91st Oscars: Best Picture

Which actually means Best English film but most of the times the actual best film of the year is overlooked due to something known as a preferential ballot which results in a film that is more universally liked taking home the prize. This year will see many Best Picture rules broken no matter which film takes home the prize.

Perplexing stuff about this year is that 'Cold War' a film with direction and cinematography nods has been snubbed despite there being 2 spots available. This is a clear indication that the Academy is firmly in favour of another Black and white nom English film and didn't want to create a divide in the minds of voters who could have been swayed by the first time ever presence of 2 films in the Best Picture Category at a single ceremony.

Other shockers were the snub of Barry Jenkins 'If Beale Street could talk.' There is buzz around Regina King winning the supporting actress as a compensation for the films shocking snubs. It's a cascading effect as that compensation award results in a better performance getting snubbed and then that performer being rewarded years later under the guise of a career award over someone who was actually much better.

Other snubs: First Man, A Quiet Place, Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse

Those that made it in the order I think they would rank.

Bohemian Rhapsody
This film was shoddy and a concert film. It had a troubled production and is possibly here only due to its win at the Globes in Beat Drama which saw it beat out heavy favourites like A Star is Born and Green Book. This could have swayed voters into considering this concert film for a nomination for the Best Picture. It is up for Sound Mixing and Sound Editing and being a concert film it has a strong chance at taking home both the awards. The only award that Bohemian Rhapsody may take home is the Best Actor trophy for Rami Malek. Best Picture seems unlikely as ever since the introduction of a preferential ballot no film has won the Best Picture without a Screenplay nomination.

Black Panther
The movie has gotten the theme of opening up your borders. It has an A- list cast, though unfortunately none of them havw been nominated for any individual acting awards. The cast did win best ensemble in a motion picture at the Screen Actor Guild Awards, but the lack of solo nominations will cost it at the Dolby Theatre. It is also absent from Direction, Screenplay(Best Picture seems unlikely as ever since the introduction of a preferential ballot no film has won the Best Picture without a Screenplay nomination), Cinematography and Editing which are considered to be indicators of who will win Best Picture.

Superhero movies were never considered to be Oscar calibre and Black Panthers nomination itself was a remarkable achievement though it seems as though it'll have to consider this nomination as a win for many superhero films of the past and congratulated for opening the gates for superhero films to be considered for the Academy's top prize. (Avengers Endgame could stake a claim for it next year)

Vice
This movie is just here because of the sheer weight of performance from its leads. It is a solid film with good support from the Acting branch and has 3 acting nominations. Further nominations in the Best Director and Best Original Screenplay and Editing categories also show us that this film is a good enough contender, but it is divisive which is a bad thing in a category which sees the winner determined by a preferential ballot voting system. The film is a contender and possibly favourite in Best Makeup and Hairstyling (along side Mary Queen of Scots and Border)for the amazing work done on Christian Bale.

The Favourite
It is the joint most nominated film at this year's Oscars with 10 nods. This film focuses on Queen Anne and examines the efforts of 2 cousins as the vie to be her favourite. This is the sort of costume drama that is traditionally rewarded by the Academy but this year it looks as though a nomination is as good as it gets for the favourite in this category. Expect the film to take home Best Costume Design, Best Production Design. The Favourite is a serious contender to take home Best Original Screenplay where it is up against Green Book and Roma and in my opinion it has a much better script of the 2 (and this is a crucial category for Roma' s Best Picture chances). It's Lead and Supporting Actresses Olivia Colman and Rachel Weisz are in with a shout in their respective categories and so is director Yorgos Lanthimos. The fact that this British movie couldn't beat awards juggernaut Roma at the British Academy Awards seem to show that it won't be a real threat at the Dolby Theatre in this category.

A Star is Born
This was the pre award swing favourite but the backlash of it being a remake hit it hard. The movie is a crowd pleaser has 3 acting nominations is an ode to a timeless story and one that focuses on the rise and fall of shobiz and what happens behind the scenes. So what happened? It lost out at the Globes to Bohemian Rhapsody. Bradley Cooper was snubbed for Director at the Oscars and also for Best Debut director at the DGA awards. From Awards favourite, this film is now looking likely to take home just Best Song(based on its downwards trajectory it could possibly lose out on that too)

This doesn't seem like that sort of Awards movie and despite it being about shobiz it doesn't show it in a good light an actually serves as a vehicle to push people away from the industry. Only 2 remakes have ever taken home Best Picture (Ben-hur and The Departed) and those are tough odds to overcome.

Green Book
Green Book is the story of a Jazz players journey through the deep south along with his driver and bodyguard. The movie has some serious awards momentum heading into the Dolby Theatre and could be a beneficiary of the preferential ballot as it is a feel good film. It won the Producers Guild Award which has seen 20 of its winners take home the Best Picture Oscar. It's factual inaccuracies which have emerged in the media in the lat few weeks could possibly alienate voters and the lack of director nomination (after he was there in the DGA nominations for Best Director) proves that voters are alienated against this film.

It has locked onto one acting nomination (for Viggo Mortensen) and it's supporting actor (Mahershala Ali) has been unchallenged at any of the precursors. The film has additional nominations in Original Screenplay (vs The Favourite and Roma) and Editing (crucial categories for a film to clinch Best Picture) but seems unlikely to take home the golden statuette right now unless...voters are divided between.....


BlackKklansman
Spike Lee's film based on a true story of a policeman infiltrating the Colarado Springs chapter of the Ku Klux Klan is a commentary which can be related to even almost 50 years after the movie was set. It combines sharp satire along with strong social commentary and leaves a mark on the minds of voters.

Lee has earned a career first nomination for Best Director and has also received a nod for and the favourite to win Best Adapted Screenplay. With nominations in Editing and Direction and an acting nomination Blackkklansman coupled with its subject matter and it's relevance in present days and the films message it should be an odds on favourite to take home the Best Picture. It's no show in Cinematography works against it but Roma and the other nominees have even greater odds to overcome.

It has lost out on awards at the Globes (which has a tendency to reward more popular films) and the BAFTA(which favours Brits) but if there is any award show at which BlackKklansman can potentially steal Rome's thunder it is The Oscars.

