2015 has been a great year for Hollywood films. I personally can’t think of the last time there was as much anticipation for the movie calendar as there was this year. We saw the return of beloved 70’s and 80’s icons like Rocky Balboa, Han Solo, Max Rockatansky, The Terminator (for better or worse), a 70-year-old director, George Miller redefine the action genre and the most beloved movie franchises – Star Wars and Rocky – got rejuvenated. So naturally with the year coming to an end it’s only fair that we talk about the films that we loved the most, but I’m not just going to talk about the films that were popular at the Box Office and made a lot of money, but also the films that weren’t watched by most people but are great nonetheless and deserve your time. 5. Creed Ryan Coogler’s Creed, the seventh film in the Rocky franchise feels both fresh, nostalgic (with subsequent nods to the originals) and is arguably the best one since the original. Michael B. Jordan and Sylvester Stallone gave knockout performances, with Stallone in top-form reprising the role that made him what he is today, while Ryan Coogler’s vision gave the film a uniquely visceral and gritty feel allowing the camera to make sure we feel every single blow. But while the literal punches certainly make an impact, it’s the figurative ones that really leave a mark. [embed width-"620" height="348"]https://vimeo.com/132287948[/embed]   4. Steve Jobs After 2013’s abysmal Jobs starring Ashton Kutcher it was evident that we needed a movie that did justice to the legacy of one of the most influential personalities of our time and director Danny Boyle and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin did just that with this year’s Steve Jobs. Sorkin’s spitfire script is undoubtedly the main attraction and makes the film move like a bullet, but Michael Fassbender’s layered and commanding presence as the Apple founder is also mesmerising to watch. Add to that: Danny Boyle’s solid direction and a trio of great supporting performances from Jeff Daniels, Kate Winslet and Seth Rogen and you’ve got a biopic that engrosses and electrifies in equal amounts. [embed width-"620" height="348"]https://vimeo.com/128112371[/embed]   3. The Martian I can’t think of the last time I had more fun watching a movie than I had watching The Martian. Ridley Scott finally made a comeback after nearly a decade of making one dud after another but this isn’t just a Ridley Scott movie because he’s offered great support in all departments. Matt Damon’s outstanding central performance drives the film, the visuals are stunning, the entire cast did a great job and Drew Goddard’s superb and surprisingly smart screenplay made the film both thoroughly enjoyable and uproariously funny. The Martian is a celebration of the human spirit and the most feel-good movie of the year. [embed width-"620" height="348"]https://vimeo.com/131809849[/embed]   2. Star Wars: The Force Awakens It would be wrong to say that Star Wars: The Force Awakens was anything less than the most anticipated movie of all time and riding on these unimaginably high expectations, JJ Abrams and Lawrence Kasden forged an alloy between the old and the new and delivered a film that was both nostalgic and wonderfully fresh. The stunning visuals, great new characters and a story with genuine heart and emotion ensured that Star Wars was finally back and this one was truly a force to be reckoned with. [embed width-"620" height="348"]https://vimeo.com/143053004[/embed]   1. Mad Max: Fury Road We get action movies every year, but rarely does one even come close to Mad Max: Fury Road. The over-the-top stunts, eccentric characters and gonzo designs all come together to create a cinematic tour de force, a film that strives to be something more than just another action movie. George Miller orchestrates a breathtaking spectacle of high-octane, exhilarating and gut-wrenching action that is as beautiful as it is chaotic. Charlize Theron gives us the most badass female protagonist since Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley and Tom Hardy brings new life to the role of the strong, silent and tortured hero that is Max. [embed width-"620" height="348"]https://vimeo.com/114225625[/embed] 5. Spotlight Tom McCarthy had the honour of making one of the year’s best and worst films this year, The Cobbler starring Adam Sandler being one of the worst, but from the other end of the spectrum, Spotlight emerged as one of the year’s most important and engrossing films. McCarthy’s ode to investigative journalism is based on the true story of The Boston Globe’s Spotlight team that nailed the Catholic Church for its legacy of child abuse and cover-ups back in 2002. The ensemble cast comprising of, Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams, John Slattery and Liev Schreiber all do stellar work but it’s how profoundly hard-hitting this film is that makes it so great. [embed width-"620" height="348"]https://vimeo.com/135003652[/embed]   4. The Lobster Rarely do you see a film as original and surreal as Yorgos Lanthimos’s The Lobster, but if you saw his previous film Dogtooth, you’d had some idea what to expect from this. The Lobster is an utterly bizarre, darkly funny and satirical on society itself. It is a film with layers of strangeness and is definitely hard to take in all at once but once the strangeness comes together you have yourself a rich and incredibly rewarding cinematic experience that is not to be missed. [embed width-"620" height="348"]https://vimeo.com/138633312[/embed]   3. Me and Earl and the Dying Girl In a year that was full of big budget blockbusters, it was nice to see a film that was so understated in its ambition yet so powerful in its impact that it moved me without even giving much of a spectacle; Me and Earl and the Dying Girl is that movie. It’s a movie that may remind you of The Fault in Our Stars because it plays on a similar premise, only it isn’t sappy, overly melodramatic and unlike The Fault in Our Stars, it’s actually good. Me and Earl and the Dying Girl is easily one of the most beautiful, charming, heart-breaking and emotionally resonant films I saw this year and in a long time. [embed width-"620" height="348"]https://vimeo.com/124559243[/embed]   2. The Hateful Eight Tarantino’s latest film, his second western in a row is arguably his densest and most important film yet. Shot on glorious 70 mm film (as referenced by the film’s posters), the movie unfolds almost like a stage play and is extremely entertaining despite its three hour run-time because the trademark Tarantino dialogue, crazy over-the-top violence and colourful characters never let it get boring. It’s also wickedly funny with a fantastic cast and an intricately woven, jigsaw puzzle plot that keeps you guessing right up to the bloody, brilliant end. [embed width-"620" height="348"]https://vimeo.com/136309589[/embed]   1. The Revenant Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu astounded us all with Birdman, last year; this time around he astounded us with a completely different film, a beautiful, haunting, sometimes jaw-dropping epic of the frontier. The Revenant is a breathtakingly shot examination of what a person can do to survive. It’s an immersive experience that is both poetic and lyrical while also being brutal and exceedingly intense to sit through. The Best Actor Oscar may finally have Leonardo DiCaprio’s name on it as he nails one of the most challenging roles of his career, and there’s Tom Hardy ripping up the screen as one of the more intriguing villains you’re ever likely to see. [embed width-"620" height="348"]https://vimeo.com/141966402[/embed] You, what do you think? Are there any movies you thought should have made the list? Sound off in the comments section below.

