A film that begins with an insurgent being tortured into revealing crucial intelligence? Surely they follow that with one of the characters making a speech about the wrongness of torture? What, there isn’t so much as a single line about the futility of torture but instead they portray the torturers sympathetically, as non-sadistic people who take no visible pleasure in their task? There must have been a scene where the victim of torture is revealed to be utterly innocent at the very least, right? Nope, he’s responsible for a terrorist attack. Then there can be no other conclusion except that Zero Dark Thirty is a pro-torture film! 

Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings film trilogy was not perfect– it was disappointing when Faramir went through that weird evil phase or when the hobbits did not get their moment of bravery in the end, but LOTR is tricky source material. Tom Bombadil hey-derry-dolling through the Old Forest would’ve raised eyebrows among Tolkien novitiates. What is important is that PJ’s vision and devotion to the books was true and that’s what makes the trilogy eminently rewatchable (I am one of those rabid fans that rewatches it annually). So you can imagine how excited I was when there was talk about making The Hobbit into a film. I signed the “Let the Hobbit Happen” campaign; I spent hours and hours scouring TOR forums for casting news; I wrote anxious blog posts about the studios’ inability to shoot the movie; I must’ve rewatched the film trailer a few hundred times and yes, in the darkest moments, I doubted PJ’s decision to split the book into three movies.

What I am building up to is the fact that I wrote this review before the film was even made, nay, in that moment when the stars were scattered into space. I utterly loved this movie. I am sad that there will be only 3 and I have to prepare to say goodbye to Middle-earth once again. I am also a little surprised that this film only has a 65% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Too much space has been wasted on discussing the “nausea-inducing” 48 fps format (who ARE these absurd, endolymphically challenged people anyway?). Was it somewhat jarring? Yes, for about 20 minutes. It is mostly forgotten by the time Bilbo is entertaining his dwarf guests. The way these critics have been carrying on about it, why you’d think it signaled the end of the world! The only thing that makes me less angry is that history does not remember the breast-beating Luddites who rued the end of the cave painting era (“Say what you will, but papyrus just doesn’t smell like cave wall”).

Among the many complaints about the LOTR films was how little background was given to the sad story of the Elves and minor characters being left out. Peter heard us. This time around, he gave the dwarfs a rich and textured history. We can no longer think of them as blundering, blustering ale-quaffing comic reliefs. We also finally begin to understand why dwarfs and elves mistrust each other.

A lot has also been said about how the Hobbit is only a 200-page book and how three movies cannot possibly made. See, this is why you shouldn’t trust the critics. Apart from the fact that the film draws from the LOTR appendices, what people don’t realize is that, in the book there are several crucial plot points that are dealt with in less than a paragraph. Take the Necromancer for example: in the book, there is barely any discussion about him even though he is so important to the tale. Can you imagine Gandalf saying, “There’s a Necromancer who has never been mentioned that I have to go defeat or something. Okay toodles have fun on your quest! Try not to get killed!” In a good book you can say, “He was evil and everybody was afraid of him.” In a good movie, you have to show it without saying it.

Is it a detailed and faithful adaptation? Yes. Is it overlong and plodding? Hell no! And I don’t just say this as a Tolkien fan: the movie was well paced with several exciting battles and meditative scenes which raised this film above “action flick” status. The Goblin Town escape and the rock giant scenes were superb (and looked much better in HFR format, might I add). And Andy Serkis had better be nominated for his heartrending portrayal of Gollum. I realized that I had never really understood the line “But mercy stayed Bilbo’s hand,” till I found myself crying in the cinema hall.

A few liberties have been taken (the grave of the Witch-King and Azog, for example) but these only served to make the plot more cohesive. In fact, the film-makers’ eye for detail was obvious by how well they tied the LOTR films with this movie. The best part was how this film was barely about Bilbo and rightly so, because Bilbo takes some time to fit into his role as burglar/hero.  And Thorin! What a glorious heroic dwarf! Never even in my wildest dreams did I think that some day I’d have wild dreams about Thorin. True, Thorin and Co’s avarice has been slightly downplayed; their intention to return to Erebor has been made more noble but if one reads The Hobbit, one does not get a complete sense of how revered Thorin was among the dwarfs. He’s not a very pleasant character; Tolkien merely refers to him as “decent folk”, “arrogant” and of “Durin’s line” and we never understand what that means till the end of the book. It is in LOTR that we understand Thorin’s sad history so I am thankful to PJ for treating these characters with so much respect.

My only concerns are that the dwarf Rings ought to have been mentioned by now and Balin as the Venerable Voice of Wisdom, seeing as Balin was the foolhardy dwarf who rushed off to reconquer Moria with a laughably small army a few decades later. Then again, people change and there are two whole movies left so I’ll save my questions for the end of the class.

I can see why some have said that this film is inaccessible to non-fans. Gondolin blades are bandied about without telling us what Gondolin is; we aren’t told why it is shocking that Belladonna Took’s son should good-morning Gandalf. But these little things are meant for the enjoyment of fans and do not materially affect the understanding of the plot. It is possible that the reduced plot exposition may have left some moviegoers puzzled but I don’t care because PJ made this film for me. If people refuse to improve their lives by reading Tolkien’s books, they don’t deserve this film.

That’s right folks, it’s that time of the year when Lekha and Danish furiously research IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes to bring to you our Annual Top Ten Movie List!

2012 was a very busy year for me and I did not watch all the movies I wanted to. It was also a pretty unremarkable year in film. All the big, well-advertised films did as expected, but there were such few films where you went in not knowing what to expect and came out as a different person. Still, there were plenty that thrilled. We’ve linked to the reviews that we wrote so you can read them again:

DANISH:

1. Cloud Altas: The best book adaptation of all time, and quite possibly one of my new all time favourites, there are so many reasons to love this movie. It is ambitious on a level that few films today are – whether it be in the manner in which it plays with narrative, toys with language,  or attempts to cast the same actors across six roles in six timelines and then somehow forge a connection between them. Most daring of all though, is the way it keeps its uncynical heart on its sleeve, culminating in a climax that is almost unbearingly moving. Once again, Cloud Altas is what I go to the movies for.

