsy of the most highly anticipated comic book film of the decade.

Let’s start with a disclaimer - Suicide Squad is actually a decent time spent at the theatre. It has all the elements of a quintessential summer action flick – a looming apocalypse, high octane gun-toting action sequences, a hot girl, Will Smith and general Hollywood stupidity. Plus, it has cameos by Batman and the Flash to boot. But then again, this isn’t some brawny ‘Murican film we’re talking about here, because if we wanted that, Bruce Willis is still alive and kicking ass all Yippee Ki-Yay. Director and writer David Ayer has written stuff like 'Training Day' and 'Fury'. But then he even wrote the farce that was 'Sabotage' starring Schwarzenegger, so my bets weren't really on him.

Frankly, if the movie could be described in 2 words, they’d be ‘Stupid’ and ‘Superficial’.

The film starts off post the death of Superman in Dawn of Justice. There’s little that the trailers left to the imagination of the viewers with regards to the plot – Amanda Waller (Viola Davis), a high-ranking U.S. government official assembles a covert team of ‘Bad Guys’ (like there’s actually a category like that) called Task Force X to execute dangerous life-threatening missions where if successful, the members would be given time off of their sentences. However, if they fail or try to escape, they’d be killed through ‘nanite explosives’ implanted in their necks (Hence the name Suicide Squad). The members are Deadshot, Harley Quinn, Digger Harkness a.k.a. Captain Boomerang, Killer Croc, Enchantress, El Diablo, and Slipknot led by Colonel Rick Flag.

Apart from the Joker and Batman, this is the first time any of the characters are appearing on screen. So one would actually expect some introduction into their pasts, something more than a two-line snippet, something DC botched up grandly to save up on the length of the movie, and something which if shown a bit more in detail, could have provided much more depth to it. 

I suppose this is how the studio decided upon the intro sequence -

“This is Harley Quinn. Used to be a psychiatrist, fell in love with the Joker, went dangerously mad. Now candidate for Task Force X.”

“Okay. How’d she fall in love with that psychopath? Could you show a bit more of..”

“No we ain’t got time. We got 4 more to present here. NEXT.”

“No I know that, but still, you could offer some detail into their...”

“NEXT!!!”

Without their proper story, the star attraction of the film, i.e. the bad guys that are going to do some good, just fall limp. The film trailers were more sympathetic to their identities rather than the film itself.

Without giving any spoilers, I can say that the entire film was actually about Amanda Waller sending in this Squad to cover up for some major ‘oopsies’ she pulled along the way. ‘Oopsies’ that could well result in global destruction. And it’s actually fine. It’s a pretty spot on portrayal of the ambiguity of the intentions that people in power profess.

Speaking of power and supervillains, where were the likes of Batman and Wonder Woman all this while? It would have been pretty sensible if they’d bumped into the Squad in the midst of this entire charade. But no, not one Batarang flying anywhere close to where it was actually and reasonably expected.

That was about the story. Coming to the characters, special appreciation is due to Margot Robbie for her maniacal portrayal of Harley Quinn. Be it the crazy laughs, the unpredictable insane antics, or the PDA with the Joker, she pulls it pretty much down to a T. But even she gets suppressed in the general noise of the movie and the lack of a solid back-story justifying her character transition, and some might even agree that her character’s been over-sexualised at numerous instances.

Will Smith as Deadshot does what he knows how to do best – be Will Smith, and I can’t complain. He’s the sanest member of the squad, which is otherwise mostly a motley crew of ‘antisocial freaks’ as very aptly put by squad leader Rick Flag (Joel Kinnaman). Thankfully for him, his character has received marginally extra attention which helps to establish his humanity better, basically making him the pseudo-mascot of the squad.

Someone who really surprised me was Jai Courtney as Captain Boomerang. Judging his previous flat performances that include ‘A Good Day to Die Hard’, and ‘Terminator: Genisys’, it is quite a treat watching him as the comic, edgy and loony boomerang expert Digger Harkness. He and Margot Robbie are the true embodiments of the 'crazy' element of the movie.

