A leading film-maker once asserted to me that Pakistani cinema had actually thrived through the advent of Ayub Khan’s military rule. This thought is part of the broader belief amongst some quarters that the dictatorship eras have provided a certain amount of socio-economic growth and development for Pakistan. Interestingly, for film, this has never been the case. In fact, Pakistani cinema has always been built through the efforts of dedicated individuals who, despite the lack of structured support and resources, developed methods through which some sort of a film culture could develop. This culture was, in fact, undermined by the first dictator, Ayub Khan, who had viewed films as an important mass-medium, which needed to be exploited by the state. Film-making, on many levels, is inherently progressive because for art to thrive, it has to reject blanket forms of authoritarianism. This period bred the death of Pakistani cinema. Major film-makers, who refused to give up their independence either left willingly or were systematically kicked out, over the long-term, through the advent of the government’s biggest intervention, television. The Ayub era had long-standing structural and cultural impacts. It was met with increased amounts of subversiveness when it tried to influence the industry by placing controls on distribution and promoting state propaganda. The main agenda was to promote the regime’s own point of view. This was a period when around 50 propaganda films, such as the famed Nai Kiran were made, with the theme that politicians were corrupt, democracy had failed and that military rule had saved the country. Nai Kiran, which was the field marshal’s gift to the country, was completed in nearly 10 weeks and producers had the freedom to hire whomever they desired. It is said that Noor Jehan acted in the film against her will after law-enforcement agencies started to harass her after her initial refusal to be a part of it. There were several other quite notorious incidents of harassment and abuse that took place after artists refused to adhere to the dictates of the then government. The incidents of this era would not only have a lasting impact, shaping the societal outlook towards film, but would also mean that the basis of the Pakistani film would be clouded by a new environment — one in which alternative thought and film-making would not be allowed for a long time.

Director Rohit Shetty, who delivered hits like Golmaal 3, Singham and Bol Bachchan, brings together Shahrukh Khan and Deepika Padukone’s captivating chemistry once again to the big screen in the form of Chennai Express after the 2007’s reincarnation-romance hit film Om Shanti Om.  This light-hearted film is distinctive and has presented completely unusual avatars of Shahrukh and Deepika. To capture the heart of a moviegoer, Shetty successfully mixed all spices in a very balanced manner to present a complete family entertainment film with mindless comedy, drama, action and romance. In the film, 40-year-old Rahul (Shahrukh Khan), a North Indian bachelor and halwai (sweetmeats vendor) who couldn’t get married due to his caring, over-protective and over-domineering grandfather, boards a train called Chennai Express to fulfil the last wish of his grandfather to have his ashes immersed in Rameshwaram. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] PHOTO: CHENNAI EXPRESS movie Facebook page[/caption] On the journey, he meets a South Indian woman Meenamma (Deepika Padukone), who wants to flee from the clutches of her huge family and Tamil mobster father, who want her to get married to another mobster’s son, just to expand his territory. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="300"] Deepika Padukone as Meenamma. PHOTO: Chennai Express Facebook page[/caption] The rest is the relentless blending of light comedy, tender romantic moments, drama, heroic action and dance - all in South Indian style. If truth be told, Chennai Express is made in true Rohit Shetty ishtyle. The director has done his job wonderfully. The film moves from one scene to another with seamless pace along with clap-trap and witty dialogue that just kept coming. The scenes are striking and very amusing. The, aesthetic cinematography by Dudley in particular is breathtaking and can compel a nature lover to fall in love with beautiful southern landscapes. The colourful, melodious songs shot in scenic mountains, are rich compositions by duo Visha-Shekhar. ‘Titli’ and ‘Tera Rastaa Choroon na’ are two particularly well written romantic songs in the movie. ‘Kashmir Main Tu Kanyakumari’ is another catchy tune in its almost old-fashioned melody. The film ends with a song tribute to Rajnikanth, the king of South Indian cinema. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] PHOTO: Chennai Express Facebook page[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] A screenshot from the song Lungi Dance. PHOTO: Chennai Express Fan Club Facebook page[/caption] Performance wise, both Shahrukh and Deepika did their job impressively; they are inspirational actors of Bollywood and here once again both performers excel in their characters. Throughout the film, Shahrukh’s performance is a zany and pleasing one. Totally immersed in Rahul’s character, he has delivered his best comic performance with beautiful timing – for instance, when he changes his facial expressions all of a sudden into ‘My name is Rahul and I am not a terrorist’. Similarly, when Meenamma wonders if he is 50-years-old, an insulted Rahul reacts with a genuinely hilarious action. He stands out with his comical acting right till the end of the movie. Deepika Padukone comes up as a complete stunner and driving-force of the film. She provided the accurate momentum with her Tamil accent and colourful saris. Although her accent confuses audiences to some extent, Deepika allured everyone with her performance and compelling chemistry with the co-star. Having said as much, the film is deprived of a persuasive script and has a superfluous comic sense. What I found most annoying was how the Tamil language has been extensively used in dialogues which non-Tamil speaking audiences couldn't even understand as there were no subtitles. This was boring to watch and frustrating at the same time. Yet, the movie does manage to offer the film buffs something to laugh about and that’s the core reason that helped the film to smash all previous records to cross $3.9 million marks. For serious moviegoers, though, it has too many loopholes, but it has something for everyone, which is why the mesmerising Chennai Express has emerged as a big hit of the year. It has proven that the Shahrukh + Rohit + Deepika combo is exceptionally enchanting that can create a new history in Bollywood masala films. So go for a fun-ride on the Chennai Express if you want to just relax a little bit for next three hours!