2. Kahaani: Satisfying in a way that few mystery thrillers are any more. A great, labyrinthine plot is aided by a constantly menacing sense of atmosphere and that fierce central performance by Vidya Balan. Throw in one of the great all-time Bollywood villains and that fantastic plot twist, and Kahaani rockets its way to cinematic greatness.

3. Damsels in Distress: If the first two movies on this list can list narrative strength as their USP, Damsels in Distress coasts by with barely a plot at all. A new girl is befriended by three strong willed women at a college. Their project: save people, and volunteer at the suicide prevention centre. Their chosen method: tap dancing, and at some point, inventing a new international dance craze. From this premise, the film just sort of coasts. But it coasts with dialogue worthy of early Woody Allen, a cast that is utterly charming and a sense of such joyous quirk that I couldn’t help but grin through all of it. A trifle, but a great one.

4.  Eega: When I first saw the trailer, I knew I had to watch this movie, simply for how ridiculous the premise looked. I mean come on, guy loves girl, gets killed by another guy, is reincarnated as a fly, and exacts revenge. Also, the film was in Telegu, without subtitles, but who needed plot when all we were going to do was laugh at its inanity? Instead, turns out that Eega was one of the most inventive, witty and thrilling movies of the year, one that somehow managed to make an endearing, expressive character out of a computer generated fly and gave us a satisfyingly bloody revenge saga.

5. Chronicle: If you thought the found footage genre was done to death – and I know I did – along came this movie about three teenagers gaining telekinetic abilities that blew me away. What elevates the thrilling script is the manner in which the direction actually elevates the visual effects – as a critic noted, this movie somehow made special effects feel special again. The best example of this is a mid film sequence where a plane whizzes by our airborne heroes accompanied by the squeal of the audience.

6. Keep the Lights On: Amongst the best gay cinema I’ve seen in a while, the movie follows the course of a relationship that’s marred superficially by alcohol dependence, but is really struggling with the larger problems of an emotional incompatibility. Dropping in on a couple at different moments of their slowly fraying relationship, there is a searingly powerful quality to the way the movie captures the growth and loss of intimacy between two men. It’s the kind of gay cinema we need now, one that moves beyond a pre-occupation with questions about coming out or even homosexuality as such, but also stops short of simply inserting two gay men into a heterosexual story.

7. Ruby Sparks: What would you do if you wrote about the person of your dreams – and they came to life? Made by the people who brought us Little Miss Sunshine, Ruby Sparks starts with this interesting enough premise and then turns it into a fascinating exploration of what it means for us to even try to seek that perfect person. Its helped along by a typically low key performance by Paul Dano, and the refusal of the script to give us any easy answers.

8. English Vinglish: Sure its predictable, but it doesn’t this movie from being utterly charming. Anchored by a great performance by Sridevi, but also aided by the underrated and really quite fantastic ensemble, English Vinglish is a heartwarming winner.

9. Life of Pi: If Life of Pi had somehow just been about that middle hour in the sea, it would’ve easily made it to my top 3. These are visually stunning and viscerally terrifying sequences, aided by Ang Lee’s excellent dialogue-less direction for the greater part of the hour. What isn’t all that great is the faux-spirituality that opens and closes the movie, the ham-handed “Is there a God?” existentialism that we’re essentially force fed, the often clunky dialogue writing. They rob a hypnotic movie of some of its power. Thank god (ha) for Richard Parker then.

10. Skyfall and  Cabin in the Woods: Two “genre” movies make my final cut, in part because they’re sneakily not genre movies at all. Skyfall starts off as your typical Bond movie, but then takes a surprisingly moving detour into becoming a deconstruction of the role of intelligence agencies in general, and this man in particular. Judi Dench’s M gets an extended role becoming the movie’s Bond girl in a way, and the visuals – ranging from a laser light drenched silhouetted fight, to a bleak orange-fire burnished landscape finale – are stunning.

Cabin in the Woods is one of the best horror movies I’ve seen, mostly because it also manages to take a detour into becoming a question about why we indulge in a genre at all. With a crackling script by Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard, Cabin in the Woods deconstructs and scares in equal measure. It also has a murderous unicorn, which single-handedly (single-horndedly?) earns it its place.

Other Mentions:

Best Movie I watched this year that wasn’t released in 2012: Chungking Express

Biggest Disappointment of the Year: The Dark Knight Rises

Most Rewatched Movie of the Year: Pitch Perfect (Glee with acapella, whee!)

Best first-half that is unable to sustain itself: Prometheus

Most purely entertaining movie of the Year, that I can’t objectively call “good”: Aiyyaa

Worst Movie of the Year: Dark Shadows, tied with the thankfully little-seen The Tall Man

Not seen at the time of writing but would possibly make it to this list: Django Unchained, Les Miserables, Zero Dark Thirty.

LEKHA:

10. The Dark Knight Rises: Never has the weak, maskless alter ego been so brutally examined in the superhero genre. While some did not think of it as a worthy successor to The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises was a fitting conclusion to Nolan’s superb Batman trilogy with fantastic performances by Joseph Gordon-Lewitt, Tom Hardy and Marion Cotillard. Besides, we have this series to thank for the upcoming gritty, red underwearless Superman film.

9. Gangs of Wasseypur:  At once a hilarious take on cinema’s effect on the Indian masses and a documentary of India’s dark coal legacy and the dramatic tale of a family and a film that required one to carry a slang dictionary, Gangs of Wasseypur was easily one of the best Indian films this year with scintillating dialogue pulled off with ease by actors like Manoj Bajpai, Nawazuddin Siddiqui and the well-chosen supporting actors.