Every now and then I am asked to critique a movie and I am happy to oblige. Because good, bad or average, these films that I am asked to evaluate are nonetheless cinema. However when I was asked to review a Disney merchandise advertisement masquerading as a cinematic endeavour, I was a little perplexed. My first instinct was to politely refuse, considering I wasn’t being paid by Disney to write hack reviews. I mean, how else could you justify all the rave reviews that this seventh episode of the Star Wars franchise is garnering? [embed width-"620" height="348"]https://vimeo.com/142719427[/embed] Let’s get this clear right from the outset, if The Force Awakens is a $200 million advert by the mouse corporate machine that is aiming to sell bucket loads of toys to the kids, I’d say well done! But even then, earnings aside, I would question the artistic merits of this visual piece. Trust me, I have seen more imaginative Pakistani commercials and that is really saying something. On the other hand, if you are expecting a review of this film as a cinematic effort,  I would request you to simply go read up on A New Hope which was the first Star Wars episode in terms of release date and fourth in terms of the narrative chronology that came out way back in 1977. A New Hope was lauded because it completely revolutionised how movies were made. It was original! Not in terms of narrative, mind you, because it borrowed heavily from comic hero Flash Gordon, Joseph Campbell’s book The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Akira Kurosawa’s jidaigeki  - visual Japanese period dramas- The Hidden Fortress and Tolkiens’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A New Hope was universally loved because of how the narrative was executed and the fact that it had soul. Now fast forward 38 years and imagine watching A New Hope all over again impersonating as The Force Awakens with a politically correct lead cast. If it’s any consolation, it didn’t completely borrow from A New Hope. Yes! Because there were also bits and pieces copied from Return of The Jedi and The Empire Strikes Back, the other two episodes of the original Star Wars trilogy. Now don’t get me wrong, I am all for women playing leads but a casting decision that is simply playing to the gallery is not my cinematic cup of tea. If there was any chance that the unconventional gender of the protagonist would be overlooked by the intended politically correct target audience, the studio went the whole hog and roped in a black guy to play her sidekick. The duo combines with a host of previous popular franchise characters who were simply there to manipulate nostalgia amongst the audience to battle yet another death star. However, in Disney’s defence it was a ‘bigger’ death star. So something original at last! That is, if you count ‘done to death star on steroids’ a fresh idea. For those of you who have never experienced the Star Wars universe before, a death star is a moon sized ultimate weapon with the ability to destroy an entire planet. And it’s probably these very people who could derive some pleasure out of the seventh episode. The rest, like me, have already seen enough death stars being blown apart to be really amused by this particular offing. Also galling was how the Mickey Mouse corporation took the Mickey out of Han Solo, one of the most beloved Star Wars character ever. If the melodramatic handling of his character wasn’t enough, Disney further went and added nostalgic insult to our injuries by milking the relation card yet again. Turning Luke Skywalker into Dart Vader's son is arguably one of the most iconic twist in the history of cinema, but pairing Han Solo and Kylo Ren in a father-son relation was forced and cringe-worthy to the extreme. Speaking of Kylo Ren, the Dart Vader wannabe, if it were up to me, I would have criminal charges pressed against anyone with even the audacity to have both Ren and Vader in the same sentence. Darth Vader is one of the most iconic villains ever in the history of cinema whereas Kylo Ren just happens to be a spoiled little brat who liked to throw tantrums, whenever things didn’t go his way. I wouldn’t allow him to lead a group of smelly toddlers, let alone being convinced that he was in charge of an army of stormtroopers. It’s one thing targeting teenagers as your core target audience, but having your screenplay written by a an overzealous teen is frankly an insult to viewers’ cinematic sensibilities. What were they expecting? Fill it with action, so that people don’t realise the lack of any substance in the story. And also what’s with having the protagonist virtually mastering all the Jedi skills – lightsaber handling included – without any prior training. And please don’t give me ‘the force was strong with her’ line because despite having the force on his side, Luke Skywalker still had to go through Yoda’s schooling. So if you are planning to watch this soon. May the force be with you! (That’s ‘Good Luck to you in Star Wars lingo).

So after hearing so much praise for months, I finally had the chance to see Clouds of Sils Maria; a film which was a festival darling and stars Juliette Binoche. As the film begins, it slowly comes as a realisation that it is more in love with its content than telling an actual interesting story. After being offered to perform in a revival of the play that made her famous 20 years earlier, Maria Enders (Juliette Binoche) goes back to her past – to the celebrity lifestyle that she despises so much – along with her assistant, Valentine played by Kristen Stewart. Director Olivier Assayas has clearly made better works in his native French language because this is definitely not the pinnacle of his talent as a director. Other than Binoche trying ever so hard to inject life into this dull picture, the wooden performances from everyone else are mind-bogglingly godawful, including Kristen Stewart's mumbling dialogue delivery. A story which solely works on writing and performances, none of it lives up to its promised expectations. Clouds of Sils Maria is nothing more than an ostentatious All About Eve which tries to poke fun at other Hollywood genres and lifestyles but has absolutely no substance of its own. Why would one sympathise with the protagonist if she is just as bland as the celebrity lifestyle that it is trying to make fun of? Does one really want to witness the woes of being an aging actress who lacks a compelling soul herself? The story gives no reason for the viewers to be invested in the characters or the circumstances throughout its two-hour runtime and is a reminder that a film with just conversations is only good when it has something interesting to say. Although I personally hate this term, this film gives ‘art films’ a bad name. [poll id="412"] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Screenshot[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Screenshot[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Screenshot[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Screenshot[/caption]

The Night Before (2015) is a Christmas comedy that takes place essentially in one single night. Ethan (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), Isaac (Seth Rogen) and Chris (Anthony Mackie) have been friends since childhood and every Christmas, they hit the town together till the wee hours of the morning next day. But this Christmas, things might just be different as they somehow get invitations to the Nutcracka Ball - the Holy Grail of Christmas parties. For a Christmas night that is supposed to be remembered for ages, nothing really memorable happens and I forgot about this film soon after watching it. That isn’t to say that the film doesn’t contain laughs. Seth Rogen and Joseph Gordon Levitt are always great together. But the problem lies in juggling the comedy-drama aspect of the plot. The film tries to be different than most stoner comedies but at the same time, doesn’t want to meander too far away from the mainstream Hollywood comedy formula; wacky premise of a man-child running away from responsibilities but in the end, realising how family is more important than anything. Unlike 50/ 50 (2011), also directed by Jonathan Levine, you never really get invested into the characters too much to feel emotional empathy for them. The film starts off quite strong with real character motivations but within a few scenes, the plot is hijacked by an autopilot of stoner comedy nonsense. Sure, one can laugh at the wackiness of Seth Rogen high on mushrooms but it gets tiring real fast. The second half of the film tries hard to create jokes through celebrity cameos acting crazy and recycles jokes that we have seen countless times by now. It is now obvious that stoner comedies really have become stale and utterly predictable at this point. That isn’t to say that Rogen, Gordon-Levitt and Mackie aren’t funny actors, they are, but there have been much better Christmas comedies in the past and The Night Before just doesn’t bring anything new to the genre. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Still of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogen and Anthony Mackie.
Photo: Screenshot[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Photo: Publicity[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogen and Jonathan Levine.
Photo: IMDb[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Still of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogen and Anthony Mackie.
Photo: Screenshot[/caption]

