Tony Stark Misses Captain America’s Optimism in New Endgame Spot

Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) misses Captain America’s (Steve Rogers) “giddy optimism” in a newly-released Avengers: Endgame TV Spot. It’s been a tumultuous last couple of years for the MCU heroes following their falling out in Captain America: Civil War. But after suffering a devastating loss to Thanos in Avengers: Infinity War, the two seems to be ready to set aside their differences for the common good in the much-anticipated Joe and Anthony Russo-directed film. Written by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, the project will wrap up the 22-film arc that the franchise has been treading since 2008’s Iron Man collectively known as The Infinity Saga.

Plot details are still tightly under wraps with Disney’s marketing designed to not give anything away in terms of Endgame‘s narrative. Infinity War was one of the most secretive productions ever, and with its sequel supposedly having more spoilers, it makes sense that Marvel Studios is doubling down on security. Trailers have barely revealed anything about how things pan out for both the remaining heroes and Thanos. But the TV spots, which have been rolling out regularly for the past several days offering fans an idea on what to expect in the Phase 3 capper. The latest promo clip previews what kind of dynamic the two MCU founding heroes will have in the film.

Related: Tony Stark Doesn’t Want to Die in Avengers: Endgame TV Spot

Shared by Marvel Studios‘ official Twitter account is a new Endgame TV spot composed of old and new footage. The clip starts with an emotional narration from Black Widow explaining how she never had the family, but because of the Avengers, she somehow found people she can totally trust. The video continues with a flurry of scenes and ends with a new dialog from Tony, seemingly telling Steve that he misses Steve Rogers’ “giddy optimism.” Watch the clip below:

Fans have seen the particular exchange between Iron Man and Captan America in a couple of previously released clips, but Marvel Studios continues to change the lines in the scene. In an earlier video, Stark was asking Steve about getting the whole team together, while in another, he says it would be nice to not die trying to execute their plan to take down Thanos. With the Russos admitting footage manipulation for the sake of Endgame‘s marketing, it won’t be surprising if nothing in these spots are in the film – at least in the scene in question. Nonetheless, it’s a great promotional material considering people’s investment in these two characters – both in their separate and collective arcs. Infinity War kept them separate all throughout with just minor references to one another, and seeing them reunite for the Phase 3 capper will definitely be one of the most powerful scenes in the project. And if they retain the same vibe that these exchanges have, it’s safe to say that the heroes will be able to recover from their previous conflict and not have a problem operating as a unit.

Stark and Rogers are two heroes expected to exit the MCU via Avengers: Endgame. While most are convinced that they’ll both die fighting the good fight, there are several other ways to sideline them without the need to permanently write them out of the franchise. If anything, no one’s really gone in the world of comic books and if Marvel Studios wants to emulate that, they would also have to somehow follow the same format. Chances are that although fans won’t be seeing them as prominently as they are in the franchise in the coming years, they can easily be called back for another event film to evoke nostalgia from their long-time supporters.

More: Thanos Wants to Destroy Earth (Not Balance It) in Endgame TV Ad

Source: Marvel Studios

2019-04-22 05:04:58

Ana Dumaraog

Pet Sematary 2019 Misses the Point of Stephen King’s Novel

The 2019 adaptation of Pet Sematary misses the point of Stephen King’s novel. Directed by Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer, the new Pet Sematary movie makes some radical changes to the plot of the book. Yet the problem isn’t that the story changed, but that it lost focus on the heart of the book.

Published in 1983, Pet Sematary follows the Creed family as they move from the city to rural Maine in search of a quieter life and a nicer place for the kids – eight year-old Ellie and two year-old Gage – to grow up. Unfortunately, their new property sits next to a truck route where trucks barrel along at deadly speeds all day, and the road ends up claiming first the life of the family’s pet cat, Church, and then the life of young Gage. Fortunately (or, as it turns out, unfortunately) the nearby pet cemetery holds the path to an older burial ground, where things that are buried can come back to life… though they’re not exactly the same.

