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.

76th Golden Globe Awards

Hosted by Andy Samberg and Sandra Oh, the 76th annual Golden Globe Awards had it's fair share of surprises. (it is expected from this body of voters) A few new front runners emerged and some others solidified their status as the ones to beat in the race.

A pre show prediction would have been about the hosts having a few digs at the Oscars but that was restricted to just two lines at the top of the broadcast.

"A lucky audience member gets to host the oscar."

"We are the only 2 people left who haven't gotten into trouble for saying something offensive."

They chose to let it stay that way as their roasts were aimed at just getting a light chuckle from the audience rather than say something that may offend someone because everything that is said seems to offend someone or the other.

The Winners
Rami Malek and Bohemian Rhapsody
Malek ticked all the boxes such as portrayal of a real life character, physical transformation (people actually thought that remastered footage of Queen's concerts were used in the film) and he made audiences feel that they were actually watching Freddie Mercury and was rewarded by the HFPA with the Best Actor-Drama win over Bradley Cooper from 'A Star is Born.'
Christian Bale in yet another Christian Bale type of transformation predictably triumphed in the Best Actor- Musical or Comedy race for his portrayal of Dick Cheney in Vice.
Does that mean that Bale vs Cooper has now become Bale vs Malek? Can Cooper make a comeback in this race?

Bohemian Rhapsody beating out A Star is Born and Black Panther to scoop up the Best picture award was met with a huge cheer at the Beverly Hilton Hotel Ballroom. This was hard to believe and the biggest shocker of the night, though it is common for the Globes to reward a popular film. (The Grand Budapest Hotel over eventual Oscar Winner- Birdman in 2015)

Could this sway Academy voters?

The thought process was that A Star is Born starring Lady Gaga (popular choice) could draw viewers to the beleaguered award show, but has a new frontrunner emerged?
The Oscars need to reward popular film to win in an attempt to boost ratings, but,they do love rewarding films based on real people. If the film features a popular actor it does hold it in good stead. This time they could have the perfect option in Bohemian Rhapsody. Rami Malek who has starred in Mr Robot is a popular actor in the TV scene and he plays a highly popular and still beloved character in Freddie Mercury.

Bohemian Rhapsody is a nominee in all the traditional precursors (Rami Malek at the SAG Awards and Bohemian Rhapsody at the PGA Awards) that hold a film in good stead for the Oscars and this win at the Globes may just give it an award season push.
The film also has a nomination under the Best ensemble Category at the SAG Awards. The only two films to not receive a nomination there and win Best Picture are 1995's Braveheart and 2017's The Shape of Water.

Green Book winning was expected once the time came to announce the winner for Best Musical and Comedy as it had wrapped up crucial wins in the writing and for Mahershala Ali in the Supporting Actor Category, it's director and lead actor also had been nominated in their respective categories. Most films that take home best picture have wins in writing wins or nominations in acting.

Alfonso Cuaron won Best Director for Roma. The Mexican filmmakers story about his personal experiences while growing up in Mexico in the 1970s also took home 'Best Foreign Language Picture.' Expect this film to be a major player at the Award shows over the next 6 weeks. (The film was ineligible for Best drama at the Golden Globes as it wasn't an English film)

It's looking like Roma (expected) vs A Star is Born(early favourite/remake backlash)vs Green Book(a strong chance) vs Bohemian Rhapsody (surprise surprise)

Can BlackKklansman or Black Panther have a say or will voters feel that Black Panther' s nomination is equivalent to a win?

Glenn Close's Best Actress- Drama win seems to indicate the Award bodies will be rooting for the veteran actress to win and get the Award for her career. Her main competition is Olivia Colman who won the lead actress trophy in the musical and comedy section for her portrayal of 'Queen Anne' in The Favourite.
Another Best actress contender Lady Gaga seems destined to sweep the Best song award for Shallow just like she did at the Globes.

The tendency to play off winners in smaller categories and TV show awards led to some of them seem like they were rapping as they attempted to thank everyone before the music played them off. I wonder why the playing a winner of stage wasn't done when Regina King and Glenn Close won but was done for Alfonso Cuaron and Peter Farelly?

The show saw something special on the TV side of things. The introduction of the TV equivalent of the Cecile B Demille award,the Carol Burnett Award, whose first recipient was Carol Burnett.

The show was crisp and not much was seen of the hosts apart from the opening monologue and 2-3 short spots during the show. They just completely disappeared until the camera cut to them post bohemian rhapsody acceptance speeches.

This shows that maybe the Oscars going without a host is a step in the right direction as they aim to have a shorter show. This coupled with the decision to present some awards during commercials will work wonders in the Academy attempting to have a three hour show.

The Globes have no members that vote for the Academy Awards as well but it may havw swayed a few fence sitters of the Academy. Precursor awards like the SAG and the PGA would be a much better indicator as to who will triumph at the Oscars.

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

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.