Fashion icons, catwalks, style statements, and cameo appearances run wild in Zoolander 2, the sequel to Zoolander (2001). Ben Stiller reprises his role of Derek Zoolander, a silly male model while Owen Wilson returns as Hansel McDonald, another male model who was Derek’s arch nemesis in Zoolander but becomes his best friend in the sequel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XBDE7aijIs Stiller has appeared in notable movies including There’s Something About Mary (1998) Mystery Men (1999), Meet the Parents (2000), Meet the Fockers (2004), Starsky & Hutch (2004), Night at the Museum (2006) and The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013) giving stellar performances in each but his role as Derek in his latest comedy and its prequel is perhaps too easy to forget. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Ben Stiller.
Photo: Screenshot[/caption] Was the sequel of Zoolander much anticipated by viewers? The answer is in the negative! At a time when Hollywood is buzzing with side-splitting comedies like Deadpool, Kung Fu Panda 3, and Ride Along 2, Zoolander 2 came like a fad that faded away within a week. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Ben Stiller, Penélope Cruz and Owen Wilson
Photo: Screenshot[/caption] The movie has its ups and downs, and it doesn’t really seem like a sequel. It begins with unknown assassins killing celebrities. Derek, who is now living in seclusion, away from the hustle and bustle, must come out of hiding and join hands with Hansel McDonald, to find answers. With ordinary waggishness, action, and suspense being the combination of the movie, the script itself is ordinary and presents nothing inimitable. The action scenes are predictable and do not entertain. Where the prequel had a few giggly bits here and there, Zoolander 2 does not have many of them, if at all. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Ben Stiller and Penélope Cruz.
Photo: Screenshot[/caption] Penélope Cruz playing Valentina Valencia, an Interpol agent working on uncovering the assassinations is a breath of fresh air. Her role could have been much better had her character not been abased to a chatterbox, plastic bimbo. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Owen Wilson, Ben Stiller and Penélope Cruz.
Photo: Screenshot[/caption] Other cameo appearances continue to deliver reprocessed humour, which is not funny at all. Celebrities appearing in cameos include MC Hammer, Sting, Kiefer Sutherland, and a few others. Naming them all will be a spoiler. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Will Ferrell and Kristen Wiig.
Photo: Screenshot[/caption] Will Ferrell returns to Zoolander 2 as villain, Jacobim Mugatu. His appearance, in the latter parts of the second half, somewhat saves the movie from being an utter waste of time. Moreover, where Stiller and Wilson are lead protagonists, it is Ferrell’s comic timing which is better than all others in the movie. His antics actually make viewers laugh. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson and Penélope Cruz.
Photo: Screenshot[/caption] Stiller’s character of Derek Zoolander could have been made much bigger than it was in the prequel, however, the script and the plot were not cohesive enough to get the job done. Watching the duo, Stiller and Wilson, was the only sigh of relief in a movie that does not offer anything clever, or amusing. It is Stiller and Wilson’s on-screen chemistry and their ability to keep their scenes digestible that saves the movie from being a complete disaster. The burden of making sure Zoolander 2 is being funny, which it wasn’t, perhaps falls on Ben Stiller’s shoulder, who has directed it. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Will Ferrell and Nathan Lee Graham.
Photo: Screenshot[/caption] The proverb of ‘too many cooks spoil the broth’ sits aptly with the movie as the script is monotonous despite having the brains of four writers behind it. With the overuse of curse words, lustful language, and comic violence, the movie fails especially when compared to its predecessor. It seems the director and writers have tried their best to add humour but end up with senseless babble that fails to build the plot. The climax of the movie is a mere 30 to 45 minutes in length and seems too cluttered with dialogues and action that the message – if there was any – seems to be lost. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson
Photo: Screenshot[/caption] At the end of the movie, all you will remember are Stiller and Wilson for their rigid faces, Penélope Cruz for her jabbering character and Will Ferrell for his comic timing. It gets difficult for the audience to digest the excessive cameo characters that utter a line or two adding so much confusion that the story loses its charm. Even the action scenes seem to be glued together to form a sequence and with too much distraction due to nonsensical comedy and a parade of cameos, Zoolander 2 is a movie that will soon be forgotten akin to Zoolander. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson
Photo: Screenshot[/caption] If you are adamant on watching Zoolander 2, then do it only if you have no other plans.

Trailers do not do a good enough job of selling  movies properly these days. Most of the time the entire film is ruined for us in a space of three minutes, while in other cases, they try to mask their film’s mediocrity by showcasing a handful of good moments in the trailer. This is done in order to save the remaining mediocre movie for suckers who pay to watch it. In the case of Gods of Egypt, at least the trailer sold the movie for what it is; a big-budget, whitewashed misappropriation of Egyptian culture and mythology with lots and lots of Computer Generated Imagery (CGI). [embed width="620" height="348"]https://vimeo.com/148062925[/embed] The film is set in ancient Egypt and shows gods living among the mortals. The gods look just like the humans, only they’re much taller. A voiceover at the start of the film tells us that god Osiris has decided to crown his son, Horus (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) the king, until suddenly, Osiris’s brother Set, also known as the god of darkness and played by Gerard Butler suddenly thinks he should be the king. Thus Set stabs his father  to death and pulls out Horus’s eyeballs (yup, they took that straight out of The Lion King(1994), except the eye-balls part) and starts babbling some made up mumbo-jumbo about the afterlife to his soon-to-be mortal slaves. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Gerard Butler.
Photo: Screenshot[/caption] The main hero of the story however, is Bek (Brenton Thwaites), a lowly mortal and thief who can best be described as a 99 cent version of Aladdin. Bek infiltrates Set’s treasure vault, gets his hands on Horus’s magic eyeballs, among other things and attempts to return them to the wounded Horus so he can fight back and retake the throne. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Photo: Screenshot[/caption] In case you haven’t figured it out yet, Gods of Egypt is really, really bad. It’s badly made, it’s badly acted, and it has really bad special effects. It’s a movie that fails on nearly every level. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Photo: Screenshot[/caption] It’s quite obvious that nearly the entire $140 million budget was spent on special effects. And boy, do they feel horrendously artificial. I had trouble believing a single shot in this movie. That’s how overdone the CGI is. In some shots the actors aren’t even fully integrated into the background. Watching this movie is like watching someone playing a really terrible video-game. The execution is drab, the action sequences are bloated and incredibly dull, lacking any imagination whatsoever and often bordering on silliness. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Photo: Screenshot[/caption] The film is directed by Alex Proyas, a director who made two extremely interesting films – The Crow (1994) and Dark City (1998) – at the start of his career before making a mediocre film I, Robot (2004) followed by an awful film, Knowing (2009). With Gods of Egypt, he has truly sunk to the bottom of the barrel in regards to his cinematic career. I actually think the studio could have saved themselves some money by getting the visual effects department to direct the movie instead. They could have directed it just as well. The lazy writing consistently delves into the ‘so bad it’s hilarious’ category with its awkward humour and clunky dialogue. If the movie was just two hours of stupid camp, I actually could have appreciated it a little bit, but then the movie tries to establish some serious drama and it just does not work. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Gerard Butler.
Photo: Screenshot[/caption] The acting is mostly serviceable. There’s something to enjoy about Gerrard Butler’s crazy and over the top turn as Set. At times it’s unclear if he slips into his Scottish accent by accident or is just too lethargic in order to put in an effort to cover it up. Nikolaj Coster-Waldau tries his best with what he’s doing, while Brandon Thwaites comes across as too bland a character. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Photo: Screenshot[/caption] Gods of Egypt is an empty CGI spectacle at its very worst. It’s silly, it’s senseless and it’s boring. It actually feels like the filmmakers set out to make a video-game but ended up with this joke of a movie.

All right, I am holding my hands up and I admit I was a homophobe back in the day. Like any typical Pakistani youngster, a lot of my cussing and swearing involved slurs against the gay community. Even the word ‘gay’ itself turns pejorative since it’s used with a derisive attitude in our society and considered as a general term of disparagement amongst Pakistani youth and ashamedly, I was no different. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JezwsQKpXuU But for me personally, my days as a typical homophobic youngster changed for good when I happened to stumble upon Brokeback Mountain (2005). I am not a big fan of movies belonging to the genre of romance but director Ang Lee’s love-drama centred around a secretive relationship between two cowboys just radically shook my beliefs regarding an individual’s sexual orientation. Brokeback Mountain was numbing, but not like when you watch a typical Bollywood eyesore. Au contraire, it was thought-provoking to such an extent that it haunted me into researching extensively about this whole phenomenon that is homosexuality. Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger combining together in a taboo relation was one of the most fascinating emotional rides I had while absorbing a film and I experienced a cinematic déjà-vu recently, while watching another pair in a movie based on homosexuality. Which brings me to Aligarh, in which Manoj Bajpayee, playing the real life Dr Shrinivas Ramachandra Siras, a reluctant poster boy for India’s LGBT rights movement who was hounded out from the titular university for being a homosexual, shares a similar rapport with Rajkummar Rao who plays a young, fire-in-the-belly journalist, Deepu Sebastian. The couple, although not involved in the same sort of relationship dynamics as Gyllenhaal and Ledger, managed to evoke a similar visceral reaction out of me as the Brokeback Mountain duo; that of mind provocation, if you were not following. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Rajkummar Rao and Manoj Bajpayee.
Photo: Screenshot[/caption] 2016 has been a year of biopics for the Indian cinema so far, with Airlift, Neerja and now Aligarh hitting the theatres with aplomb. The film revolves around Bajpayee who, with method acting at its peak, is a mild-mannered professor of linguistics at the Aligarh University and a homosexual sexagenarian. Spending his solitude listening to old melodies of Lata Mangeshkar and sipping whiskey, Dr Siras’s life is turned upside down when his privacy is invaded in a sting operation where he is filmed in bed with a rickshaw driver. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Photo: Screenshot[/caption] What follows is a hideously concerted campaign by the university authorities to oust the professor and break his spirit for his sexual preference. Enter Deepu, the idealistic rookie journalist who helps Siras fight the battle to have his job, home and dignity restored. Long story short, Aligarh is Siras’s and Deepu’s poignant journey. Forget Sardar Khan from Gangs of Wasseypur (2012) and Bhikhu Mhtare Satya (1998), Siras is by far Bajpayee’s best work. An enthralling performance with a compendium of raw emotions mainly love, warmth and agony showcased so profoundly that  it is hard to look away from him. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Manoj Bajpayee.
Photo: Screenshot[/caption] He is crown jewel of the melancholic splendour that is Aligarh. What Bajpayee does in this film is so reluctantly courageous, so honest and so transcendental that his Siras is on way to becoming a point of reference not just for us but for generations to come. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Manoj Bajpayee.
Photo: Screenshot[/caption] In Bollywood, where homosexuality is an object of mockery or contemptuous gags and caricature, Manoj Bajpayee champions LGBT community’s cause without resorting to melodrama and in the process along with the movie itself, manages to reinforce the fact that everyone is entitled to their own sexual preference. Aligarh is not just a powerful character study; it is also a razor-sharp social commentary, sensitively making use of a real life tragedy. Also the self-appointed generals of the moral brigade need not worry, since the film does not ‘promote’ homosexuality per se. If anything Aligarh is about human rights, right to privacy and equality for all. Goes without saying, that includes gays as well. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Rajkummar Rao and Manoj Bajpayee.
Photo: Screenshot[/caption] One wishes that it has the same kind of influence on the public of the sub-continent as Brokeback Mountain and Philadelphia (1993) had with the western world with regards to understanding homosexuals’ plight. Aligarh might never achieve worldwide recognition as the aforementioned two but it surely is one of the most profound films ever to grace cinemas in our part of the world. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Manoj Bajpayee.
Photo: Screenshot[/caption] Manoj’s Siras remarks,

