Black Mirror: Bandersnatch

Black Mirror: Bandersnach is the first ever Black Mirror movie and is an interactive film experience which offers everyone their own movie. Stefan has to create a video game called Bandersnatch. That's all that is the same.

The film has a run time ranging from anywhere between 35 to 90 minutes. How it ends is completely dependent on you. You have 'complete control.'

Being a Black Mirror film, Bandersnatch will obviously focus on how behaviour is manipulated by technology and how people's actions and thoughts are shaped by it.

Yes, it is possible to watch Black Mirror:Bandersnatch like a traditional movie where you refrain from making a single choice. So then....

Why do we even make that first choice?

If we don't make it, it will be made for us and we will be controlled.

Just like Netflix offering us the choice of 'Next episode' and 'go back' and making the choice of next episode if we refrain from clicking on either of the options, the movie too choses either of the two options if you do not make a choice within 10 seconds. It's not that the two options will remain there until you decide. So we make a choice to be in control, but....

Are we the ones in control, or, is control an illusion?

The film has certain supposed endings which are actually resets. A reset is when you reach an ending and then are taken back to the place where you made the wrong choice. You are taken back to that place in a manner akin to episodic television's "previously on so and so show" type of way. A fast forward from the start. Till.... That choice confronts you again.

Infinite loops are real until we accept that we are being controlled.

The film shows us again that despite having control, we are controlled. At times (based on the path you chose) Bandersnatch proves to be an infinite loop. I was repeatedly given a choice between the same password or symbol. At times i was faced with two televisions with two choices from the past, one was the previously ignored one and the other was 'go back'. At times I'm told stuff along the lines of "try again" or the usual, "wrong choice." I'm in the loop till I make the choice they want me to make.

It's a restart. Like a video game. Like life. It's up to you. You will be a bit more aware than you were the last time. It'll show. Make the right choice or live with what your choices, till you eventually learn that what you chose was wrong, or, you can go back make the wrong choice again and stay in the loop. You chose wrong and are stuck. In the end you need to choose what they want you to choose. Control is an illusion.

Consuming content or consumed by content?

Ideally the first proper ending (not reset) that a viewer reached which led them to the end credits sequence would be the ending they had chosen out of interest. An actual choice. What if the first ending was the perfect ending (not in the game, but perfect on the basis of how we would control our character). I watched 4 endings. But actually, the first one I saw was the perfect one. The second and the third and all the endings are the result of us wanting to see whether the other choice was better. It was us choosing what we didn't choose earlier.

The show gave me the option of going to the end credits, or go back, and I chose to go back. Black Mirror and Netflix obviously knew I would go back. We think we control Netflix as we can choose what we want to watch, when we want to watch it and how many times we want to watch it. But isn't it actually Netflix that is controlling us and attracting us to them, like how the fly is attracted to the sweet scent of the flytrap only for it to be consumed. We know there are five endings and we are desperate to unlock them all And find out what would have been had we chosen differently. Not only with this. We want to know what happens in that new show or movie as well.
We are consumed by the overload of content.

There is too much content online, some of it not even entertaining

The overload of content on Netflix and other platforms and even TV may have been addressed in the show. Why is everything so ordinary. Shouldn't it be spiced up a bit, isn't that what we would do. Do you imagine yourself in extremely mundane situations and at those times you suddenly transform into something and spice up the moment a bit? Isn't that, what would be considered as entertaining? Don't we watch some show and think, "this is how I would spice it up a bit." Yet you watch what you find uninteresting or you have changed your definition of interesting to fit in things that are called interesting. Why? Again. Netflix wants you to choose to watch it. Netflix wants me to watch Bird Box. I am inundated with posts about that movie on my feed.

Different routes may lead to the same goal

At the start we were unaware of th key choices and did doovers on quite a few of the choices only to go down a different road and reach an ending we had already witnessed.
Every single choice made by every single person is different hence every single outcome experienced by everyone is different. And then there are different routes to reach the same place. Many roads. Audiences the world over would behoove from realising this.

Is insanity the key to success?

Does every artist need to be a damaged and destroyed, non conforming being? Do they have to have some dark secrets for then to succeed. Can't they conform or get cured, or even accept and repent and then achieve success. Is every single artist someone who has a dark past?

What's Good?

Netflix may have found the answer to combat piracy. A new form of storytelling and movie watching had been experimented with. Audiences cannot be unhappy with the ending as every ending they discover is a result of their choices. Subtle commentary about technology and how technology are our masters.

What's Bad?