Roma
Roma is a tale by director Alfonso Cuaron about his life which focuses on a maid and the family who employs her. It's a simple story with exquisite cinematography.
A film that is to be considered a serious contender at the Oscars needs to have widespread support as members of all branches vote in this category. With 10 nominations and strong support from the largest branch (actors) a nomination for Marina de Tavira in the Supporting Actress and Yalitza Aparaicio in the Lead Actress category drives home that fact. Alfonso Cuaron looks set to take home the Best Director trophy as well in keeping with the Academy's pattern since 2012 of giving the award to the most visually pleasing film.
It seems like a sure shot winner for Cinematography as well for every single frame looks so fabulous on screen and has been nominated for Best Original Screenplay(where The Favourite is the favourite)
It has won the top award at the Directors Guild Awards(has matched with the winner of Best Picture at the Oscars for the last 6 years) the BAFTA's and the Critics Choice Awards and had a nomination in the top category at the Producers Guild Awards which seem to make it the top pick for many. But.....
The things against this film are it's distributor (Netflix) whom the Academy haven't been fond of. Another set of voters may be inclined to give Roma it's Best Foreign Language Oscar and consider their work done and reward one of their own English films with the top prize. The film was snubbed completely at the SAG Award (Ensemble and individual) and even though 2 films (Braveheart and The Shape of Water )were snubbed in the Ensemble category and went on to pick up Best Picture they had nods in the individual categories. Roma has also missed out on an editing nomination at the Oscars which historically goes against it. (Birdman did it, but it won Best Original Screenplay) voters may also want to go against the tide and not seem as though the 91st Academy Awards is the Roma Appreciation night as was predicted.



Will win: Roma
Should win: BlackKklansman
Dark Horse: Green Book/A Star is Born/ The Favourite/Vice

91st Oscars: Best Actor in a Leading Role

The best Actor race does not have a candidate who is miles ahead of the competition like Gary Oldman last year and Casey Affleck Leonardo DiCaprio in the years before.

Quite often along with the best performance the actors decide to award their peer who has been a consistent actor throughout his career and has not quite managed to reach the upper echelons.

The buzz was always around 4 actors, all of whom have been nominated.

The 5th one is Willem Dafoe who plays Vincent Van Gogh in At Eternity's Gate. He isn't going to win.

Viggo Mortensen-  Tony Vallelonga (Green Book)

Viggo Mortensen is becoming a consistent name in this cateogry with his nod in years. In a film where his co-actor Mahershala Ali has dominated the supporting actor category it's hard to see Viggo getting any love here. If the precursors are an indicator and they usually are. It's not going to be Viggo's night.

Bradley Cooper - Jackson Maine (A Star is Born)
A Star is Born sees Bradley Cooper nominated as an actor,writer and producer His performance as Jackson Maine made some look at him as a pathetic individual. As that is how we view people with mental disorders don't we. He captures the other side of a performer and we see what they go through when they are off stage. What goes against Cooper is that he has thrown in his hat in multiple categories this year and voters feel that the other one will reward him and they do no need to do so.

It all comes down to these two....


Rami Malek- Freddie Mercury/Farrokh Bulsara (Bohemian Rhapsody)

Has won the Golden Globe for Best Actor- Drama, SAG award for Best Actor and the BAFTA best actor. He plays a very famous character in Freddie Mercury and made audiences think that the legendary Queen band member had risen from the dead to portray himself in this biopic. The recreation of the LiveAid concert was mesmerising and despite allegations of the film being retconned to present a sanitised version of Freddie Mercury and a timeline to create more dramatic effect you cannot take away that amazing performance of Rami Malek. Voters seem to think so as well as apart from the Critics Choice Awards, every other award body has chosen Rami Malek as their Best Actor.

This character fits the bill among Academy voters as a real figure. He is also a popular figure as audiences the world over appreciate his performances as Elliot Alderson in the show Mr. Robot. The fact that this movie is nominated may draw a large number of casual music fans and Tv show fans to the Oscars. A Malek loss would alienate the audiences even further.



Christian Bale- Dick Cheney (Vice)
Won Golden Globe for Best Actor- Musical and Comedy, Won Critics Choice Award for Best Actor and Critics Choice for Best Actor in a Comedy. Christian Bale plays the role of Vice President Dick Cheney and his transformation is just remarkable, despite us having come to expect such things from the man. He has taken home an Academy Award and his performance isn't the one that will blow the audiences and voters away to persuade them to bestow him with a second Academy Award. The character he plays is controversial and the film has divided the audiences and critics alike.

It is a race between Bale and Malek and it seems as though Malek will take this one and Oscar Winner to his resume. 

91st Oscars: Best Supporting Actress

This is a category with no favourite.

The winner of the SAG award Emily Blunt- A Quiet Place hasn't even been nominated for the Oscar marking the first time this has ever happened.

 Perplexing how some things happen right.

Marina de Tavira - Sofía(Roma)
The Mexican actress seems to have made it here only due to the Academy's overwhelming support for Roma.
Her nomination has resulted in snubs to Emily Blunt who in my opinion takes home the prize just for her scene in ' A Quiet Place where she is in labour and cannot make a sound as the monsters are in the house.

Emma Stone - Abigail Masham (The Favourite)
Has won the Academy Award for Lead Actress just 2 years back for La La Land. With the Academy rewarding Mahershala Ali who too won an Oscar two years back it's safe to say that they won't be giving Stone her second Oscar in 3 years. They don't seem to want too many repeat winners in quick succession. Her loss to Weisz at the BAFTA's effectively takes her out of the running to win

Amy Adams- Lynne Cheney (Vice)
She can be known as the modern day Meryl Streep or the male Leonardo DiCaprio. However unlike Leo she hasn't been snubbed repeatedly for what has been the best performance of the year by a mile.
In Vice she plays Lynne Cheney, a powerful real life person and doesn't seem to be forgotten when sharing screen space with the mighty shape shifter in Christian Bale.


Regina King- Sharon Rivers (If Beale Street could talk)
Won the Golden Globe and the Critics Choice Award and seems to be a major contender for the Oscar. Her role as Sharon Rivers lends weight to the lead actress and this is a true supporting performance as at no point her role seems to over power that of the leads.
Based on the snubs it could be possible that the Academy choose to reward If Beale Street could talk by awarding Regina King with the Supporting Actress trophy. Her win and subsequent speech at the Globes did her chances no harm as it was at that time the the voting for the Oscar nominations opened. She could have the support, and she certainly has the capability to win. Her absence from the Screen Actor Guild Awards may prove to be costly.

Rachel Weisz - Sarah Churchill (The Favourite)
A Hollywood veteran and is one name that has consistently featured on the pre cursor award shows. She is the only Actress apart from Regina King to have won in this category in this Awards swing. (Though her win did not require her to beat out King whereas King beat her at the Globes and the Critics Choice Awards)
With her co-star Emma Stone having already taken home an Oscar for Lead Actress just 2 years back and with Stone being young one cam say that the Academy may place Weisz higher than stone when casting their ballots. Her win at the BAFTA completely eliminates co-star stone from the running as it is obvious as to who the voters favour. Her role is strong as she is the link between both Queen Anne and her co star and cousin Margot Robbie and it is a meaty and more dominating role that any of her competitors in this category.

This is King vs Weisz. Adams finally ending her Academy drought seems unlikely.

Will win: Regina King
Should win: Rachel Weisz
Dark Horse: Amy Adams 

What to expect from an Oscars Ceremony with no host?