“Kavita shabdo ke beech ki khamoshi mein hoti hai, har koi umr aur paristhiti ke hisaab se uska matlab nikalta hai.” (The poetry is in the silences between words; its connotation depends on the age and circumstances one is in.)

Are we on the brink of total lack of creativity in the art of film-making? The year 2015 proved to be otherwise. One just needs to broaden their horizons in their perception of cinema and what it could accomplish. Last year, the world of cinema saw many films that broke preconceived notions of Hollywood and filmmaking in general. A sequel/ reboot that defies critics and audiences expectations, a period piece proving that melodrama can narrate strong storytelling and a stop motion animated film that proved to be more ‘real’ and touching than most live action films out there. After reviewing countless films from all over the world, here are my top 10 films of 2015: 10. Sicario https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR0SDT2GeFg 9. Aferim https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmTYOY_jQWc 8. Hard to be a God https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11sMDQIgggA 7. Carol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH3zcuRQXNo 6. The Tribe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEKlhmLICAs 5. The Revenant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoebZZ8K5N0 4. Mommy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7rtSqI0ZeA 3. Mad Max: Fury Road https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEJnMQG9ev8 2. Anomalisa https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg8MtJv2Oec 1. Best of Enemies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6qW-ZKxZss Watch the video to find out why these movies made the cut.

I can’t say I walked into The Legend of Tarzan with particularly high expectations. And that wasn’t only due to the fact that the character of Tarzan simply does not appeal to me, or because of the character’s highly unsuccessful, nearly a century old on-screen track record. But also because, I feel the character and story is an out-dated relic of the past that should have been forgotten, when its author Edgar Rice Burroughs passed away in 1950. But knowing Hollywood and its primal penchant for rebooting and rehashing anything and everything that has the capability of making even a little money, I’m not surprised we have this tedious and utterly insipid live-action rehash of Tarzan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj7ty6sViiU Alexander Skarsgård stars as Tarzan, now known by his real name John Clayton, who at the beginning of the film is a distinguished lord living in London and married to Jane (Margot Robbie). The film is more of a sequel to the original Tarzan story, and for those who are unaware of the backstory, the film attempts to half-tell it in snippets of flashbacks. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Alexander Skarsgård
Photo: IMDb[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Alexander Skarsgård and Samuel L Jackson
Photo: IMDb[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Margot Robbie
Photo: IMDb[/caption] Since the events of the original story, Clayton has become something of a celebrity, however during that time, political unrest has occurred in Africa, exacerbated by King Leopold of Belgium, who’s claimed Congo and then ran up loads of debt. Clayton, who grew up in the Congo, is persuaded to visit George Washington Williams (Samuel L Jackson) and was told that there’s an underground slave trade emerging. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Samuel L Jackson
Photo: IMDb[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] Which means it’s time for Tarzan to go back to the jungle and do some vine-swinging, gorilla-wrestling and lion-snuggling before the film hits us over the head with its hackneyed sub-plot about colonialism and slavery in the 19^th century, led by Christoph Waltz playing the evil colonialist slave trader version of his Oscar-winning character Hans Landa from Inglourious Basterds (2009). [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Christoph Waltz
Photo: IMDb[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Alexander Skarsgård
Photo: IMDb[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Alexander Skarsgård
Photo: IMDb[/caption] The ‘been there, seen that’ feeling is definitely there – apart from being highly predictable – The Legend of Tarzan also happens to be an utterly dull and life-less affair. In the age of gritty and self-serious Hollywood blockbusters, it’s no surprise that this movie tried to do the same, which actually robbed it of the one quality that could have made it even slightly redeeming – joy. It’s just too dour to be actually enjoyed. And the film’s few attempts to feel grounded in reality are hampered by the woefully unremarkable special-effects because neither the backdrop nor any of the digital ostriches, digital gorillas, and digital lions look real. Even the action sequences have absolutely no heft, which is disappointing considering it’s directed by David Yates, who directed the last four Harry Potter films and showed great prowess with special effects sequences with those films. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Djimon Hounsou
Photo: IMDb[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Margot Robbie, Casper Crump
Photo: IMDb[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Djimon Hounsou
Photo: IMDb[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Djimon Hounsou
Photo: IMDb[/caption] The film also seems hell-bent on using the same slow-motion pause effect for nearly every action sequence until it becomes a complete overkill. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Margot Robbie and Alexander Skarsgård
Photo: IMDb[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Margot Robbie and Alexander Skarsgård
Photo: IMDb[/caption] I suppose you can give the actors some credit for trying, even if most of them are there just to cash their pay check. Samuel L Jackson seems to be having some fun and is actually the film’s only source of little levity, Margot Robbie really tries her best as Jane but is unfortunately held back by the script she has been given to work with and Christoph Waltz definitely seems more in sync than he was in Spectre (2015) – even if his erudite, smooth-talking villain with a European accent routine is close to becoming a gimmick. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Margot Robbie
Photo: IMDb[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Margot Robbie
Photo: IMDb[/caption] What doesn’t work however, is Alexander Skarsgård’s stone-faced, bland and staggeringly one-dimensional portrayal of Tarzan, who despite nailing the physicality of the character, does little more than act with his abs. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Alexander Skarsgård
Photo: IMDb[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Samuel L Jackson and Alexander Skarsgård
Photo: IMDb[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Samuel L. Jackson, Margot Robbie, Alexander Skarsgård
Photo: IMDb[/caption] It’s debatable exactly how much of that is his fault, which brings me to my biggest problem with this movie – it’s just poorly written. Neither Tarzan nor any of the other characters have any real characterisation to them. The film’s political aspect stemming from its subplot about colonialism feels far too forced, while the storytelling feels clunky and predictable and more like a patchwork of lazy exposition and bad dialogue. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Samuel L Jackson, Alexander Skarsgård, Mens-Sana Tamakloe, Osy Ikhile, Antony Acheampong
Photo: IMDb[/caption] I’m not sure whether to blame the filmmakers for making this or the studio for green-lighting it, because at the end of the day, I don’t see how you can make a good Tarzan movie without it being silly and corny, or maybe even a good Tarzan movie, period. It is primarily one of the reasons why it’s better to perhaps leave it alone instead. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Alexander Skarsgård
Photo: IMDb[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Alexander Skarsgård
Photo: IMDb[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Djimon Hounsou and Alexander Skarsgård
Photo: IMDb[/caption] The movie is too dour and political for the kids, too juvenile for adults, The Legend of Tarzan represents a woefully misguided step by Hollywood to reinvent the character for the 21^st century.  It may be some time before we see Tarzan swinging through trees again. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Alexander Skarsgård
Photo: IMDb[/caption]

