Come and See (1985) | Review

  29/June/2022 Watched. 

 My rating: 10/10. 

 As of this moment, it has been almost 48 hours since I watched Come and See. The film feels so much bigger than me. Its intimidating to write about it. Can I do it justice? I cannot. But I must record my thoughts nonetheless. 

 Come and See is a Soviet World War 2, anti-war film that came out in 1985. It depicts the invasion of the German forces upon Byelorussia and how they burned and pillaged and raped through more than 600 villages and killed almost every single one from them. Elem Klimov's (the director) mind was forever scarred with the war that he saw in Stalingrad and thus he wanted to make a serious film about it. He once noted that, and I'm paraphrasing here, "The film will not be seen by anyone. It won't make money. But it needs to be documented." And I love that sentiment, that passion about any form of art.

 Ales Adamovich was a Soviet-Belarusian writer who, among many other of his works, penned the 1971 novel, Khatyn, in which he incorporated his experiences of the war as a teenager. The novel followed a 14 year old boy named Florian who joins the partisans and meets his future wife Glasha. Ales later wrote the screenplay for Come and See which was, though not an adaptation, but quite similar to his novel. Come and See was originally titled, "Kill Hitler" but the Soviet government censored it because it came off as inappropriate for the time. And I do think that the current title is a better one.

 The film chooses the point of view of a fourteen year old boy to tell its story. The young teenager is named Florya, and like his name, he has feminine features - like most young boys do - and looks a bit younger for his age. The film begins with an old man shouting at, what seems like, the air to, "Stop digging!" We then find out that he was warning the young Florya and his younger friend who had hid themselves in the reeds. What are they digging for? Why is the man trying to keep them from digging? 

 Florya's friend, small in stature, walks out of the reeds and starts to fleer at the man by imitating him in an inhumane voice, sounding almost mechanical, robotic. Like the kind of sound those little machines make which are used by throat cancer patients to speak with. Annoyed by the child's behavior, the man leaves, warning them that they've been warned.

 We then see the two boys dig and dig and dig some more, ripping a rifle out of the sandy ground. Their faces light up in exulation, for Florya can now join the partisans and become a real man of glory and purpose. 

 In the 21st century, the roles have been reversed to some extent. The youth is now warning the elders to not only stop digging, but to bury what they've already dug up. Whether it be extreme patriotism, racism, homophobia or any other vice that you can think of, its high time that bury them and our tribalism and move forward with an enlightened spirit unity. But that's naive, unrealistic. And you know it.

 Florya's mother tries to stop him from joining the partisans but to no avail. With a stupid, adolescent smile on his face, Florya is taken to the camp that they have set in a forest and it is there that he meets a girl his age named Glasha, with whom (like war) he seems instantly smitten by, but later on he realizes that something is off with her. 

 In the camp he is given menial tasks, such as keeping vigil and cleaning the cauldron. To clean it, he must climb into it, thus becoming an ingredient for the witchcraft of war. Glasha even showers him with flowers and grass whilst he looks at her, confused. 

 He takes a picture with the partisans then later on all of them fall in lines to march towards their enemies, but Florya is ordered to exchange his shoes with an old man and remain at the camp with Glasha. His heart breaks. He can't join the battle yet.

 The young boy and the girl, all alone in the jungle, become friends and start playing within the vegetation when they get bombarded and the explosions leave Florya with a ringing in his ears, and we experience the tinnitus with him through the visceral sound design. This must've been the first time that effect was used which is now so ubiquitous in war movies.

 The film keeps on rolling and we return to the boy's house but no one is to be seen. Florya makes up his mind that his family must've fled to an island within the bog and drags Glasha with him through the thick bogland which comes off as an act of pure desperation. But before that, the point of view switches from the boy to the girl who see dead bodies piled up behind Florya's house, but she doesn't tell him that right than and there, but waits till they've reached the island to let him know that his family is dead.