8. Looper:  Of all the things one could possibly use time travel for, trust futuristic crime gangs to use it to send their victims back in time to be murdered and disposed off. Like any good time travel film, Looper kept you on the edge of your seat and had a climax that you never saw coming. Of course it had a few loopholes but nitpicking is so passé.

7. Lincoln:  I don’t mind admitting that despite its heavy-handed editing of historical events and unnecessarily dramatic courtroom scenes,Steven Spielberg’s Amistad is one of my all-time favourite films. Spielberg returns to what he does best with this biopic of Abraham Lincoln’s final days. Daniel Day-Lewis is precise as ever, with his deliberate speech and ability to fascinate and irritate audience with the neverending anecdotes and quotes. It’s films like these that make you want to beseech god to bless America.

6. Life of Pi:  It’s a common complaint that since Avatar, few films have truly captured the magnificence of 3D. Life of Pi brought the magic back with jaw dropping vistas of oceans, thunderstorms, jelly fish, whales and night skies that will make you believe the film’s theist message. The dialogue may have been a bit clunky and overwrought but who’s listen when your eyes are treated to such a visual spectacle?

5. Chronicle:  If this is what the superhero genre is going to look like once they run out of comic books, then the genre is in safe hands. Chronicle tells the story of three high school students bestowed with superpowers and will leave you thinking about it for days after.

4. Moonrise Kingdom:  As Wes Andersononian as a Wes Anderson film can get, Moonrise Kingdom was a delight to watch! It was hilarious, funny and touching. Yes, it was what one may call quirky, but not in that contrived Zooey Deschanel way. And Edward Norton had better get a supporting actor nomination for this.

3. Frankenweenie:  Wes Anderson and Tim Burton are two of the most scorned directors today because they happen to love certain motifs. Frankenweenie, a remake of Burton’s 1984 film had all the swirls, ghouls and zombies that one expects in a Burton film but did it feel like we had seen it all before? Not in the least. This was Burton’s loving tribute to the horror film genre and if anything, reminds us why Burton is still at the top of his game.

2. The Avengers:  Dark and gloomy superheroes with dead parents? No thanks. Give us lots of superheroes, explosions and side-splittingly funny lines with a side of The Hulk. Hurry up with the sequel, Marvel Studios!

1. The Hobbit:  Peter Jackson returns to Middle-earth with this superb and faithful adaptation of the book. Initially, I wasn’t convinced by the decision to split the book into three parts, but now I can see why it made sense and cant wait for part 2 and 3. While there has been some mixed reviews over the format and the length of the film, it remained true to the Tolkienian ethos and honestly, I don’t know why anybody would want to complain about spending 9 gloriously immersive hours in Middle-earth.

Honourable Mentions:

To Rome with Love: A quintessentially Woody script that only suffered from the lack of an overarching theme.

Skyfall: Gritty Bond is fine, but why did they just film The Dark Knight Rises but with guns and Aston Martins?

English Vinglish: An adorable if mildly cliche-ridden film that was was a joy to watch.

Films that are great for a Boring Saturday Night, even if they aren’t great films:

Argo: Look, it was suspenseful and historically accurate and everything, but it is strictly watch on Star Movies at 9 pm stuff.

Men in Black 3: Josh Brolin’s awesome Tommy Lee impression is reason enough!
Films that could have been great, but lacked a certain je-ne-sais-quoi:

The Amazing Spider Man: It wasn’t that it lacked good actors or a solid script, but this film did not manage to justify a remake so soon after the Sam Raimi trilogy.

Dark Shadows: Burton sure knows how to weave the macabre with the funny but it lacked that Burton quality that makes us shiver and weep and laugh at the same time.

Film that I loved even though, in my heart of hearts, I know that it was not a very good film:

John Carter: I’ve already defended this film like it was my first born, so you can just read it here.

Criminal wastes of time and money for everybody concerned:

Snow White and the Huntsman: I don’t want to be a part of the Kristen Stewart Hate Wagon, but my god, she’s a terrible actor who did her best to commit to a godawful script.

Barfi!: I didn’t hate it with a vengeance immediately after I watched it. But now that I’ve seen what 2012 has had to offer, the fact that Barfi was India’s official Oscar entry just makes me hate it with a passion.

Have a great 2013, folks! May all your Oscar bets bring you money (unless you differ in opinion from us, of course).

OR READ ARGHYA’S SPOILER-RIDDEN REVIEW**

Hell hath no fury like a moviegoer baited into watching a film genre he/she wasn’t expecting. If you buy a ticket for what you think is going to be a sappy romcom, it had better be a goddamn sappy romcom. The verdict on Talaash is in: a meditative murder mystery film ruined by an ending that belonged in a different genre.  According to some unwritten rule of movie making, you can’t put ghosts in a murder mystery because that’s just cheating.

I am reminded of the utter fury people expressed when Sweeney Todd, which purported to be a gory film about a murderous barber who ate people, also had songs in it. Now nobody said that the film didn’t have the blood and gore it promised; what they objected to was the songs, which, according to some other unwritten rule is incompatible with gore. How could the film-makers DO that to them? The audacity!

Now there is no doubt that there are many films that are deliberately mismarketed because studio executives realized that pretending that a movie belongs to a more profitable genre has box office benefits and I can understand why some feel all cut up about this.  When you’ve had a terrible day at work and just want a sexy assassin to unleash a sexy hailstorm of bullets upon all who stand in his way and instead, you get George Clooney being all pouty and introspective about his sad assassin life… well, that’s just inconsiderate.  Several perfectly good movies end up doing badly because of this trailer manipulation and moviegoers feeling too cheated to buy more tickets, I guess.  That said, mismarketed films do not deserve the hate they get.  Oh sure, you may not get what you were expecting, but does it really matter if the end product is quality stuff?