A film is something where we go and watch what unfolds before us and not something where we make the choices. Movies are usually enjoyed when one can focus or maybe watch it with a snack in one hand and a drink in the other. You make decisions in your daily lives, you decide to switch on your laptop or open your phone and log onto Netflix in either device and then that's not the last decision for the next couple of hours as you have to make decisions throughout the movie itself.

I chose an option, I was taken to an ending. And then I went back to my last choice. I chose the other option. Now that choice has somehow resurrected a character I had chosen to take a leap. How is that possible?

Also a time travelling sequence? Really? Atleast the T.A.R.D.I.S. and the waverider are believable time travel devices. But what was used to time travel in this episode was just weird. This is the storyline i didn't buy into. Atleast they didn't mess around with the laws of time travel from popular time travel shows.

Tolerance level of the audience in desperately searching for commentaries of technology will not mask absurd storylines and will alienate the loyal fanbase.

I felt that making your choice viewing was extremely annoying as the screen just freezes for 10 seconds despite me sometimes making a choice within 5 seconds. And the two choice option box popping up constantly on screen spoils the viewing experience.

Who should watch it?

Watch this movie if you want to literally play a movie. Watch it if you got nothing to watch for the next 5 evenings and wish to watch 5 different movies. All you need to do is remember the choices you make so that you can avoid making them on the next day.
If you think Black Mirror: Bandersnatch is that typical two hour entertaining movie which you can watch,laugh about and forget. You probably should refrain from watching it. Bandersnatch is filmed, edited and presented in a way to make us all paranoid, and to make us think, our choices can end up scarring us as well. 

Rating
Just for the first of its kind new format.
3.5/5 

Aquaman

Aquaman starring Jason Momoa, Amber Heard, Patrick Wilson, Dolph Lundgren, Nicole Kidman and Willem Dafoe in addition to another actor whose presence shocked me, is the sixth movie of the DCEU.

The movie which "introduces" us to the character Aquaman and his origins, commences with mesmerising quotes about the sea, that shot from the trailer of the lighthouse in the crystal ball (that's all I saw of the trailer, before I would shut my eyes and put in my earphones for 5 minutes so as to not have a single bit of the movie spoilt for me. You can't blame me after Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice) and then follows the journey of Aurthur Curry, a half born Atlantean human who reluctantly journeys to find the Trident and challenge his half brother to become the ruler of Atlantis and unite the two worlds. Am unsure wether I got the order correctly.. But that's about it. No I'm not talking about the plot of multiple Hindi movies or Harry Potter or Thor. This is Aquaman.


The character of Aquaman is shown on screen in a manner that may sway the hard-core comic fans attitudes to the character.

He was seen as the brawny guy with dashes of humour in his previous 2 outings in this character. This film sees him display normal human emotions which convinces audiences about his half human side and what makes him different from his half brother Orm(Patrick Wilson).

A positive for the Aquaman movie is that it has short and crisp fight scenes unlike Superman vs Zod in Man of Steel where the city of Metropolis is completely annihilated and Batman/Superman/Wonder Woman vs Doomsday in Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice which sees large scale destruction.

The short and crisp fight scenes work as the underwater battle scenes leave the audiences attempting to mostly unsuccessfully figure out who is who.

A sincere thanks to the DCEU for refraining from completely decimating the coastal village of Sicily in their only above land fight.

The film has an abundance of fabulous visuals in scenes both above and below the ocean, which will stay with you for long after you have exited the cinema hall.
Atlantis is introduced to viewers with a sudden blast of neon colours reminiscent of the Tree of Souls from Avatar's Pandora, or more closer to real life, Singapore's magnificent Gardens by the Bay. The brilliant blue and the purple throw light into the ocean around it which made me absolutely love the scenes.
The neon hydro cannons and water pulse blasts illuminate the darkness of the depths of the ocean to paint a wonderful picture of the kiss scene on the screen. The film is filled with visually stunning moments in abundance both above and below the sea.

The ocean does seem a tad too dark to view the characters in, and sows a seed in the audiences minds that this is something to tweet about against the DCEU. Mercifully, that seed of an idea for criticism is answered in the movie itself by Willem Dafoe's Vulko which assists the viewer in comprehending the reason and accepting why the amount of light used is perfect.

The magnificence of the costumes is lowered by the dark watery background. When they can be seen clearly is when the action in the film occurs above sea level and those are the times one can appreciate the magnificence and properly fitting costumes. An argument provided here is that James wan should have added more colour to the costumes. The criticisms then would've been that the Atlanteans and inhabitants of the Seven seas were a bunch of sparkling individuals prancing around against a dark aqua background.