Chennai Express is paisa vasool; shamelessly masala, no pretense otherwise. The locations are absolutely stunning, the item number is decent, the humour hits the spot more than twice in 2.5 hours. Deepika, her acting and her saris are perfect, and of course the jodi works (mostly because of her). The music is ok, not Vishal-Shehkar’s best work this year, however, the Rajnikanth tribute stands out. But for all the pluses the film gloriously fails in the sensibilities category. For a masala flick, it has two unexpected moments of intelligence. There was a good attempt at giving some depth to Rahul’s character (played by SRK) when Meenama (Deepika Padukone) calls him out for being selfish. Even though it goes nowhere, it was still refreshing. The second was Rahul’s passionate speech about how Indian women should not be celebrating India’s freedom, because they are not free to make their own decisions. As the whole village looked on, he beseeched Meenama’s father to let her choose and live according to her will - the father, a local don, wanted his daughter to marry a gangster to widen his hold in the area. Then the filmmakers’ brain shut down (or maybe went back to ‘normal’ mode) and they proceeded to write in a 15 minute fight sequence in which Rahul fights the gangster almost to his death to “win” the girl. Only when the gangster concedes that Rahul may not be big but is brave and something to the effect of ‘you win’, does the father let go of Meenama’s hands. I am sure everyone’s patting themselves on the back for writing that one line and making such an epic case for women to be able to choose, but it would have been nice if they hadn’t gone back so quickly to their lovely misogynistic film tropes. And gawd was the film racist; long haired, dark men growling as they run toward the camera brandishing machetes. Really?! It has been a while since the world caught onto racial stereotypes particularly one about unwashed tribals. It’s about time Bollywood figures this out and I am not even talking about the nonstop ridiculing of Southern culture and language throughout the film. Really, you are not celebrating Tamil culture by making fun of it constantly. Apart from being racist and not very smart, the film is also completely unoriginal. It is everything we have already seen in other Bollywood films; there are references to almost every SRK hit, there is a ‘meet in the field away from family’ scene, there are lovely villagers who give refuge to a young couple, boy does honourable thing and doesn’t run away with girl and so on. Kudos to SRK for making his character 40-years-old and then also joking about how he looks 50 (SRK is actually 47). But what was up with the juvenile humour between his friends (also men in their 40s) and him, and acting like a 20-year-old? I suppose I am asking for too much; we should be grateful for small mercies. Remember Aamir Khan actually trying to pass off as a 20 something in Rang De Basanti and 3 Idiots (weirdly all his friends were actually young actors)? Shudder.

Three days into the release of Shuddh Desi Romance (SDR), most of the Bollywood viewers (irrespective of whether they have seen the movie or not) know that the film circles around the theme of cohabitation, or live-in relationships as more commonly known. Most of these people have also formed opinions about the movie and its concept, which leaves little room for me to address the movie in. After all, what can I say? Everything has already been said! Frankly, to me, SDR is not about love or relationships at all. Strangely enough, it makes me want to take a good look at the Indian subcontinent’s cultural fixations (and let’s not even get into the debate that Pakistan does not have the same ideals, it does). [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] PHOTO CREDITS: Shuddh Desi Romance Facebook Page[/caption] From the day a female child is born, we become paranoid with making sure she is raised the ‘right’ way; to become good marriage material. Similarly, the day a male child is born, we become obsessed with ensuring that he has a ‘good’ life – a good job, wife and kids. Most people, by the time they go to college, are enthralled with the idea of trying to find a suitor to ‘settle down’ with. If, God forbid, we do not find this right person by the time we complete our education, there are chances that we’ll find them at our workplaces. However, the last resort for the ‘good kids’ (who do not want to rock the boat at home with a love marriage) is of course to opt for arranged marriages. Once marriage is done away with, the fascination of having and rearing children of our own starts to brew. Have one child followed by the next one, and we are set for life in the same rut of ‘moulding’ the future of our children, just like our parents once moulded us. Why are we so inclined towards these dogmas? Why does society force everyone to follow a fixed path? Why is it not alright to just follow the alternative – like to never get married? Why is a single girl labelled a ‘bechari’? Why is it wrong for anyone to just not want to ‘settle down’ with someone? Why is it that if there is a married couple without a child, it’s only because they have medical ‘issues’? So on and so forth. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] PHOTO CREDITS: Shuddh Desi Romance Facebook Page[/caption] I believe SDR somehow touches these dogmas, all the while engaging its audiences in a captivating comedy. SDR focuses on three individuals, Raghuram Sitaram (Sushant Singh Rajput), Gayatri (Parineeti Chopra) and Tara (Vaani Kapoor), who choose not to follow the standard path for addressing their lives and relationships. Yes, they are confused, they are scared to commit and they make mistakes that hurt people and each other – but isn’t that what happens in real life too? SDR is definitely not a movie for those who watch Bollywood romantic comedies to escape the reality of their actual relationships and want to see typical fairy tale romance, like Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge and the rest of the flicks from the Yash Chopra-Karan Johar clan. The movie questions (lo and behold!) the sanctity of marriage. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] PHOTO CREDITS: Shuddh Desi Romance Facebook Page[/caption] SDR is actually a charming story of three youngsters. The movie is fun throughout and the viewers have nothing to complain as far as the entertainment quotient is concerned. The on-going gag about bathrooms is hilarious. The director and writers are witty in repeating some of the dialogues in the movie. Even the smaller details, like the mithai-walla (sweets maker) scratching his back with the channi (sieve) or the fake baraati's (invitees from the groom's side) asking for the gold chain, are funny. The romance in the movie is very real and fresh, but I did feel that the makers really rushed the Shushant-Parineeti relationship. One minute she is kissing him in the bus and the next he has moved in with her! [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] PHOTO CREDITS: Shuddh Desi Romance Facebook Page[/caption] Another plus point of the movie is that for once the women are not crying, but are independent characters who do not mind saying what they feel and asking for what they want. Instead, it is their male counterpart who is confused and impulsive. SDR – Performances: The three lead characters of the movie are extremely natural. Sushant gets into the skin of a confused but honest Raghu pretty easily, however one does get the vibes of watching a Ranbir Kapoor or Ranveer Singh from his acting. Parineeti Chopra is fabulous with another one of her spontaneous performances, playing the bold and beautiful Gayatri. Vaani Kapoor looks pretty, amazingly confident for her debut movie and has a good on-screen presence as Tara. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] PHOTO CREDITS: Shuddh Desi Romance Facebook Page[/caption] Rishi Kapoor gets special applause for doing a brilliant job as the extremely lovable Goyal. SDR – Technical: I totally want to visit Jaipur after watching the movie. The Pink City and its cultural nuances have been etched well in the movie’s plot. Costume design is also impeccable and gives the movie a complete Rajasthaani look. The same goes for the music as well, which perfectly befits the theme of the movie and is enjoyable. However, the editing department probably slept over a couple of reels as the movie is at least 10-15 minutes too long! Honourable mention for Jaideep Sahni, for coming up and writing a script such as this, with its realistic simplicity which is quite rare. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] PHOTO CREDITS: Shuddh Desi Romance Facebook Page[/caption] The final word: Lastly, I saw a lot of disappointment in the crowd when the couple did not get married in the final act. FYI - that's exactly the point this movie was trying to make! Go with an open mind about 'desi' romance and enjoy the movie for what it is! I would rate this film an easy 3.5 out of 5! Great job!

I watched Zinda Bhaag at its World Premier in Toronto, incidentally on August 14, 2013 - Pakistan’s   Independence Day. After a successful ten day run, followed by many reviews, and nominated for Pakistan’s official entry to the Oscars in the Best Foreign Language Film category, I thought I’d write my personal review of the film. Using cricket lingo, Zinda Bhaag is not a Shahid Afridi sixer, or a T-20 slog. Instead, it is a technically perfect and faultless double hundred by a maestro like Javed Miandad, with its due share of sixers and boundaries. Like any double hundred, Zinda Bhaag not only gives a winning position to the team, it also plays a catalytic role in the popularity and promotion of the game, that is, the film industry in Pakistan. My earlier reference to Shahid Afridi’s sixers and T-20 slogs was simply to explain that his sixers are part impulse, part response to public demand, and part reflex action, whose comprehension follows rather than precedes the act; whereas, Zinda Bhaag is neither. Although it has its fair share of adrenaline pumping shots and tense situations, it is a well-timed, well-planned, and well-executed game changer. What makes a great film, you ask? I have a formula which contains seven elements that all new directors must strive to achieve. The film’s directors, Meenu Gaur and Farjad Nabi, have adhered to it in their own way. The acronym of my formula is S.A.V.E.S.M.E. The first five letters denote elements intrinsic to a film, and the last two, in a way, are extraneous to the film. S.A.V.E.S stands for Script, Acting, Visuals, Editing and Soundtrack - and once the movie is made – M.E. stands for Marketing and Exhibition. In my humble opinion, any film must score a minimum of B+ on the first five elements to be considered a serious attempt at film-making. I gave Zinda Bhaag an A+ on script, editing and sound track; while the acting of main characters oscillates between A+ and B+. Although the budget constraints for its marketing and promotion are obvious, I still gave it a healthy B+ on its marketing since the intelligent use of social media and personal networks of the film-makers seem to be filling the gaps quite adequately. Now, what exactly was so great about this film? Cast and Setting Firstly, the film is full of stunning performances and appearances. The two best appearances are by Naseerudin Shah, and by Lahore. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="540"] PHOTO: FILE[/caption] Yes, Lahore performs in the film – the city, the culture, the throb, the celebration, and its irony – all play a role in the movie. Zinda Bhaag doesn’t show Lahore as seen by a tourist, or the Lahore of Mian Shahbaz Sharif. It shows a real Lahore of real people. I can only explain the city making an ‘appearance’ by comparing it to the depiction of the city of Kolkatta in last year’s blockbuster Indian film, Kahani. In fact, Lahore’s depiction is slightly better because Kahani’s protagonist was an outsider to Kolkatta, whereas, Zinda Bhaag’s protagonist(s) are true Lahoris. Most of Zinda Bhaag’s reviews have tried to relate the film to the revival of cinema in Pakistan. Pakistani cinema allegedly began its decline in the 1980s; however, the same period saw the rise of Punjabi gandasa (farming tool of Punjabi origin) movies as well as of Urdu television. With the rise of TV, the pop music and advertising industries made their respective debuts and proceeded to flourish. Zinda Bhaag’s treatment seems to have been subliminally inspired, if not influenced, by 1980s Pakistani TV, particularly by the spell-binding serials of Lahore TV. Although I have not spoken to the fabulous actors – Amna Ilyas, Khurram Patras, Salman Ahmed Khan and Zohaib – I would like to know whom they took inspiration from while playing their roles; and I have a hunch that it would one of  TV’s popular artists. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="540"] PHOTO: FILE[/caption] Manzar Sehbai’s cameo appearance is both, haunting and moving. However, Puhlvan, played by Naseerudin Shah, is the real treat of the movie. He represents and embodies our collective self. He has a lot to tell but mostly anecdotal; we find out that his character is who he is as a reaction to an accidental situation, and not the result of a plan; and, his ‘Vekho Ji’ and ‘Gallan vichon gul nikal de ae’, is such apt satire of our noisy and nasty talk shows. Simply put, his performance is stunning. After Khuda ke Liye, this is his second significant role in a Pakistani blockbuster and Mr Shah deserves official recognition by the government for his sustained contribution in the promotion of Pakistani cinema. Storyline The film begins with credits, which is initially surprising but actually a very creative move in hindsight, as it introduces the new cast. The film’s story and narration are intensely engaging, with contemporary characters and their very real personal struggles and aspirations. The sham soap opera in the film, named Auqat, and the leading lady’s soap, referred to as ‘facelook’, are two apt examples of the contemporary appeal of the film. True to its name, there is a constant and energetic movement although the four main characters portray different personalities and outlooks to life. Some are hesitant while others are reckless; some have decided on a ‘slow and steady’ approach while others have been ‘once bitten, twice shy’. Soundtrack Sahir Ali Bagga, true to his first name, which means sorcerer in Urdu, enchants the audience with songs that range from sexy to soulful; and the sound track is bound to do as good a business as the film itself. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="540"] PHOTO: FILE[/caption] However, I do think that the placement of Hum Dekhen Ge could have been better and the use of Pani Da Bulbala could have been improved. Recommendation Coming back to the cricketing metaphor, this double hundred will popularize Pakistani cinema and inspire others towards longer and steadier innings instead of choppy, knee-jerk attempts of sixers. If Zinda Bhaag is able to generate a buzz in Los Angeles, New York & Chicago before Christmas, I see it moving to the next ten short-listed films in its category. As they say, ‘the taste of the pudding is in the eating’, so my recommendation is,

“Vekho Ji” (Take a look).

After the release of Waar’s trailer online I found myself being annoyingly corrected about how to pronounce the movie’s name. I’d invariably call it ‘War’ in front of Urdu lovers who would tell me it was Waar, meaning ‘to strike’. However, my friends at school would chuckle at me when I called it Waar and insisted that it was ‘War’.  As irritating as this was, there is an even more infuriating phrase I am certain you have heard when people discuss local ventures including films. Just like a worn-out bandage no longer covers or protects a scar, you’ll find this phrase invariably attached to discussions about new initiatives in our country. This maddening expression is: ‘in Pakistan’. If you probe deeper into that phrase, perhaps you will understand why a film like Waar will help eject those two words from our discourse. However, first let’s set aside the geographical element to the two words ‘in Pakistan’ for a moment, and look at how it’s used. Examples include:

“That’s not possible in Pakistan.” “This is made here in Pakistan?” “That won’t work in Pakistan.”