And now onto the Star Disappointment of Suicide Squad. I present to you the Joker.

For all those in line for a monumental Jared Leto performance, burn your tickets. Firstly, the Joker is not a lead attraction; he is merely in the film because Harley Quinn is. The promotions of the film have been riding on Mistah J and Leto’s star value, when the truth is that he’s ornamental, ordinary, artificial and not-even-galactically close to the hype. All the while I was thinking, “This is what Leto came up with after his methodical ‘deep dive’ into the role? An amateur in Improv class could have cooked that up!” Talk about doing justice to Heath Ledger.

Gotta give it to the studio though, rarely has a film received the level of marketing and promotion that Suicide Squad was subjected to. What with all the trailers, accompanied by tracks like Bohemian Rhapsody and Ballroom Blitz; a kickass soundtrack featuring original songs from names like Skrillex, Rick Ross, Imagine Dragon, Lil Wayne, Wiz Khalifa, and Twenty One Pilots;s and a year’s worth of PR. So despite all the shred-by-shred analysis into the structure of the film, one can bet good money that Suicide Squad might even cross BvS in terms of revenue. 

VERDICT - 2/5 stars

DC is following an awkward trajectory with their films, which seek to explore substance, in a grim manner sticking true to the comics’ roots, but get tangled up in messy plot-lines, restricted time frames resulting in a pace faster than a bullet train, and a vision for the future of the DCEU which seems to neglect the needs of their current projects.

Suicide Squad is a stylish testament that there is actually something called ‘excess promotion’. Despite all that , nothing can take the spotlight away from the fact the future of the DCEU seems pretty bleak. 

A Tarantino Death - Review of The Hateful Eight

Late-60’s movie appeal, frequent face close-ups, blood splattering from everywhere on everything, and a script filled with ‘niggas’ and ‘motherf**kers’ – yep, you’re in a Tarantino film, and you bet your buns it’s good. The 60’s style title card fonts, the ominous wild west music and the obvious feeling of impending doom of half the cast (it is a Tarantino film after all) pulls you right into the mood for action, even though for a staggering length of 187 minutes. 

It’s a pity that Indian masses get to witness this spectacle so late, compared to the rest of the world. In such a scenario, a review gets rendered out-of-date. Nevertheless, here goes.

The Hateful Eight has been written and structured more like a stage play rather than a feature film. The entire film is basically set between two principal location points – an interior known to the viewer as the stagecoach lodge named Minnie’s Haberdashery, and the snowy exterior, the details of which hold minimal relevance. 

Taking plot devices from many of Tarantino’s previous films, principally Pulp Fiction, the Kill Bill duology and Reservoir Dogs, the film is set in post-Civil War era. Eight distinct individuals, very randomly connected to one another, and all headed to a spot called Red Rock, meet in a stagecoach lodge, while waiting for a blizzard to die down - Two bounty hunters, a sheriff, a wanted felon, an English hangman, a cowboy, a Confederate general, and a Mexican. In those gun-slinging times, one wouldn’t be surprised if bullets start spraying at the drop of a hat, and that forms the remainder of the story.

In typical Tarantino fashion, the film is laced with expletives, blood, and detailed conversations between singular sets of characters. Excellent costume design, some gritty background score by Ennio Morricone, and a golden cast including frequent collaborators such as Samuel L. Jackson, Michael Madsen, Tim Roth, Kurt Russell, Bruce Dern and New Zealander stuntwoman Zoe Bell (add to that an extended cameo by Channing Tatum) – The Hateful Eight is more like a skilled thesis into the entire Tarantino legacy, albeit by Tarantino himself.

This has to be one of the most contained performances delivered by Samuel L.Jackson in all of QT’s films, with not one single ‘motherf**ker’ coming off his tongue as Major Marquis Warren a.k.a. The Bounty Hunter (that was a letdown really). Kurt Russell pockets much of the attention for the time he spends on screen, delivering a performance, worth every bent penny.    