Related: Pet Sematary Review

Pet Sematary was first adapted in 1989 by Mary Lambert, and thirty years later Paramount Pictures decided the story could do with an update, complete with a twist in the tale and some added horror elements. Unfortunately, in the effort to make Pet Sematary scarier, the new adaptation loses sight of what made the original novel so terrifying in the first place.

  • This Page: What Makes Stephen King’s Pet Sematary So Scary
  • Page 2: What the 1989 Pet Sematary Got Right, and the 2019 Movie Got Wrong

Though it may have a Native-American burial ground and people rising from the dead, the supernatural elements aren’t what make King’s Pet Sematary so terrifying. In fact, the core of the novel comes from two incidents that happened to King in real life, with no supernatural intervention required. In 1979, King – like Louis Creed – had gotten a job at the University of Maine (though as a writer-in-residence, not as a doctor), and was living in a house in a nearby town that bordered a major truck route. The road had a reputation for claiming the lives of local pets, and one of its victims was a cat belonging to King’s eight year-old daughter. Like Louis, King had to bury the cat in the local pet cemetery and break the news of what had happened to his daughter.

In details of the inspiration for Pet Sematary on King’s official website, he explains that the death of the cat became coupled in his mind with another horrible incident – one in which his son had almost run into a highway, and King had managed to pull him back just in time. King explains:

“I can remember crossing the road, and thinking that the cat had been killed in the road – and (I thought) what if a kid died in that road? And we had had this experience with Owen running toward the road, where I had just grabbed him and pulled him back. And the two things just came together – on one side of this two-lane highway was the idea of what if the cat came back, and on the other side of the highway was what if the kid came back.”

The idea that grew out of the horror of those two incidences was that of first pets, and then people, being brought back from the dead. But the actual, visceral fear of Pet Sematary isn’t the resurrection of Church the cat or Gage Creed, but the circumstances of their deaths in the first place.

Related: What To Expect From A Pet Sematary 2

The best horror comes from an experience that’s relatable to people, whether it’s ghost movies that play on our fear of being alone in dark and empty houses, or something more abstract like David Lynch’s Eraserhead, which puts a surreal spin of the terror of failing as a parent. While Pet Sematary has a ghost with a bloody, smashed-in head, an undead cat, and a toddler coming back from the grave with a newfound bloodlust, arguably the most frightening passage in it is the description of Gage’s death. A neighbor, Missy Dandridge, tries to comfort Louis at his son’s funeral by saying, “At least it was quick” – to which Louis (silently) responds:

Yes, it was quick, all right, he thought about saying to her… It was quick, no doubt about that, that’s why the coffin’s closed… It was quick, Missy-my-dear, one minute he was there on the road and the next minute he was lying in it, but way down by the Ringers’ house. It hit him and killed him and then it dragged him and you better believe it was quick. A hundred yards or more all told, the length of a football field. I ran after him, Missy, I was screaming his name over and over again, almost as if I expected he would still be alive – me, a doctor. I ran ten yards and there was his baseball cap and I ran twenty yards and there was one of his Star Wars sneakers, I ran forty yards and by then the truck had run off the road and the box had jackknifed in that field beyond the Ringers’ barn. People were coming out of their houses and I went on screaming his name, Missy, and at the fifty-yard line there was his jumper, it was turned inside-out, and on the seventy-yard line there was the other sneaker, and then there was Gage…

Though it’s speculated in the novel, by both Louis and Jud, that bringing Church back from the dead may have somehow started a cosmic chain of events that led to Gage’s death, it could just as easily have been the case that Gage’s death was truly random. After all, many people have buried and brought their pets back over the years without setting off a litany of further tragedies, including Jud himself. The suddenness, randomness, and violence of Gage’s death cuts to the heart of a parent’s worst nightmare, and the rest of the novel’s horror grows out of that.