Although the making of the film Diana has generated quite a bit of hype, the build-up seems to be more about the exceptional personality that the film attempts to portray rather than the film itself. After all, there is not much that the audience does not know about her and even a quick web search can give you a detailed account of what her life was all about. Nonetheless, one would still expect some amazing emotional treatment and directorial class from Oliver Hirschbiegel, the German director who directed the Oscar worthy Downfall. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Actor Naomi Watts signs autographs at the world premier of her biopic Diana in London on Thursday. Photo: Reuters[/caption] People all over the world have always been fascinated by Diana Spencer and the plot, script and direction, tries to cash in on this fascination. The storyline explores the perks and perils of being the most popular woman in the world and the repercussions that it had on her personal relationships. Simply put, the film is what one expects it to be – an emotional drama, sprinkled with a bit of fact twisting and cover-ups, and topped off with a few exaggerations here and there. Although the film covers Diana’s emotional imbalance well, it does not do justice to the character of Dr Hasnat Khan and his apprehensions towards their relationship, in spite of being in love with her. Consequently, the film portrays Dr Khan almost as a villain, who did not adequately reciprocate Diana’s affection and abandoned the relationship on the pretext that ‘he is a very private person’. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Diana, Princess of Wales, (played by Naomi Watts) with Dr Hasnat Khan (Naveen Andrews) in a scene from film 'Diana'.[/caption] While in reality, the late princess had nicknamed Dr Khan as ‘Mr Wonderful’, the film depicts his character as a rude, chauvinistic, vacillating and unhealthy loner. It seemed painfully obvious that the filmmakers were not quite ready to take the British authorities head-on by showing too much ‘truth’ in the film. Along with this break from reality, the film has its fair share of hyperbolic melodrama, from the princess putting on a brunette wig to meet Dr Khan to them running in the fields like teenagers from a Bollywood romance. Moreover, it has left an unexpectedly bad taste amongst the British and Pakistani audiences with scenes of Dr Khan’s mother blaming the princess for millions of deaths during partition and the princess leaking her own photos to the paparazzi in order to make Dr Khan jealous. In fact, word has it that even Dr Khan himself has not been appreciative of the film and the story thus told. Unfortunately, Dr Khan’s role seems almost intentionally sidelined. Naveen Andrews casted as the doctor, in no way resembles the real Dr Khan; in fact, the only similarity may be in the complexion; Chris Noth is perhaps, more like Dr Khan in appearance. Moreover, Andrews fails to deliver in his performance as well with his robotic dialogue delivery, enforced humour and unconvincing romantic moves. Another missing link in the film is the absence of Prince Charles. How can Diana’s story be complete without Prince Charles? Yet, his presence and role have been completely ignored by the film-makers. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Naveen Andrews plays heart surgeon Hasnat Khan in 'Diana'.[/caption] Needless to say, Naomi Watts worked hard in her role of the princess – perhaps, even too hard at times. Her research of the character is apparent in the tilt of her head in the same way as the late princess, looking from the sides of her eyes and fiddling with her fingers while talking and walking. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Left: Naomi Watts; Right: Princess Diana. Photo: AFP[/caption] At times, however, it seemed like Watts was too focused on faking a British accent. Although this was crucial to her role, her care seemed to detract from her performance somewhat. She was made to resemble the princess quite closely, especially the hair, but the fact remains that Watts is a good 13 centimetres shorter than the real princess. With her height, Princess Diana, had an aura of grace and charm around her which Naomi Watts, unfortunately, failed to deliver. Although she acted quite well, when it comes to a biopic of this stature, ‘quite well’ leaves something to be desired. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Actress Naomi Watts is seen portraying Princess Diana in a photograph released by movie company Ecosse films in London. Photo: Reuters[/caption] Surprisingly, the best performances of the film came from the supporting cast. The most notable characters were of Patrick Jephson played by Charles Edwards and Sonia played by Juliet Stevenson. The directorial treatment and editing is crisp in the film. In fact, the film’s first sequence raises the audience’s expectations with a shot in which the princess leaves her hotel room, walks in the corridor and stops for a bit while the camera zooms back, almost as though showing her life leaving her. However, as the film proceeds, the technical aspects are unable to save the sinking script and the ordinary performances. Overall, Oliver Hirschbiegel’s work was largely disappointing. Although Diana had its share of pleasant moments, it still falls short of being a great film. There were moments when I literally struggled to be emotionally touched by the movie in spite of all my love and fascination for the late princess. Even in moments when I began to feel something during certain scenes, the excitement was quickly suppressed by the sloppy romance and exaggerated portrayal of the Pakistani doctor.