Kurt Russell and Jennifer Jason Leigh as John 'The Hangman' Ruth
and Daisy 'The Prisoner' Domergue respectively

Special mention must go to Jennifer Jason Leigh, for her performance as the mad, racist outlaw, Daisy Domergue a.k.a. the Prisoner. But then, that has already been acknowledged by the right people, judging her nomination for the 86th Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. 

Though commendable, I still find the film lacking in particular, in the originality department. Any amateur Tarantino enthusiast could point out the repetitive plot influences the movie had from previous of the director's films. But then, if one considers the film like I do, which is a kitty-party  all things QT, all that just slides.

Verdict – 4 out of 5 stars

Don't be greedy Jackson!

The Hateful Eight is reminiscent of all the ingredients of a neat Tarantino cake, specifically the backdrop of something cool and contained like a tea-table conversation, building upto a bloody and eloquent gun battle between all the characters. As the last film (apparently), it rounds up all his main hombres, for the perfect cinematic get-together. And boy, do these people know how to get together!!

Though the runtime of 3 hours makes the movie somewhat sleep inducing at turns (matter of few minutes though), in the end, it evens itself out correctly, in an ending not too distinguished from that of Reservoir Dogs. 

Kiss The Sky - The Walk : The Bugle's Verdict

Hollywood is really big on its biographies. It wouldn’t be a surprise if this film isn’t one of the top contenders at the Academy Awards this year. Directed by Robert Zemeckis, most known for films like Cast Away and Forrest Gump, The Walk is a visually enthralling account of the famous French high-wire artist Phillipe Petit, and the stunt that he pulled walking on a tightrope in between the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in 1974.

Born in France, Petit (played by Joseph-Gordon Levitt) is perpetually busy in finding the perfect spot to attach his tightrope. Coming across pictures of the World Trade Center, he makes an elaborate plan, involving friends and accomplices, to execute ‘le coup’, where he illegally and secretly installs a cable between the Twin Towers, and in full public view, makes a full 45-minute long walk.

The Walk has the elements and thrills of a stereotypical heist movie, without the fundamental locus of an actual robbery, and instead, driving around a seemingly impossible mission of a young man wishing to pull off what he thinks would be ‘the artistic triumph of the 20^th century’.

Joseph-Gordon Levitt jumps deep into the persona of the high-wire artist. His expressions, the look of innocent excitement, the look of bewilderment on viewing the spectacle that were the Twin Towers, the French accent, are all on point and a Grade-A Levitt presentation. The film boasts of a well-picked star cast, such as the beautiful Charlotte Le Bon, veteran actor Ben Kingsley and James Badge Dale, but all their sincerest efforts get overshadowed by Levitt’s grand aura.

A visual marvel, The Walk will be quite the tightrope for patients of acrophobia. The  eponymous sequence, with the view of New York City in the background, is maddeningly beautiful, and terrifyingly immersive. The entire time, the audience seems embroiled in confusion; whether to bow before the spectacle that was created by Petit, or to scorn the man for the insane show of guts he put forth, walking, bending, jumping on a slim metal cable half a kilometre above the surface of earth.

Verdict – 4 out of 5 stars

The Walk is beautiful in the sense that it is quite a simple story of a simple man, building upto something so grand, so mind-numbing, that few movies in the industry have been able to offer.  

Mad Max - Fury Road : The Bugle's Verdict

What a lovely day! The general reaction of the cinema crowd was in rhythm with the film’s subtitle. Mad Max re-awakens after 30 years, and how! This is one movie series that just keeps on getting better with the years. Seriously! George Miller has to be quite the twisted guy for dreaming up the plethora of even more twisted characters we got to witness in all his films but regardless, his visualisation of the vestiges of the human race in a desolate world has been raising brows and collecting gasps ever since the original film came out in 1979, for reasons we shall see below.