The Oscars will be without a host for the first time since the 1989 edition of the ceremony. That ceremony proved to be a debacle featuring an opening number between Rob Lowe and Snow White.

The absence of a host can work in both ways. Audiences will be intrigued to see how the Academy functions without a host or they may not even time in as there is no star name that they know will be there on screen.

A host takes up a lot of time during the broadcast such as a huge 11 minute opening monologue talking about what the Academy stands for and some controversy in films over the past year. They then point out all the nominated performers seated in the audience and make attempts at one line humour. (Those speeches may still be there this year from individual speakers)

They then pop up throughout the show and try to keep audiences both in the Dolby Theatre and at home entertained. Remember last year's trip to the movie theatre to thank audiences as well as the Hot Dog gun and 2017's tourist visit to the Oscars? Or what about Ellen's pizza order and the Oscar selfie?

All of that will not happen this year. Whew!?
(You decide which punctuation works for you)

The show would seem boring without those but never fear for the Oscars are capable of hiring someone just for an opening number (which to be honest is the best way to start ) be it Hugh Jackman's turn in 2009 and even Neil Patrick Harris' performance in 2010 and as a host with 'Moving Pictures' in 2015.

We can expect an opening number this year as well, as I doubt that the Academy will go with the opening of "please welcome your host" and then pause for silence and I seriously doubt that they have a surprise host and have successfully managed to keep it under wraps.

The opening number could be anything ranging from a parody of Kevin Hart to a song introducing the 8 nominated films or even one of the 5 songs nominated for Best Song in a motion picture.

The Academy does have a large number of what they call star names to present the awards. But isn't that the scene every year? It's just that in this hostless year the presenters are a little bigger deal when in reality they aren't.

They have been attempting to concise their show to 3 hours and this year with no host they might just be able to do that.

No?

There is a possibility of that not happening as the acceptance speeches may take long and we could expect that categories like cinematography, makeup and hairstyling and Visual Effects to take up a lot of time and not be played off as they would take offence for just a few days back these categories were to be presented during the commercials.

All in all this is going to be a unique Oscars as all eyes will be on the Dolby Theatre on Monday morning. I don't think they will be able to do it within 3 hours. 

91st Oscars: Best Actress in a Lead Role

In a landmark accomplishment for the Oscars the Best Actress Race this year will not feature Meryl Streep only for only the 74th time in 91 years.

This category features two debutants in Lady Gaga and Yalitza Aparaicio.

Only 4 actresses have gone on to claim the prize for the debut film.


Let's agree on one thing Melissa McCarthy's (who portrays the character of Lee Israel in Can you ever forgive me ?) winning here is a long shot. Based on the awards swing results she will have to be content with just a nomination.

Yalitza Aparaicio- Cleo (Roma)
Yalitza Aparaicio is the next one who can be eliminated as she has somehow gotten an Oscar nomination despite missing out on nods at the Bafta's the Critics Choice the SAG. It seems as though she has gotten a nomination which is an indicator that the film has the support of the actors branch as Roma is currently the favourite to take home the Oscar for Best Picture and a film winning the top prize sans an acting nomination is very rare. Can the love for Roma propel Aparacio to an Oscar win? Seems unlikely.

The main competition is among these three

Olivia Colman- Queen Anne (The Favourite)
Won Golden Globe in the musical and comedy category as well as the BAFTA for Lead Actress for her portrayal of the sickly Queen Anne. She managed to win the prize at the BAFTAs and is the only legitimate threat to the Close vs Gaga battle. After watching the movie I honestly felt that Rachel Weisz's role was the lead one and Olivia Colman was more of a supporting one. She picked up the win at the last major award before the Oscars which took place just days before Oscar voting ended. The Academy may not want a Glenn Close coronation to look predictable and may have possibly switched their pick to reward the actress from The Favourite.

Lady Gaga- Ally (A Star is Born)
Won Critics Choice award in a tie with Glenn Close. Lady Gaga plays singer Ally in the A Star is Born. The Japanesse proverb says that A mask when applied for too long becomes your real face. Lady Gaga gets rid of that mask and acts as a real person. The rendition of Shallow is what stands out for me along with a completely unseen and out of makeup Lady Gaga. She is the star who is born. Both in the movie as well as in acting. It was a role tailor made for her. The buzz was for Lady Gaga to take home the prize and she was the frontrunner all along before her momentum fizzled out and the overdue narrative took shape and favoured Glenn Close. This is reminiscent of Close vs Pop Star battle akin to the 1986 ceremony where Close lost to Cher.

The argument here against Lady Gaga is that she wasn't really acting as she is actually a singer she was just living out her normal routine sans makeup. So let's get this straight. The academy will reward an individual who spends time adapting and changing their routine so as to get into and live like the character they are becoming.
It would behoove them to reward Lady Gaga if they want to boost their viewerrship but it seems as though they are choosing popularity in the Lead Actor Category.

Glenn Close- Joan Castleman (The Wife)

Has won the Golden Globe Award for Best Actress- Drama, the Screen Actors Guild Award and the Critics Choice Award. Her only loss was to a British Actress portraying a British monarch in a British production at the British Academy Awards. This performance has a quiet brilliance with it. Even without the audio and the background music one would have been able to comprehend the anguish the silence the of Close. Her impassioned speech following her Golden Globes triumph would have just increased her chances even further. All of the actors seem to be rallying behind the long overdue industry veteran here. And no the Award for Close is not a sympathy award. It's overdue and she is the star. It's not a scene where Close's performance is the 2nd or 3rd best one of the year and neither is it her best ever performance. It is just the best performance of 2018. The win at the SAG nearly confirms that Close will pick up her first Oscar as it is more or less the same body of voters (The actors) who cast the votes at both shows. What could work against this film is that Close nomination for Best Actress is it's sole nod at the Oscars and voters could see it as not a big enough film. However it's momentum fizzling out right at the finish line seems unlikely. Close has beaten out pre season favourite Lady Gaga and has looked untouchable.

Expect Gary Oldman to say the words and the Oscar goes to Glenn Close- The Wife.




Will win: Glenn Close
Should win: Lady Gaga
Dark Horse: Olivia Colman

Roma

Roma is a Mexican language Black and white film. It is written, directed, shot and edited by Alfonso Cuaron. The film stars debut actress Yalitza Aparicio in the lead role as Cleo, a domestic help. The film is set in the Roma district of Mexico in the 1970s and follows a year in the life of Cleo and her employers. (a family consisting of a Grandmother, a couple and their four kids)

The best movies and characters mostly are inspired by a writer or a director's real life experiences. The real characters or certain characteristics of theirs is what lends weight to the character or work of art and make it seem real and not reel. But, what if an entire movie was literally taken from memory? Like a faithful adaptation of a autobiography with no aim to make it over dramatic for the screen? Director Alfonso Cuaron has said that 90% of the movie is taken from memories of his own growing up years and a portrait of life in Mexico in the 1970s.