The usage of common childhood riddles in the movie as creation of underwater transport for beings that can propel themselves through water at super speeds is very amusing.

The traditionally dark DC comics film have been forced to take a page out of Marvels book and engage in unnecessary humour. There is humour in this film but don't fret, it's much better than Ezra Miller's "Bat Cave" and "Dostoyevsky" from Justice League. But still humour in a superhero film is something that is just out of place for me.

Based on Aquaman's physique and how such characters are portrayed in cinema moviegoers flock cinema halls expecting an abundance of action sequences.
These action scenes in this film draw inspiration or if not they prompt movie buffs to recall similar scenes witnessed in other movies. I recognised scenes such as the Leap of faith from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and battle scenes from The Lord of the Rings Trilogy that have been recreated or been used as inspiration. Game of Thrones' sept of baelor is something else I was reminded of from one fight scene.  Of course we do get that kiss scene (thank you Central Board of Film Certification for cleaning the film without cutting that scene) during a fight where the action is slowed down and all missiles seem to miss the protagnists. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2?

The film 'Aquaman' connects with the contemporary issues and gives audiences a couple of timely environmental messages.
Inclusivity and acceptance of others as they are, are big words being thrown around this film industry and Aquaman represents how two different worlds can be one or live together.

The character 'Aquaman' was introduced a few movies back and now we get a movie about the origin. The other way round would have been much better. Perhaps with a post credits scene having Batman approach Aquaman with a proposition? Too much of a Marvel Copy? Well post credits scene are a thing now. But, it's good to see DC base it on characters solely from this film rather than rush to connect it to other events and other members of the Justice League. An enjoyable movie for film buffs and due to DC refraining from connecting this film to events of other characters in its shared universe a casual movie watcher can enter the cinema and watch it without feeling lost.

We have Julie Andrews in the film. Did you know that of you didn't read the cast prior to entering the cinema. I didn't.

Having watched this film in India it is obvious that the Central Board of Film Certification will order censor cuts. The censor work was shoddy and quite amusing.
Based on the subtitling the word Buster was muted out and the lip movement seemed to indicate that the antagonist was uttering the word Bastard. Buster is Bastard, eh. Slow clap. Illegitimate son sees the word illegitimate muted out, but they leave it on the screen in the subtitles (which are of course enhanced by the 3D) Ah yes. Reading the word won't have as much effect in horrifying the audiences as much as it wouldve had it been uttered. Son of a gun muted out once more? But we read this as well. I counted seven instances where the words are muted. Maybe the people who order outings should go out and observe the ones for whom the censor the films. Y'all aren't protecting them from anything.

Fantastic beasts 2: The Crimes of Grindelwald

Fantastic beasts 2: The Crimes of Grindelwald is the 10th movie set in the Harry Potter universe and the second Fantastic Beasts movie. It takes place about six months after the events of Fantastic Beasts and where to find them. 

What's good?

The movie does not have 3D release which is good. Firstly, because Potterverse films don't really need 3D to enhance them. Secondly, the last 2 movies ('Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2' and 'Fantastic Beasts and where to find them' didn't work in 3D) and thirdly, the lack of 3D was good as this gives audiences one less element to criticise.

The re appearance of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry for barely a few minutes, will evoke a feeling of nostalgia among Potterheads. Jude Law as Albus Dumbledore and Johnny Depp as Gellert Grindelwald put in good performances, but they don't come face to face. The makers are obviously saving it for the final installment of the spin off prequel series which will see the legendary duel between the two, take place. (I hope Newt or some fantastic beast doesn't make an appearance in that duel to keep with the fantastic beasts theme and it being Newt's story. Which is an argument given regarding the title and the central character(s) or a lack of it?)

What's bad?

The lack of a central character.

Arguments could be made that a slew of appearances by magical creatures and their master Newt makes Newt the central character but, how does that make this film any different from the first installment where we actually dealt and were introduced to multiple Fantastic beasts.

Add 'The Crimes of Grindelwald.' The movie does actually introduce Grindelwald properly and shows him amassing followers and holding gatherings. He is being chased by the aurors for crimes he committed in Europe prior to the first instalment. In this writers opinion Grindelwald does not commit any crimes (plural) in this film.

The Harry Potter movies too barely featured the Order of the Phoenix in the 5th movie?