 The thing which makes this scene so powerful is that we don't see the closeup of the bodies. We never actually see the close up of any of the atrocities. We see them in our peripheral vision for a moment and then they're gone from the screen but etched in our mind.

 Most of the film is shot with a steadicam. But at no point does it come off as an experiment within the documentary style. Rather, it makes us not only a witness, but a survivor of the events. Many shots are filmed in first person perspectives of more than one character, which is so interesting to me because so many of us experience World War 2 in first person through video games. The medium evolves, the techniques remain.

 Our boy, witnessing the war, starts to look like a premature adult. By the end of the film his face is wrinkled and his hair turns thin and many of them silvered. And it was not the result of a fantastic makeup artist, but that the film was shot chronologically and the experiences that the young actor, Aleksei Kravchenko, went through affected his mental and physical health. 

 For instance, the gunfire used in the film used live ammunition. Real bullets were flying 5 inches from the actors' heads. That is very irresponsible but very effective filmmaking. One one hand, you must struggle with the ethics of it all. On the other though... you get an aural and visual experience of the battle like never before. 

 The director, Elem Klimov hired a hypnotist to protect Aleksei's young mind from the scenes but as you might've guessed, the hypnotist failed and we got the performance of a life time. 

 A cow dies in this film for real, like . Is it any more evil to kill a cow for a movie than it is to kill it for food? Food for thought. 

 Later on the barn scene echoes the gas chambers of the holocaust, in which the villagers are herded in a big barn (or was it a church?) only to be locked in. And then the set the structure on fire and it's doors heave vehemently. But no one gets out. And the Nazis, delighted at the sight, laugh and eat lobsters. 

 I'll never call the Nazis and their kin beasts. It relieves them of their sins. But in pain, that is all that one can do. 

 The film, to not leave us in a cynical and depressed state, decides to punish the perpetrators and provide some level of catharsis, even though it admits in a soul-shaking sequence which follows that it is impossible to turn back the time, no matter how persistent you are. You can't change the past. The past can change you. 

 Its aesthetically very similar to the Claude Lanzmann's documentary, Shoah, which gives it that much more sense of credibility. Shoah was a documentary about the holocaust it was shot over the span of 11 years. Both of the films, with their lush, green landscapes, shrouded in mist and dew, makes you feel like you've been there to those sacred place. Forgive me, for I exaggerate; there's nothing sacred about the war. Except the wisdom that it gives birth to.

 Its Wilfred Owen-esque critique of the tragedy paints it the waste of it all in a very raw and honest manner. Schindler's List's ending romanticized the ending just a bit with it's Hollywood ending; and it works for it. But this film just presents it all as it was. And perhaps that's why this was Elem Klimov's final film.

 War is a blunt knife trying to penetrate fresh, dead leather. Cursed to be engaged in this futile effort forever. 

 Come and See is not a film about the war. It is the war.

Moon Knight (2022) | Series Review

 27/June/2022. Watched. 

 My rating: 7.8/10. 

 A few years ago I began reading the Moon Knight comics because the premise promised a character study of a troubled individual with multiple personality disorder and superpowers. With costume which reminds you of Bat-Man, the character couldn't have been further from the Dark Knight. But, as it turned out, I couldn't get past the first issue. It was too pulpy and convoluted for my liking and the artwork was not very good to look at to say the least. But after watching this adaptation, I feel like picking up the Warren Ellis' Moon Knight even though I've outgrown the Marvel comics. 

 Oscar Isaac and Ethan Hawke make this show work. Oscar with his double (triple, technically) role as the British nerd Steven, a timid man who fears his own shadow and Marc, an American mercenary slash badass. And to make things even more awkward, both the personalities are in love with the same girl, Layla, played by May Calamway, the awkward part being that Marc is married to Layla. 

 Ethan Hawke has always been one of my favorites, whether it be Linklater's Tape (2001), the Before Trilogy, Boyhood (2014) or The Dead Poets' Society (1989), I'm yet to see him deliver anything less than perfection. And I think he is pretty good as the cult-leader villain here, even though the writing doesn't really hit the mark most of the time. 

