The Gotham I Like to See

This show looks pretty cool, although I’m not so thrilled that the Wayne murder is the trigger point for Jim Gordon’s crusade against the criminal underbelly of Gotham.  This is not a Bruce Wayne story, this is Jim Gordon’s story and I feel that making the Wayne murder the focal point could undermine Jim Gordon’s character and motivations. That being said this show looks really good, as long as they keep the teen romantic element that WB/DC shows like Smallville and Arrow have out of it and makes it into a true detective show (no relations to HBO hit True Detective). 

The creators of this show have an amazing opportunity to introduce new characters that don’t necessarily relate to Batman mythos directly, but contribute to future events. I don’t want to see young Poison Ivy, Scarecrow, or Catwoman, give me new stories. This idea of  that these characters were per-destined to be evil is boring; there should be some mystery surrounding the characters to give the audience a chance to form their own opinion on what certain character's motivations are. You have an amazing opportunity to create pre Batman Gotham with all new villains. Make a compelling show that can stand on its own feet without relying on Batman lore too much. Every now and then it’s ok to integrate old characters like The Penguin or Black Mask into the show to keep it attached to Batman mythos, but I for one want to see a Jim Gordon story that doesn’t revolve around Bruce Wayne. 

I think delving too much into to the Wayne murder can hurt the Batman's origin. We see this happening many times where prequels try to explain the events but they end up doing more damage to the mythos and alienate the fan base. Star Wars prequels are notorious for ruining the Star Wars universe, it’s overwhelmingly hated by the fans of the original trilogy. I for one found “Midi-chlorians” as the source of The Force really annoying. The Force was this mysterious source of power that was mastered by the Jedi and the Sith to give them powers beyond a normal person. Trying to explain it Midi-chlorians count was stupid and really downplayed the importance of The Force. 

So here’s hoping that Gotham is a gritty engaging detective show about future commissioner Jim Gordon struggling to bring down the strong criminal underbelly of Gotham, and not hacked attempted to cash in on Batman’s name and success. I truly see great potential in this show, so let’s see what can expect from Gotham the Jim Gordon story.

Who Would be a Good Alternative Director for Justice League Movie?

So it’s official: Zack Snyder is going to be directing ‘Justice League of America’ (JLA) after he’s done with the Superman/Batman movie. This news is going to make some JLA fans explode with anger and disbelief, but to a vast majority this news doesn’t mean much.

Personally I’m not too thrilled;’ Man of Steel’ was a disappointment to me. It was a good super hero movie but the changes Snyder made to Superman didn’t work for me. The similarities between Superman and Nolan’s Batman were distinctly numerous. In order to make a more brooding version of Superman, he essentially recreated Batman’s persona except with superpowers and a lot less money. Having said that, Snyder does have a good record when it comes to action movies. He burst into Hollywood with his remake of the George A. Romero classic ‘Dawn of the Dead’, and followed that up with the visually exciting if historically inaccurate ‘300.’ He also directed another hotly debated superhero movie that I actually enjoyed: ’Watchmen’. Much like ‘Man of Steel’ Watchmen had its harsh critics; the movie wasn’t a box-office hit but it wasn’t a total bust either, although the fans didn’t receive his portrayal of Alan Moore’s critically acclaimed comic book very well. Zack Snyder is directing the Superman/Batman movie coming out next year so I’m going to reserve my final judgment on how I feel about him directing JLA until I see that movie. He’s a good director with a proven track record so I think we need to give him a chance (much like Ben Affleck as Batman).  

Although not much can be done now but if for whatever reason Zack Snyder is off the project here are few directors that I’d like to see at the helm of JLA:

Christopher Nolan is the most obvious name that comes to mind since he was attached to ‘Man of Steel’ as a producer. I mean come on, who better to do a JLA movie than the man who brought us the ‘Dark Knight’, right? Wrong, while he’s undoubtedly a great director I’d prefer JLA to be a much more upbeat and dazzling than the somber Batman trilogy. Nolan’s Batman was a very grim movie that was somewhat grounded in reality and dystopia. JLA is going to be a supernatural movie and although Nolan can deliver when it comes to sci-fi (Inception), I think we need to move away from his interpretation of Batman and the DC universe. 