In any case, there’s such a world of difference between these mismarketed movies and Talaash. Yes, I am one of the few who actually enjoyed the film, ending and all. Talaash‘s murder mystery trailer was no sinister trick by the marketing department to dupe an unsuspecting movie audience, but was a crucial part of the plot.  Really, there was no way they could’ve possibly sold this as a supernatural film without defeating the entire purpose.

Yes yes, but it’s such a cop out to say “Ghosts did it!” I hear you say.  The whole point of a murder mystery is to give the audience a chance to guess who the killer might be.  I’d agree with you if the supernatural twist came out of left field and was a complete deus ex machina, but it wasn’t. There were more than enough clues that many astute movie watchers caught (no, I’m not one of them, I connected the dots far too late) and the twist ending wasn’t even the best part of the film. That came after the movie, when I sat in the car with a friend and we went over every scene of the movie and thought, “Ohhh, now it all makes sense!” Categorizing a film as ‘horror/thriller’ immediately makes people expect things like creepy music, howling dogs or lonely roads and they’re such overused motifs that they have lost their element of surprise.  On the other hand, put them in a murder mystery genre film, with a typical emotionally damaged cop  and your skin gets all goosebumpy without your realizing it.

And it all fit in beautifully. Not an element was out of place.  Oh sure, some might say that the whole supernatural stuff could’ve been more subtle and Sixth Sense-y but that’s just quibbling.  Talaash had a great plot, fantastic characters that mingled the ‘action’ elements so well with the dramatic.  Another solid victory in Talaash‘s pocket was its depiction of Bombay.  We’ve had a rash of artistically gritty films off late that have raised the bar so high for painting Bombay’s seedy underbelly of pimps and prostitutes that Talaash could have easily looked derivative. Wry humour and the complete lack of preachiness (and that super creepy undertone) set this film apart.

If I had a complaint, it would be that Rani Mukherji’s character did not get as much development as the others.  She was rather one-dimensional, despite her best efforts to do more with the script. Which is why Talaash deserves a sequel but this time, Aamir Khan knows that ghosts exist and has to pursue the paranormal clues as well.  They can bring the plot forward by killing off Rani Mukherji… at the hand of Frenny… who turns out to be a big ol’ fraud… and is desperately in love with Aamir.  This stuff is writing itself!

On a side note, it is entirely possible that I enjoyed this film thoroughly because I watched it from the comfort of a La-Z-Boy recliner with a warm blanket because you know how cold movie halls can get. Arghya, you might want to try it too: you’ll find that most movies are fragrant when your seat has a button to summon a waiter.

Most people who grew up in the 80s or 90s will fondly remember the British TV show, “Mind Your Language“.  The show hasn’t aged too well unfortunately, what with all the racist stereotyping and today,  its worth is only nostalgic.  I often wondered how a remake of the TV show might fare in the thicket of PC rules we have today.  Thanks to English Vinglish, we have an answer:  very well indeed!  In addition to the predictable array of misspoken English jokes, this film beautifully portrayed how wide that gulf of language can be.  English isn’t just a spoken language with rules of grammar and punctuation, we were reminded, but is also a culture.

Sridevi plays a typical Marathi housewife who finds herself increasingly alienated from her children and husband who all speak fluent English.  They “lovingly” mock her for her mispronunciations and are visibly embarrassed by her.  During a lengthy visit to the US to help her sister prepare for her niece’s wedding, she can no longer bear the alienation caused by the language and signs up for an English crash course. There she meets a motley crew of foreigners who want to learn English for their own personal quests.  Her quest is for a little r-e-s-p-e-c-t from the loved ones.  On the surface, the English class is composed of stereotypes: the Mexican nanny, the Pakistani taxi driver, the Tamil software engineer, the middle-class housewife etc.  But as we get to know Sridevi better and realize that there is no such thing as a “typical housewife”, we understand that these characters also want to escape from the pigeonholes they have been put in.  And they share such a great camaraderie that one does not even notice the “I like Rajnikanth and idli” cliches.

Much has been said about Sridevi’s comeback so I wont say much more except to add my adulation.  The movie rested entirely on her shoulders and she pulled it off with such grace that it is not surprising that men still have her poster up on their walls.  And her sarees!  Appropriately dressed-down enough to be credible as a housewife’s daily wardrobe, but so colourful and elegant.  Britney Spears, THIS is what a comeback looks like.

Anybody who has ever been to a foreign country will know how terrifying it can be to do as the locals do.  Even a visit to the supermarket or a restaurant is fraught with fears:  am I doing it correctly?  Have I committed a faux pas? And if something goes even slightly wrong,  mouth goes dry, everything in front of your eyes start swimming,  sound is muted and all you can hear is your pounding heart.  If you don’t speak the language, so much the worse for you.  English Vinglish portrayed this feeling so well in a scene where Sridevi tries to order a sandwich and it was so taut with humour, confusion and mortification that it has to have been based on a real life experience.

But strangers aside, this film beautifully handled that generation gap issue:  parents whose children not only speak English at home but whose tastes have grown so alien to their parents.  I remember the first time my family ordered pizza from the newly-opened Pizza Hut (at my sibling’s and my insistence). We’d heard so much about this dish from the sitcoms we were addicted to, that it HAD to taste amazing, surely?  We picked one that didn’t have any mushrooms (because mushrooms are a gateway meat according to my parents).  Apart from complaining about the cost, my parents’ view on pizza was, “too much garlic“.  Since then,  pizza became one of those mysterious things that the children liked for no apparent reason but something they lovingly tolerated.  So too does Sridevi lovingly tolerate trips to the cafe with boys and jazz dance classes, but what she won’t tolerate is her daughter’s assumption that these interests are somehow better than Hindi and laddoos.