 The writing in general doesn't feel like the show's strength. The ancient Egyptian civilization and their mythology have always been my favorite to read about, probably because of the massive, insanely intricate structures that they built. And also because of the Library of Alexandria which unfortunately went up in flames. But unfortunately the show doesn't really take full advantage of the mythology, the way Assassin's Creed: Origins did. 

 The real star of this whole production has to be the soundtrack. The score feels fresh and is actually a bit memorable and is clearly the best original score Marvel has come up with in years. And the Egyptian pop songs with their Arabic rap gives the atmosphere an incredibly distinct personality. The clear standout for me was El Malouk by Ahmed Saad. I also found out that the show also utilized underground music of Egypt which is banned in their country because freedom of expression isn't free everywhere. And Disney must be praised for putting the repressed at the front and centre and refusing to portray the culture in a stereotypical manner.

 The costumes of the show also look terrific, whether it be the Deadpool-esque Mr Knight costume or Layla's outfit in the climax. May Calamway really made me interested in her character by the end of it; would definitely like to see her return. Both of the leads should return in a feature film. 

 What I didn't enjoy about this show was how it kept skipping over the action scenes and how there was very little Moon Knight present in a show which has him as it's title. I was expecting Jake Lockley to appear and deliver his fight scenes in the most gruesome way but it never happened. Instead he appeared at the end and that was it. It felt like the whole story was a build up to a let down. 

 Moon Knight is an enjoyable show to watch because of it's eccentric editing and loony lead performance. Lets see when this character will return.

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) | Review

26/June/2022. Watched. 

 My rating: 6/10. 

 Every MCU project since Endgame, except for No Way Home, has left me at best feeling underwhelmed and at worst frustrated. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is not an exception.

 Look, we've all heard how terrible the Marvel template is. How creativity goes to drown herself in Kevin Feigi's well of restraint. And when I first heard that Sam Raimi was returning to direct a superhero film, I was disappointed. Not only because I find myself experiencing extreme superhero fatigue, but also because I knew that Raimi would barely be visible in the film, coming to the surface at regular but brief intervals. And that's exactly what it is.

 Consider the action scenes in the original Spider-Man films. The times square battle, the tram full of kids and Mary Jane falling towards their death, the train full of civilians men, women and children rolling towards the sea, even the bystanders are endangered during a car chase. There were stakes. They made us care and flinch and thrilled when the hero saved the day. It felt real, in it's own fantastical way. 

 But now when you look at the fight scenes in DSITMOM (terrible title for a movie by the way), which are choreographed way before a director is even hired, they feel hollow. In spite of their millions of dollars worth of VFX, they end up feeling lifeless. Why is that? Its because we know nothing bad of actual consequence is going to happen to this world that we're seeing. Because we have been seeing this same world for the last fourteen years. Things only seem to be getting better for this world, if not for the bigger monsters. For narrative to have some weight, the characters and the world needs to worsen as it progresses, not flourish. 

 Take a look at Spider-Man 2 (2004), for instance. Directed by none other than Raimi himself, and written by Alvin Sergeant, its a masterclass at how chasing your protagonist up a tree and throwing rocks at them makes the audience root for them even more. The worse the situations they find themselves in, the more interesting the story as a whole gets. But the fact that the MCU films are rather lucrative intellectual properties first and foremost, they come with a ceiling to which the tension can escalate. They can't risk to gut their cash cow. And all the more power to them for it. But don't expect me to stay around for that. 

 The cast is alright. I don't understand what am I supposed to admire in these big budget movies nowadays when it comes to acting. We've seen a lot of Benedict Cumberbatch in this past decade; Sherlock, The Imitation Game, The Power of the Dog and the hundred different MCU titles; hence we know, you know, exactly what you'll be getting when going into this, so I needn't talk about any of it. 

