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.

The Lost City of Z: An Ode To The Spirit Of Discovery

The subject of historical geographical exploration is one that has been depicted in cinema usually as a taste of exaggerated fanciful adventure (cue: Indiana Jones), animation (cue: Tarzan), or comedy cue:  the upcoming Jumanji 2). As a medium of information apart from plain entertainment, there was a dearth of cinema that could showcase a detailed picture of the physical and emotional journey of an explorer, wandering in uncharted, potentially dangerous regions, invested into the fact that this journey could well cost them their lives. 

Then you come across this absolutely beautiful piece of cinema – a beautiful account of a British explorer and soldier, Major Percy Fawcett, a name forgotten over time, and one of the most influential figures linked to the mythical land of El Dorado believed to be harbouring a secret civilisation much ancient and more advanced than any other known the world over. The film covers Fawcett’s journey, from his admittance into the Royal Geographical Society of England, upto his eventual disappearance in the dense jungles of the Amazon. Major Percival ‘Percy’ Fawcett is assigned to an expedition near the Brazil-Bolivian territory for mapping uncharted territory along with Corporals Henry Costin and Arthur Manley. On his first trip down, he faces threats such as extreme climatic conditions, rampant disease, invisible bloodthirsty tribesmen, and in the least, a piranha-laden Amazon River, surrounded by an unfriendly forest that cannot be relied upon for subsistence.

An unblemished vision and its raw portrayal, and an extremely well-picked ensemble come together to make this film a lush, intricate account into the darkness faced by explorers working to discover new lands to the point of obsession, and continuing on despite continuous challenges to their reputation, health, lives and sanity.

Robert Pattinson as Corporal Henry Costin,
Fawcett's aide-de-camp

Fawcett is played by Charlie Hunnam, most well known as Jax Teller in the long running Sons of Anarchy, Raleigh Becket in Guillermo del Toro’s Pacific Rim, and the title lead in Guy Ritchie’s crime-comedy-fantasy film King Arthur: Legend of The Sword. One could say Charlie Hunnam’s naturally brooding look and demeanour helps him fill Fawcett’s shoes quite well, as he captures the turbulences faced by the explorer and his aide-de-camp Costin, played by Robert Pattinson, another gem of an actor (discount the Twilight saga, and you’ll know what I mean), and how the obsession over the possibility of finding a hidden civilisation came to become the defining account of his life as the world knows it. Sienna Miller delivers a splendid heartfelt performance as Nina Fawcett, the major’s devoted wife who is nearly equally dedicated to him accomplishing his objective.

Enough said about the cast. Coming to why this film struck such a chord with me, I would point out a particular sequence in which we get to witness the near-summation of the dire straits Fawcett and his men find themselves in, halfway through the movie. On their second trip down the Amazon, they are intercepted by a familiarly aggressive group of tribesmen and forced to retreat to the opposite bank of the river. Trying to reason with the indigenous people, Fawcett bursts out into song and using a book as a shield for his face, moves forward towards them to attempt communication. Suddenly an arrow comes flying and pierces the book, missing Fawcett’s face by bare inches. The incredible build-up to the sequence pauses with a heart-stopping instant. But if I wasn’t invested enough in the story, Fawcett instead of being the stereotypical film explorer and brushing the arrow aside, momentarily phases out, and we see his life and everything he yearns to return to, literally flashing before his eyes and he tries to compose himself, all the while maintaining his stance and composure, and despite the same, proceeding to broker peace with the very same tribesmen.

Though for a short amount of time, Tom Holland appears as Jack Fawcett, Percy’s son who accompanies him on his final journey to the Amazon before their disappearance, and gives a more-than-decent performance, showcasing his serious chops, a grade above what we see in his latest Spiderman: Homecoming.

Hunnam and Holland caught between two tribal groups

In the age of larger-than-life commercial cinema, which hinges on extreme camera work, high profile names and style above substance, I feel glad that sometimes filmmakers like James Grey move out of the track to make cinema such as this – cinema that manages to evoke a hundred emotions other than plain exhilaration from intermittent one-liners, something we’ve become way too used to owing to commercial cinema. Where most films manage to establish a scenario where we view events through a window and feel a fraction of the thrills, the few like The Lost City of Z gets you holistically and deeply invested into the journey of their characters, where after a point you build an almost personal emotional connection with them.