I had two problems with the film though.  First, those absurd, jingoistic, we-are-better-than-USA jokes had no place in a film with such a strong script.  Second, I took issue with the total effacement of Sridevi’s needs.  All she wanted from her family was some respect and recognition of what she does for them and completely puts their needs before her’s.  Children, I can understand, but even the needs of her uncaring, somewhat douchy husband? I don’t get that.  I understand that this is supposed to represent the reality of housewives, but her utter lack of any sexual desire or temptation to cheat did her character a disservice and bought into that ‘Indian women are so selfless and awesome that they would never so much as look at a man other than their husband, even if a caring, gorgeous Frenchman threw himself at them’ cliche.  But these are tiny, overlook-able defects in an otherwise wonderful film.

(My mother’s verdict on the film, “Yes, you were an insufferable brat too. Sridevi’s ability to emote has diminished considerably.  Must be botox.”)

All superheroes are ultimately tragic characters. Most of them lost their parents in terrible circumstances;  others lost their entire planet. Oh, Marvel may put a happy spin on things with wise-cracking alcoholic superheroes, but donning a mask and cape and saving hapless women from rapists makes for a lonely life.  But few superheroes have fared better from a gritty reboot than the Batman.  The adoption of his phobia as his symbol, the filth of the city of Gotham and the excellent decision to omit the placement of underwear over tights have all helped make the gritty reboot a thing.  It has fared so well that the Bat Nipples are now forgiven and nearly obscured from memory.

The Dark Knight Rises brings Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy to a close. It began with Bruce Wayne’s childhood trauma of losing his parents, his rise through the ranks of the League of Shadows, him defending Gotham against all manner of evil, whether or not it wanted him to and then saving Gotham again from the clutches of The Joker.  The Dark Knight now occupies the place of the superhero movie that was so good that its sequel could never hope to top it (?)

Now everybody wants to know if it was as good as The Dark Knight  and there are the inevitable comparisons between The Joker and Bane.  This is where most people will fall in two categories:  people who have invested so much love and time in TDK that TDKR will be loved regardless and people who have raised their expectations so high that anything short of  Greatest Movie Ever Made On the Planet Till Forever More will be loathed.  And as much as I believe that a series should be judged in its entirety,  everybody knows that the second movie in a trilogy is (sometimes) ALWAYS the best and then there’s the Dreaded Curse of the Third Film.  Once you have a bad third film, the entire series is just tainted.  Is there anyone who can say “Spiderman Trilogy” or “Matrix Trilogy” without looking nauseated?

Despite having so much riding on this film,  Nolan’s Batman series shrugged off that curse and TDKR provided a fitting conclusion to the series.  It wasn’t perfect, but then, neither was The Dark Knight.  Seriously, what was that ending?  Why did Batman have to take the fall for Dent’s death? If they really and truly wanted a martyr, why couldn’t they have just put out a story that the Joker killed him or that he died from septicaemia?  In the words of one inimitable Supreme Court advocate, “[because] Batman is a drama queen.”

At the end of The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne set aside his Batman persona and let the memory of Harvey Dent’s idealism and Giuliani-ness save the city and clean the streets off the mafia gangs.  8 years after Harvey’s death, Bruce Wayne is no longer Batman; he’s a broken man mourning the loss of his love, Rachel Dawes.  But he must once again put on his Batsuit and save the city from a new kind of evil: a deliberate, precise and cold brute of a man, Bane and his ruthless team of sycophants who are intent on finishing Ra’as Al-Ghul’s pet project: destroying Gotham city.

Bane was a fantastic character and Tom Hardy played him so convincingly.  Where the Joker was insane and unsettling,  Bane is just flat out terrifying.  He is insurmountably strong and his brawny physique is complemented by his calm, deliberate and calculated speech.  His first fight with Batman was gut-wrenchingly visceral and ups his respect level considerably.  Hardy is a fine lesson to actors that you can have your face obscured for an entire film and still manage to be memorable.  Unfortunately, the character was let down by a weak ending which took away from all his strengths while adding little to his character.  In any case, a weak Bane story line did not ruin the film because he was not as central to this film as the Joker was to the last.  Joker’s story arc was to remind Batman that there is a yin to every yang; that there is no Batman without the Joker and no Joker without the Batman.

On the other hand, this film went back to some of the unanswered questions from Batman Begins.  Are Batman and Bruce Wayne two different people? Does Gotham need Batman?  The Bruce Wayne from the first film was a vengeful man who wanted to clean the streets of Gotham because his parents died at the hands of a common criminal.  But the Bruce Wayne we see now, almost a decade later is old and weary.  His thirst for vengeance brought him nothing except more loss. His alter ego wasn’t stopping crime as much as it was creating other crazies in masks.  While he no longer doubts whether or not Gotham needs a Batman, Bruce finally begins to question his need to be Batman.

As for Catwoman, full disclosure: I cant stand Anne Hathaway. I did my best to be unbiased but have you met a more yawnworthy Catwoman?  Oh, I’m glad she wasn’t licked back to life cats or something, but she was just so goddamn boring and without individuality.  Even her fight sequences were boring.  Apart from one or two good lines, she would’ve been completely lost in the epicness of the film if it wasn’t for the fact that she was wearing a latex suit and was straddling a bike in a way that only Megan Fox could (Transformers). I get that they didn’t want to festishize her like Michelle Pfeiffer but girlfriend’s already got the skintight suit, red lipstick and mask, might as well make her purr her lines.  Joseph Gordon-Lewitt on the other hand!  Now there’s a side-character who managed to stand out.  He wasn’t just the young idealist foil to Gordon/Batman’s jaded veteran: he managed to combine Bruce Wayne’s anger and Commissioner Gordon’s composure and forged a very interesting, earnest character.  I can’t wait to see more of Gordon-Lewitt in movies that aren’t 500 Days of Summer.