The movie has been presented to us exactly as he visualized it.

I do not understand or speak Mexican which leads me to observe the images on screen even more than I would do had the film been dubbed in English. The subtitles are present on screen, but having been conditioned to witness the subtitles as a tool with which to enhance the audio I hear, the subtitles were lost on screen, as I chose to let the visuals convey the story to me.

The movie is in Black and White, which automatically conditions audiences to the fact that the film is set in the past and leads them to decode the content in a manner quite different from what they would have done had it been in colour.

It seeks to eliminate the distractions on screen thus enabling the audience to focus solely on Cleo and her life inside and outside the house.

Such a character is usually a background filler in stories. Even if they are the leads, films focus just on said characters perspective on the house where they are employed and not their life in detail.


This is a film for cinephiles, as it is filled with excellent camerawork and pans that help drive home what the visuals on screen are indicating. You have to be able to spot it and know what it is. Even if you are unfamiliar with the technical terms you can appreciate it.


The life of the help is mostly associated with the silence of the house for a large part of the day. They are a part of the family, but apart from the family.

Their days are spent doing repititive tasks, up and down and up and down in the same manner akin to the motion of a pendulum. The camera work with its positioning and lateral panning drives home that fact to the audience. The silence in the film followed by the sudden cacophony of noise is a nice touch as well.

The scene in the hospital drives home the fact that we don't really know the small insignificant but highly important things about the servant. Yet without them the day to day activities are incomplete.
Throughout the movie Cuaron let's realisation hit us slowly. Like in real life how light dawns upon us so late and so suddenly.

These moments are very relatable for some.

When Alfonso Cuaron accepted one of the Golden Globe awards for Roma he said "
Cinema builds bridges and tears down walls with other cultures. Understand how much we have in common."

The film focuses on the minute details such as the raindrops hitting the floor, breaking into multiple smaller droplets, the drops of water dripping from the clothes on the string whilst she is washing another set of clothes and the translucent nature of wet clothes through which the sun flashes through, driving home the fact that it is a hot day.

For some this film is overhyped, for something so simple. But, isn't this hype needed? Honestly who would've watched it hadn't it been so hyped up. Of course the Academy would've and probably rewarded it as well (in the foreign language category) and there would have been a furore over the Academy rewarding movies that people don't watch. Moving back to the simple. The movie was hyped up and there was buzz about it and it is just so simple, which is what makes it so extravagant. It doesn't strive to make itself dramatic. Roma is just a mirror of our own lives in some way or the other.

Based on the precursor awards, Roma is a among the frontrunners to win the Academy Award for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and we already know that it has wrapped up the win in the Best Foreign Langauge Film. The film feels like a documentary and almost is, but Netlfix has presented it as a movie. Focus on the word Netflix. The biggest obstacle for the film to overcome with the Academy seeming averse to rewarding work which deviates from the traditional form of movie consumption in the theatres(Netflix did have a 3 week theatre screening before releasing it on the streaming service). Will It overcome? We shall find out. But until then this film must be observed, appreciated and admired by all. Films aren't more authentic than this.

Mary Poppins Returns

Sequel? Reboot? A guaranteed nostalgia evoking film

Starring Emily Blunt, Emily Mortimer, Lin Manuel Miranda, Ben Whishaw and Colin Firth, Mary Poppins Returns acts as part sequel, part reboot and entirely a shootout to its predecessor.

The movie also sees Dick Van Dyke (Bert in the original) and Karen Dotrice (Jane Banks in the original) and Angela Lansbury make special appearances.

Mary Poppins Returns picks up 25 years after the events of Mary Poppins. Set in the 1930's depression London, the dark and gloomy mis en scene serves the purpose of setting the mood of the film as well as the time period post which the snow melts and before the first blooms of spring. All the "too dark" complaints are just preposterous.

The plot centres around the now fully grown Michael Banks and his three children, John, Annabel, Georgie Banks, their aunt Jane Banks and housekeeper Ellen. Michael has to pay off a loan amount in five days time. The Banks are struggling... They need help. Enter Mary Poppins.

She descends from the skies, slides up the banisters and helps the children enter a fantasy world where she plants seeds of ideas in their heads with various fantasy based activities.(No I'm not talking about Inception) She then helps the adults with a little bit of magic.

Children are more likely than adults to engage in escapism- the tendency to seek distraction and relief from unpleasant realities, especially by seeking entertainment or engaging in fantasy.

Are all the escapades in the bath tub and the bowl just Mary Poppins telling the children stories? She is literally asking them "Can You Imagine?"

The children in the film engage in escapism, just like Michael and Jane did as children in the original. But now the parent Michael and aunt Jane dismiss such ideas of escapism. Why? The movie shows the evolution of children into adults.

Does that mean Mary Poppins isn't actually magic and only seeks to help others discover the magic through imagination?

Disney appear to have attempted to rectify the discrepancies between the way they presented Mary Poppins in 1964 to the way the character was presented in P.L.Travers series of novels.

Mary Poppins(Emily Blunt) seems a tad stern from Julie Andrews' version, yet it feels uplifting. She is practically perfect, repeatedly checking out her reflection and refuses to acknowledge the existence of a fantasy world. Her character seems exasperated when asked to join in the dancing and then consenting with a "oh very well."

Her presence on screen seems so reminiscent of Julie Andrews(though not so good, so as to make audiences think that this portrayal was better) as well as the Mary Poppins described to audiences by Emma Thompson's P.L.Travers in the film "Saving Mr. Banks." The rather frightening aspect is left out.

All the precursors point towards Emily Blunt receiving a nomination for The Academy Award for Actress in a Leading Role.

Lin Manuel Miranda's Jack the Lamplighter makes the audiences yearn for and miss Dick Van Dyke's Bert the chimney sweep from the original.

Good editing could have seen a good 25 minutes shorter runtime.

The movie could really have done without one of the songs for after the fourth or fifth musical number it just seems tedious to sit through them.

A really funny criticism of a musical. But neither is the music spectacular nor can one easily summon the lyrics from memory. The songs are good but fall way short when compared to songs from the original. Stuff like, "A spoonful of sugar", "supercalifragilisticexpialidocius", "Chim Chim Cheree" or even "Let's go fly a kite" which are still adored and would be adored had we heard them for the first time today.

To be honest, such songs will always be better than anything new as we have been hearing those songs for years. The songs had soul and meaning and were just delightful, unlike the present day where we are flooded with dozens and dozens of songs and "songs."

In the entire runtime I spotted just two songs that feature dialogue lyrics. One song was part of a completely unnecessary scene the other song "Trip a Little Light Fantastic" (I had to use Google to help me with the name) featured the best choreographed song of the movie. Though honestly based on the pattern of the movie, we could see it coming, the setting, the side characters and the way it would start.