There is certain redemption in resurgence. A feeling of hope and of renewal, of things starting anew, of setting the old wrongs right. Pakistani cinema has come up by leaps and bounds in the last few years. From a struggling franchise engulfed in out-dated ideas desperately clinging on in order to survive and become a booming industry reminiscent of the golden days and a slight peek into the wondrous possibilities that lie ahead. Pakistani cinema has finally arrived and as a keen devotee of this resurrection it is apparent that the film industry is here to stay. Although the current situation resembles a bed of roses, not long ago it was a reflection of a barren lifeless orchard that had been left to dwindle and wither away. During 2003 and 2013, only a handful of cinematic productions took place. Low quality in terms of production, acting and direction reduced the industry to ruins. The diminishing number of production houses led to low receipts that significantly contributed to this downturn, eventually perpetuating a vicious cycle that threatened to deluge the industry into oblivion. However, in 2014 and the years that have followed, the industry reinvented itself. Crowd pleasers like Jawani Phir Nahi Ani (2015) and Na Maloom Afrad (2014) appealed to the masses accumulating record collections in cinema houses all over the country. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBW7oZYgWRg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnCQHQ_yHms For many detractors though, this upturn in fortune had been achieved at an astounding cost. The industry had sold its soul to the devil and had become a sell-out, but then came Manto (2015) and Moor (2015). The duo introduced new standards of acting and direction that had never been seen before in the industry, so brilliant in their execution that everyone was taken back. The controversially nuance poet was brought to life with his plays, a tearful yet eye opening journey was revealed for all to see – something that had not been divulged before but had been done so beautifully that no one could argue that it was not worth the wait. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tnfx42fxCZU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lla1lNt0wLI However, success thrives on continuity rather than on resting on one’s laurels. It was imperative for the industry to further extend this run that had people flocking to cinema houses once again; a welcome sight for sore eyes and a vision that for most part of the last decade seemed implausible. What followed were stories of friendship and of romance, of estranged love and of war that had people clambering for tickets. More so the success of the industry is a reflection of all those that are a part of it. With Pakistani films doing exceedingly well on local and international platforms, technicians and actors have been in high demand ever since. Numerous singers and actors have made the inauspicious journey across the border. Fawad Khan, with his heart throbbing looks and renowned acting skills has entranced Indian audience, while actresses such as the gorgeous Mahira Khan has left everyone drooling at her natural charisma and beauty – a reflection of the abundance of talent that resides behind these troubled borders. However, as any keen critic would postulate, it is paramount that we look through this veil and analyse as to what is happening at the grass roots. While talking to a keen cinema enthusiast, who has been associated with the industry for most of his life, he said the real emergence lies in schools and universities that are the true building blocks of this revolution. He cited how universities used to be breeding grounds for cinematic brilliance. How writers, directors and actors grew and evolved in an environment that was hospitable to their creative desires. However, ever since the 80s and even today, state restrictions and narrative coupled with increasing religious fanaticism in educational institutions has emasculated this approach and the consequences of which still haunt us as a nation. What resulted was a severe dearth of quality writers, artists and film makers that gave rise to the capitulation of the industry itself. More so among the numerous problems that the industry faced and still does is the lack of funding available to adventure into new avenues. What ensued was the use of obsolete technologies and indigent payoffs to writers, technicians and artists, thus consequentially leading to a crippling of the whole network upon which the film industry functions. Perhaps the most profound effect is the fact that despite the upturn in recent years, our film industry is still light years behind Bollywood or Hollywood. New and evolving methodologies, ingenious scripts (more so in the case of Hollywood) and most importantly professionalism have sent quality and revenues through the roof. Access to worldwide audiences and considerable star appeal significantly contributes to their upturn and is an aspect that our local industry severely lacks. As an inquisitive observer of what has been cooked up by the industry, I sincerely believe that despite the recent upturns, the industry and its constituents have a long way to go. It is vital for the industry to not trade stimulating and challenging scripts and projects for idiotic and vulgar sell-outs that, at best, leave a bitter taste in the viewer’s mouth. Maintaining a sense of uniqueness while being open to outside influence is in my opinion, the cardinal factor that will determine the future for our industry. However, more so it is perhaps how the industry handles this upsurge in fortune that will eventually decide if it will bear fruit. As a nation, we have often been accused of taking a back-step when what was required was to take control and move to the next level. Continuous improvements are essential in terms of quality, writing and acting. The small screen has already mirrored the success that our entertainment industry can accumulate. Learning from their blueprint and improving upon their mistakes, all the while encouraging young talent, can be the foundation upon which the industry can prosper. A welcome change in this regard is the approach adopted by the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS). LUMS as the only established liberal arts institute in Pakistan has been a heretic and a safe haven for creative enthusiasts since its inception. Leading this thought process is the LUMS Media and Arts society or LMA. Evolving and getting bigger every year, the society spearheads numerous projects throughout the year. Ranging from dramatics to film making, the society takes a keen interest in what it assumes to be its responsibility in aiding the development of future artists by providing avenues to showcase their work. Perhaps their most riveting projects include the Filums (LUMS International Film Festival) and the documentary on the majestic hills of northern Pakistan that is to be released soon. Filums – hosted annually by the LUMS Media Arts Society (LMA), is one of the largest student-organised film festivals in South Asia. It serves as an important platform for the youth, upcoming filmmakers and enthusiasts to showcase their talent and come together to celebrate their passion. Filum brings together both amateur and aspiring filmmakers and experts of the field resulting in a nourishing and fulfilling experience for those involved. Although small in comparison to what the society envisions, for it to grow over the coming years, programs such as this, amongst others, mean LUMS has taken the first step towards a long, albeit rewarding journey ahead.