Page 2: What the 1989 Pet Sematary Got Right, and the 2019 Movie Got Wrong

The first adaptation of Pet Sematary, Mary Lambert’s 1989 movie, wasn’t especially well-received upon its release. Empire scathingly called its screenplay “hacked up” and “sloppy,” and lamented that “you have to sit impatiently through scene after silly scene before the zombie attacks start.” Lambert’s Pet Sematary has, however, weathered the test of time because it recognizes that the zombie attacks were not the point of the novel.

One of the movie’s most memorable and nightmare-inducing scenes is when Rachel Creed tells Louis about her sister, Zelda, who died of convulsions as a result of spinal meningitis. There’s nothing supernatural about the story that Rachel tells but, as portrayed in the film, it captures the horror of watching a relative die slowly from disease. Denise Crosby gives a powerful performance as Rachel recalls running out of the house screaming, “Zelda’s dead! Zelda’s dead! Zelda’s dead!” – speculating that she was actually laughing, rather than crying, in relief that both Zelda and her family’s suffering was over. In the book, Rachel is left with a crippling phobia of death that causes her to lash out when Louis tells her that death is “natural,” and Lambert’s movie effectively conveys the idea that even “natural” deaths can be terrifying and monstrous.

Related: Pet Sematary: Why The Original Zelda Was Better

Crosby’s performance, along with Dale Midkiff’s as Louis Creed, is crucial in capturing the devastating power of grief that drives the novel and continually pushes Louis along a path to further disaster. Though it strays from the book in places, Lambert’s film has an awareness of what moments were most important, and it’s those scenes that are adapted closely – for example, the scene where a devastated Louis has to kill his resurrected son via lethal injection and watch Gage die all over again. Then, to emphasize how all-encompassing and ruinous Louis’ grief is, he starts the whole cycle all over again by taking the now-dead Rachel up to the burial ground. These scenes are missing from the new adaptation, and it makes all the difference.

Kölsch and Widmyer’s movie seems to share the same opinion as the aforementioned review of the 1989 Pet Sematary: that the scenes of the Creed family interacting with another (and Jud Crandall) and the gradual build-up of horror are annoying roadblocks on the way to the real meat of the story, which is zombies attacking.

Pet Sematary 2019 largely starts to go off the rails with the death of Ellie. Not only does the movie, by way of changing things up, lose the moment where Louis comes agonizingly close to pulling his child back from the road only to fail, it also makes Ellie’s death almost comically bloodless. Recall the novel’s chilling description of Louis Creed’s one hundred yard run from the place where Gage was hit to the place where his body ends up, and then compare it to Louis cradling Ellie’s completely intact body in the 2019 movie, and then later finding her looking completely pristine in her coffin. The stitches that Louis finds in the back of Ellie’s head in the novel are an extremely toned down version of a horrifying detail from the novel: that Gage’s head came completely off in the accident, and had to be stitched back on.

Conversely, Kölsch and Widmyer’s adaptation has the compulsion to spice up Zelda’s death, perhaps because the idea of someone dying from spinal meningitis wasn’t considered scary enough. The film instead concocts an incident in which Zelda falls down a dumb waiter and ends up mangled at the bottom, which is good for a jump scare but is so utterly bizarre that it’s hard to really be really horrified by it.

Related: Pet Sematary 2019 Resurrections & Ending Explained

The biggest problem with this adaptation, however, is that the entire series of terrible events is not solely driven by Louis and his refusal to accept the finality of death. In the novel, Louis brings Church back and then, even knowing that Church didn’t come back right, decides to bring Gage back as well. Bringing Gage back leads to Rachel’s death, but when Louis has an opportunity to finally leave things be, mourn his wife and son and be grateful for the daughter he still has, he still refuses to stop. Convincing himself that he “waited too long” with Gage and “something got in him,” Louis decides to repeat the process with Rachel – a decision that ultimately dooms him. King’s novel is as much a tragedy as it is a horror story, and that’s what makes it so effective.

By contrast, the last meaningful decision Louis makes in the 2019 Pet Sematary movie is the decision to bring Ellie back. From there, the movie focuses on turning Ellie into a devious, demonic killing machine who orchestrates everything else that follows. Rachel comes home and is horrified to see her daughter again, instinctively knowing that it’s not really her daughter. This is very different to the novel, where Rachel is so consumed up by happiness at having her child back that, in the moment, she doesn’t even question how it happened – a reaction that feels much more realistic.