Michael Bay: Now hear me out on this one before you reach for your shotguns, I know Bay virtually killed the animated heroes of our childhood but lets look closer at the Transformers Franchise. All 3 movies (however horrible they may be) were box-office juggernauts with movies earning $709,709,780, $836,303,693, and $1,123,794,079 respectively. When it comes to visuals and explosions, it’s hard to beat Mr. Bay. But then again looking at what he did to the ‘Transformers’ and what he’s going to do to ‘The Ninja Turtles’, I guess that’s not such a good idea. Actually forget I even said anything.

John Woo is a famous Hong Kong Director who made his name in Hollywood with movies like Face/Off and Broken Arrow but his crown jewel remains Mission Impossible 2. When it comes to unadulterated action, Woo can deliver and having a Chinese director at the helm of JLA means attracting the second largest movie viewing audience in the world after America.

Speaking of Chinese directors, how about Ang Lee? Lee won the Oscar for Best Director twice, first for ‘Brokeback Mountain’ and for his 3D visual master-piece ‘Life of Pi’. He also has an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. So he can deliver the complete package i.e. a story, action, and visuals. Now Lee did direct the universally hated Hulk  movie. It is rumored that CIA is considering replacing the equally heinous waterboarding techniques it has championed with Hulk movie. I’d argue though that Lee made amends for that disaster with the other movies mentioned above.  

Here’s my dark horse pick for the list, Gareth Evans. "Gareth who?" You may ask.  Well Evans is the mastermind behind the best martial arts action movies in my point of view, the Raid franchise. Gareth is a Welsh director who works out of Indonesia and shot to fame with the critically acclaimed Raid Redemption that got him a bigger budget so he could direct Raid 2 (a significant improvement over his first) and Raid 3 in the future. So just imagine what he can do with a multi-million dollar budget and Hollywood resources.

Guillermo del Toro is my best pick for the JLA movie. Del Toro is no stranger when it comes to superhero movies and delivering visual spectacles and mindless destruction. He directed Blade II and the Hellboy series, and is most famous for his Oscar nominated visual masterpiece Pan’s Labyrinth . He was briefly attached to direct the Hobbit movies but due to delays caused in part by financial problems at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer he left the project, and Peter Jackson came back to finish the job. However, Del Toro is credited as the writer for the Hobbit movies. Most recently he directed Pacific Rim , a ginormous robots beating up on gargantuan unearthly monsters slugfest that was visually orgasmic and primeval even.

Speaking of Peter Jackson I think he should be directing everything, but knowing his record he’d send the JLA on an epic journey that somehow ties into Lord of The Rings mythos. Peter Jackson presents JLA: Fellowship of The Green Lanterns, an epic journey of Frodo and the JLA to destroy the Yellow Power Ring of Sinestro Corps.  Hey that actually sounds pretty cool!

Essentially, I say we wait till Superman/Batman before marching to Mr. Snyder’s house with pitchforks, fire torches and tons of Kryptonite but in the mean time lets sharpen our pitchforks and pray vehemently that we only be obligated to use them on Michael Bay. 

300: Rise of an Empire Movie Review

 
300: Rise of an Empire picks up right where the first movie left off. It’s the end of Battle of Thermopylae where brave King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) and the mighty 300 Spartans have fallen after a valiant effort to hold back the nasty King (poo-poo head) Xerxes and the evil Persian Empire hell-bent on conquering all of Greece.  It’s the war between the noble white freedom loving Greeks (Athenians) and the tyrannical, repulsive brown Persians. If you want to shut down your brain and watch one hour forty minutes of mind numbing violence and an occasional boob or two then I think you’ll have a good time. But even if you have the teensiest understanding of global politics, you’ll see that this movie has more in common with today’s US foreign policies, mainly when it comes to Iran, and strong white supremacist undertones that are unavoidable and downright scary.

Ionian Revolt

The problem with Rise of an Empire is its black and white approach to good and evil. The movie starts off with a monologue by Queen Gorgo of Sparta (Lena Headey) who explains the origins of the Greco-Persian war:  “The war started like any other war, with a grievance. The Persian King Darius annoyed by the Greek notion of Freedom, has come to Greece to bring us to heel.” In reality, the Persians didn’t attack Greece because they hated their ‘freedom’ (a contentious argument in the first place) but because King Darius who was battling a rebellions and uprisings some of which were backed by the ‘peace-loving’ Athenians. Most notably Ionian Revolt where Athenians provided their own troops fearing the growing influence of Darius.  Essentially, the Persians weren’t annoyed by the Greek notion of “freedom” they were just sick of them meddling in their affairs. Even ‘evil’ empires hate it when ‘freedom’ ingraining ‘democracies’ wage proxy wars. (But thank God that doesn’t happen anymore). 