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. 

Have a taste of Tisca Chopra's 'Chutney'.

What is a short film, I ask you? 

If filmmaking is a drug, a short film's cocaine <Eric Clapton crooning in the background>. 

Today I seize this opportunity to analyse and applaud something I never ventured to consider for an opinion before, since it used to lie outside a comparatively more mainstream market of the conventional 'movies' which preemptively meant Hollywood or Bollywood. Short films fleet past us because they are small, both in length and project size, and are much less promoted than theatrical cinema. But this medium has grown to become a powerful storytelling medium, owing to strong, taut narratives, perfectly unsaturated in the stimuli to which they desire us to react.

Today I came across Chutney, a 16-minute long short film produced by Tisca Chopra who also co-wrote it with Jyoti Kapur Das, the director. A few lines ahead, is provided an analysis into some plot and character points that I believe make this project stand out unlike any recent cinematic indulgence.

Before you read any further, please first see 'Chutney' in the link below, if you haven't already, and then read on and express how much you're able to relate with the write-up: 

Done? Seen it? Okay.

Moving on then, to the first question that crossed me while seeing this: CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT IS TISCA CHOPRA IN THE LEAD? We have witnessed some amazing character development in some really amazing films, and one is just left awestruck to see Tisca portraying in such a raw, beautiful manner. But here, the reason that her entity here stands out, lies much in the physical persona of Tisca's character i.e. the Ghaziabadi Didi (we shall refer to her as 'Didi' henceforth' considering the character's name isn't revealed) serving the eponymous chutney. Due credit to Prem Singh and Mithu Santra, the makeup and hair guys behind this.

Didi oozes such innocent, earthy and dangerous elements which can be easily be understood as the very embodiment of the evils let loose upon the world from Pandora's box. The entire story develops to send a spine-chilling message to a woman, played by Rasika Dugal quite evidently hitting it off somewhat objectionably with Didi's husband Virji i.e. Adil Hussain. 

The narration of this tale can be called nothing short of a play straight out of Tarantino's style of filmmaking, though it is more elucidative, with backstory sequences leaving nothing to the viewer's imagination, and simply serving up a dish merely for the tasting (ergo: Chutney). With an extremely well matched group of actors, including the supporting female Rasika Dugal, this is one well made dish (I love how this film's title plays with my habit of comparing films with food). 

An element in the story I wish to comment upon exclusively, is one which would have gone largely unnoticed by the majority viewership - the servant. Not Bhola, the boy brought up by the lead couple and then buried unceremoniously by Didi. Not him.

I refer to Munna. Yes Munna, who hurls food into his masters' and guests' trays, who spits in their drinks, who smokes in their presence, and sings 'Lollipop lagelu' behind the backs of female guests. Superficially off-putting, and seemingly inconsequential, he is quite in contrast to Bhola, the shy boy who served dutifully and made delicacies for his masters.

But is the entity of Munna merely a servant, a simple manifestation of the negativity lingering around the household in the film? What if it is the continuance of the entity that was Bhola, which has found refuge in Munna's facade?

All the while, alongside Didi's tale of Bhola, Munna's antics are a running device, which are subtly drawing a comparison between his self and the picture of Bhola being painted by Didi. Bhola is shown as a hardworking boy, who provides a heartfelt service to his masters and acts humbly and always in a manner seemingly expected from a good servant. If one observes Munna's actions, they aren't merely of some character who is twisted just for the fun of it, but of someone who has been scorned at the hands of the people toward whom he behaves so i.e. Didi and Virji. 