 Elizabeth Olsen steers her performance into a more unhinged territory and finally becomes a complete villain (which she had already became in WandaVision but the writers refused to treat her as one at the end). And I liked her character the best in this, as she finally gets to complete her arc and finish her story. I hope that they don't bring her back - which they will sooner or later - because it was a pretty good ending for her character. 

 This paragraph will contain spoilers, so skip if you haven't seen it yet. I smiled once in this entire affair and that was when Hayley Atwell and Jim, James, Jimothy from The Office (John Krasinski) showed up as Captain Carter and Reed Richards respectively. I love both the actors, their scenes were short but nice. Their scenes weren't written very well though, the totality of my enjoyment came from their mere presence on the screen. Also, Sir Patrick Stewart also reprised his role as Charles Xavier. He rolls in the frame with a rendition of X-Men animated series' theme playing in the background, but was it worth it? Logan was a perfect send off for the character, we didn't need to see him again. But alright. And the Bruce Campbell cameo could've been so much better; his post credit scene was fun though. Man... he has gotten old.

 There were many callbacks to the Holy Trilogy, with the way the shots were composed, the dialogues were written and the music was composed. Danny Elfman's new score for this film sounds eerily similar to how his score sounded for the Spider-Man movies. Which makes it forgettable for me, by reminding me of the other movies. Its good though. The cheesy piano bangs were fun. Plus, the ending for Wanda is exactly the same as Doctor Octopus in Spider-Man 2. There you go.

 Another thing which bugs me is that these films feel agenda-driven. Almost qualifying as woke-propaganda. For example, during a scene in a church, in a single frame you can see people of all races and religions sitting and smiling as the wedding proceeds. Now, I'm not saying that it can't or doesn't happen. What I'm saying is that it feels forced, pandering and it makes me cringe. And guess what, when you travel to an alternate New York City, its an envirmentalist utopia. I'm all for environmentalism, but when you put social messages in such a blunt manner where it doesn't belong, it feels odd. 

 I wonder if Raimi decides to make his Spider-Man 4, would it really be "his" Spider-Man 4? Or would the studios dictate it's fate? I doubt if it would have that same cinematic feeling. Sam Raimi will always have a special place in our hearts for my generation, but perhaps his best work is behind him. I hope he proves me wrong.

Persona (1966) | Review

 19/June/2022. Watched. 

 My rating: 10 /10. 

 The Bada Imambara  is a good example of Mughal acrchitecture in Lucknow, the city 80kms to my home. Famous for its labyrinth with countless doors and turns, it amazes people to this day. The doorways are intentionally designed small enough so that one has to bow and enter. It feels the same to me before I watch a film made by a deity of the cinematic pantheon.

 I feel nervous. Not because of the possibility that I won't understand it. No. Not understanding is fine. But because I may not like it. Which is a far more scarier prospect because it then makes me question my own comprehension of the cinematic canon. Hence I find myself often in a bowed state prior to entering a respected film by a respected storyteller.

 Filmmakers like Tarantino, Linklater or Cameron, as great as they are, always feel touchable. They work at a level which is at least understandable to me, if not imitable. But filmmakers like Fellini, Bergman or Coppola work on a level which is so radical that it baffles me when I see their films. Like a labyrinth, their work unfolds. In ways which you don't expect. 

 And such is the case with this Swedish film, Persona (1966). Written and directed by Ingmar Bergman, it is my second film of his; The Seventh Seal (1957) being the first. TSS found it's place as the number sixth on my top 20 list of 2020. It has taken me more than a year to gather the courage and continue with his filmography. The benchmark was so set so high with TSS, yet Bergman matched it with Persona.

 The film features mainly 2 characters played by Bibi Andersson and Liv Ullman; the latter of whom's character is silent for the most part of the film. Liv's character is an actress who decides to go mute and is accompanied by Bibi's character who becomes her nurse/companion. They move to a house near the sea and emotional turmoils take place as the two experience symbiotic relationship and incomparable sense of liberty.