Xerxes after after taking a dip in pure evil

Historical facts aside (they’re for nerds anyways), let’s look at the reasoning the movie provides for why King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) attacked Greece. After King Darius was killed by Themistocles at the battle of Marathon (King Darius actually died died of natural causes) Xerxes assented to the throne and greave stricken and confused he was corrupted by Artemisia (Eva Green), the main baddie for this movie.  She gathered wizards and mystics from every corner of the empire (so there is supposed to be magic in this movie?) and sent young Xerxes into the desert on some sort of spiritual journey. Xerxes stumbles upon some well and there he gives himself up to an evil power or as Queen Gorgo puts it “so evil and so perverse, that no part of the human man that Xerxes once was survived”. Why and what this evil power is has been left unexplained but we must believe that Xerxes became who he was after a little dip in some random evil puddle (maybe it was the Lazarus Pit).

Young Artemisa

What about Artemisia? The malevolent bitch-general of the Persian navy. What’s her reason for being so malicious? Well the reason Artemisia hates Greece because her whole family was killed by Greek Hoplites who proceeded to rape her and made her a slave on a Greek ship (she clearly over reacted, Athenians were just "liberating" her). After years spent in Greek captivity, she was left for dead where she was saved by that Persian emissary (Peter Mensah) who was kicked in the well in the first movie. Yup, that’s right; that slimy black guy took a dying girl, raised her, trained her to be a formidable warrior who ultimately rose to the rank of general is such a villain (Damn Persians giving women some equal opportunity. how dare they!). Think about it for a minute, these are the antagonist: Deeply wounded individuals whose lives were destroyed by Greek meddling.

Let’s look at the protagonist for a moment. Our hero is Themistocles, a prominent politician/warrior who advocated for a strong Athenian naval fleet before and after the second Greco-Persian war. He’s a courageous, democracy-loving man who “would rather die as a free man than a slave.”  Again, let’s forget the history for a second (this movie certainly does). Artemisia offered to negotiate (like Xerxes did in the first movie) and like Leonidas in the first movie; Themistocles the noble, loyal servant of Greece would have none of that. He’s a man who believes “a man must protect his family and nation” so negotiating with a tyrant whose army is ten times larger than his is out of the question (brilliant thinking there!). Even though the Athenians beat the Persians at the sea, Xerxes burned down Athens. That meant thousands of Athenians lost their lives anyway, on the battle and at home.  Process that logic for a minute. And here’s the ironic part; after the war ended, Themistocles caused hostility between Sparta and Athens (surprise, surprise) which got him ostracized and exiled form Athens and hunted by the Spartans. He fled to Asia Minor (Persian Empire) where he later entered the service of King Artaxerxes I (son of Xerxes, the big baddy form the movies) who made him governor of Magnesia where he lived for the rest of his life.

Athens is considered to be the birth place of democracy so that means it’s all pure and any legitimate criticism is out of the question. Well turns out, Athens was the worst when it came to Greek city-states in terms of fair play. Athens was constantly at war with other Greek city-sates and even by the standards of the time; Athenian society was notoriously chauvinistic. Their democratic society was open to only a small group of men and granted women absolutely no legal rights and depended on slave labor the most.. The Persians, on the other hand ensured religious freedom built roads and infrastructure, established a postal service, set the standard for large governments, and contrary to the movie did not participate in slavery. It’s really hard to swallow that the Persians are the bad guys here hell bent on destroying Greek individualism when the Persian Empire was immensely diverse, encompassing Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Judea, and Arabia, so pretty much the Middle East today (which we all know is the present day spawning pit of evil).  