Clint Eastwood is no stranger to showing his love for American heroes, or at least people who satisfy his definition of an American hero. And that’s something that’s best reflective of the latter part of his career with films like Flags of Our Fathers (2006), J. Edgar (2011) and American Sniper (2014). And something he continues to explore with his 35^th film behind the camera: Sully. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjKEXxO2KNE Based on the remarkable true story of the ‘Miracle on the Hudson’, when on January of 2009, Captain Chelsey “Sully” Sullenberger successfully landed a US Airways plane on the Hudson River, after an influx of birds knocked out both the plane’s engines. The film draws on Sullenberger’s autobiography, ‘Highest Duty’, interspersing bits of his life story with two major strands: a real-time recreation of the flight, landing, and rescue, and the investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) into whether Sully acted properly in landing the plane in the river. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Tom Hanks
Photo: IMDb[/caption] With Sully, one thing that is clearly evident is that Eastwood has come to a point in his career where he can simply do no wrong, at least from a technical stand-point. And his steadiness behind the camera is one of the reasons this films works so well. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Tom Hanks
Photo: IMDb[/caption] Now, a lot of people including myself are not a fan of the blatant jingoism Eastwood’s films often project. Something that has especially ringed true for his previous film, American Sniper, where he tried to make a hero out of a sadistic, stone-cold killer. But surprisingly, his handling of the subject-matter is immaculate this time around, and free of any pandering, contrivances or schmaltz. In fact, Sully feels like a rather lean and effectively crafted film at 96 minutes, where almost every scene feels integral to the story and plot. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Tom Hanks, Aaron Eckhart and Shane P. Allen
Photo: IMDb[/caption] As much of a good job as Clint does at the helm, this film simply wouldn’t be as good as it is if it wasn’t for Tom Hanks and his impressively stoic and grounded lead performance as the titular character. Hanks has always been America’s favourite everyman, but with his recent run of films like Captain Phillips (2013), Bridge of Spies (2015) and now Sully, he seems to be excelling at playing that part. And once again he absolutely nails the role of an everyday guy who finds himself at odds with an increasingly adverse situation. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Tom Hanks
Photo: Ros Asadorian/ Splash News[/caption] It’s not a showy Oscar-baity performance, but it’s a tremendously subtle one, that’s always captivating. And thankfully, he doesn’t have to carry the film entirely on his own shoulders either, thanks to some great support from Aaron Eckhart as Sully’s co-pilot Jeff Skiles. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Tom Hanks and Aaron Eckhart
Photo: IMDb[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Tom Hanks and Aaron Eckhart
Photo: IMDb[/caption] If there’s any area where Sully struggles, it’s that it sometimes seems to be trying a little too hard to find conflict, especially when it comes to making villains out of the NTSB desk jockeys. And the post 9/11 imagery and referencing is both on-the-nose and stretching for sentimentality. But what balances that out is the engrossing character study that Eastwood provides. And how Sully constantly doubts whether he did do the right thing – all that brings a uniquely human side to the film without which it could not have worked so efficiently. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Tom Hanks
Photo: IMDb[/caption] I’m not sure if Sully is going to bag a ton of Oscars, – maybe a nomination for Hanks – it’s doesn’t have the excessive mawkishness the Academy usually looks for in real-life stories. I think what ultimately matters most at the end of the day, is that this is a solid piece of filmmaking and both a story of ordinary heroism and an ode to professionalism done increasingly well. It might not set your heart racing, but it’s bound to move you and engage you.

When I first heard about a Harry Potter spin off prequel, I was a bit sceptical about whether any other wizarding fantasy could fill up the wizarding cloaks left behind by Harry and the gang. But little did I know that JK Rowling has some more dazzling magic left for us muggles (or no-maj if you are American). From the get go, this imagination-tickling flick nostalgically took me back to the magical world of wizards and witches with James Newton Howard’s famed title theme and the symbolic silver fonts used in the opening title. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGNnv_g9h4k Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is based on a book, just like all the previous Harry Potter films. However, let me remind you that this is JK Rowling we are talking about here; nothing is ordinary in her world. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, interestingly, is a book within a book; a textbook used by year one students of Hogwarts and written by Newt Scamander; the hero of the movie whose twitchy, soft spoken charms makes all of us viewers fall for him instantly. This movie is Rowling’s first attempt at screenwriting and damn, she is good at it! In contrast to the original Harry Potter kid-centric adventures, this exploration of the magical community across the Atlantic by Rowling is pretty adult appropriate, a tad too much for pre-teen Potterheads. Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), a Hogwart’s graduate and a British magizoologist arrives in a 1926 New York with a suitcase full of magical and wondrous creatures. (A little fun fact for all you Potter fans: He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named was born on the last day of 1926 as well. A mere coincidence perhaps?) [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander.[/caption] MACUSA, the Magical Congress of the United States of America, the American cousin of the British Ministry of Magic, does not allow the import of wild beasts in the country and Scamander is immediately flagged down by a demoted auror, Porpetina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston), for illegal possession of these magical creatures. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Alison Sudol as Queenie and Katherine Waterston as Porpetina Goldstein.[/caption] However, there is a mix up of suitcases, with a no-maj aspiring pastry chef, Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), letting several of Scamander’s colourful and mischievous beings to escape from his size belying suitcase. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Dan Fogler as Jacob Kowalski.[/caption] Thus begins the hunt to recapture these unique and beguiling creatures. Nifflers a slapstick thieving platypus, by far, is the most impishly likeable of the lot. The duo is joined by Goldstein and her mind reading sister, Queenie (Alison Sudol), to seek the creatures and ultimately uncover a mysteriously malevolent black force ravaging the streets of the Big Apple. In the latter instalments of the Harry Potter series, Rowling was never afraid to bring out the veiled murky under side of the world and such is the case with this movie as well. Ghastly murders, capital punishment and animal abuse are just a few of the darker matters which she has successfully blended within the fantasy fuelled narrative. She also successfully managed to incorporate a few moral messages in the movie, such as bravery, friendship and the power of kindness, just like she did in the Harry Potter franchise. Eddie Redmayne brilliantly portrays Newt Scamander as the awkward wizard, bringing out the quintessential shyness of his soft spoken character by having him whisper all his dialogues and avoiding any direct eye contact during one-on-one conversations. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Colin Farrell and Eddie Redmayne[/caption] The eye popping production designs were at par, if not superior to the fantastical sets inhabiting the Potterverse. And cost importantly, the movie had that X factor which elevated it from its contemporaries. JK Rowling’s Midas touch, perhaps? It will be ridiculous of me to try and predict whether the spin off prequel will be as popular as the original Harry Potter franchise. But if the first instalment of Newt Scamander’s magical exploits is anything to go by, then it is safe to state that this particular series would not let its predecessor down. All photos: IMDb

The golden age of Hollywood has produced numerous memorable films, ones that even decades later, still influence filmmakers from around the world. But Sullivan’s Travels (1941) is not any ordinary film. This delicious dark comedy by Preston Sturges was highly controversial for its time that brought a special sense of humour to mainstream American filmmaking. This is the first of my ‘Bucket List Pick’; A film that you have to watch before you kick the bucket. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUNHxGDLfIE The film stars Joel McCrea as a famous Hollywood director Sullivan who feels like he hasn’t created anything of value for the common masses. The only films that he has made have been comedies and this time, he vows to the studio execs that he’s going to make a film about real life misery‚ O Brother Where Art thou? Unfortunately, his idea gets shot down by the studio executives who believe that since he has always been brought up in wealth, there’s no way he can ever recreate the experience of what it’s like to come from a penniless background. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Veronica Lake and Joel McCrea in Sullivan's Travels (1941).
Photo: IMDb[/caption] And this is where Sullivan has the idea to spend a few months living life as a Hobo. Along the way, Sullivan meets a down-on-her-luck actress who tags along on his journey of self-discovery and ultimately, moral salvation. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Veronica Lake, Joel McCrea, and Bill Wolfe in Sullivan's Travels (1941).
Photo: IMDb[/caption] The film stars magnificent performances from Joel McCrea and Veronica Lake. In 2007, Sullivan’s Travels was added by the American Film Institute as the ‘100 Years 100 Movies’ of all time.