The food of the house, and the chutney are made from items grown in the house itself, specifically on the Bhola's grave. Stands to reason, the food is soiled in the negativity with which Bhola died, and contains a part of him. Munna's character exists as a specimen, a victim even, of this food, who subconsciously houses the scornful side of Bhola, which reflects all too well in his callous attitude, specifically apparent at 8:15 in the video above, where though Munna abuses Bhola, at closer observation, it seems to be more of a self reprimand by his subconscious Bhola.

Sumit Gulati, who plays Munna must be careful though. After a portrayal or 2 more of such sleazy, disgusting servant type characters, I genuinely hope he doesn't get typecast as one. For those who couldn't guess, this is an absolute compliment toward his acting skill, which we have been subject to earlier in movies such as Talvar (2015). 

What are your opinions and observations about the plot, the characters, and other elements of this little film? Do you agree, disagree or are you just <meh>? Do share with me below.

How Civil War is the Quintessential MCU film and not : Op-Ed Article

<WARNING : SPOILERS AHEAD>

Oh Captain! My Captain!! I’m on #TeamIronMan. Yeah, since the latter half of the past year, this and the #teamCap hashtag has been trending on the entire bloody internet. Way to build up steam for the grand opening. With memes, jokes, tweets and the hotlot making the rounds, Captain America: Civil War opened to some roaring fanfare, albeit late, in the Indian market.

Through this piece, I am not trying to appraise the Russo brothers in any out-of-the-way manner. I believe the tweets and facebook posts have done enough of that. Whatever I wish to state, and any opinions regarding the Russos, shall be substantiated through the elucidations of this post.  

Civil War is the most serious and matured entry of Marvel till date (after Jessica Jones and Daredevil), in all fronts possible. After the events of Avengers: Age of Ultron, and a mission against Crossbones that went sideways, the Avengers are obligated to sign the Sokovia accords, an agreement which would take away their autonomy, and screen the situations that require their presence. This divides the team into two factions, one pro-accords and the other against, led by Tony Stark and Steve Rogers respectively. Add to that, a conspiracy by a victim of the Avenger’s past exploits and the presence of Bucky Barnes a.k.a. the Winter Soldier, worsens the team fabric.

Civil War is the typical Marvel film, with more age and more wisdom added to the mix, despite defaulting in numerous instances in the rather comical slapstick-ish way typical of Marvel (Note: Usage of the word ‘typical’ twice should denote the weight of this statement). The film wins sweet points in performances, story (most of it at least), character development, and the political realism that it enters.

The film is basically centering around the polar change in the outlooks of Captain America and Iron Man. Cap’n is still the same old ‘Murican soldier, ‘who probably can’t live without a war’ as so aptly put by Ultron, but time and experience have brought out a new facet of his patriotism to the forefront: one by which he is ready to forsake any chains of order (which he used to be the embodiment of) to be able to protect the Earth as per his self-righteous terms, as well as his old friend who’s apparently innocent as his activities were being controlled by the rogue organisation HYDRA. We witness a metamorphosis in Rogers’ identity, from a soldier, to a symbol of structure and order, to an insurgent who believes that giving away the Avengers’ autonomy under Oversight would result in the failure of the very purpose of their existence.

On the other hand, Tony Stark faces a completely new angle in life. We see a bit of the old Tony return from the first Iron Man film, who after facing the ground reality of his weapons industry had shut it down in hopes of making the world a better place. After witnessing the aftermath of New York and Sokovia, Tony starts doubting the very autonomy that Rogers seems to uphold, and believes that the Avengers, like any other government entity require some sort of regulation, and this signs to the accords. Unlike the usual Tony Stark that the Marvel films have us used to, Civil War presents us with a much more calculative, much more pragmatic Tony, one who is ready to adapt to survive as well as develop, as an individual and a team.

The Stark-Rogers turmoil couldn’t be a more beautiful picture. Over their years together, the Cap’n and Iron Man have reached a spot, where their collective ideology has become similar, with a few still opposing facets. It’s like their 2 personalities trapped in 1 body, hashing it out to see whose definition of right and wrong is valid.