If the songs couldn't have been edited out, then surely the unnecessary scene featuring Cousin Topsy (Meryl Streep) could've been done away with. We don't get any closure from that scene nor is it revisited at a later part in the film or relevant to the films climax. The film would have remained the same had that scene not been there and someone else given the two crucial lines in another scene.

Mary Poppins requires every second Tuesday off yet she was working on the day before the visit to Topsy's which was the second Wednesday. Does Mary Poppins forget to take her holidays?

Disney has yet again refrained from introducing Micahel and Jane's siblings, the twins John and Barbara Banks and their youngest sibling Annabel.

Dick Van Dyke' s cameo appearance is one of the moments of the movie that does not fade away with the end credits like the rest of the film would.

Nostalgia in the form of the almost non existent 2D animation and a few characters and even the progression of the story make the film a must watch for fans of the original. The film is also worth a watch for ones wishing to enjoy a light film with good visuals. Kids below 10 would enjoy it.

The acting performances are good, but the singing isn't on par with the original, but on it's own and watched as a standalone, it is a good movie.

P.S. Please do not watch the original immediately before watching this one as you will struggle to like this film. For it is abundantly clear that the magic of the predecessor cannot be recreated.

Rating: 3/5

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.

Best Movies to watch on Teacher's Day

(This was my submission for the Internal Assessment for the Feature and Opinion course)

What is a teacher? I asked a teacher as to what they think a teacher is. The reply was, “someone who has lessons planned for the next two weeks, but has no clue about that night’s dinner.”

In 1994, UNESCO proclaimed 5^th October as World Teachers Day. This celebrated a great step for teachers as on 5th October 1966, a special intergovernmental conference in Paris adopted the UNESCO/ILO Recommendation concerning the Status of Teachers

Countries like Maldives and The Netherlands observe teachers day on 5^th October itself. Countries like India (5^th September) have their own respective teachers days.

The movies have made us laugh and made us cry. They have given us portrayals of teachers that we relate to and love and respect. In today’s day and age we wish we had more teachers like them.

Here are some of the best teacher portrayals in movies. As the efforts of one teacher cannot undermine the efforts of another, the numbers do not determine the ranking.

1. Robin Williams as John Keating (Dead Poets Society)

I stand upon my desk to remind myself that we must constantly look at things in a different way.

             Welton Academy, dubbed “Hellton” by its students has four pillars: Tradition, Honour, Discipline and Excellence. The teachers at Welton follow the first 3 pillars to drive the students towards the fourth pillar. All of them, bar the new teacher-John Keating.

John Keating or O Captain, my Captain (as he wishes to be called) says, “Because I love teaching, I don’t want to be anywhere else.” This shows us an essential quality of a teacher- passion.

John Keating aims to help his students to seize the day and live. It is something that doesn't happen in today's rat race. Teachers like him are a precious commodity.

Mr Keating encourages his students to rip out an entire chapter from a book.

The pages contain an introduction by Dr Pritchard. This introduction seeks to measure poetry based on a graph. According to Keating, measuring poems is similar to armies of academics annihilating the hearts and souls of young ones. Poems can’t be measured. They are filled with passion and are straight from the heart.

In his classes he encourages the students to think for themselves again. Oh how we yearn for such teachers in a world where our original ideas are quashed like bugs, these ideas which if allowed to bloom could change the world or help us be unique. He compares each person’s life as a verse, and how would everyone be unique if they were all the same?

The final scene symbolises wat a teacher can do. A teacher can be the match that lights a fire. The match can be extinguished, but the fire will spread.

 2. Anne Bancroft as Anne Sullivan (The Miracle Worker)

Anne Sullivan attempts to teach Helen Keller the alphabets for ‘doll.’

‘The Miracle Worker’ is based on Hellen Keller’s autobiography, ‘The Story of My Life’. It chronicles the efforts taken by Anne Sullivan to teach alphabets and their meaning to Hellen Keller.

In ‘The Story of My Life’, Helen Keller writes a tribute to her teacher, Anne Sullivan.

“All the best of me belongs to her – there is not a talent, or an aspiration or a joy in me that has not been awakened by her loving touch.”

Hellen Keller is a child who has been rendered deaf and blind since an unfortunate illness struck her in her childhood.

She lived in a dark and isolated world. Even Specialists couldn’t help her out.  Captain and Mrs. Keller seemed to have lost all hope, and then arrived Anne Sullivan. This teacher was the final hope for The Kellers who seemed resigned to sending Helen off to an asylum.

Helen in one of her mad rages knocks out her teacher’s tooth and slaps her across the cheek on multiple occasions. Despite this she stays on, she recognises that the student should not be labelled as bad but as challenging.

Anne Sullivan discovers that Helen first needs to be taught discipline, she knows that the girl’s frustrations need to be checked. Sullivan does not take pity on Helen and battles with her physically (bordering on child abuse) and emotionally (separating Helen from her family for 2 weeks) until she finally makes a breakthrough.

3. Aamir Khan as Ram Shankar Nikumbh (Taare Zameen Par)

Every child is special, but that is not understood by all

9 year old Ishaan Avasthi is misunderstood everywhere and is subjected to thrashings, verbal abuse. He gets shipped off to boarding school as his parents think that his mistakes are not mistakes but acts of rebellion. At his new school, things do not change. He retreats further into his shell and his spirit is broken. The 9 year old now has lifeless eyes and attends class like a robot.

When all hope seems lost, there enters a new art teacher (Ram Shankar Nikumbh). This teacher is different from the rest of the teachers as he doesn’t stamp his authority on the class through fear but gets the students to like him through his unconventional methods. As is the norm with Bollywood films, there are no dialogues but a wonderful song sung by the teacher that encourages children to look at things in a different way. Ishaan however has been scarred so badly that he stops painting. Nikumbh doesn’t seem to mind and he tries to befriend the boy. According to Nikumbh, “every child has his own talent.” Nikumbh finds out that Ishaan’s talent lies in art. The teacher then realises what Ishaan’s disorder is and how it can be countered.

Nikumbh brings out the boys potential through art by teaching him alphabets and numbers through art. In a bid to boost Ishaan’s self-confidence, an all school painting competition is organised.

At the end Mr Avasthi is reduced to tears after seeing his son’s transformation wonders how he can thank the teacher. Nikumbh replies nonchalantly with an, “ah c’mon,” as he was just doing his duty as a teacher.

4. Pat Morita as Keisuke Miyagi (The Karate Kid)

"Either you Karate do yes, or Karate do no. You Karate do guess so you get squish, just like grape."

The words of Keisuke Miyagi are reminiscent of Master Yoda's words from Star Wars. Do or do not there is no try.

We have to learn to take a stand. By acting confused and being in two minds we will neither be here nor there. Imagine you are walking on the road, you either take left side or right side, if you are unsure and walk in centre you will be hit.

We need 100% belief in our own set goals in order to achieve them.