The much-awaited Shah Rukh Khan (SRK) starrer Raees, released in January 2017, seems loosely based on the life of notorious Gujarati Mafioso Abdul Latif. Latif was a gambler, a hired assassin, bootlegger and extortionist par excellence. He was also involved in the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts and on the run till he was killed by the police in an encounter in 1997. Raees has, perhaps, sketched Latif’s life with all the charm and halo one expects from an SRK starrer. Like all other SRK fans, I wait for his films with bated breath. Such is my King Khan mania that I have never missed a single Shah Rukh Khan film, always made sure that I watch his interviews online and check his Twitter handle twice a day for a peek into his world. At the age of 36, I participated in the #IamFAN contest, right before the release of Fan. I felt terrible when I could not make it to the poster and meet him in person. My friends know that I have a speech ready for the day I meet Shah Rukh Khan. Every time I visit Mumbai, I do visit H K Bhabha Road for a glimpse of his palatial home, Mannat. But I am a different kind of a fan who, perhaps, SRK isn’t used to. For most of the star’s fans, all his performances are worthy of an Oscar, no less. Whilst I appreciate him for his good work, I also cringe at his errant choice of films and bad performances. I passionately praised his performance in Dear Zindagi, as much as I deplored his guest appearance in Ae Dil Hai Mushkil. In much the same way, I also vow not to waste my time on Raees. But the Raees trailer failed to intrigue me. It seemed like it was made in haste. Even if the producers decided to experiment with the story of yet another underworld don, I had expected a storyline worth looking forward to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AGbaVB46XY Instead, Raees’ trailer sketches a plot plagued with clichés. While one of the dialogues informs the viewers that the story is set in Gujarat, there is nothing remotely Gujarati about the rest of the trailer. The language the characters in the film speak does not have a hint of Gujarati. Anyone who has ever visited Gujarat will know that Gujaratis speak Hindi in a certain way. It would have been just so perfect to hear Shah Rukh deliver dialogues like the quintessential Gujarati Pathan would. But Raees Khan sounds Lucknavi to me. Ranveer Singh and the rest of the cast in Bajirao Mastani attracted so much acceptance from the audience because of the fact that they immersed themselves in the skin of the Marathas. Isn’t good cinema supposed to offer that flavour of authenticity to its audience? I wish Raees was curated with a little more investment to the authenticity of characters. If Bhansali’s film Ram Leela, based on two factious towns and their rivalry, managed to earn critical acclaim and an enviable Rs15.5 crore at the box office on the first day of its release, Raees, based on the life of a real life bootlegger and the crime and politics surrounding the liquor ban in Gujarat, deserved to be made with a better punch. But what appears from the trailer is that Raees is yet another action film that has an inalienable flavour of the ‘70s. I am not sure how Shah Rukh would feel about being compared to the angry young man of Deewar as this review of Raees’ trailer suggests. As a fan, I feel thoroughly disappointed about not being able to see King Khan taking the genre a few steps ahead and creating a niche for himself with a brilliant storyline that translates into a rich film. Shah Rukh may have an audience that still likes to see flying bullets, a gangster daring a cop, an item song or two, ugly fight sequences and painful musical breaks. But many like me prefer to see him doing better films with firmer plots and impactful roles. It is painful to watch Shah Rukh Khan in films which are no different from other run-of-the-mill potboilers. He recently impressed the audience with Dear Zindagi. Fans haven’t forgotten his Swades and Chak De! Apologies, fellow SRK fans. I am aware that I am ruthless with my views on the Raees trailer. The purpose is to let Shah Rukh know that he is capable of doing better films – and that the audience wants to see more of Mohan Bharghav (Swades), Kabir Khan (Chak De!) and Jehangir Khan (Dear Zindagi). I wish Shah Rukh had picked more substantial roles and convincing films that blow fans like me away with their solid storyline, meaningful dialogues and believable portrayal of characters and situations. It remains to be seen what response the film is likely to generate given it is creating a hero out of an underworld don. The political climate in the country is already charged post Uri and Nagrota attacks and releasing a seemingly contentious film on the Republic Day weekend in such times raises serious doubts about its success. This post originally appeared here.

Despite all these years, I can still vividly remember one of the climax scenes from the original Charlton Heston starrer, Planet of the Apes. I was a kid back then, but the sight of an utterly decimated Statue of Liberty from the finale had this bizarre depressing effect on me which lingered on for days. It wasn’t just the shot itself, it was the notion that dumb humans co-existing with their advanced simian cousins as the dominant species was a little too peculiar for my impressionable self. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] My dad was kind enough to answer my curiosity with a simply yet a highly appropriate answer; monkeys ruling over our kind is a potential future outcome, if we don’t get it together. He hit the nail right on the head, because Pierre Boulle’s 1963 novel La Planète des Singes – which was the basis for the film – was crafted on the theme that human intelligence is not a fixed quality and could atrophy if taken for granted. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] Ending up as a slave to a master monkey turned out to be one of my parents’ favourite threats and to be perfectly honest, it did work most of the time. Anyway, back to the Planet of the Apes, which was both a commercial and a critical success; it ended up spawning a whole media franchise including films, books, television series, video games and comics about a world in which humans and intelligent apes clash for control. The third installment of the recently rebooted franchise is about to hit the theatres this summer and if you ask me, it is no monkey business either. The reboot series has Caeser (Andy Serkis), a genetically enhanced chimp raised in a human household, as the protagonist and following the last outing where he survives a coup, he is still in charge of the simian race in this installment. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] Set two years after the events of Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Caesar finds himself embroiled in a war against the humans led by a ruthless colonel (Woody Harrelson) and you can’t blame him for starting this fight either. Caesar says,

“I did not start this war. I fight only to protect the apes,”

“You talk about mercy,” he says. “No matter what you say, you’d eventually replace us. That’s the law of nature.”

Throughout history, cinema has functioned as a voice against oppression. Be it films such as Mississippi Burning or Fruitvale Station that highlight racism in the US’ past and present, or films such as Schindler’s List and Life is Beautiful which focus on the Holocaust and the oppression of Jews during World War II. The Battle of Algiers is yet another movie which focuses on the oppression of the Algerian people by the French, and their subsequent struggle for independence. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Photo: Facebook[/caption] Cinema has always played an important role in connecting the viewer with these moving stories. Kashmiri filmmaker Danish Renzu aims to do something similar with his latest film, Half Widow. Though he doesn’t have the same level of financing, distribution or exposure most films and their filmmakers have, his focus revolves around relating an important story about human pain, humanity and most importantly, Kashmir. The story in question is about Kashmiri women whose husbands have disappeared at the hands of the Indian government forces between 1989 and 2006. The number, which is anywhere around 8,000 and 10,000, consists of Kashmiris, many of whom were part of a militant uprising against Indian oppression. However, the majority of these Kashmiris had no connection with armed opposition groups. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Photo: Facebook[/caption] And perhaps the saddest aspect about this story is that it’s the women who are the silent sufferers and the term ‘half widow’ is used for them because they still have no idea whether their husbands are dead or alive. It will be interesting to see how the subject matter is handled. More importantly, I’m intrigued to see how the movie portrays a Kashmiri perspective rather than a Pakistani or an Indian one. The conflict in Kashmir has always had a profound impact on Kashmiris and its high time their stories made it to the big screen and their artists got the same respect and recognition other artists usually get. Renzu, who was born in Srinagar but received his education from the University of California, is extremely interested in bringing Kashmiri stories to the big screen. He has already produced several short films about social acceptance such as In Search of America, Inshallah and The Virtual. Half Widow will be his feature film debut. He is already working on two more films, Pashmina, which also focuses on a Kashmir-based narrative, and The Illegal. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] Renzu has also been focusing on recruiting Kashmiri talent for the film, which may give it more of an authentic feel. His entire cast and crew comprises mainly of Kashmiri artists. The film does not have a release date as yet, but it is supposed to come out sometime in 2017, with the filmmakers eyeing an international premiere in the US.