 The film begins with a projector turning on, presenting the audience with a seemingly random set of clips, as if we're witnessing the birth of cinema itself. Followed by a boy caressing the large images of women's faces. 

 In Virginia Woolf's essay, A Room of One's Own (1929), she talks about how a woman needs money and independence to thrive as an artist. Allow me to quote her, "Some of the most inspired words, some of the most profound thoughts in literature fall from her lips; in real life she could hardly read, could scarcely spell and was the property of her husband." And Bergman is aware of men's idealization of women in a similar, as portrayed by the boy seeing huge, blurry, images of women and trying to touch them, to make them real, to make himself real. We put our mothers on a pedestal and try to reach them.

 Its a film about loneliness, duality and depression. To read it as a lesbian romance is a fair but surface level reading of the film. Its obvious that the two characters are the one and the same; and that character is Woman. One part of her has gone silent, has withdrawn herself from the world. The other part goes on and on with her monologues, about her worries and passions and sins. 

 Both parts are participating in an act, in which they pretend to be what the society expects them to be. Hence losing their own identity and happiness. Ullman's character hates her son, for she never wanted him in the first place. The only reason she had him was that the people around her convinced her that it was a required action to qualify as a woman. And the only qualification of the people who said that was that they were not a woman. Of course.

 Bibi's character struggles with her constant desire to not be tied down to a marriage. She tries to convince herself that she wants it, because that's what is expected of her, but when it comes to it, she acts contradictorily.

 Bergman wrote about depression very similarly to how I wrote about it last year. Describing it as being aware of one's mortality at all times. Being estranged with your surroundings and disassociation making you want to quit living. It is among the best portrayals of depression that I've seen since Hamlet.  

 From the score to the editing to the writing to the performances, I find this film to be utterly flawless. 

 I can't wait to start reading Tarkovsky's Time Within Time, and now I think I'll try to get my hands on some of Bergman's books as well.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of The Black Pearl (2003) | Review

 9/June/2022. Watched. 

 My rating:  8/10. 

 The infamous, or famous (I can't quite make up my mind about it), trial of Johnny Depp & Amber Heard marks a shift in our zeitgeist as we're forced to reexamine our perception of women and finally treat them as an equal; equal in their capacity to be evil as well, which was somewhat absent from the past decade. And the trial marked a shift in me personally too, as I realized I had never watched any of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. I'll let you decide which shift is greater.

 I went in with high hopes because I had only ever heard great things about this franchise and being familiar with the character of Cpt. Jack Sparrow because of it's popularity in pop-culture made me that much more eager to watch it. And I must say that my hopes were met with some amount of satisfaction.

 The plot and premise of the story promises a swashbuckling adventure of plundering pirates in the paradisaical seas of the Caribbean. Unlike my clumsy attempt at alliteration in the previous line, the structure of this film is very simple. And its that simplicity that works wonders for it. It allows for the 18th century world and the characters that inhabit it to take the centre stage. 

 It has everything you'd expect from a movie about pirates during the golden age of piracy. Ships with sails full of glory flying the Jolly Roger, cutlass wielding colourful characters who carry a parrot on their shoulder or wear a fake eye, an antagonist which literally goes "Arrgh!"... 

 But where it subverts expectations is when it decides to focus on the character of Sparrow who comes off as a bumbling drunk with a bellyful of cheap rum and cheaper manners. He is not any Tom, Dick and Sindbad that only does heroic things and is a goody two shoes. Instead, he wears a facade of incompetency and comes off as a low life to throw his enemies off guard. Its this characteristic that lends the character to humorous antics and amiability. 

 The animated performance of Depp would've completely stuck out if the rest of the cast had taken themselves too seriously. Geoffrey Bush, Jonathan Pryce and Jack Davenport were clearly having a lot of fun with their roles. At least it would seem that way. And Keira Knightley had among the best performances in the whole movie, which made her character so much more likable than it would've been on the page. 