Mr Miyagi saves Daniel LaRusso from a bunch of bullies (The Cobra Kai). As a trade for getting them to lay off him for a while. Mr Miyagi enters Daniel into a Karate Tournament and also trains him for the same. He has one rule-ask no questions. Mr Miyagi makes Daniel do what seems like household work (waxing the car, scrubbing the floor, painting the fence and the house) with particular hand movements. Just as Daniel is about to quit as he is sick and tired of his “karate lessons” Mr Miyagi explains and demonstrates the importance of those tasks to karate.

We then need to believe in the methods of the teacher. They know what the long term goal is. Mr Miyagi, by making Daniel do what seemed like menial household tasks actually imbibed in him the karate movements as natural actions. This style of teaching is not looked at favourably by the student as they want to know why a particular thing is being taught. However we must realise that the teacher is not stupid and doesn’t have time to waste, they also realise that the student has no time to waste and whatever is being taught is for the students benefit.

Another important lesson given here is “first learn walk then learn fly.” It emphasises the need to learn things step by step.

While these actors and actresses pretend for a living, this pretend is based on true stories. Real life isn’t like a movie where the story ends after one success.

The movies end on a high and we assume that it's over. Real life inspires films but what films don't show is that there is so much more effort that a teacher puts in, sometimes even until their death.

The Miracle worker (the only film in this list based on a true story) didn’t mention anything about what happened after Helen Keller Anne Sullivan made a breakthrough in the climax. After teaching Helen Keller the meaning of alphabets and words, Anne Sullivan stayed with Helen for the next 49 years until her death.

The job of a teacher in real life goes back to square one once the next batch comes in. Their stories don't end like how Mr Miyagi’s story ended with Daniel LaRusso winning the tournament. The Mr Miyagi of real life have another Daniel LaRusso and then another and then another and another and another. They have to approach each and every single student with the same level of passion as the first.

There are some teachers who also try and try, but the outcome isn’t like a fairy tale as seen in the above movies. That doesn’t demean the efforts put in by these teachers.

Though the end result may not be as desirable as shown in the movies, but, the effort put in by every single teacher is what we should see and learn from these movies, which can be seen as tributes to the efforts taken by a teacher.

Honourable mentions: Shahrukh Khan as Raj Malhotra from Mohabattein and as Kabir Khan from Chak De! India, Burgess Meredith as Mickey Goldmill from Rocky, Julie Andrews as Maria Von Trapp from The Sound of Music.

Review of Annabelle: Creation

Annabelle: Creation is the fourth film in The Conjuring film series after The Conjuring, Annabelle and The Conjuring 2. The film is a prequel that focuses on the backstory behind the Annabelle doll.

Following the dud Annabelle of 3 years back and the not as good as the first part Conjuring 2, there weren’t really high standards for this one to meet.

The Mullins are a couple who have suffered a tragic loss of their daughter. Fast forward 12 years, they have opened their home to a few orphan girls and their caretaker Sister Charlotte. The girls have specific instructions to stay away from a particular room. One girl is polio affected and feels lonely and decides to enter that room, she then opens a closet to see the Annabelle doll and lets the evil break free.

WHAT’S GOOD

Annabelle: Creation is the first film where we see the Annabelle doll in action. That doll is creepy enough with it's presence and it's blank stares, but here, it’s moving. (We have more reasons to fear the doll that we have been conditioned to fear)

Horror doesn’t need a good script to survive… what most people remember are the scares (we still remember the Spider walk scene right, when someone says the word Exorcist) and Annabelle: Creation has them in abundance.

Despite it being the same old cliché scares, the director has been able to run a chill down his audiences' spines as……

It’s all about timing in horror films. The jump scares are timed to perfection. They aren’t from out of the blue and leave us wondering as to where did that come from. We are given cliché horror film hints that something is about to happen. There is dead silence for a while. Then as when a character looks into a mirror there is a slight flash in the reflection accompanied with a musical note. The music then picks up, building a sense of anticipation within you. The scare is delivered within time as just when you are about to heave a sigh of relief the demonic entity pops up. The director builds that feel of anxiety within the audience till the last possible second.

The stair lift angle is new and bone chilling.

The tempo of the music during the scary scenes was exceptional. It was playing in my head during the interval (which greedy multiplex owners force into films despite English films not being shot that way)

Talitha Bateman as Janice, is brilliant as the girl who is isolated and has lost hope at the start of the film and as the possessed girl she becomes in the latter half.

Lulu Wilson as Linda has the best and most sensible scene in the movie (and horror films of recent times) as when the doll is tossed into the well it begins pounding the grating. When Sister Charlotte asks her what is it. She delivers the best and most sensible line ever seen in horror films, “Who cares? Run!”

This is the first attempt at universe building in a horror film franchise. All of the Conjuring films have glimpses of the Annabelle doll and this film offers a fleeting glimpse of The Nun (a character seen in The Conjuring 2) in the photograph shown by Sister Charlotte to Mr Mullins. The spirit is shown to be in black, but the hand of the nun who pushes Janice’s wheelchair into the barn is white. (possible Valak appearance. They didn’t show the face)

WHAT’S BAD

The predictability. It’s always the weak one, who becomes the target of the demonic presence. The use of mirrors in horror films, we know that there will be something else reflected. It is used on two occasions in this film and we are literally waiting for the appearance as it is such a common scare in films.

There wasn’t much of dialogue among the characters, for them to observe a slow and gradual change after the demonic entity has taken a human form.

The scares are the same old fashioned ones. Doors slamming as the protagonist tries to get away from the demon, lights flickering, appearances in mirrors, the silences, etc.

It is a successful formula, as why would anyone move away from what is successful. There are no new experiments in this genre.

WHO SHOULD WATCH IT?

Horror buffs, as in no place I felt like laughing as if it was a joke. Conjuring Universe fans should not avoid this. 

Anyone who wants to get scared and experience a hair raising fear with an impact that will leave your heart pounding. There is no calming presence of Ed and Lorraine Warren in this film.

As a horror film I was expecting to be freaked out from the start, but then I remembered the titling of the film. It always first films in the series that take time to establish the setting (I’ll take the example of superhero films where characters are established in the first half of the first movie and then the second half is where the action starts to pick up) That's exactly what happens here.

Jab Harry Met Sejal

Jab Harry met Sejal is a romantic comedy directed by Imtiaz Ali starring Shahrukh Khan as Harinder Singh Nehra a.k.a. Harry and Anushka Sharma as Sejal Jhaveri. The duo reluctantly team up and set out on a journey retracing their steps across Europe to search for Sejal's missing engagement ring.

When hearing the name Jab Harry Met Sejal, one automatically thinks that this will be a rip off of the similarly titled rom-com classic "When Harry met Sally."