Point of interest: In terms of story structure, one can actually spot some striking similarities between Civil War and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice – 

Both Tony Stark and Bruce Wayne have gained considerable experience over their years of practiced vigilantism (Tony lesser than Bruce though) (Both the experience and the v, that has led them to become rather precautious, especially with their superior counterparts i.e. Rogers and Clark Kent respectively.

Both the films are building up to a master plan on a galactic level by an alien overlord, i.e. Thanos with his infinity stones, and Darkseid as was seen in Batman’s nightmare (for those who couldn’t catch up). 

Both films’ villains are secretly sowing discord between the 2 lead superheroes who hash it out, and then reconcile later.

Both Iron Man and Batman’s parents, specifically their mothers, are key parameters governing the turn of events in both the movies.

And last but not the least, both films feature a deadly damsel having a mysterious past, bridging the two lead characters (Black Widow and Wonder Woman). 

It’s as if this film was a reply to all those people making the Teletubbies Analysis between the MCU and the DCEU.

I mean, seriously. It’s rather uncanny. And to think DoJ performed rather poorly in the market. Seems like some sort of classroom favouritism, this. No?

Notwithstanding what’s about to follow, Civil War was a great entry by the Russo brothers, who already had the gem that was Captain America: The Winter Soldier in their kitty. Many raised the question that 'Why is this a Captain America film and not an Avengers film? What's the difference?' The difference lies in the principal point of view that the story piggybacks upon, one that is professed through the eyes of a man forged from raw patriotism, compassion, and self-righteousness in the face of harrowing odds 

Some points in this movie though, could really get red spots in the otherwise cool film. Leading the array is the famous Airport fight sequence between #TeamCap and #TeamIronMan at Leipzig.

Don’t get me wrong, it was a good fight. A damn good choreographed one, at that. But in the otherwise serious, mature presentation that Civil War was, and is expected to be considering it’s a ‘Captain America’ movie and not an Avengers movie, it was rather shoddy.

Why in the world are Spiderman and Ant-Man being pulled into a fight that doesn’t even concern them remotely? Scott Lang is a father trying to wean off his criminal past and paying child support for his incredibly sweet little daughter, and somehow he found that being in a brawl at a German airport (which is completely uninhabited, God knows why) fighting alongside a 70 year old science experiment is the solution to all his problems. And he wasn’t even being paid!!!

Same goes for Spiderman, but truly he wasn’t to blame. Really, Peter Parker’s a 19-year old kid. If I can shoot web out my hands and sorta kick ass, and Tony Stark offers me a nice suit, even I would accept the ticket to Germany, which begs the question: what the hell is wrong with Anthony Stark? You’re bringing a high school kid into your private skirmishes?? Just because he shoots white stuff that has high tensile strength??? Damn, and here I am writing paragraphs on how the guy’s matured and everything. WAY TO GO, TONY! <sic>

Keeping the rest of the character lineup aside, I must point out the elephant in the room that is Civil War - Black Panther. Possessing the quintissential anti-hero persona, Black Panther scratches and claws his way into Cooldom. I suppose it’s become a norm of sorts: You have an antihero? You want him to be cool and kick-ass? Give him claws and kitten that bitch up! Possibly the next best antihero after Wolverine and Deadpool, and the next coolest cat after Wolverine and Bagheera, I really don’t see why anyone wouldn’t like him. If anyone doesn’t though, that’s their problem. And his. And his claws' <RED ALERT>.

The typical Marvel film is guilty pleasure, the sort that even most critics aren’t able to run away from. Captain America: Civil War is that and more. Much more (This sounds bad, but is actually good). Through Civil War, Marvel proves its adaptability as well as its conviction, by creating a pragmatic, realistic story around the same goofball, never-seeming-that-serious superheroes, pitting them in a scenario involving real world problems like international law, sovereignty, treaties and agreements; problems that the earlier movies seemed to have a childish disregard for, without completely straying away from its comic spirit by providing a darker, more pessimistic portrayal. We saw how THAT worked out for DoJ (Not that I didn’t like it, but it sure is bad for business). 

