Baahubali 2 – The Conclusion Review

Baahubali was a cultural standpoint in Indian cinema. In Indian cinema, full of washed up romantic musicals with old gags, the arrival of Baahubali blurred the lines of real and reel life – everyone was experiencing that same hope that the people of Mahistmati felt with the arrival of Mahendra Bahubali, the offspring of Amarendra Bahubali. The excitement for Baahubali 2 was quadrupled with the cliffhanger climax of the first installment and ‘Why did Kattapa kill Baahubali ?’ was the question hanging on everyone’s minds. And now we have the answer.

The dread that I carried in my mind since the release of the first installment unfortunately is now validated. The dread was that the sequel wouldn’t hold up. Everything about this movie is way over-the-top than it should have been, with the actions scenes reaching the limit of hilariousness. The action sequences of the first installment were original in terms of their choreography, however the ones in the second installment are repetitive, ridiculous and borrow heavily from Lord of The Rings- Two Towers.

The restraint that SS Rajamouli showed in Baahubali is completely missing in this work. The final work seems like the work of a toddler who was given all the crayons to paint a picture. Moreover, just painting characters as bound by their moral codes and drawing parallels to the epic Mahabharata so as to hide the shallowness of the central romance is just a very sleazy effort. The first installment was riveting, the second one is derisory.

Watching Baahubali 2 was seeing Murphy’s Law in action – everything that can go wrong did go wrong. But believe me, all fun is not lost. Go watch it with your friends, the ones who excel in sarcasm and rip every frame apart. Sitting alongside with me were a bunch of college kids who had bunked to watch this movie. Listening to their expletive-filled rants was the best time I had at the movies in recent memory. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same with respect to the movie. It sucked.

RATING : 4.5 / 10

THANKS FOR READING. IF YOU HAVE LIKED/HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS / HAVE ANY  DOUBTS, PLEASE SHARE. I WILL RESPOND TO IT AS SOON AS I CAN. AND PLEASE SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE. YOU CAN FOLLOW ME ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE TOO https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011549616628 YOU CAN ALSO E-MAIL ME ON castlebang786@gmail.com OR favebook2011@rediffmail.com

Photo Rights : Google Images, Wikipedia

Copyright : All written content on this site, unless otherwise noted, has been created by the website owner. As such, the content is the property of the website owner. This content is protected by Indian and international copyright laws. If you wish to reproduce, re-post, or display any of our content on your own site please only do so if you also provide a link back to the source page on this website and properly attribute authorship. Our preference is that you seek our permission before doing so. If you see anything on this website that has not been properly attributed to its originator please contact me. In response, I will attempt to correct the attribution of the offending material or remove and/or replace it. All material on this website is posted in accordance with the limitations set forward by the Information Technology Act, 2000. If a documented copyright owner so requests, their material will be removed from published display, although the author reserves the right to provide linkage to that material or to a source for that material. As a website devoted to discussing and reviewing movies and television I will at times, for illustrative purposes, present copyrighted material, the use of which might not always be specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available  for purposes such as criticism, comment, and research. The website owner believes that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material because the articles published on this website are distributed for entertainment purposes.

Advertisements

Apocalypse Now Review

Apocalypse Now is loosely based on a book named ‘In The Heart Of Darkness’. Francis Ford Coppola in this 153 minute lacerating experience attempts one of the most ambitious and perilous endeavor in cinematic history – to transport his viewer right in the middle of the savagery which unfolded in Vietnam.

Apocalypse Now is more about the human mind rather than the war. It is easy to be fooled by this, since it does actively pursue its plot. But it is those abhorrent images which transpire on the screen that are the actual narrative. One could make the case, and to much success I presume, that Apocalypse Now has probably the greatest cinematic footage ever shot. The camera of Vittorio Storaro concots a pirouette of death all over. But even in the amidst of this violence, the screenplay by John Milius and Coppola still holds a spotlight over a bunch of characters towards whom we foster a sense of emotional attachment.

Coppola attempts to explore in Apocalypse Now, the concomitants of violence on the human mind. Take the scene with the Playboy bunnies which brings forth the animalistic libido fostered in men in continuous combat. However Coppola draws a line between the soldiers who fleet through this movie and the crew on board the boat. The crew that stays throughout this journey, a descendence from sanity to insanity, make an effort to preserve their humanity. There is an extremely heart-warming scene where Lance (Sam Bottom) takes on board a puppy which he finds in his ambush and takes care of it.