There were also a few ridiculous things which are to be expected in a film about masked vigilantes like a scene where Batman takes the time to rig up a large-scale pyrotechnic marvel of a Bat symbol while Gotham is being ripped to shreds.  Was it awesome? Yes.  Was it symbolically relevant to the plot? Sure!  Did I cheer and clap like mad when it was lit up? Of course.  One merely questions the timing of setting it up, that’s all.  And while I enjoyed the nail-biting climax, the cool new gadgets and superb subplots and side-characters like Gordon, the conclusion to Bruce Wayne’s story arc was supremely out of character, unsatisfying and totally unnecessary.  You may disagree, but never forget that Conservapedia has now claimed this film as one of its Greatest Conservative Films (apparently because it correctly portrays those Occupy Wall Street hippies as thugs and murderers). Yup, right up there with those other famous conservative classics like Ghostbusters and The Lord of the Rings. 

Also, the reboot has been announced.

]]> http://www.criticaltwenties.in/mediapopularculture/the-dark-knight-rises-2012/feed 6 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/mediapopularculture/the-best-exotic-marigold-hotel-2012 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/mediapopularculture/the-best-exotic-marigold-hotel-2012#comments Fri, 01 Jun 2012 12:26:51 +0000 Lekha http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=4932

There is a degree of stereotyping that comes with foreign films about India. Just as Parisians must accept accordion music and sweeping shots of the Eiffel Tower with a c’est la vie attitude, I too have come to accept the trite call-centre/elephant/bazaar scenes as unavoidable.  Without these cliches, no doubt foreign audiences would rise up in protest at having been cheated out of their money’s worth of camels and havelis.  Which is why, my only yardstick for judging the merit of a film set in India is whether nor not the film  manages to disentangle itself from the colour and the confusion of India that film-makers are so enamoured by, and whether they allow their characters to be more than National Geographic narrators.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel tells the story of seven British senior citizens who find themselves on a one-way journey to Jaipur for a variety of reasons.  Some are lonely, some still crave adventure, some need surgery, some have no money to live in England and others are on a personal quest.  They find themselves in a ramshackle hotel run by Dev Patel, who is also on a quest of his own: proving his worth to his family.  The seven seniors are played by a stellar cast:  Maggie Smith, Judi Dench, Tom Wilkinson, Bill Nighy, Ronald Pickup, Celia Imrie and Penelope Wilton. Yes, that’s pretty much 80% of the Britain’s Greatest Actors List.  And by God, they have proved why they’re so deserving of their numerous awards and orders of chivalry  (fun fact: there are 2 DBEs, 1 CBE and 1 OBE among them).  While it takes a director with great restraint to stop himself from making a self-indulgent film filled with long shots of palaces and elephants, scenes of characters oohing and aahing palaces and poverty and spouting patronizing dialogue about India’s rich and poor divide, it also takes strong actors to take command of their characters and really internalize their histories.

But why oh why would they ruin this movie by putting Dev Patel in it?  Every single scene with him was irritating and completely unnecessary.  His scenes with Lillette Dubey tested my patience to the utmost. I was willing to forgive this film for all its cliches, except for the big fat cliche that is Dev Patel’s story arc:  he proves himself at his job and marries the girl of his dreams. His mommy doesn’t approve.  No, really. That’s all there is.

On the other hand, Tom Wilkinson got to be a retired High Court judge who goes to India to look for his gay lover from his youth.  Maggie Smith was brilliant as a retired housekeeper battling with feeling irrelevant and her friendship with the servant at the hotel was such a natural progression.  Or Penelope Wilton, who just plain hates India: she is a perfect foil for all the tourists who are so amazed by the dust and colours while she only has eyes for the dirt and squalor. Despite playing such a disagreeable character, she manged to bring empathy and realism to her role.   And Bill Nighy!  Full disclosure: I am a little bit in love with him but that doesn’t mean that his idealism and humour wasn’t wonderful to behold. His ability to take so much pleasure in being able to fix a faucet or being able to bargain for a scarf or visiting an ancient temple may have been a bit too Incredible India! for some, but I thought his character worked perfectly in the ensemble.  The others had such sadness, longing and even bitterness in them that one needs  a Bill Nighy to remind us that one’s daughter may lose all your life savings in an ill-advised internet project but hope springs eternal.  Of course, one also needs a Ronald Pickup to remind us that there are those who are 70 years old and don’t need Viagra.

But Dev Patel.  Dev Goddamned Patel.  Every time I think of the movie and some nice line that Judi Dench spouted (as the resident narrator),  I think of Dev Patel’s smirk and his accent and am filled with blood lust.   The fact that the climax of the film was centred around him, his insipid girlfriend and annoying mother came very close to ruining the film for me.  And why did his girlfriend have to work in a call centre? She could’ve been an accountant, a salesgirl or a hedge fund managed but no, they HAD to make her a goddamn call centre employee who conveniently enough, needed to be taught about Britain by Judi Dench.  But then, Penelope Wilton snapping at Bill Nighy and telling him, “When I want your opinion, I’ll give it to you!” was priceless and saved the film.  Perhaps the ending was a little too neatly tied up, but who doesn’t love a happy ending?  All in all, A for effort.

About six hours after watching this movie, I had a flight to catch at 6 am.  My sleepy, bleary-eyed cousin kept vigil with me while waiting for the taxi when he said, “I’ve been thinking about it. You know that scene when J and K …. <spoilers>?“

Right there. That’s the sign of a time travel film worth its salt: one that keeps you looking for inconsistencies, for how-did-they-do-thats and makes you constantly revisit the film. But at the other end of the spectrum you have those films that use time travel as a plot devise and then lazily ignore it once it has done its job (I’m looking at you, Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban).   Time travel may not have been the centrepiece of MIB III, but I’m so glad they spent enough time on a decent screenwriter to cover (most of) the plot holes.  Of course there were inconsistencies. Even my favourite time travel film is riddled with those, but in a well-made film those are less of an annoyance because there is so much more to these movies.  With humour, a fantastically gross villain and surprisingly good 3D effects, MIB III succeeded in doing just that.

Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones don their black suits and sunglasses and take on alien criminals and scumbags for the third time.  Time travel plot line aside, was MIB III worth the decade-long wait? Did I want to be neuralysed after watching the film?  Do I want to go back in time and stop the sequel from being made?  As you can see, this post would have been far more fun to write if I hated the movie but no such luck.  It was a funny, well-made film with super action scenes, 3D that wasn’t just an excuse to plunder my wallet and a fabulous revelation known as Josh Brolin.

12 years have passed since Agent J (Will Smith) joined the Men in Black. He is now a Class 1 Senior Agent, but it still rankles that Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) isn’t forthcoming and honest with him. And then they find out that the crazy powerful alien Boris the Animal has escaped from prison and is determined to never be caught again, even in the past.  He goes back in time to prevent K from ever capturing him and it is up to J to go back in time as well to prevent this from happening…. and yeah yeah, enough of this.  Let’s talk about Josh Brolin.

JOSH BROLIN! He plays a young Agent K and what a fantastic job he does.  Not only does he manage to get Tommy Lee Jones’ mannerisms down to a pat, but he also interprets the character as he may he been in his youth before he forgot to stop and just look at the stars, a time when a romance didn’t seem altogether unrealistic. The imitation was flawless and totally believable, but without caricaturing Tommy Lee Jones and that, I think was the challenge.  The comparison to dour, old, present-day K may be funny but one can’t forget how critical J is to that comparison. J is a man who never lost his sense of humour or wide-eyed idealism even 12 years after hunting down alien smugglers and slimebeasts, unlike K who built a fortress of cold rationality around him.  This gave the scenes with Josh Brolin and Will Smith a lot more depth and their camaraderie was fantastic.

The great cast was supported by a really, really funny script that took plenty of digs at ’60s racist America and hippies and reminded us why we fell in love with the MIB series in the first place. Oh I know I’m in a minority but I thoroughly enjoyed MIB II (even though the de-neuralyser machine seemed like a bit of a cop-out). I was also pleased to note that there were few references to the old films and almost zero rehashed jokes. Just for not making me sit through scenes with that irritating talking dog, this film gets my vote.

Many feel that Tim Burton has become a bit of a one-trick pony; that the whimsical genius behind Big Fish (2003), Edward Scissorhands (1990) and Beetlejuice (1988) has been replaced by a hack with a fetish for checks, swirls and Johnny Depp.  More specifically, Johnny Depp wearing white makeup and doing crazy things with Helena Bonham Carter sporting a crazy ‘do.  They also say that Burton’s typical weird world stories of monsters-that-are-misunderstood are becoming a bit of cliche.  They say that slapping on funny wigs and paint on actors with some creepy Danny Elfman music has been done and done and then done again in every single one of his earlier films.  Be it visual imagery or plot progression, we’ve seen it all (they say).

But allow me to make a case for Burton’s films.  Sure, most of them bear common motifs and trademarks, and many of them (Alice in Wonderland (2010), Planet of the Apes (2001)) cannot hope to be rescued by this apology but all his films are not cut from the same cloth, despite what popular opinion may claim.

Burton’s latest film, Dark Shadows (2012) has been accused of all of the above and panned universally.  Dark Shadows is about a rich philanderer, Barnabas Collins who philanders with the wrong girl, a witch named Angelique who curses him to an eternity in a box as a blood-thirsting vampire. He suffers for two centuries of painful solitude when he is accidentally released in the year 1972.  Imagine that.  To have to suffer the hell of isolation and and then to be subjected to hippies and disco.

Barnabas finds that even though they’re a bit low on fortune, his descendants have persisted in the grand old Collins manor.  But so has Angelique and her thirst for revenge.

The so-called Burton cliches of precocious children with a taste for the weird, Depp as an awkward fish-out-of-water fellow, Helena Bonham Carter in a funny wig and monsters with a heart of gold … are only what anti-Burtons see.  I saw one of the silver screen’s few vampires who is troubled by his eternal existence, who really feels the weight of the centuries on his shoulders, who grasps the meaning of “forever” and is terrified by the knowledge.  I saw Depp’s white face paint and anachronism, but I also saw a bloodthirsty creature unable to control itself.  I saw the beautiful Angelique who wasn’t a misunderstood monster… unless that is, you mistook her for someone who plays nice and doesn’t hold grudges. Even her ability to love is so gloriously twisted.  I saw Roger Collins, who uses his son as a lookout while he screws the coat check lady.  Or the quintessential Burton heroine, the sane-insane Victoria, who sees ghosts.  They’re a wonderful menagerie of well-developed characters, but do they make a wonderful story together?  Let’s put it this way: it isn’t the greatest epic story ever told or even Burton’s best film, but with the help of hilarious dialogue, AWESOME ’70s music that is surprisingly appropriate, Depp’s ability to get angsty without getting maudlin and some serious WTF moments, Burton weaves together an amusing Gothic soap opera that treats its characters with respect without taking itself too seriously.  It certainly doesn’t deserve the flak it’s getting.

That’s all very well, you say, but what about those very relevant criticisms levelled by Burton notfans?  To that I must ask you, are those criticisms REALLY criticisms or are Burton’s naysayers behaving like the pitchfork wielding townspeople in a Burton film, who don’t understand that it takes all kinds to make the world?  Yes, it’s a bit meta and I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out that we’re all actually characters in a Burton film and our supposed normalcy is the source of much horror and nervous mirth for an audience somewhere… but bear with me.

One does not say that Martin Scorsese is a one trick pony because of his numerous depictions of mafia, women in white dresses and overuse of Robert DeNiro/ Leonardo Dicaprio.  Many directors have this tendency of latching onto an actor and that shouldn’t automatically disqualify Tim Burton from among the most talented directors we have today.  Does anybody think that Raphael was a hack because he regularly milked the ‘soft shadows/ light reflective colours’ cow?   Well, the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood thought so, but nobody cares about them.