The studio has also tried to set the film as a launchpad for future members of the Avengers' which may include a certain adamantium feline (rumours) (Control your breath), and though the intros may be a little fumbled up, it's actually turned out pretty good. Future sees good for all things MARVEL 

 

Plot Checkmate : Review of Wazir

"Khel khel mein, khel khel ke, khel khel ye aa jaega"

Amitabh Bachchan has reached a long distance in his career and experimented with a plethora of roles. He’s played drunkards, patriarchs, gangsters, American gangsters, progeriacs, and Dhanush's voice. So character-wise, there isn’t actually much ground left to cover. So what should be done about it? Then someone went, “I know! Let’s make him a drunken amputee! Who plays Shatranj!! That should do the trick.”

At the first look, Wazir seems like an ambitious project; with Vidhu Vinod Chopra producing and co-writing it with Abhijat Joshi, and Bejoy Nambiar at the helm of affairs, with Farhan Akhtar and Big B in the lead. It starts of as one too. Danish Ali (Akhtar) is a cop who has lost his daughter at the hands of a terrorist and wishes to have revenge upon the organisation responsible. Omkar Nath Dhar a.k.a. Panditji (Big B) shares a similar loss, albeit apparently at the hands of a high ranking politico. A friendship sparks off between the two, which is tested when Panditji life is endangered by an unknown mastermind who calls himself Wazir (Neil Nitin Mukesh).

Going by the above statements, half the people would laugh their guts out at the very mention of Neil’s name. But make no mistake, in the small span of screen time that Neil had, there was actually some commendable output provided by him, with some crisp, evil, dialogue delivery, and a slightly putting-on edge maniac-ish persona. And I know I take a risk when I say this... but I was actually disappointed at the fact that he was not in the movie more (THERE! I said it!!).

Talking disappointments, let’s talk about the plot.

On second thought, let’s just not. Wafer-thin, and not as thrilling as the trailers made it out to be, half the people will have guessed the twist way before it even happens. The filmmakers are not completely at fault there. As audiences, we have become so used to twist-endings and suspenses, that now, we start getting all Sherlock-y the minute a movie starts. BUT, then again, at least one (read: the filmmakers) can cover up the holes on their end, holes being the numerous points where the story of Wazir had been leaking about and passing key points of information that were supposed to be kept locked till the opportune moment. Even the climax though not completely flaccid, fused out way earlier and way sleepier than the audience could realise.

Nonetheless, one really cannot criticise this film on the acting front. Farhan is supposed to look like a tough, impulsive cop, and he fits the bill. Big B is supposed to look like a man on a wheelchair, and Voila! Special praise is due to Manav Kaul who plays a political figure with a mysterious background, and a creepy daughter (Come to think of it, there are a LOT of daughters in this film). John Abraham makes a cameo as a govt. agent, borrowing much from his reel self in Madras Cafe. Even his presence was cut down abruptly (I know it’s a cameo, but seriously?)

 

VERDICT – 2 ½ out of 5 stars.

(Coincidence! Throughout the film Amitabh ranted about the 2 & a 1/2 moves of the ghoda (knight)). 

The game of Chess, or shatranj (the urdu name stressed upon throughout the film) has close to 69 trillion possible moves in one single game. So one could reasonably assume that if a good player should not do something, it is to inadvertently reveal his gameplan mid-play. Wazir fails to work upon that basic prerequisite, and thus falls short of being the suspense thriller it was expected to be. And believe me, there were expectations. 

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.  

Poor Joke - Welcome Back : The Bugle's Verdict

Uday and Majnu are back... why??!! Whoever came up with the idea for a sequel to these fools’ story deserves a round of super-slow claps. The only thing that this film by Anees Bazmee was successful in, is proving that Bollywood producers and sequels don’t really fit in the same sentence, except this one of course.

Same storyline, same characters sans Akshay and Katrina, and impeccably ghastly performances by an otherwise decent star line-up, render Welcome Back the candidate for worst film of 2015.

Uday and Majnu have left their gangster lives for a legitimate hotel business, when its revealed that Uday has a second step-sister he never knew about (Yeah, apparently his dad’s quite the player), who must be married if the duo wishes to be part of the fake swayamvar organised by con-women Dimple Kapadia and her daughter (played by newcomer Ankita Srivastava).