 And just so there's absolutely no doubt left, Persians are shown as ugly, unkempt, irrational, menacing, untrustworthy, and cowardly. It’s not just their philosophy that is hideous and unsettling but also their physical appearances. Though vastly multicultural, they’re all shown as a soulless, faceless, hive-minded anti-individualist army that bows unquestioningly to a certified ‘tyrant’. And that’s the buzzword: Tyrant. Brandish that word around recklessly and it gives us complete freedom to antagonize and undermine all that the Persian Empire offered the world. Athenians on the other hand are cookie cutter cutouts of what a superior human being is suppose look like. They're so much alike that it becomes difficult to tell them apart. They’re all macho, militaristic, single-minded muscular men who’re hell bent on war and adhere to the “no negotiation with tyrants policy”, but that’s different because they’re white and democratic ...well sort of democratic.

Think of it this way, Rise of an Empire glorifies a militaristic culture whose main philosophy is submission of individual self to a quasi-fascist collective. On the other hand where multiple races working together to a common goal are evil. Isn’t that the main argument white supremacists use? That mixed societies tend to be destructive unclean hoards, so diversity is bad and races shouldn’t mix. Where pure cultures emphasizing sameness, blind loyalty, and conformity are superior. If I didn’t know any better, I’d say this movie was written by Clayton Bigsby (Dave Chappelle’s sketch of a blind, unintentional KKK-member who happened to be Black) in conjunction with right-wing fundamentalists and the US military-industrial complex.

Clayton Bigsby

Not to say that people who worked on this movie are racist, just like many of us are not racist, but we do things like seeing a black guy and instantly associating him with crime, or seeing a Muslim and associating him/her with terrorism; these acts at their core are racist, and this movie is no different. Good intentions can take you only so far, if you’re not willing to back them up with good actions.

300: Rise of an Empire is sloppy movie with intentional or unintentional racist, misogynist and jingoistic undertones. It’s a quasi-fascist, militaristic wet dream glorifying undying loyalty for the nation and dislike for diversity or multiculturalism. Its reductive trope of “us” vs “them” is a Klan member’s dream come true, and can be used to propagate their lovely message of white supremacy and hatred towards the Middle East. 

Grand Masti: Movie Review

                                 

I don’t like to come off as a movie snob, but when my friends who are highly intelligent and capable individuals recommend movies like Grand Masti to me, I can’t help but wonder why I am friends with these schmucks. I love and respect them of course, but it makes me question how anyone with a functioning brain can enjoy dog barf that is Grand Masti. Now don’t get me wrong we all have our guilty pleasure, but Grand Masti does not and cannot qualify as guilty pleasure. Unless your guilty pleasure is very bad porn fantasy of a 15 year old.

From what I can gather, Grand Masti is directed by pubescent boys who recently discovered their sexuality, and have very little concept of what actually goes on in college. Grand Masti is sequel to mildly successful 2004’s Masti. At the time I was in my teens and I have very little recollection of the movie. However I do remember enjoying it. Not a great movie mind you, but overall a fun murder cover-up with good music and message (at least the message I got from it at the time). 

Grand Masti takes place six years after the events of the original and it seems very little has changed in the lives of our three heroes, Meet (Vivek Oberoi), Prem (Aftab Shivdasani) and Amar (Ritesh Deshmukh). They’re still very horny and their wives are still too busy to satisfy their gluttonous sexual appetite. So how to they remedy their sexless marriages? Well, by going back to their glory days of college where the three followed the philosophy of ABC; which stands for Ass, Boobs, and C for (well, it rhymes with hunt). Yeah, that’s the extent of humor in this movie.

 A college reunion and busy schedules of their wives presents our heroes with an opportunity to go back and for the lack of better words, get some. So they decide to go back to college on their own and maybe partake in those famous collage orgies India is so famous for. 

    Upon their return to college they discover that their ‘sex-topian’ college feels like a monastery where and any interaction between opposite sexes strictly forbidden. All this prudishness is thanks to college principle Robert Pereira (Pradeep Rawat) who has a zero tolerance policy towards sex. Any guy caught hitting on a girl will be hung from a tree and will be shamed in front of everyone by having his underwear pulled down. And why such strict rules towards fraternization you may ask? Is it to preserve a standard of education? No, try again. Is it to insure that female students on campus can feel safe? Haha, nope, nice try though. It turns out that the zero tolerance policy is due to principle’s impotence. That’s right folks, the big twist in the end is if he can’t get some, then no one will. 