Louis doesn’t bring anyone else back in the 2019 movie. Ellie kills Rachel and then drags her body to the burial ground, and Rachelthen  comes back for a surprise kill, impaling Louis before dragging him up to the burial ground as well. By this point the feeling of grief and desperation has long been forgotten by the movie, discarded more or less as soon as the undead Ellie showed up. Louis has no real agency and the final events are driven by external forces (demonic forces possessing the Creed family, apparently) rather than by the very human emotion of wanting to have a deceased loved one back again.

Pet Sematary 2019 isn’t necessarily a bad movie, but it is much more forgettable than the novel or the 1989 adaptation, because it lacks confidence in what made those stories scary: the simple idea that people can die at any time, and there’s nothing you can do to bring them back.

More: Pet Sematary 2019 Differences: Biggest Changes To The Book & Original Movie

2019-04-13 02:04:46

Hannah Shaw-Williams

Better Call Saul Season 4 Finale Ending Explained

This post contains SPOILERS for Better Call Saul

Better Call Saul’s fourth season ended with “Winner,” an exciting finale that inches the spinoff closer to its Breaking Bad roots. This year, AMC’s acclaimed drama had to followup the jaw-dropping cliffhanger of season 3, where Chuck died in a horrifying fire. That tragedy is what truly spurred Jimmy McGill’s transformation into Saul Goodman as he dealt with the consequences and aftermath of not only his brother’s death, but also his bar suspension. Over the course of the fourth season, Jimmy became more involved with the criminal underworld of Albuquerque, launching his “get-rich-quick” scheme of selling prepaid cell phones to unsavory individuals.

Elsewhere in the Saul universe, Gus Fring looked to expand his cartel operations, commissioning the construction of the famous “super lab” Walter White and Jesse Pinkman cooked in during Breaking Bad. Entrusting Mike Ehrmantraut to oversee the operation, Gus hired a group of German nationals led by Werner Ziegler. While the project was taking longer than originally planned, the crew was working diligently and hoped to have it finished soon. Of course, things hit a snag at the end of last week’s “Wiedersehen” when Werner went AWOL, leaving only a note with detailed instructions for his team. These storylines (Werner’s disappearance and Jimmy’s bar reinstatement appeal) are the crux of the finale’s narrative, with both resolving in powerful ways.

The Tragedy of Werner Ziegler

Throughout the season, Werner’s team were recurring players, frequently interacting with Mike. Early on, it looked like Kai would be the troublemaker of the group, especially after his incident with the nightclub. However, Kai turned out to be a red herring, and Werner caused the biggest headaches for Gus and Mike. Werner, of course, is far from home and dearly misses his beloved wife. Wishing to see her again, Werner pitched Mike the idea of going home for a weekend, but was denied. Since he couldn’t get his superiors’ approval, Werner took matters into his own hands and hatched a plot for a loving reunion.

“Winner” reveals Werner ran off to a resort where he planned to spend time with his wife. He made travel arrangements that would see her fly over to America for a weekend and go back home. Sadly for Werner, he never gets to see her again. Mike tracks him down and after a discussion with Gus, realizes there’s only one resolution for this setback. Allowing Werner the opportunity to call his wife and tell her to return home before Gus’ people do anything to her, Mike then (reluctantly) kills Werner. Ehrmantraut says Werner’s death will be covered up as a tragic accident and his men will be sent back. As one might expect, Gus is angered by the lack of progress on the super lab (cutting a conversation with Gale short), which he thought would be completed by now.

