Review : Sonic the Hedgehog an entertaining yet unimaginative film

Posted on by

To begin with, Sonic the Hedgehog is an average, enjoyable and relatively harmless children’s film. That is if you’re comfortable with the continuous recycling of already overused tropes. Sadly for me, many of the jokes fell flat and I could not help but wonder about the possibilities that the film ignored.

The most important of these being incorporating the fantastic worlds where Sonic races for rings. I mean, with the franchise spanning around three decades there is an endless list of exotic locations to visit. Or many that can be created, after all, imagination should have no limit. It’s just rather boring to see Sonic fighting on a stretch of road, a rest stop or a bar (speaking of which, isn’t he underage?)

The lackluster formulaic dialogue only serves to add to the blandness of the story. Formulaic character tropes, sorry, formulaic characters add to the blandness. Thankfully Carrey’s zaniness and the climactic action scene prevent the film from being completely listless.

There is a thing which I think should have been developed more. I am of course referring to Sonic’s stalker persona. I think the film should have taken that to the extreme. Made the delusions of his role in the family more elaborate. Had Sonic use figurines to role-play his being part of the household. Have Tom and Maddie side-eyeing him a little fearfully. Heck, maybe even have Sonic force himself into their home and make himself a room. By blackmail if necessary. At the very least this would give Sonic a distinct and unique character trait.

Again Sonic the Hedgehog serves as average entertainment. There is not much to discredit the film for. The only complaint really is that it could have been a more exciting film with Sonic flashing through fantastic locales and he could have been a more exciting character as a stalker. Kudos to Carrey though for embracing the Robotnik image with the mustache.

Response : Ledger vs Phoenix, a spoiler free comparison of Jokers

Posted on by

Recently (in a comment) I was asked to explain the difference between Heath Ledger’s and Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker, without giving away spoilers. This was a tough question, given that I couldn’t provide spoilers. I did my best though. The following is my analysis:

First Ledger and Phoenix play very different iterations of the Joker. But then again we’re already used to that given that DC stories exist in so many different universes and media forms.

Second, they’re both brilliant and I love them both. Hypothetically, if each of these Jokers had a sequel I’d watch them both and enjoy them equally (provided the right creative team were involved). Both the actors understand the core psychology of the Joker as an existentialist so they both provide a brilliant performance.

The main difference I think is the point of view. In the Dark Knight trilogy Joker is presented in a third person point of view. Meaning that you have an “objective” narrator. As such, you don’t follow the Joker around. He comes and goes and you also experience other POVs. Now with Joker the film it’s a first person point of view. If I’m recalling this correctly, we hardly leave Arthur’s side. So everything we see is from Arthur’s POV.

Finally, in the Dark Knight trilogy the Joker is presented fully formed. Generally audience members have some conception of him. I’m not saying there’re no surprises. There are plenty of those, the nature of Joker is that of uncertainty. Ledger has to build the story of a character. However the character is not in transition. That is, the character is revealed. There is no growth or change to present. Joker is a matured and fully formed character. He knows who he is and why he does what he does.

Now the Joker movie is an “origin” story. This is a story about beginnings and progression. The evolution of a character. That Phoenix will present a different character is a given from the trailers. That the progression will show different sides of Joker is a given. What must be highlighted though is the movement of the character. In this case we see a character moving from point A to B to C and so on. As such there is a different kind of uncertainty here. Will Joker take option A or B? Is Joker C or D? Even Joker can’t give a definite answer at times. The movie records the journey of character development.

The conclusion is that Joker is more external for Ledger and internal for Phoenix. Our “in” to Joker’s character that is. In the Dark Knight we are outside looking in. In Joker we are inside looking out. It’s a difference of perspective.

Now everyone will have their personal preference of which Joker they love, naturally. I would just like to encourage people who felt that Phoenix’s Joker wasn’t very DC to think of this movie as the first step in a journey of a million miles to reach a mature Joker. Joker did not appear in a vacuum, though that notion does contribute to his terror and mystique as an agent of chaos. If Joker seems a bit old now while Bruce is a young lad, well perhaps Joker fell into Ra’s bath one day. Or perhaps Joker sees his physical appearance in a certain way. Or maybe he and Deadpool had a discussion of immortality one day. Stranger things have happened in the comic verse. Point being DC has the leg room to tell many different stories that don’t conform to a specific label. And I bet Joker loves defying definite definitions, don’t you?