No other filmmaker has been able to capture and present dystopia in the manner Miller gave the world Mad Max. It has been the cinematic bible for apocalypse nerds globally, and it seems the trend shall continue with Fury Road which is madder, wilder and much more intense than all three previous films combined.

In the previous films, I never really got the idea behind the title ‘Mad’ attached to Max Rockatansky, the eponymous lead. Max (Tom Hardy) had always been a composed character. Sure, he was a loner, and much of his time is spent doing the same things the rest of his surrounding violent world is upto – looting, scavenging and fighting to find his way. His world as stated in the film, “is reduced to one instinct – survive.” Going by his circumstances and the people he is always pitted against, he must be one of the sanest people around. However, Fury Road finally provides some justice, and brings out the true colours of madness in Max, instances of which are seen in the initial scenes themselves.

The audience is jolted out of their 30-year long slumber by a really fast-moving, really violent sequence where Max gets captured in order that his blood may be harvested for the soldiers of a god-king, Immortan Joe. For almost half an hour of the film, Max’s face remains hidden in a metal mask, and this entire time he is ‘madly’ trying to escape from the clutches of his captors, who are out to retrieve Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron), a rogue soldier who has escaped with the god-king’s collection of premium breeding Wives.

The fundamental premise of the film follows the same routine as the previous instalments. Max, through a random turn of events, finds himself smack in the middle of Furiosa’s sticky situation, and out of the inherent goodness of his heart, helps her turn things around, being ‘The Maximum Force of The Future’ and leaves after the job is done, for further misadventures in the Australian wasteland (The films’ are set in Australia, for the uninitiated), and possibly another sequel. BUT make no mistake, this movie isn’t about Max.

For once the epicentre is someone else, and that is the female lead, Furiosa. Tom Hardy’s presence is reduced to that of a supporting character in the face of Charlize Theron’s Furiosa, who robs most of the show and acts as the lead action source. Her portrayal of a hardened woman, out on a life-or-death mission (in their world, everything is life-or-death) is genuine, and as was expected from Theron, even though her accent is completely un-Australian, and with the one-liners, she seems like the quintessential Hollywood action hero. Even her native South African accent could have lent some authenticity to the role. Apart from this chink, the rest of her show is fine.

Somehow, Tom Hardy is not someone I could visualise in the role of Max. Agreed, Max is a hard man, testosterone flowing out of his ears, but Tom Hardy seems WAY too rough and rugged for the part. For those who have seen the previous films with Mel Gibson, he was a softer personality. He was like a chocolate boy with the added traits of a highway motorcyclist. Hardy gives off the impression of a figure such as a mercenary, one who has seen way too much war in his life, and has been shaped and moulded by it accordingly, which would have been fine, but if you compare Gibson in Beyond the Thunderdome (1985) with Hardy, the latter seems comparatively younger. And when you’re following a linear chronology, ignoring something like that just doesn’t fly.

Getting back to the story, the film holds firm both in terms of its adrenaline as well as the sociological and philosophical quotient. Like its predecessors, Fury Road explores into the awry condition of humans, and the changes and burdens and scarcities society would face post a global war over the most precious resource of the modern world – fuel.

Noting down the idea of something such is one thing, and getting an entire team of actors to pull it off for you, is another and director George Miller just doesn’t get tired of extending the benchmark. The sets and costumes too are extraordinary, and in concurrence with the crazy facets of the remaining tribal humans.

In terms of action, the film is one of the most satisfactory experiences I’ve had recently, with almost 1 and a half hour worth of explosive vehicular action out of its length of 2 hours, and keeping true to his name, Miller presents some of the most realistic and sincerely chilling action sequences one can witness. Add to that the heavy thumping war music and the immersive drums, and you yourself are lost in the madness and the chaos.

VERDICT – George Miller reclaims his territory in chaos and dystopia, upping the gore, the explosions as well as the heart, ensuring that Mad Max: Fury Road provides a notch more than the regular expectations of the adrenaline junkies, and caters to the seasoned viewers as well. Go take a drive down Fury Road and take a plunge into madness.