It is official. Waar is making coin! The film has shot to Rs10.5 crore within the first ten days of its release, firmly placing in its crosshairs Pakistan’s highest grossing film of all time, Bol. Waar has also bettered the Pakistani box office performance of Chennai Express, unexpectedly scoring a higher opening day than the Shahrukh Khan masala vehicle. This has been a talking point for many Pakistanis, who have taken the news as a national achievement. Unfortunately, for Waar, the film hasn’t been received as warmly by the nation’s film critics. Predictably enough, the Pakistani public has been unhappy with the negative reviews. Fans of Waar argue that although the film is admittedly a misfire, it should be praised at the very least for getting the stagnating film industry’s bullet in the gun chamber. On some level, this is true. The success of films such as Waar and Bol proves that our cinemagoers are willing to watch films that don’t regurgitate the nonsense that comes out of Lollywood. That being said, Waar consists of fundamental flaws which prevent it from hitting the par score when it comes to international film standards. Granted, that for the inexperienced filmmakers, Waar was a complicated undertaking, but at the end of the day, the film is charging the same ticket price at local cinemas as a good Hollywood blockbuster, and thus must be judged by the same benchmark. Here are six areas where Waar missed the target: 1. The struggle with English  Waar is most authentic when its characters are engaging in Urdu. Unfortunately, for what I estimate to be 75% of the running time, the film’s dialogue is in English. Because most of the actors are visibly concentrating on communicating in a language alien to them, they seem to have less energy for their primary function: acting. This results in some hilariously wooden performances, where the players often seem like they are dryly reading words off of cue cards. If the filmmakers were unable to find actors who were comfortable speaking in English, they should have rewritten some of the dialogue. It isn’t a coincidence that the strongest performances in Waar come from Shaan Shahid (Major Mujtaba), Ayesha Khan (Javeria), and Ali Azmat (Ejaz Khan), as these three out of the entire cast seem most comfortable speaking in English. Another side effect of Waar’s language fiasco is that while Javeria speaks fluently with a Canadian accent, her brother Ehtesham (Hamza Ali Abbasi), speaks in a manner which reveals a remarkably different background for a person who is supposed to be her sibling! This phenomenon, where actors perform significantly better in their native language isn’t a new one. Both Chow Yun Fat (Crouching Tiger) and Jet Li (Hero) are far more convincing in Hong Kong cinema as opposed to Hollywood films. To director Bilal Lashari’s credit, both Ayesha and Ali were given expanded roles in the film after their talent was recognised. It must be said that the film’s largest letdown in the acting department is Meesha Shafi (Laxmi), who wasn’t always up to her highly challenging role. In fact, some of her scenes were screaming for a retake. Here, the finger must be pointed at Lashari, considering that Mira Nair extracted better mileage from Shafi in The Reluctant Fundamentalist. 2. The Script: The dialogue in Waar is sometimes so poor that the film seems like a spy film parody straight out of the minds of Matt Stone and Trey Parker (Team America: World Police). One of the most unintentionally hilarious moments in the film is when Major Mujtaba’s frustrated superior screams at him, “WHEN WILL YOU LET GO OF YOUR PAST?” One would think that asking a man to quickly get over the trauma of watching his wife and child being killed right in front of him would be just a touch insensitive. 3. The Indian bashing: I’ll be honest. I wouldn’t truly enjoy the counterterrorist TV show 24, unless the terrorists were Muslim. You can blame the media all you want, but it just didn’t seem believable enough when it was Austrian nationalists attacking the White House. But when the baddies were Arab? Let’s go Jack Bauer! So I have no issues with Waar’s evil characters portrayed as Indian spies. But stripping the Indian baddies of all humanity took me out of the narrative. The RAW agents in Waar were bloodthirsty, carried sinister smiles and were constantly hatching unbelievably super evil plans. All that was missing in their campy one-dimensional characterisation was a sinister laugh matched by thunder in the background, with Mini-Me from Austin Powers in the background. 4. The over-dramatic music:  Although Waar features a stellar soundtrack, the filmmakers gave it more love than it deserved, overusing it to the point where it often drowned out the dialogue. Surely some of the film’s powerful scenes would have clicked better without the mismatched music overcooking the drama. 5. Cinematography:  If you watch the BBC’s documentary, Planet Earth, especially in HD, you will realise that Pakistan’s northern areas are ripe with opportunity for any filmmaker interested in capturing breathtaking locales on the camera. Too bad that aside from a few scenes, Waar misses the chance to feature some gorgeous backdrops. 