This movie is worse than some fan-made movies, but at least you can excuse the fans for being armatures. These are professionals, working in Bollywood for years; there is no excuse for such a movie. All that is going for it is exaggerated facial expressions, horrible puns, and painfully cheap sex humor. The movie has zero originality to a point where it literally stole the shadow tent scene from ‘Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me’. To compensate for lack of originality some genius thought it would be a good idea to have wave after wave of  scantily clad women.  

I’d like to ask the actresses in this movie about their presumptively deplorable financial situation because why else would they agree to do such a B-grade porn-esque movie. If India was progressing with women’s rights and equality; this movie is a stark reminder that the mainstream media and Bollywood (much like it’s Western counterparts or even taking cues from them) allow patriarchy to thrive and the hyper-sexualization/reduction of women as merely sexual objects even as it portrays it as just innocent, deliciously naughty fun. One must remember that South-east Asian society in some quarters still considers healthy discussions of sexuality as taboo and has notoriously given men a license to being sexually adventurous/abusive while it equally denies women implicitly the right to their own sexuality and to rejecting their objectification by Bollywood which remains mainly the playing ground of rich, monopolist dynasties of film-making/financing men. The men in this movie are no more than bewildered, sex-starved buffoons who find it ‘grand masti’ to objectify women and openly flaunt their perversions and lack of sexual control. Two scenes in particular stood out:

1.    The three heroes are stuck at a bank robbery, and the only way they can resolve the situation is if a beautiful woman strike sexy poses so one of the three who works at the bank can press the security alarm with his erection that is conveniently placed right under it. Yeah let that sink in for a minute.
2.    It’s the final confrontation between the heroes and the bad guys. They all end up hanging from a building and only way to save them if three women our heroes were fooling around with striped down to their undies to form a rope. Indian ingenuity at its finest ladies and gentlemen.

But Grand Masti is an adult movie with adult humor, why does it matter if there are random naked women in it? That could be a good argument only if the movie had the least bit of decency to make an attempt at originality. Having adult content doesn’t mean cheap humor. There is a fine line between pushing the boundary and pandering to the lowest common denominator. There are number of movies that do get adult humor right. Superbad, American Pie are among a few. Clearly Grand Masti is attempting to imitate the success of these movies, but instead of borrowing good ideas from them people behind Grand Masti decided to just stick with ‘haha, look boobies’ jokes. And it seems to be a winning combination for some horrible reason.  

Grand Masti is an attempt to make a Bollywood-version college movie that glorifies debauchery, lack of respect for women, and the boys-will-be-boys culture. It’s an insult to women and some male allies in India and world over who resist this commercialization of sexual fetish by an increasingly capitalist Bollywood, which is why the amount of money this movie has made scares me. The movie is profitable by Bollywood standards, which means that millions of Indians men (I hope it’s only men, because no respectable woman should stand for such objectification) went out and watched it. One can only feel a sense of impending doom as the realization hits that the 3^rd movie in this installment will bring more of the same.

A very special thanks to Ammad Wajahat.

The King of Kong: Movie Review

On the surface The King of Kong is a documentary about grown men obsessing over setting a world record for classic arcade videogame Donkey Kong, but underneath it's a David versus Goliath story that ultimately has a satisfying end. 

Steve Wiebe is your Joe Everyman who's been kicked around all his life. A very talented man who for one reason or another can't seem to catch a break, until he found Donkey Kong and set out to break the world record set in 1982 by Billy Mitchell. 

Billy Mitchell can very well be a prototypical movie bad guy. He has it all: a successful business, a “beautiful” wife (really depends how you define that), world record that until now can't be beaten, and an ego the size of Donkey Kong himself. At one point he himself acknowledges how fortunate he's been “If l have all this good fortune, if every thing's rollin' my way, if all these balls have bounced in my favor... there is some poor bastard out there who's getting the screws put to him.” When you're on top of the world you will do anything to stay there. The attentions, the accolades, the recognition all come at a price. 

The Kong of Kong is about a man's (Billy Mitchell) hubris and how far he'll go to protect it and at the same time it's a charming story about one man (Steve Wiebe) and his constant battle against the world to get some recognition. 

At 1 hour and 22 minutes, The King of Kong is a gem that everyone should watch. Though it may be about videogames and to some that's childish, this documentary goes far beyond said subject. It's a life lesson about believing in yourself, and your skills. It's about not being extraordinary, but with hard work and perseverance trying to attempt something that makes you proud of yourself. And in my opinion that's the greatest achievement of all.