Review : A Sublime experience that I can’t make sense of (Joker)

Posted on by

[review originally posted on IMDB]

Today an entire theatre was silenced. Well mostly, I mean commenting is unavoidable in a hall. But yeah. At one point my jaw was literally hanging open for a fairly long period. I was entirely aware of it but was compelled to keep it open, because I couldn’t shut it willingly.

That’s not an everyday experience, especially being desensitized by the constant consumption of media. And as a Joker fan I thought I knew him, that I’d seen it all. That his mind was as familiar as a well read book. I don’t mean he’s predictable, after all the Joker is well known for upsetting expectations. Rather, certain actions fit the Joker psychologically. So when he pulls one of his characteristic moves you’re like, ah yes, a classic Joker. But the Joker had to, well, pull a Joker on us all. Because I saw none of that coming. There were these moments where I’d stare at the screen saying to myself, did I see what I just saw? What did I just see?

At the end of the movie I was left feeling simultaneously discombobulated and yet Sublime. I can’t explain it, what it is or why it is, but I feel amazed at seeing something amazing. Usually I’m articulate enough to come up with some reason as to why something made me feel a certain way. In this case I’ve got nothing. I think I need to see the film again just to figure out my exact opinions. Or maybe I won’t have an exact opinion. Maybe that is the point of the movie, that not everything can be labeled neatly. That sometimes you can only enjoy the chaos.

Rarely there are these gems of comic book movies that transcend the norms. That offer a unique and transcendental experience. Logan and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse are one of those few and Joker has joined their ranks. Congrats to DC.

Update: I totally recommend watching this movie alongside Inception. I feel like these films speak to each other.

Further update: The critics are right, the movie is dangerous… because the viewer is forced to think *laughing and crying*

Rant and Review : Am I a dunce for expecting too much from Dr Strange?

Posted on by

Don’t get me wrong, visually the movie was a treat. And there is something vastly entertaining about seeing a milder version of Sherlock/House going up against a mild Hannibal. This is like a triover? (A crossover in triplicate?) And seeing evil Groot was also enjoyable. And frankly, the cape stole the show. But as a post-colonial critic there are things I cannot overlook. Like the film being set in Nepal and failing to cast a significant Nepalese character. The thugs don’t count. And the monk without a hand who was not given a line, let alone a backstory and had to be presented like a puppet … don’t even get me started on that. That would also fall under Disability Studies I think. What was the point of setting things in Nepal? To display an exotic Other? A colony? To highlight the exotic “eastern” philosophy? To set up further polarisations? To make cult jokes? Might as well as have had the temple in China Town.  It would have saved Strange the cost of a tedious flight. And why not? The main gates are in London, Hong Kong and NY. Make of that what you will. Furthermore, Inter-dimensional travel pretty much eliminates anything as a set location. Why not just hide your temple in a dimensional pocket? It would save you from robbers. But why try to make sense of a comic book movie? Isn’t the point of it all mindless enjoyment? Well, I actually would be happy to go along with that. After all, who wants to think about ethical responsibilities when enjoying a billion dollar blockbuster film? And I would have, were it not for the imperialist ideology littering the film. Sorry movie, you had better clean that up. Because you no longer represent an acceptable or recognizable world. I visited Nepal, and dearie, that was no Nepal. In no way did you capture the everyday society that I experienced there, the vivid people, the subjective people. Sorry film, I cannot accept your skewed perspective that would reduce the world to a bland palette. That is not my world and I can’t relate to that. My reality is far too diverse, complex and engaging, filled with people from different ethnicities and backgrounds. Your dream world is far too biased to make me feel welcome and I cannot passively sit by and watch. If it were America, Asgard, England or Sokovia, fine, yeah, I can see that happening.  But this was FUCKING NEPAL and if you’re telling me a single Nepalese did not speak a single line, well screw you. Like I’d believe an entire nation had lost their voice. And for those who say, it’s just a comic book movie, I say fuck that. If Marvel can start pushing the boundaries on gender stereotypes, race stereotypes and defy set expectations and can produce movies that surprise and entertain, I say they can do better. They can produce movies that are entertaining and ethical. Because let’s face it, it’s the 21st century and it’s about time we started representing a recognisable reality. I don’t say existing, because, hey, the world of the movie-verse is a construction, but it should be a reality that I, as a south Asian person of colour, can recognise. Cuz frankly, the unreality of Nepal, it took me out of the movie. It made me aware I was watching a movie, something not real. And understandably I could no longer enjoy it.