I have often come down hard on war movies while talking about them, and this maybe due to the fact of my personal beliefs that war holds no nobility or morality. Francois Truffaut once said ‘It’s not possible to make an anti-war movie, because all war movies, with their energy and sense of adventure, end up making combat look like fun’. However, Coppola seems to turn the tables on him, for the war here does look like fun, just not to the viewer.

Apocalypse Now belongs to the history books and it feels to me that whatever I talk about in praise of this movie will amount to nothing more than if I praise water. But sure as hell, I will never forget this movie. It held me spellbound and gaping at the violence that unfolds in war, and I couldn’t help but feel sorry for anyone who had to witness it. It is not an anti or pro war movie, but it sure is a pro-human movie.

RATING :- 9.5 / 10

THANKS FOR READING. IF YOU HAVE LIKED/HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS / HAVE ANY  DOUBTS, PLEASE SHARE. I WILL RESPOND TO IT AS SOON AS I CAN. AND PLEASE SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE. YOU CAN FOLLOW ME ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE TOO https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011549616628 YOU CAN ALSO E-MAIL ME ON castlebang786@gmail.com OR favebook2011@rediffmail.com

Photo Rights : Google Images, Wikipedia

Copyright : All written content on this site, unless otherwise noted, has been created by the website owner. As such, the content is the property of the website owner. This content is protected by Indian and international copyright laws. If you wish to reproduce, re-post, or display any of our content on your own site please only do so if you also provide a link back to the source page on this website and properly attribute authorship. Our preference is that you seek our permission before doing so. If you see anything on this website that has not been properly attributed to its originator please contact me. In response, I will attempt to correct the attribution of the offending material or remove and/or replace it. All material on this website is posted in accordance with the limitations set forward by the Information Technology Act, 2000. If a documented copyright owner so requests, their material will be removed from published display, although the author reserves the right to provide linkage to that material or to a source for that material. As a website devoted to discussing and reviewing movies and television I will at times, for illustrative purposes, present copyrighted material, the use of which might not always be specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available  for purposes such as criticism, comment, and research. The website owner believes that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material because the articles published on this website are distributed for entertainment purposes.

2001 – A Space Odyssey Review

A few minutes before I began writing this review, my computer hangs. I try clicking the mouse button repeatedly, press random keys of my keyboard and hope something happens. Nothing does happen. I swear at my computer and give the monitor a few hits here and there. Nothing happens. I begin requesting the computer to start and let me write, for there are too many points treading through the expanse of my mind right now and if I don’t jot down them right now, I won’t ever be able to write this review, EVER. The screen flashes. The computer has regained its normal functionality. I begin wondering. Did it hear my pleads ? Did my computer just sense my feelings, my anguish ? I will never know.

These events are trivial, but if considered in a wider expanse hold an uncanny resemblance to the problems faced by the astronauts who are traveling to Jupiter on Discovery One. The computer system that governs the functioning of Discovery One, HAL 9000, has gone rogue. Catch is HAL 9000 presumably has feelings. The astronauts have planned to disconnect HAL’s logical thinking capabilities, his emotions. But unfortunately, HAL has another plans.

Stanley Kubrick, more than a genius, was a visionary. Towards the end of the movie, Kubrick is naked in front of his audience, a man who has lost all track of any limitations he might hold in his thoughts. Here he is, in front of his audience, a man unable to conceal the unimaginable depths of his vision. In 1968, two events concurred, one in the literary field while other in the cinematic field. The event in the literary field was the publication of Erich Von Daniken’s Chariots Of Gods and the event in the cinematic field was the release of 2001. These events coincide due to their purpose. Understanding human existence.

2001 and The Tree Of Life are the only movies which have attempted to put in a nutshell, the whole human existence. Maybe my polarized approach towards The Tree of Life is due to clash of ideologies of mine and Malick’s. The Tree Of Life is an ode, an affirmation to God and how he governs us. I personally relate more to 2001. People have often criticized 2001 for being impossible to comprehend in its end. I personally prefer that ending. I feel as if Kubrick, like me, is agnostic. The ending signifies that the very existence of our realm is inaccessible to us. So obviously, it is not for everyone !