Related: How Better Call Saul’s (Unseen) Breaking Bad Character Connects To Jimmy

Werner clearly had no ill intent (Mike knew he was jut homesick), but when he ran off, his fate was essentially sealed. This was the second transgression Werner committed against Gus – the first being his friendly chat about construction work with bar patrons. These two incidents back-to-back made it very difficult for Gus to trust Werner moving forward, and by now, fans are well aware of Fring’s ruthlessness. Mike mentions multiple times in the episode there are other ways to go about things, but he can’t convince Gus to spare Werner’s life. No amount of begging or pleading has any effect on Gus when he’s made up his mind about something. Unfortunately for Werner, he never completely understood what he got himself into and crossed the wrong people.

Lalo also factors into this storyline, with the mysterious member of the Salamanca clan tailing Mike and trying to locate Werner for his own reasons. Lalo does discover which resort Werner is staying at and briefly speaks to the Russian over the phone, posing as one of Gus’ employees. Not knowing any better, Werner begins to tell Lalo the first couple of basic instructions for the super lab construction, before Mike arrives in person and interrupts the call. Near the end of the episode, Mike tells Gus about what happened, and it’ll be fascinating to see how this continues in season 5. Of course, Fring does not get along with the Salamancas, and despite Lalo’s cheeky offer of a peace treaty in last week’s episode, the two warring sides will continue their power struggle. Lalo is clearly curious about what Gus is up to and wants to get an upper hand for himself.

Page 2: Jimmy McGill Becomes Saul Goodman

Jimmy McGill Is Finally Saul Goodman

Jimmy’s arc in season 4 is dealing with the fallout of his felony from season 2 (tampering with Chuck’s documents) as he tries to get by in life with his one-year suspension. Picking up lawful employment at CC Mobile, he does everything he’s supposed to do to work himself back in the graces of the committee. However, last week’s episode ended with the shocking twist that Jimmy was denied reinstatement – after he was found to be insincere in his comments. Kim, as she always does, stays by Jimmy’s side to help him win the appeal. In Kim’s mind, the sincerity issue stems from Chuck and Jimmy needs to show remorse for what’s transpired.

The two forge ahead with another one of their brilliant schemes. Jimmy spends the one-year anniversary of Chuck’s death mourning at his brother’s grave. An “anonymous” donation is made to HHM to name the legal library after Chuck, with members of Jimmy’s go-to video team telling people in attendance they heard the gift was from Jimmy. It all builds up to another hearing in front of the committee, where Jimmy uses the letter Chuck left him as a weapon in his favor. After (faking) being unable to read it in place of an opening statement, Jimmy launches into a nostalgic monologue where he reminisces about his brother, talks about wanting to make Chuck proud, and credits Chuck with influencing his interest in a law career. In their celebration afterwards, Kim feels some it was truthful, but Jimmy’s reaction makes it painfully apparent it was all a show for the committee so he could get his law license back. As he prepares to sign the necessary documents, Jimmy states he’ll no longer be practicing under his legal name. Turning to a clearly shocked Kim, he closes out the season by saying, “S’all good, man.”

Related: Bob Odenkirk Responds to Fan Theory About Chuck’s Letter

At a certain time in his life, Jimmy probably aspired to be an honest, hard-working lawyer like Chuck, but the events of Better Call Saul have rendered that impossible. During a key sequence of the episode, Jimmy (as part of his sincerity scheme) sits on the board awarding scholarships in Chuck’s memory. He vouches for a student named Kristy Esposito, who received only one vote (from Jimmy) because she was found guilty of shoplifting. In that moment, Jimmy realizes that the law community at large will never accept someone with a prior record, and clearly sees himself in the young Kristy. Because of his actions in season 2, the most prominent firms in the country will always consider Jimmy a liability, no matter how much he swears he’s changed. Chasing down Kristy after the scholarship meetings, Jimmy basically lays out the Saul Goodman playbook, telling his favorite student to cut corners and to not worry about what others think (because she’ll never “make it” the traditional way).