Uday and Majnu caught coochee-kooing

And who’s better for this situation than Dr. Ghungroo, the duo’s very own ‘shareef’ bridegroom reserve. Things turn awry for them when its revealed that Ghungroo’s son is apparently not as ‘shareef’ as they supposed him to be.

Rest of the plot you can probably assume, if you've seen Welcome.

The story is painful, lame, but thankfully, forgettable. Truly, the only thing one will remember about this film after watching it is the memory of those painful 2 and a half hours, and that beautiful bucket of cheese popcorn.

Nana Patekar and Anil Kapoor were supposed to be the saving grace for this bad joke. If just they weren’t enough, there were 2 Nanas!! So one can understand how bad the script was, when even their antics illicit nothing ahead of the usual eggs and tomatoes. Anil Kapoor was a sad departure from his recent offering in Dil Dhadakne Do.

John ‘Protein Shake’ Abraham was so, so, so bad, that he was good. He’s supposed to be a brash, stupid sort of street thug, and the bland expressions and stiff dance moves somehow get the job done (Reverse psychology, you see). Shruti Haasan fails at handling her stooping lip job, let alone her rusting acting skills.

New members to the cast are Dimple Kapadia, Naseeruddin Shah and Shiney Ahuja. Dimple’s ordinary, Naseer as a blind crime-lord is immensely pathetic. Shiney on the other hand does decently well as the drug-fuelled, maniac son of Naseer.

Newcomer Ankita Srivastava needs enrolling into an acting institute. ASAFP.

Verdict – 1 out of 5 stars

Nana's reaction to the rating

A film can't be rated in integers. Welcome Back could probably set a precedent. 

I tried to have a good time. I genuinely did. But all this movie was able to accomplish was ruin my memories of the first film. Why, Anees, why?!! 

Rocky Climb - Manjhi The Mountain Man : The Bugle's Verdict

It’s quite sad that the biopic honouring a man such as Dashrath Manjhi should leak online almost 3 weeks prior to release. That being said, Manjhi released this friday, starring Nawazuddin Siddiqui in the eponymous lead. Fans of the actor, that have grown in explosive numbers, especially since the Gangs of Wasseypur duology, will be thronging the theatres regardless of the online leak. For all others, let’s see how much justice this movie does to the history of the Mountain Man.

Story (pocket book version) – Dashrath Manjhi was a labourer whose lady-love, Faguniya (Falguni Devi), died upon slipping off a mountain that stood in between his village and the closest town, Wazirganj, thereby reducing the reach of medical facilities. Her death sets the man off on a mission to make a road through the mountain, that would eventually shorten the travel distance between the two places from 70 kms to a mere 15 kms, over a period of 22 years.

If you’d remember the Gangs of Wasseypur films, then you’d recall the slick, smooth portrayal of the average Bihari, so easy-flowing and so natural, that one is completely lost, pleasantly, despite all the abuses and the gore and the excessive depiction of cannabis. It’s a wonder why the same can’t be said for any other film set in Bihar. Manjhi joins the league of the said category of movies, where every line of the script, every joke, the sets – seem like they’re part of a high school theatre club’s setting.

Manjhi is an uphill climb through clichéd narratives, stereotypical Bihari performances and the unreasonable compulsory length of a masala Bollywood film. The reason that this is sad, in this scenario, is because Manjhi was not the run-of-the-mill masala film. Director Ketan Mehta’s project was ambitious and could have told, very beautifully, the story of the man who broke down a mountain for the sake of his love. Instead, the film tells all sorts of stories, addresses all sorts of side issues, while beating around the bush with the epicentre of the film i.e. MANJHI. There are sub-plots within sub-plots about untouchability, naxalites, economic conditions of Bihar, and all other things you’d associate with rural Bihar, that after a point, viewer’s start asking, “All that’s fine, but where does Manjhi figure in all of this?”