Despicable Me 3 is the latest entry in the hugely successful Despicable Me franchise. And although the last two prequels have done well in regards to delivering good humour, fun characters and enjoyable set-pieces, the latest release falls short of being even slightly good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DBi41reeF0 The latest film follows the now-reformed Gru (Steve Carell), who still works for the Anti-Villain League. His failure to apprehend the new baddie, Balthazar Brat (voiced by South Park’s Trey Parker) – a child star from the 80s who is seeking world domination because of the pre-mature cancellation of his show – leads to him being fired from the Anti-Villain league. Furthermore, it pushes Gru to the brink of a major identity crisis. However, Gru finds himself at odds with his moral compass when he discovers that he has a twin brother Dru (also voiced by Carell). Dru was separated from him at birth and happens to be a super villain living in the fictional Eastern European country of Freedonia. From the onset, it’s obvious that Despicable Me 3 is here to have fun, as evidenced by the entertaining opening set-piece. And with the success this franchise has achieved with its previous prequels, it’s apparent that the recent offering isn’t afraid to take the story in a new direction. This may be because it has an extremely loyal fan-base in the form of young children, who will not be too affected if the film sacrifices character beats for a few more laughs and set-pieces. And if you are a child, you’ll probably have a lot of fun with this, just like you’ve had with the previous films. But if you’re a parent or even an adult moviegoer, you will be a little deterred by the distinct lack of emotion, which is otherwise present in this franchise. The problem with Despicable Me 3 is that it’s just too overstuffed. It’s crammed with four to five sub-plots, when there isn’t even room for more than two. The film moves at a brisk pace, but it lacks structure and doesn’t focus enough on the characters. At certain points, it just feels as if the producer ran out of ideas, whether it be with the hit or miss gags or the direction of certain sub-plots. An example of this is our antagonist. Initially, Balthazar feels like an extremely interesting and hilarious addition to the film as he break-dances to 80s hits while comfortably stealing a diamond. But over the course of the film, it seems as if the filmmakers just ran out of things for him to do and keep throwing the same recycled jokes. The twin-brother story-line also feels like a major missed opportunity because while there’s potential for filmmakers to explore some mature themes there, they seem content at simply making jokes. And each confrontation between Gru and his brother quickly grows tiresome and predictable. Credit to Carrell though, as he does a fantastic job yet again reprising his role as Gru and is still the funniest part of the movie. But he struggles to make an interesting character out of Dru, who grows increasingly annoying and uninteresting as the movie progresses. That said, there are still a number of things about Despicable Me 3 that do work well. The central adventure, for instance, is quite entertaining and has enough in it to grab your attention with its exuberant set-pieces. The humour mostly works as well and some of the quips are genuinely funny. And despite the lack of attention to its characters, the movie still manages to focus a fair bit on the family dynamic of Gru, his wife and his adopted daughters, which provide the film with a few tender moments. As for the Minions, they are in the film enough for them to have their own little story. But it seems the filmmakers have learned their lesson from the Minions movie – they work best in a supporting capacity. Ultimately, Despicable Me 3 feels prosaic and is fairly innocuous, but again, these words will only affect those who are old enough to know what they actually mean. The lack of emotion fails to elevate the film from a cartoon to an animated film. And while there’s no denying that there’s a lot of good, lighthearted fun to be had, you shouldn’t expect anything more. All photos: IMDb

If you were a kid growing up in the 90s, chances are you saw Jumanji and loved it. Following the story of a sinister board game whose gameplay affects real life, the film was one of the benchmark children films of the 90s and for many people, one of their first introductions to the late and great Robin Williams. Now some 22 years later, it makes a return in the form of a sequel but there’s a twist. Instead of a board game, this one is about a Jumanji videogame which when played, consequently sucks its players into its world and transforms them into the characters of the game. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Photo: Screenshot[/caption] The film follows a group of four Breakfast Club-esque teenagers – Spencer (Alex Wolff), Fridge (Ser’Darius Blain), Bethany (Madison Iseman) and Martha (Morgan Turner). These four discover this video game in a basement while in detention and unwittingly find themselves being sucked into the game. Moreover, they take on the identities of the characters they have logged on as, who turn out to be played by Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart, Karen Gillan and Jack Black. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Photo: Screenshot[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Photo: Screenshot[/caption] What’s perhaps the most exciting and refreshing part about Jumanji 2: Welcome to the Jungle, (judging by its trailers) is how the film is clearly going for a deft mix of action, adventure and comedy which is something you don’t see enough of in children’s films these days. This also explains why the producers lined up a big movie star like The Rock as well as talented funny men such like Black and Hart. It also puts an interesting spin on its predecessor by taking the characters inside the world of the game rather than having it unleashed on the real world. In the month of December, when Hollywood is churning out prestige pictures vying for the Oscars, something like Jumanji will undoubtedly be a welcome respite. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Photo: Screenshot[/caption] Although the original is a film many people hold in sacred regard simply because of the impact it had on their childhood, there’s no denying it was a flawed film that could benefit from a fresh new face-lift. Whether Welcome to the Jungle delivers will be interesting to see. Jumanji 2: Welcome to the Jungle hits cinema screens December 20, 2017.

Anees Bazmee’s latest film, Mubarakan recently hit the theatres. Knowing that it was directed by the king of comedy, who also directed movies like No Entry, Welcome, Ready, Singh is King and more, I honestly expected a mind-numbing comedy. These movies are high in entertainment value and that’s exactly what I expected. As I walked into the movie theatre, I was all set to laugh. And boy did Anees pull through this time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYXNMaBQrwU The cast Who doesn’t love a good Anil Kapoor movie? We have seen the Anees and Anil duo before, thus this film was already high on the expectations ladder, given the humour we witnessed in the last few movies. Mubarakan also stars Arjun Kapoor as a set of twins (Charan and Karan) – one in Punjab and one in London – and the double trouble definitely adds an element of excitement to the storyline. Anil plays the twins’ youngest uncle, Kartar Singh. Furthermore, we have Sanjay Kapoor, Ileana D’Cruz, Neha Sharma, Athiya Shetty, Pavan Malhotra, Ratna Pathak and Rahul Dev featuring in the film. The twins’ parents pass away and leave them under the care of Kartar uncle. Since he can’t bear the responsibility of the twins, he sends one twin to his sister in London and the other to his brother in Punjab. Two twins in two different cities equals to twice the drama. The plot The movie is packed with twists and turns which keeps the audience engaged throughout. The storyline progresses with Charan getting engaged to Karan’s girlfriend (Ileana D’Cruz). Since Karan is obviously enraged by this, he decides to invite Charan’s girlfriend (Neha Sharma) to the engagement party. Moreover, another character is thrown into this imbroglio, Athiya, who is being pressured by her father to marry Karan and henceforth, drama ensues. Yes, I know, it sounds messy, but the fun lies in that. The acting Performance wise, Anil is the highlight of the movie. He managed to hit every mark. On the other hand, Arjun’s performance was commendable as well. Playing a double role is not an easy task, yet he pulled off both roles brilliantly. Mubarakan works in his favour since it makes us forget about his past two mediocre films. Coming to the female leads, Ileana is both smart and sassy and she dazzles in all the songs. She proves her mettle right from the onset of the movie. Neha, on the other hand, has limited screen presence but looks absolutely lovely. Moreover, it wasn’t just the two lead actresses who managed to prove their acting skills; Athiya also did justice to her character. Mubarakan is only her second film and one can observe how her acting is improving overtime. Pavan is already a well-known actor in the industry and he brought a level of jocularity to the movie, along with some emotional elements. Even Ratna deserves appreciation for her character. She displays a typical desi-Punjabi attitude and it felt refreshing to watch such an apt portrayal. Dialogues and screenplay Throughout the film, the power of dialogue remains constant. Some are comical, some are emotional, while others manage to linger on in your mind. Anees knows how to project an entertaining film, therefore the screenplay was remarkable. Essentially, the film has all the ingredients needed to make it great – a good script, the perfect amount of humour, a touch of glamour and a hint of drama. Mubarakan doesn’t require much thought; all it requires is for you to sit back, let go and enjoy the ride. It is masala entertainment that defies logic and sense and its main purpose is to make the audience laugh. So if you’re an Anees fan, I suggest you go watch Mubarakan because you will love it. All photos: IMDb

I really have to hand it to Farhan Akhtar. I am sure that the son of the renowned lyricist and screenwriter, Javed Akhtar, must have faced a huge dilemma when casting for Lucknow Central. As an actor, if you sign up for a lot of average B-Town masala flicks, you will watch your promising career fade into oblivion.

Choose your projects and characters wisely and patiently, and you might just be able to carve a niche out for yourself. Farhan Akhtar opted for the latter and the rest, as they say, is history.

Since his first acting debut film in Bollywood, Akhtar has gone on to act in movies with huge critical acclaim. Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara, Bhaag Mikha Bhaag and Wazir are just a few of his many films where his character has been unanimously praised by the critics. Akhtar can now add another cinematic feather to his cap with the recently released Lucknow Central.

Kishen Girhotra (Farhan Akhtar), who belongs to Moradabad, dreams of becoming a singer with his own band. However, his plans are ruined when he somehow finds himself facing life imprisonment on the charge of killing an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer. Thus, he ends up in Lucknow Central Jail.