WHAT'S GOOD

The acting of Anushka Sharma. She portrays the chirpy young Gujarati girl and is the reason that the film is watchable in the first half. Shahrukh Khan to some extent is refreshing as he is in a new role as a tour guide and isn't that lover boy that audiences have grown accustomed to seeing over the last 2 decades. The music is lively and upbeat. The frames feature glimpses of what Europe is about with lush green countryside, opera performances, bar culture, prostitution happening on shady streets. As is common with all Bollywood films, there are songs, but background dancers remain absent. I've always wondered how the whole street knows the steps and how do they know to form shapes where the leads are always in centre. The songs have very well edited shots which establish how the characters get acquainted with each other. In the first half they (the songs) don't disconnect with the plot, as there are short grabs of them searching for that ring.

WHAT'S BAD

The film as a whole, is bad.

The locations work like glue does when applied on the cracks on a wall. The effect of the glue was nullified quite soon into the film and cracks appeared. Cracks in the film, the definition of the character, the stereotypical representation of the characters.

 What we ended up getting was two characters unwilling to travel at first, then they travel in concentric circles around Europe. Amsterdam to Prague to Budapest to Frankfurt to Prague to Lisbon to Frankfurt. They help each other out, discover themselves, fight, realise they are incomplete without each other. It’s not that it hasn’t been done before, but it’s the same director who has done it before in Jab We Met and in Tamasha. The glimpses of Europe didn’t mask the lack of charm in the rom com. It also didn’t mask…..

The stereotypical representation of the character Harry. Harry is a Punjabi and has a loud voice. The reason for it is that he had to sing over the sound of the tractors as all Punjabi's are farmers. Seriously? Can't he have a loud voice as a natural trait?

Sejal, though she keeps the film running in the first half, is absolutely annoying with that accent. (Harry is pronounced as Hairy) Her behaviour is not in keeping with the modern woman she calls herself, but that of a toddler trapped in an adult’s body.

 After calling herself a modern woman, she makes it very clear that she is not interested in Harry in any way. In one scene, she asks Harry, "Mere pe try maar rahe ho?" Harry says, "Bilkul nahin." She replies, "Kyun main sexy nahin hoon?"

Why does she seem insulted here? If she has said she isn't interested in Harry in any way?

Why does a modern woman constantly require validation of any sort? (in this case that she’s more layak than any of Harry’s conquests)

During a scene, Harry tells Sejal, “Tum iss se bhi laayak ho.” Upon hearing this, Sejal is overjoyed and asks him repeatedly, “Kya main sachi iss se bhi layak hoon?” Audiences now will go home with the image of a modern woman being one who needs to be repeatedly told that she is more “layak” over the other.

This is a train wreck of a movie. I ended up coming home and watching "When Harry met Sally". A rom-com movie which had the feel of a rom-com. The charm present in that classic was absent in this film. Shahrukh Khan needs to head back to playing age appropriate roles as he did in Raees and Dear Zindagi. If you are an Imtiaz Ali fan after watching his work in Jab We Met, Rockstar, Highway then please avoid this film which after watching you would label as a disaster. If you are a fan of Shahrukh Khan’s 1990s and 2000s persona, avoid this movie.

WHO SHOULD WATCH IT

Those who want an hour’s entertainment and then spend the second half just thinking about the next day at work or of unfinished chores.

PAHLAJ NIHALANI SECTION

How can we forget good old Pahlaj Nihalani? This film received attention as “Protector of the audiences” in an attempt to make the film sanskaari raised objection to the words sexual intercourse in the film. It was replaced by Physical interaction (now that can include a handhshake, a slap on the back, etc). Though sexual intercourse was banned, the words "sex" and “copulation” were allowed to be a part of the film!

Applause for the man!

Spiderman: Homecoming

Spiderman: Homecoming is an English language film released by Marvel Studios as part of its extended cinematic universe. The film shows us Spiderman as he learns to use his new powers and  balance his crime fighting as well as his normal schoolboy life. He is shown as erratic. The film answers the question from The Avengers; what happened to all those broken pieces of alien tech lying around the city? As Civil War proved, considering the consequences of these apocalyptic battles is so much more interesting than just moving on to the next city-destroying set piece.

We had a plane crash and Spiderman  avoided large collateral damage as he managed to bring the plane down far away from the city. Quite a contrast to both of 'The Avengers' films which saw whole cities get destroyed.

WHAT'S GOOD?

Like all Marvel films there were elements of subtle humour. Marvel introduced this into superhero films and it became such a staple that DC film, 'Batman vs Superman:Dawn of Justice' was panned for its dark tone.

The new Spiderman costume is brilliant and unlike the Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield films they actually showed us how Spiderman managed to squeeze into his costume. The addition of 'The Wings' is a good one.

THE WINGS

Like the old Spiderman films, this one didn't waste a half on showing Spiderman get bitten and struggle to comprehend his powers. Frankly speaking, we know Spiderman's backstory.

The sparing use of Iron Man worked for me as this was a Spiderman film. I didn’t want to see Iron Man dominate the screen. His speech to Peter Parker worked brilliantly and his scene is what gets Spiderman thinking and leaves viewers impressed.

The casting was good and Michael Keaton seems to be have hit a purple patch. He delivers yet another powerful performance as 'The Vulture'. His most intense scene was the dad talk he gives to Peter in the car when he learns about Peter's secret.

Tom Holland as Spiderman has the capability of competing with Tobey Maguire for the mantle of 'best Spiderman'. I like the fact that Spiderman is in school and not in college and working freelance. I liked the aunt May casting as in previous films, she seemed more like Peters grandmother rather than an aunt. The damsel in distress element has been eliminated which makes it refreshing. Spiderman fights The Vulture to save the City, not to save someone he loves.

WHAT'S BAD?

Like most 3D movies, the emphasis on the 3D disappears after about ten minutes. Studios need to use the 3D technology for films that actually need it. The 3D makes the screen dark and strains the eyes.

Spiderman's suit seems to be more of an iron man style suit without being made of iron. He gets advice on fastest routes and he has modes like 'instant kill' and 'interrogation'. The boy's suit is more advanced than Captain America's or any of the Avengers suits (with the exception of Iron Man). He can activate different kinds of webs? Like seriously? 

Why keep such a technologically advanced suit? It’s as though he wasn’t bitten and the suits aids him to produce webs and stick to the walls of buildings.

WHO SHOULD WATCH IT?

With Infinity War approaching, every film of the MCEU is forming an important link in the chain. They have constructed it beautifully and hence it cannot be avoided if one wants to watch Infinity War. Also it's Spiderman! Fans have been clamouring for Marvel and not Sony to make a Spiderman film. Marvel have done what Sony failed.

I had read online that Flash Thomson calls Peter Parker as Penis Parker, but Indian cinema halls muted out the word. Even the word ‘porn’ is muted out. Pahlaj Nihalani needs to realise that we are in the 21st century. Also, he needs to realise that he has to just certify films and not censor them. CBFC is Central Board of Film Certification, the word 'Censor' isn't a part of it. Words like 'penis' and 'porn' are not really enough to warrant an 'A' certification.  The man should head off to the Arab countries and certify(oops! Censor) their films. It’ll be cuts galore over there. 