The movie ventures through two time lines : The Dawn Of The Man and 2001. The only connecting thread is a mysterious black monolith. What does it do ? Absolutely nothing. It drives human curiosity is all. It remains beyond comprehension for humans and drives them towards other discoveries. If to symbolize anything, it might suggest a warp of time itself, where it flows seamlessly. That probably explains the movie’s slow pace. It is basically the fastest paced movie ever made. It traverses through the entire human existence within 142 minutes. What more can Kubrick do ?

2001 is less a movie, more an experience. The classical music draws you in and the slow pace puts you with these characters. Seriously, I felt a downward pull when the Moonbus lands. It lets you inhibit its astounding world. And the meticulous amount of detail given to the whole surroundings is astounding. For example, consider the scene where the space shuttle carrying Dr.Heywood lands on the Clavius Base. Kubrick very well knows the visual effects are sloppy and that the audience may find it cartoonish. But to project an image of an enormous spacecraft, he lets the background do the work, which is filled with projections of people, minuscule in their sizes which gives us an idea about the astounding size the shuttle may have, which is similar to the effect Jonathan Swift gave us about Lilliputians dealing with Gulliver, a giant in their eyes, in Gulliver’s Travels.

I had mentioned Chariots Of Gods before. Why ? Because here, in this paragraph, I tend to explain my analysis of 2001. So, for those who haven’t watched 2001 yet, SPOILERS IN THIS PARAGRAPH. SKIP TO THE NEXT ONE. So, the movie ends with David finding himself in a pod. Here he experiences a surreal experience by viewing himself in different stages, his present age, his old age and his birth. The monolith has been constructed and laid out by extraterrestrial beings. In the book Chariots of Gods, Erich had stated that the Gods that we worship, whom we attribute and thank for our intelligence, who seem to have laid out the very expanses of our planet are actually aliens. Erich Von Daniken says that aliens must have visited our Earth, millions of years ago, reproduced with the attractive females of our species, and in turn produced us, a combination of beauty and intelligence. 2001 seems like an ode to that idea. Kubrick has contemplated the aliens of higher intelligence as the God here and the encounter with monoliths are spiritual encounters in the scientific way. They are similar in nature to tesseracts and help to travel seamlessly through the expanse of time and lets David experience the universe in its full splendor, right from its inception to its present state.

2001 : A Space Odyssey may put some to sleep, but if you are one of those lovable, patient viewers who do not look at cinema just as moving images which flash on the screen for entertaining its viewers, you are in for an experience. Jean Luc Godard once said ,’Cinema is truth twenty-four times per second’. 2001 : A Space Odyssey doesn’t attempt to entertain its viewers at any point. It only attempts to enlighten.

Rating : 9.5 / 10

IF YOU HAVE WATCHED THIS MOVIE, WHAT DID YOU THINK ABOUT IT ? DO LET ME KNOW IN COMMENTS BELOW. YOU CAN FOLLOW ME ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE TOO https://www.facebook.com/pages/Demanded-Critical-Reviews/1565666967024477?ref=hl YOU CAN ALSO E-MAIL ME ON castlebang786@gmail.com OR favebook2011@rediffmail.com

Photo Rights : Google Images, Wikipedia

Copyright : All written content on this site, unless otherwise noted, has been created by the website owner. As such, the content is the property of the website owner. This content is protected by Indian and international copyright laws. If you wish to reproduce, re-post, or display any of our content on your own site please only do so if you also provide a link back to the source page on this website and properly attribute authorship. Our preference is that you seek our permission before doing so. If you see anything on this website that has not been properly attributed to its originator please contact me. In response, I will attempt to correct the attribution of the offending material or remove and/or replace it. All material on this website is posted in accordance with the limitations set forward by the Information Technology Act, 2000. If a documented copyright owner so requests, their material will be removed from published display, although the author reserves the right to provide linkage to that material or to a source for that material. As a website devoted to discussing and reviewing movies and television I will at times, for illustrative purposes, present copyrighted material, the use of which might not always be specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available  for purposes such as criticism, comment, and research. The website owner believes that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material because the articles published on this website are distributed for entertainment purposes.