Instead of conforming to fit within the perceived standards of the field, Jimmy gamed the system to his own advantage. He told the reinstatement committee what they wanted to hear – even though he has no intention of following through on it – and is now set to play by his own rules. In his argument with Kim on the rooftop in “Wiedersehen,” Jimmy went on the defensive about how Kim views him as “the kind of lawyer guilty people hire” and is unworthy of sharing an office with her (while she thrives at a large firm in New Mexico). Jimmy is embracing his reputation. Saul Goodman, as Breaking Bad fans know, is exactly the type of lawyer criminals hire. Howard Hamlin wouldn’t touch Walter White and Jesse Pinkman with a 10-foot pole, but Saul went into business with them, doing whatever he could to protect his clients’ rights and help them avoid jail time.

The beauty of this is how it all traces back to Chuck and recontextualizes the character of Saul Goodman. When he was introduced in the second season of Breaking Bad, he was nothing more than an entertaining side player; a riff on the “sleazy lawyer” archetype who came up with elaborate schemes to win his cases. Now, the persona is revealed as a last resort for a man who once upon a time looked up to his brother, only to have his hopes and dreams destroyed by that very same sibling. Chuck went out of his way to block Jimmy from getting a position at HHM, fearful of what “Slippin’ Jimmy with a law degree” would be capable of. He wasn’t willing to give Jimmy the benefit of the doubt, and ended up unknowingly launching the career of Albuquerque’s shadiest criminal defense attorney. Maybe if he was more accepting and loving towards Jimmy, things would have turned out differently.

It’ll be exciting to see how the confirmed fifth season picks up on this. There were already hints the Jimmy/Kim relationship was fraying (the wonderfully constructed cold open of “Something Stupid”), and the former’s new career path might be the final straw. Kim is never mentioned in Breaking Bad, so obviously something happens there. Better Call Saul correctly took the long road to get to this point, and now the possibilities for its future are wide open.

More: Better Call Saul Fills In Breaking Bad Gaps

Source link
2018-10-08 07:10:07 – Chris Agar

Stan Lee Addresses Elder Abuse Allegations Against His Daughter

Stan Lee has broken his silence regarding the allegations of elder abuse against his daughter that were made earlier this year. Though questions regarding the Marvel creator’s estate have circled for years, it wasn’t until an April report that that concern became public knowledge. Following the death of his wife, Joanie, in 2017, his only remaining immediate family is his daughter, J.C., who, along with former business manager Keya Morgan, former publicist Jerry Olivarez, and former road manager Max Anderson, were named in the report for taking advantage of Lee in his old age.

Not long after, Lee denied the claims against Morgan, calling them “hateful and harmful” and “totally based on slander.” However, things shifted, and, in the months that followed, Morgan was arrested for filing a false police report. Furthermore, Lee was granted a restraining order against Morgan. In addition to the accusations of fraud, abuse, and embezzlement against Morgan, the ex-business manager is also responsible for accusing J.C. of physically assaulting her father.

Related: Stan Lee Elder Abuse Concerns: A Timeline

When asked whether he was aware of the allegations made against J.C. – including potential future stories in the works – Lee joked to The Daily Beast, “I wish that everyone would be as abusive to me as JC.” He then changed his tone, responding seriously that she is “wonderful” and, though they have “occasional spats, that there’s nothing to the allegations.

J.C.’s lawyer, Kirk Schenck, further describes their relationship, describing it as “Kennedyesque.” He props her up, describing her as “the avenger…the person who protects that man.” J.C. vehemently denies any physical violence, but does recognize that she has raised her voice at him, blaming it mostly on the situation involving who she describes as “horrible people” who want to “divide and conquer.” She also insinuates that Morgan and possibly Anderson were involved with Scientology.

For Lee, the interview seemed to confuse him at times. He states that J.C. has been friends with Kirk for “30, 40 years,” but she maintains it’s only been a few years. On the tape in which Lee defended Morgan, he pointed fingers at Schenck, saying that he was responsible for supplying her with drugs. In response to being asked about this, Lee replied that he “must have been talking about someone else.” 

In addition to the heavy issues addressed in the interview, Lee has the opportunity to comment on a preferred subject: the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Lee states that his favorite superhero adaptation is Spider-Man, and comments on the increased diversity of the changing times, calling himself “Mr. Reboot” and noting that he wants to represent everyone, jokingly including “green people” (in a nod to Hulk). And, though he will no longer be making public appearances at conventions, Lee did express how much he misses the writing side of his former job. Hopefully, as long as he is able, his current support system will allow him to continue to be creative in whatever ways he can.