Artists have trademarks, artists tend to go back to things they have done before, to actors and muses they enjoyed working with, artists are constantly reworking and polishing their craft and yes, often fall back on things that have worked well in the past.  One can’t fault Woody Allen for making awesome, cerebral films about love and marriage and one can’t fault Burton for his desire to drag ogres and all manner of beings from the shadows and onto the silver screen. I mean, he is practically the latter-day J.M. Barrie.  If creaky, uneven stairs get your pulse racing and you are on first name basis with the monsters under your bed, then you will never tire of Burton.   If Edgar Allan Poe had to clamour for attention with  ’Go Jane, Go’, then possibly, you may not enjoy every one of Burton’s films.

Tim Burton has struck his colours and they are checks, spirals, fog and gorgeously warped monsters. If you don’t like it, then by all means follow the direction the bony, moss-covered hand is pointing at: it will lead you out of that creaky door (with a gargoyle for a knob) of the crumbling old, ivy-covered mansion and off the nearest wind-swept, brambly cliff.

Admit it.  You thought this film was going to be a self-indulgent Robert Downey Jr vehicle.  I was certain that Downey, being the most bankable star in the group would get all the limelight with some obligatory Scarlett Johansson cleavage and 30 seconds for everybody else. I expected bloated egos, one-upmanship between the A-listers, unnecessarily messy action sequences and a surfeit of CGI.  Ensemble casts can be tricky, especially when everybody in the ensemble has already had a taste of the top billing pie.  Either the actors stick around just long enough to pick up their cheques or they’re fighting each other for our attention.  Fortunately, this IS Joss Whedon we’re dealing with. A man who understand superheroes (The Astonishing X-Men) and how to bring it (Buffy the Vampire Slayer).

After five films’ worth of teasers, The Avengers film puts together the biggest and badassiest of Marvel’s superheroes.  The covert organisation S.H.I.E.L.D. is attempting to harness energy from a mysterious object, the tesseract. The tesseract opens a doorway to Loki, Thor’s evil brother who arrives on Earth, bent on wreaking destruction with the help of his mindlessly evil alien army.   In the face of certain destruction of the planet, Nick Fury, the director of S.H.I.E.L.D. decides to restart a once-abandoned scheme: The Avengers Initiative.  Abandoning that scheme was possibly the only sensible thing ever done by S.H.I.E.L.D.:  I mean, who in their right minds would put an angry/ strong green giant, a demigod of Asgard, a genetically engineered man from the 40s, a megalomaniac who hates playing by the rules and a couple of sexy assassin-spies in the same room and expect them to play nice?  Fortunately for us, S.H.I.E.L.D. values mega-awesome Iron Man v. Thor v. Captain America fight sequences over logic and prudence.

The best thing about this film is that there was none of that tedious origin stuff which is so popular these days because even superhero movies now have a chance at the Oscars.  Every single motif in the film: the heroes, the villain, the plot helper-alongers and the Macguffin are from previous films.  So they basically had to fill two hours with superhero banter,  well choreographed fight sequences and mind-blowing alien ship explosions. Check, check and CHECK! But action scenes aside, Joss Whedon and his screenwriters’ homework has paid off: they really understood their characters and their origins.  That said, the comic book references never became excessive or irritating. This film also managed to give far, far more depth to The Hulk than the two previous Hulk films combined. With all due respect to Edward Norton’s formidable acting prowess, Mark Ruffalo brought a Jekyll-Hyde facet to The Hulk which was never sufficiently believable in the 2008 film.  The allusion to the Black Widow and Hawkeye’s evil past gave their friendship depth without having to resort to exposition or flashbacks. Little touches like these ensured that no character (with however little screen time) went under-appreciated or underused.  Except for Maria Hill (played by Cobie Smulders):  Give that woman an ass-kicking role already!

I also can’t get over how excellent the chemistry between the characters was:  Everybody brought a different sort of energy to the group and managed to stand out without trying too hard.  Doubtlessly, Iron Man was the fulcrum on which the group turned and he got some very funny lines but most of them wouldn’t have worked if it wasn’t for his co-stars’ prowess.  The group dynamics evolved so naturally:  Captain America slipped into a leadership role which would never suit Tony Stark, who works better as that unbearably cool guy who regularly pisses everybody off.  The Hulk is the quiet guy in the background that everybody’s just a little bit wary of while Thor was largely relegated as the butt of all Tony Stark’s jokes but he got some sweet Mjolnir smashing scenes to make up for it.

My only not-quite-a-quibble-quibble is that Tom Hiddleston as Loki just didn’t pack enough punch, especially in comparison to the  superb development of the Avengers.  That said, I can see why they used Loki as villain and why it worked in this film.  Tim Burton’s Batman (1989) was among the first films to realize the importance of villains. Few comic book villains on screen have been as lovingly portrayed as Danny DeVito’s Penguin and Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman.  The Dark Knight was almost entirely carried by Heath Ledger’s dramatic and terrifying performance.  But The Avengers didn’t necessarily need a deep and interesting villain because this film is not about that complex relationship between superheroes and villains. A non-charismatic villain worked perfectly in this film because it wasn’t so much about who the villain was, but how a bunch of alpha dogs and lone wolves set aside their differences and came together to overcome their common foe.

Did Christopher Reeve and Adam West ever imagine that just a few decades after their campy, Good-versus-Evil films, this genre would evolve into something that would be taken seriously by critics?  I doubt it, but  the re-imagining of superheroes and the gritty realism that now defines this genre became inevitable after Alan Moore’s Watchmen was published and Tim Burton’s Batman films hit the theatres in the 80s.

Many have prophesied that the superhero genre is in its dying throes and Christopher Nolan’s upcoming film The Dark Knight Rises will be its swan song, but Marvel’s latest offering has proved that this genre still has a few rabbits in the hat.  Besides, if they made an Avengers sequel with Wolverine and Spider-Man joining in the fray, we’d have to come up with new words to describe the sheer levels of superbificenticity it would reach.

]]> http://www.criticaltwenties.in/mediapopularculture/the-avengers-2012/feed 2