Looking Back at the 89th Oscar Awards

When one looks back at the 89^th Academy Awards they will always remember the Best Picture goof up. Warren Beatty came up on stage to explain the error and had Jimmy Kimmel poking fun at him throughout the explanation. Actually the real culprit is Faye Dunaway who got annoyed that Warren  Beatty was wasting time and when he showed her the envelope she just read out La La Land. However what that card had written on it was……

EMMA STONE

LA LA LAND

Best Actress

Warren Beatty saw that, as was evident by the way he first stared at the card, then checked the envelope for another card and then looked up at the audience in the Dolby Theatre with amusement. He showed it to Faye Dunaway who just read out the name of the film(Kimmel should’ve been like, “Oh Faye.. What did you do..!”). It was she who did it and not him. (She didn’t even go back out there to explain the error and left it to Warren Beatty)

Were there really 2 envelopes for each category? (That’s what the Academy is saying and are saying that the staff of PricewaterhouseCoopers, accidentally handed them the Best Actress envelope as it had been the previous award that was presented. Emma Stone says she had the envelope of Best Actress along with the Golden Statuette in her hand at the time the ‘winner’ was announced) Was it a prank by Jimmy Kimmel?(hope that this is not the case?)

Yes, they are actors and can pull off such a stunt and act innocent very easily, but, that is not the case as when one looks at shots of the back the envelope held by Warren Beatty we can see Best Actress in a Lead Role written in gold.

 Jimmy Kimmel as a host was somewhat brilliant. His jokes hit the mark. The main target of every single joke was Trump (The countries who hate us joke while praising how many countries the Oscar’s are broadcast in). He tried to match Ellen as he offered candies and cookies to the celebrities.(which were parachuted from the rafters of the Dolby Theatre)

His initial joke was a jibe at the Oscar’s itself owing to the difficulty it took them ti find a new host as they go through hosts so quickly, ”It’s my first time here and the way you people go through hosts it could be my last time as well”. He thanked President Trump and spoke about the previous year’s racism controversy, “Remember last year when it seemed like the Oscars were racist.” Next up on his list was Amazon who were told that if they win the Oscar (as producers of Manchester by the Sea ) they can expect it to arrive in 2-5 business days.

The ‘uninspiring’, ‘overrated’ Meryl Streep was next. ‘Mediocre early work’ ‘underwhelming performances’ in Kramer vs Kramer and Sophie’s choice(she won Academy Awards in both of those films) ‘lacklustre career’ He then mentioned her 20^th nomination. The segment was finished off with Kimmel asking the Dolby Theatre to give Meryl a ‘totally undeserved round of applause’. Meryl obliged and actually stood up and so did the rest of the audience.(in an earlier post I had mentioned that the Hollywood stars would not be offended by a joke made by Kimmel and it is seen here that no one just gave a blank stare back at him)

Then he spotted Matt Damon……

His segments with Matt Damon furthered their feud. First he said they’ve known each other so long that at that when he first met Matt, he (Jimmy) was the fat one. He then spoke about how Matt Damon is selfish, and when he decided to be unselfish he ended up giving an Oscar worthy role to his friend and ended up making a Chinese ponytail movie, which lost 80 million dollars. Smooth move.

In view of 20 years of them winning the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon presented that award. Firstly they were introduced as 2 time Academy Award Winner Ben Affleck and guest. Then Damon was played off every time he spoke and the camera panned to the orchestra which showed Kimmel conducting it and saying, “Wrap it up quickly, we want to go home.”

The Best Picture Award was introduced by Kimmel, “as his favourite part of the show. The chance to see Matt Damon lose an Academy Award.”

The bad moments of the show were, tour bus segment where in an attempt to take yet another dig at Trump he made fun of a Chinese girl’s name Yulree with a few, "what’s", and then asked the next guy his name to which he said Patrick prompting Kimmel to say, “See that’s a name.” In the segment immediately after Mahershala Ali won Best Supporting Actor he poked fun that with a name like Mahershala, he certainly couldn’t name his kid Amy. This was a clear joke showing how Asians and Asian names are different and hence discriminated against.

 The Joke on OJ and the extra slice baloney lead to audible groans from the crowd. ( he did salvage the situation by commenting what seemed like a future report, “almost midway through the broadcast the crowd turned on Kimmel.”)

People say that the man went overboard with the Trump jokes, but, what else was expected? I mean honestly, Trump’s immigration ban and comments about the wall, would hamper several artists from the 7 countries and from Mexico who may feel the need to boycott Hollywood as a protest against the insult their country has faced Asghar Farhadi whose film won Best Foreign Language film boycotted the ceremony. He may even ensure his films are not submitted to the Academy as films from the countries that are banned should not reach the country in which the ban has originated?

The part where Sunny Pawar was lifted (like how Rafiki lifts baby Simba) has people trying to call it a racist scene as Sunny is a brown Indian kid who was lifted to the music of Circle of Life from the Lion King. No! He was lifted as he was small (any other small kid would have been lifted) and he had acted in a movie called Lion. Also he consented to it and it made sense. Lion and Lion King.

 Not even once through the show the audience felt disinterested and even as a T.V. viewer I was shocked when they announced it was time for Best Picture (so soon? Chris Rock had lost the audience after about an hour and a half and people just wanted the show to end)

If people were expecting Jimmy Kimmel to take them into a world free from the politics or stuff happening in the world, they deserve to be disappointed as they haven’t been following the entire award season (every award show has had the current political situation brought up in some way with a jibe. At the Golden Globe’s Jimmy Fallon spoke about how the globes are a place where the Popular vote is still considered) or haven’t ever seen Jimmy Kimmel at his talk show.

The Winners

There are two categories that I feel got the award not because of their film but because of situations in the world (I’m not saying that the two were bad films).

Best Picture

Moonlight winning was unexpected (even though it truly was the Best Picture) as the award season trends had everyone going ga ga over La La Land. It possibly swayed voters not because of its film content, but because of the #Oscarssowhitecontroversy over the past 2 years and continuous calls for the Academy to be more inclusive. The film is about a gay black boy growing up in the Miami projects in the 1980’s.

Best Foreign Language Film

Toni Erdmann (Germany) had swept the awards scene but lost at the Oscars? Why because the winner ‘The Salesman’ was from Iran and the Academy wanted to support the countries that have harshly had a travel ban to the United States.

Changes

Unlike previous years the Films nominated for Best Picture weren't introduced in twos or threes throughout the show, but instead at the end. This was better as there weren't any unnecessary presenters during the show. Also prior to each of the Acting Award presentations they aired footage of the moments of victory and speeches of former winners in that category. This  was a novel idea as it showed a collection of emotions of what the award meant to past winners.