 The VFX in this are also incredible, from the sparks of meeting swords to entire ships and fleet of skeletons, it all looks top notch. There's a really fun shot in which two characters are sword fighting and walking in and out of shafts of moonlight, turning into skeletons and back to human forms as they do. My only qualm with the way the film looks would be with the set designs, which makes me realize at all times that its a movie set on which it is being shot. It does give it a humble charm to an extent though, but it did pull me out of the world a bit. Another thing which I absolutely loved in this were the costumes, especially that of Jack Sparrow and Keira Knightley (even though it slanders corsets). Keira Knightley's costume at the climax looks so good. 

 I'm eager to watch the sequels and I think they would fix the set design issues in it. I'm also looking forward to Bill Nighy's Davy Jones even though I have heard that the sequels aren't as good as the original.

 The reason why I liked this film so much is perhaps that I love Assassin's Creed: Black Flag which is essentially the game adaptation of this 2003 movie. I just remembered that in one scene it hinted at slavery (in the scene where the dock-keeper walks around with a little black boy), which is quite admirable considering its a big budget Disney movie.

 This is the third film I have watched by Gore Verbinski, the other two being 2011's Rango - which I adored when I watched it a long, long time ago - and the second one being 2002's The Ring which had bored me out of my mind. This experience rests firmly in the middle.

 I think I will enjoy the game, Sea of Thieves (2018).

The Girlfriend Experience | Season 1 (2016) | Review

 5/June/2022. 

 Season 1. Watched. 

 My rating: 8/10.

 The Girlfriend Experience follows a young law student who has just got a position as an intern for a prestigious law firm but somehow finds it unsatisfactory enough for her to become a high-end escort in the luxurious lap of the New York City. Troubles ensue.

 Admittedly, I went in this show not expecting much from it, considering it's erotic themes. But thankfully it turned out to be a well put together series of episodes which uses the intensity of it's sensual scenes to propel the narrative towards a tense climax. 

 Episode 9 was especially impressive with it's non-linear structure, handheld shots and anxiety inducing sound design. The "clean" look that the cinematography achieves with it's digital cameras also gives the story a very youthful, pristine aesthetic. As if the show itself is one of those women that the show is about.

 It stars Riley Keough and it really is her vehicle. She is a damn good performer in this and really carries the whole show. She brings a level of honesty to the character that I'm not entirely sure it had on page. I later found out that I had seen her in Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) and she is also the granddaughter of Elvis Presley. Interesting. I would love to see her in an arthouse drama.

 It was a good first season and I heard that this is where Riley's character's story ends and the second season brings a fresh cast. I have a feeling that it'll drop in quality in the following seasons but I'll give it a watch nonetheless.  

Top Gun: Maverick | IMAX | Review

27/May/2022. Watched. IMAX. 

 My rating: 8.9/10. 

 Top Gun: Maverick has to be my most anticipated film of the year 2022. And its all because of Tom Cruise and his unparalleled commitment to performing stunts practically.

 I watched the original Top Gun (1986) on the 31st of August, 2019 after I had sent a shockwave down my friend Kanha's spine by admitting I had never watched it. It was a pretty cool movie, but I haven't rewatched it since. And here's another shockwave for you: I enjoyed this more than the original. I feel feverish today and I don't wanna write.

 This is the best nostalgia-bait sequel that Hollywood has produced so far as it very easily maneuvers itself around the "bait" part. The story, although filled with quite expository dialogues, felt like a worthy continuation of the classic. The whole narrative hinges on Goose's death from the first film and the emotional scenes almost got me. Almost.

 In the first 15 to 20 minutes, the film, much like its lead actor, charms you. It opens as you expect it to, on a deck of an aircraft carrier with the warm palette of colours, silhouettes of fighter jets and the deck crew hurrying about, looking cool and sending the flying machines blasting off the runway as Kenny Loggin's iconic track, "Highway to the Danger Zone" booms as if from the sky itself. 