They got away with this in the Harry Potter series as each film was based on the books (and had to be named as such) which featured Harry Potter (and friends as the central characters) and whatever in great detail. Even if the movies didn't.

Misleading title

Here the titling of the movie just seems off. The words 'Fantastic Beasts' should be omitted, as it is the name of one of the background reading books at Hogwarts and unlike the first film here there is no story of the fantastic beasts being found or described about. Yes they’ve thrown in the Zoulu(for what exactly?) and the Maledictus.

The Bowtruckle description does bring a smile to fans who have read the books. But what else? It just exists in the movie to validate the title. By all means continue Newt's story. But don't name the movie Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald. The name ‘Crimes of Grindelwald’ with a little more focus on the Dark wizard would have been good.

The building up of a movie franchise without giving the viewers something to enjoy in this installment of the franchise.

In this era of streaming services, the audiences are familiar with slow build up as they know that they will be able to watch the episodes that really matter within a few hours. So the lackluster middle episodes don't really matter. In the movies we know that there are going to be three more Fantastic Beasts films. And maybe the 5th one will be the franchise redeemer. But are we supposed to just while away our time till approximately 2024?

The original 8 Harry Potter movies were spread out over a period of 11 years. All  8 movies had a proper ending for audiences to take home after viewing each installment.

Excessive retconning by J.K. Rowling.

She claims to have been sitting upon the piece of information regarding the Maledictus for 20 years. Really? Did she know 20 years back that the series would still be running and be so popular? Or that there would be social media where she could retcon the series at will and thwart the fandoms comprehension? The changing of timelines and family trees is annoying.

She has also tried to fuel her Twitter reveals through subtle hints in certain scenes. You didn't think she wasn't gonna do that, did you?

Who should watch it?

Being a movie set in the Harry Potter Universe it will undoubtedly have good costumes (the previous installment triumphed Oscar for costumes in 2017), visual effects etc.

This movie is for those who love good visual effects. Potterheads will watch it out of loyalty. (They should avoid it too, for it may possibly drive them to abandon the universe they held so dear for over a decade) I have decided to reread the seven books and watch the seven movies and ignore everything (sequels and prequels) after that. Kind of like how some Star Wars fans ignore the existence of the prequel trilogy.

Pad Man Trailer: Akshay Kumar is India’s newest superhero

Pad Man is inspired by the life and work of Padmashri Arunachalam Muruganantham, who revolutionised the ease of access of affordable sanitary pads across the country.

 The trailer of Akshay Kumar starrer Pad Man was released on 15th December on social media. 
The 2.22 minute trailer shows a journey of the protagonist, who has a unique idea, who starts off from a small place, is ostracized in his attempts, and succeeds in the end just like a superhero. This helps in justifying the opening line of the trailer….

“America ke paas Superman hai, Batman hai, Spiderman hai... lekin India ke paas PadMan hai!”
The lead character of the film is positioned as a superhero, akin to the giants of the DC and Marvel Cinematic Universes.

Super heroes are ones who make another person’s life better. The capes, masks and costumes aren’t a requirement. A superhero can be anyone, even a man who manufactures affordable sanitary pads.
 Here the villain is the taboo on menstruation and those who promote its taboo. 

The Khiladi of Bollywood seems to have struck a chord with audiences in films creating awareness on social issues. After the success of 'Toilet: Ek Prem Katha' which created awareness about the issue of open defecation, His next film, 'Padman' will aim to create awareness and normalise the discussion around menstrual hygiene and in doing so eradicate the taboo of menstruation hygiene that exists in parts of India.

18 years into the 21st century there have been attempts to break the stigma around periods, but it still exists. Films like Phullu (2017) have attempted to create awareness about menstruation in the form of films, but haven’t gotten the widespread attention that a film starring an A-lister like Akshay Kumar would. Hence the name Akshay Kumar is a major factor behind the trailer topping the list of trending videos on YouTube with 20,548,710 views in 48 hours.

Akshay Kumar in an interview said he believes that movies can be a powerful way to turn the tide on taboos.

"I didn't want to make a documentary," he said. "I wanted to make a commercial film so people can see it. It's a film you can take your children to, even though it talks about sanitary pads. It's a universal subject. Nobody has ever tried to touch this subject."

“The movie should enable audiences to start a discussion on women mensuration hygiene, a topic still considered taboo in many parts of the country.”

Directed by R. Balki and starring Radhika Apte and Sonam Kapoor in supporting roles with Amitabh Bachchan in a special appearance, Pad Man releases in cinemas on 25th January, 2018.