Maybe the filmmakers had intended to show that Manjhi accomplished heavy, despite all sorts of wacky odds: but then again, they failed at it, resulting into a movie that is more of a political satire rather than a biopic. Some hopes were vested in the people playing the satirical Biharis, with a powerful cast comprising Prashant Narayanan (Murder 2 fame), Tigmanshu Dhulia, Pankaj Tripathi (Sultan in GOW), etc. but even their efforts were belittled owing to the heavily dragging themes that bring nothing that may be beneficially required for telling Manjhi’s story. 

The only saving grace to this over-burdened tale, are the leading pair – Nawaz and Apte. Nawazuddin is a visual treat. He, though playing around in the same ballpark that his performances have been stereotyped into, manages to whip up something new, as always, further stepping up his game from his laudable performance in Bajrangi Bhaijaan. His version of Manjhi is correctly measured and overflowing with emotions at all times – whether it’s his love for wife Faguniya, or his verging-on-insane obsession and love-hate relationship with the mountain.

Radhika Apte does well as Faguniya, the humble wife and the ultimate catalyst to the village’s development at the hands of her doting husband.    

Verdict – 2 ½ out of 5 stars

“Shaandaar! Jabarjast!! Jindaabaad!!!” - the comment doesn't apply to the movie as well as it might to Nawaz.

Manjhi, along with all its distractions and side events, passes by like a medium paced train on a rocky terrain, with the Mountain man’s story flashing by at random intervals, lost somewhere amongst all the hullabaloo. Truth be told, few would have been able to tolerate this rocky journey, if it hadn’t been for Nawazuddin Siddiqui’s humbly grand presence, and the curiosity to know the tale behind the Mountain Man. 

Ethan Dynamite - Mission Impossible - Rogue Nation : The Bugle's Verdict

It is impossible for a genuine Hollywood buff to effectively ignore an MI instalment, especially so if they are Tom Cruise fans. Despite the repetitive story layout, and the beaten-to-a-pulp character descriptions, the American James Bond series manages to hold its own in the market, and for obvious reasons.

<GUILTY PLEASURE ALERT>

It’s the same old dynamite stick concept with Rogue Nation: a ticking clock of guns, technology, face masks and crashing BMWs, leading upto the destruction of the plans of a terrorist mastermind.

With Rogue Nation, the MI series takes on the same comic-book-meets-reality action, returning to its roots in the popular television series of the same name, with the introduction of the Syndicate, a nemesis entity for the IMF, which functions exactly opposite to the IMF’s ways.  

The story is familiarly predictable, and the stunts are getting redundant, if not less high-octane. Tom Cruise whips up his most popular persona as Ethan Hunt – a charismatic, sensitive, highly flexible (that came out wrong) super-spy.

At the beginning of the film, a US senator states that the success of Hunt’s missions has always been dependant on sheer luck. It’s funny. He had to wait for 5 films to arrive at this conclusion??

Rebecca Fergusson plays the female lead; a disawowed agent working undercover in the Syndicate. Quite the muscular girl, this one. Her favourite pastime is getting on top of guys. (No really, check out the picture below).

Sorry dude.. You're not my type. 

Fergusson quite ably stands tall next to Tom, often even exceeding him in the testosterone department.

Simon Pegg, Ving Rhames, and Jeremy Renner reprise their roles from previous films, with Alec Baldwin joining the fray as the Director of the CIA.

Sean Harris, Pegg’s rugged, identical twin, plays the antagonist, as the leader of the Syndicate, giving a Bob Biswas kind of villain, who speaks in a raspy voice, and a volume lower than that of a buzzing bee. Half the time, the viewers have to stick their ears out in order to not miss out on the dialogues of the angry, blond mastermind.

Director Christopher McQuarrie, who has frequently collaborated with Cruise on previous projects like the Edge of Tomorrow, Jack Reacher as well as Valkyrie, provides a decent summer action flick (okay, a little off-season).

VERDICT – 3 out of 5 stars

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation picks up on the scabs left behind by the previous films, trying to put out some Cruise pastry, which while not as delicious as expected, lands somewhere close in the ballpark.