 It dips in and out of the references to the original and thankfully never gets into it's shadow and the Claudio Miranda 's (Tron Legacy, Life of Pi) cinematography and Joseph Kosinski's (Tron Legacy, Oblivion) direction begins to imprint their own sense of identity on it. If you watch the two films back to back, you'll witness a gradual shift into it's tone which makes it feel like the perfect second half of a single story instead of being a cash-grab sequel. I love Tron Legacy, I think it's among the most original action films of the last twenty years and I'm so excited to see that Joseph and Claudio have finally made another classic of our times. Feels like a comeback. 

 Tom Cruise is as charismatic as ever and is at the "top" of his game. At three different points in this film it had me actually believe the possibility that Maverick had died. It genuinely felt like the film where Tom Cruise dies, and because of which the sense of danger was always present. The actors who play the next generation of pilots are also fine; the three clear standouts being Miles Teller, Monica Barbaro and Glen Powell. Powell somehow managing to be a douche and fun guy at the same time.

 My emotional attachment from this film stems from the fact that whenever I see Maverick, I basically project Kanha Sharma on to him. Because he is a pilot as well. His passion for aviation is contagious and I must say that for the next 24 hours, after talking to him, I get infected as well. I see Tom in his white uniform and aviators, I get reminded of my friend in a similar white uniform and aviators and it fills me with a sense of pride which is only describable as the stupid grin on my face.  

 But I think my favorite scene of the film is in the beginning, when Ed Harris, the man, the myth, the legend himself shows up in a brief appearance. I lost my shit. And I wanted to hoot and cheer and clap but considering the other 20-25 people sat oblivious to who the man was on the screen, I would've looked like a retard. And I would've ruined their experience. The sad thing is that the guys sitting next to me didn't reciprocate my respect for them as an audience member. The man/boy who sat on my right was on his phone during every scene which didn't involve a plane going woosh. And his group of friends that sat next to him kept making jokes, answering calls, being annoying little brats in general throughout the runtime.

 Like, Iceman is trying to muster up all his strength overcome the pain and talk to his friend, and you guys are laughing your ass off. Seriously? And people kept ordering nachos and popcorn and cokes and shit all the time, just grazing away with their buttered fingers. Why do people feel the need to say everything in their hearts and shove down everything they can get their hands on during a movie? Because they're their to have a good time with their buddies, not to pay attention to a piece of art. To such people I say, go to a club!

 Wow, I have no idea how I ended up ranting over there. Lets steer back to the topic at hand.

 Y'know, sometimes I watch a film like La Haine (1996) or Frances Ha (2012) and I immediately feel like imitating them as a filmmaker. But I can't even imagine to make something like Top Gun 2, even if I have all the money in the world. Think about it. You're filming with actors in real jets zipping around the skyline, whilst having a conversation with each other. You not only have to pay attention and be consistent with the line of sight that each actor will need at that point of time in accordance to their aircraft's position in the sky, you also have to edit it all together in such a way that the conversation and the exterior action shots are comprehensible enough for the narrative to flow with the action.

 Its a daunting task. And yet, the action sequences had me flinching.

 And of course the sound design. Even during the most chaotic sequences, the dialogues come out as clear as they should (looking at you Nolan). And the needledrops of rock classics such as "Won't be fooled Again" and "Great Balls of Fire" had me in the feels. 

 Another point to note is that its a film aimed at an adult audience and yet it snugly fits into the PG-13 rating. Not many films manage to achieve that.

 Top Gun: Maverick is a very charming, audacious and a wonderfully dangerous ride. Yes it has some weak points in it's script when it comes to economic storytelling, and the supporting characters could've been fleshed a bit more, but hey! that's what an 80s' film is! It actually feels like it's in conversation with the original film without losing it's own individuality and sense of style. Go watch it on the biggest screen you can get your hands on!