More: Fan Art Recasts Marvel Legend Stan Lee as the MCU’s Odin

Source: The Daily Beast

Source link
2018-10-08 05:10:10 – Becca Bleznak

Movie Review: Aiyaary misses the mark and is a huge letdown

Movie Review: Aiyaary misses the mark and is a huge letdown

Director Neeraj Pandey is one of the best in the business and has a penchant for making thrillers taking a political, crime issues as its central theme. His past experiments with Akshay Kumar, Special 26 and Baby, have worked both at the box office and with masses. This time around, he is back with Aiyaary which again has a strong plotline and a holds out a promise of dumdaar performances by its leads Manoj Bajpayee, Sidharth Malhotra, Vikram Gokhale and Rakul Preet Singh and added appearances by director’s favourites Anupam Kher and the effervescent Nasseruddin Shah. With masses still warming up to Akshay Kumar’s Pad Man, Aiyaary has released at an opportune moment. Here are our thoughts about the film. Watching the espionage thriller over the weekend? Find out our verdict.

Aiyaary Review

First of all, one must be wondering what Aiyaary actually means? So, according to the maker, the word is an embodiment of all the qualities a true soldier must have. A successful soldier is the one who brings out his best in the time of adversity. So, Aiyaary means a combination of sharpness, wit, tact, ability to change appearances and combating techniques a soldier uses to emerge victorious. The movie revolves around Colonel Abhay Singh (Manoj Bajpayee) and Major Jai Bakshi (Sidharth Malhotra) who are both army officers. It majorly focuses on corruption within the army and the system efforts to hunt down Jai who goes rogue after finding out the ugly truth about the defence system. While it is loosely based on the Adarsh Society scam which rocked the nation in 2010, the maker does not revolve the entire movie about it. Instead, he builds on the tension using different plots which come together to make one massive issue, in this case: corruption in the Defense Ministry. The undercurrent of the film is raging generation gap between Singh and Bakshi. Friends turned foes, both lead characters focus on keeping viewers engaged with their car and mouse chase.

While the director Pandey tried to build on the suspense, he fails to keep the viewer’s attention because of it’s run time and clumsy writing. The movie talks about arms and ammunition scam for about one and a half hour, but ends with a focus on Aadarsh society Scam. The movie could have been salvaged by tighter editing but Praveen Kathikuloth fails to deliver on that front. Aiyaary suffers from a weak script but we liked a couple of dialogues which are apt to describe the Indian political circus and the subsequent corruption. For example, in one scene Manoj talks about the Kashmir issue and says the reason it’s not getting solved is because lot of people have to gain from it. Kashmir is not just an issue but has become an industry. Bitter yet true. The film has all the makings of a Neeraj Pandey film. Yet, it somehow fails to have a massy connect.

DOP Sudeep Palsane has done a good job. Special mention to the make up artistes and also costume designer Falguni Thakore for doing such amazing work with Sidharth and Manoj’s different guides in the film. Action by Abbas Ali Moghul is okay but honestly, there is nothing to write home about.

Talking about the performances, Manoj Bajpayee is as usual excellent. He tries really hard to hold the film on his shoulder; after all he is one of the central characters. His seasoned act shines through. Sidharth Malhotra looks to redeem himself, after the box office debacles: A Gentleman, Baar Baar Dekho and Ittefaq, with this film. His romantic portions with Rakul Preet Singh fails to work and seems forced. The supporting cast of Vikram Gokhale, Kumud Mishra, Aadil Hussain, Naseruddin Shah shine through.

The music of the film is good but not extraordinary. This film has one such track ‘Lae Dooba’ which is on radio charts but is not as effective.

On the whole, AIYAARY misses the mark and is a huge letdown on the account of its flawed script and the lengthy runtime. At the box office, it will be a disappointing fare.

Source link