Reblog and Response : Just Saying (My Problem with Draco Malfoy)

Posted on by
https://www.tumblr.com/sildarmillionsays/72606184459/my-problem-with-draco-malfoy

✨ ✨ ✨ ✨ ✨ ✨ ✨ ✨ ✨ ✨ ✨ ✨ ✨ ✨ ✨ ✨ ✨ ✨ ✨ ✨ ✨ ✨ ✨ ✨ ✨ ✨ ✨

Ok, so I feel rather than simply reblogging a post I ought to put in some input, otherwise how different will this be from my tumblr page? Plus, I enjoy engaging in a discussion about something that interests me. Now on with the response!

Well, it’s been a while since I revisited any Potter material, but he’s like an old friend so I don’t forget him. Plus, I have been reading fanfiction. Avidly in fact, I also need my Potter fix. However, in the interests of being factually correct I Googled some stuff and read a few articles.

As far as I can tell Rowling was excessively puzzled by fangirls romanticizing Draco as she had intended him to be a bully and a morally reprehensible character. As sildarmillion says, Tom Felton in black makes hormones do a Mexican wave. And the bad boy trope comes into play here. You know, the misunderstood jerk who hides a heart of gold until that one special girl comes along who will redeem him. (Why else did Jane have the hots for Rochester?) To my knowledge Cassandra Clare also had a hand in the phenomena, starting the Draco-in-leather-pants trend. To his credit, Felton does look good in black. And the popularity of anti-heroes are on the rise. But Rowling stolidly maintains that he is a person of “dubious morality.” (http://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/books/news/a34541/jk-rowling-pities-draco-malfoy/)

Which is not to say I don’t acknowledge the potential of this character. I also feel that a lot could have been done with Draco. Especially since he gets so much time, in the movie and on the page. It has taken a while, but the Harry glow has faded. By that I mean I have found a lot of human qualities about Harry (thank you Radcliffe). I romanticized him a great deal in the past. Understandably though, I saw the world from his perspective and sometimes was sucked into his mind-set. Now though, I do see that Snape had a point. Maybe Snape put it harshly, but Harry could be an ass-hat at times. Like how he addresses senior professors like an entitled brat. Which is where Draco would make the perfect foil, particularly in terms of self-realization. Draco could have been more than a two dimensional bully, he and Harry could have helped each other grow. Which is not to say they skip off into the distance holding hands and singing show tunes. They are not going to be best friends. Let alone regular friends, there’s just too much bad blood there. Frenemies? Possibly. Like friendly rivals who occasionally give each other a reality check.

According to the following article Draco has gone through some reform, http://www.cinemablend.com/pop/Where-Draco-Malfoy-Now-According-J-K-Rowling-69076.html, and while that is nice to see, I would have liked more for him in the text. Like sildarmillion says, they do address it more in the movies, but I wanted more in the text. The reason I have issues with this has to with the reverse bigotry that is never fully addressed in the books. I won’t go into it all right now since I want to write about it in a separate post, but suffice to say an entire house of people have been labelled as bad and not enough has been done to show that it’s not that simple, that there are complexities involved. Anyways, Draco could have had more development within the series. He had all these moments when he could have done something and he just ends up fading into the background. It is disappointing to see all that build up come to nothing.

While Draco is a prejudiced and snobby bully in the text fans would like to see more from him, as evidenced by proliferating fanfiction. As a fan I support that view, with the proviso that he won’t be giving the smoulder anytime soon. Now if you would excuse me, I’ve got some research to conduct on leather pants.

Update: A response by sildarmillion has been published here : http://sildarmillionsays.tumblr.com/post/139951278201/reblog-and-response-just-saying-my-problem-with