6. Action sequences: Tense and well-paced, Waar’s opening action scene is nicely directed. Another scene in the film, where a police academy is attacked by terrorists, is also quite engaging. Regrettably, the climactic scene of the film, where the Pakistani armed forces take on the militants, is terribly edited, playing out like a sad spoof of war films. In a repeating pattern, this final sequence features shots of Pakistani soldiers firing randomly in the air at no one in particular, followed by snarling militants who are discharging weapons without cover or fear, and followed by gratuitous explosions that are powered by the film’s reported Rs200 million budget. The disconnect between these sewed together scenes is so obvious, that the entire final action sequence seems like it went through The Human Centipede process of film editing. What I really found interesting was the colour of the smoke which followed the explosions. I found it strange that it was as white as Gandalf’s beard. As experts can tell you, white smoke only follows explosions that employ homemade chemicals, while military grade high-end explosives always feature grey or even black smoke. So either the producers of Waar didn’t do their research, or they are trying to tell us something about the Pakistan army’s budget. Speaking of the Pakistan military, rumours making the rounds suggest that Waar was funded by the Pakistan military’s media relations arm, the ISPR. There seems to be no proof of this, other than the fact that the film projects the Pakistani armed forces as heroes. If this is clear evidence, then I suppose films like Saving Private Ryan (1998), Black Hawk Down (2001) and Inglorious Bastards (2009) were also military funded films, which seems silly. If we are truly serious about reviving our film industry, we should consider adapting the books of our critically acclaimed fiction writers, such as Mohammad Hanif. I am sure that with the right talent, the cinematic adaptation of A Case of Exploding Mangoes would find international acclaim. Such a film would need private backing however, since the ISPR would probably not be willing to fund a dark satire based on the death of General Ziaul Haq. [poll id="302"]

The moment I saw the first promo of Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s film Ram-Leela, I decided I had to watch it. I did not think that it would change my views about world cinema, nor was it the most captivating promo one would ever see; but it did look absolutely stunning. I knew that it would be nothing less than a visual treat. However, before you classify me as a die-hard fan of Sanjay Leela Bhansali, let me clarify. I am not a huge Bhansali fan, I particularly did not like Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam (HDDCS) or Devdas and I could not bear Saawariya for 15 minutes. Having said that, it is true that when you watch a film that is based on Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, you do not watch it for the story. Romeo and Juliet has had many adaptations, not only on stage, but also musical versions – West Side Story, soft romantic versions – Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak and of course, contrived versions like Ishaqzaade. So there is no doubt that Ram-Leela is a generic film. After all, how can a plot set in violent times in Rajasthan bring anything new to the screen in terms of story? So what remained to be seen was how ‘Bhansali-esque’ the film was and boy, it was very ‘Bhansali-esque’. From the song in the opening credits to the grandeur of the sets and chroma keying; from the uber artistic choreography to the exceptionally beautiful frames, Ram-Leela oozes Bhansali’s class as a filmmaker even if his writing is somewhat questionable. Ram-Leela thrives on technical superiority and performances, with Ravi Varman’s camera work taking the cake. If you thought that Sudeep Chatterjee was good in Guzaarish, Ravi Varman has taken cinematography to a whole new level in Ram-Leela. The camera work in the film is literally a piece of art. There are just too many beautiful moments to write about and you will have to go see for yourself! The film’s second strength is its choreography. Even though I think that there are two songs too many in the film, it is the music videos where the film reveals its true ‘Bhansali-esqueness’. The songs have been picturised exquisitely, such as the blood eluded Lahu Munh Lag Gaya, which is reminiscent of Aankhon Ki Gustakhiyan from HDDCS.  [embed width="620"]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x15svvh_lahu-munh-lag-gaya-song-hd-video-ram-leela-ranveer-singh-deepika-padukone_music[/embed] Of course, there is also the utterly sensual imagery in Ang Laga De Re where Leela entices Ram and even Priyanka Chopra’s completely misplaced item song Ram Chahe Leela does make its mark with regards to picturisation. [embed width="620"]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1713ka_ang-laga-de-hd-video-song-teaser-ram-leela-2013-deepika-padukone-ranveer-singh_music[/embed] [embed width="620"]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x16fgoo_ram-chahe-leela-song-ft-priyanka-chopra-ram-leela_shortfilms[/embed] Add to that the film’s sound design, costume design, make-up, art direction and dialogues, and you see the infinite creativity of Sanjay Leela Bhansali as a director. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Priyanka Chopra is receiving rave reviews for her sultry item song Ram Chahe Leela. Photo: File[/caption] Then, there are the performances. Although Gulshan Devaiya as Bhavani is below par and could have delivered more, the rest of the supporting cast has really stepped up. Richa Chadda proves her mettle yet again while Abhimanyu Shekhar Singh, although less terrifying than he was as Bukka Reddy in Rakta Charitra, is right on the money. Nonetheless, the film belongs to three characters – Ram, Leela and Baa. Baa is played by the underexposed and highly plausible Supriya Pathak. Her character is both, fearless and fearsome at the same time. She is a woman who can go to the extreme of cutting her beloved daughter’s finger simply to take off a ring. Pathak, who was forgotten for her roles in Kalyug and Bazaar, and is remembered as the comedian from Khichdi, has made a comeback of the highest order and filled her role splendidly. Then there is Leela. Gorgeous, aggressive and tempestuous in those ghagras and cholis, Leela is Bhansali’s replacement of Devdas’s Paro. There were moments when I actually forgot Paro like when Leela wrote Ram’s name on the mirrors in her room, or when she held a gun to his stomach and vowed to kill him if he cheated on her, or then when she touched his feet in complete submission. There literally seem to be fifty shades in Leela’s character and Deepika Padukone has done justice with all her emotional outbursts. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Deepika has once again proved her versatility in Ram-Leela, while Ranveer has finally emerged as a serious actor. Photo: File[/caption] Deepika has left her comfort zone of being the new-age urban girl from Cocktail, Love Aaj Kal, Yeh Jawani, Break Ke Baad and so forth. Her scenes with Richa Chadda in the second half are utterly brilliant. If Ram-Leela is a success, this will be her fifth consecutive hit and her performances wholly deserve that sort of success. Last but not least, there is Ranveer Singh – an actor who is completely at ease with himself. From the nonchalant guy in Band Baaja Baaraat, Ranveer has come a long way because Ram is not like the everyday lover boy that any actor could play. Disreputability is his pride. He does not play cute, compelling you to love him back. Instead, he runs suspicious video stores and flaunts his well-toned body at women. And then he changes. From an authentic lover who slits his wrist, he becomes a resolute leader who shuns his sister-in-law implying that he has forgotten his personal life. As good as Ranveer is in playing this character in its physicality, he is even better at playing the hazy pre-requisites of a Bhansali movie. His energetic dance moves and his manifestation of holding back something from spilling out are a treat to watch. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="640"] Ram-Leela's spectacular choreography and energetic dance moves are a treat to watch.[/caption] Any actor in a Bhansali movie has to be a performing artist and Ranveer Singh fulfils this requirement with great aptitude. His confrontation scene with Leela towards the end of the movie before the sarpanch played by Raza Murad, is arguably the best part of the film. Although we have seen the world that Bhansali has created in Ram-Leela before in HDDCS with its rich colours, similar soundtrack and even the same bhavai, it seems less mawkish and more vehement this time. I, for one, prefer this world over the earlier one. Yes, there were a few dragged sequences in the film and I would have personally liked to cut a song and 10 minutes from each half, but that does not take away the fact that the film was indeed a visual treat. It looks like Ram-Leela could well be the return of Sanjay Leela Bhansali and perhaps, the emergence of Ranveer Singh as a serious actor.

With its dark and powerful plot coupled with an abundance of fantastic performances, Francis Lawrences’s Catching Fire is as gripping a watch as its former film. But unlike The Hunger Games, the latest instalment in the franchise based on Suzanne Collins’ popular books, portrays a much darker world and leaves no stone unturned to show the horrors people suffer under totalitarian regimes. [embed width="620"]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x125chq_the-hunger-games-catching-fire-official-trailer_shortfilms[/embed] Catching Fire takes us back to the dark, despairing country of Panem. After winning the 74^th edition of the Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) return to their home in District 12, the most suppressed sector of Panem. They are on their way to beginning a victory tour of the country when President Coriolanus Snow (Donald Sutherland), Panem’s tyrannical ruler, visits Everdeen with a stark message. He explains that her approach to ending the last Hunger Games, where she and Peeta attempted a suicide pact after learning that only one of them could make it, inspired rebellions in the rest of the districts. He orders Everdeen, who is seen as a symbol of hope by many of Panem’s oppressed citizens, to alleviate the instability. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="302"] Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark win the 74th annual Hunger Games. Photo: AFP[/caption] Everdeen is unable to successfully do so and instead inadvertently convinces President Snow that she is a liability whose presence will lead to further unrest in the country. As a result, President Snow decides that the most effective way to eliminate her is to have former Hunger Games’ winners, including herself and Peeta, participate in the 75^th annual Hunger Games. The movie continues with Everdeen being thrust into the Hunger Games arena once again to participate in yet another fight for her survival. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark forced to participate in the 75th Hunger Games. PHOTO: AFP[/caption] Everdeen’s character has evolved since the previous film. In the previous Hunger Games, she was shown as a stern but resilient girl who willingly volunteered to participate in the annual tournament in place of her younger sister. She is hell-bent on survival, for she is aware of the fact that her family will not survive for long in her absence. However in Catching Fire, she is emotionally damaged and is traumatised by her experience at the games. She is struggling to come to terms with the deaths she witnessed in the arena, with mental images of the fallen contestants acting as constant reminders of the horrors she was subjected to. Reprising her role as Everdeen, Jennifer Lawrence delivers a superb performance that is worthy of high praise. She successfully plays an emotionally damaged girl who can still fight for what she believes in when the time calls for it. https://twitter.com/KatieMowgli/status/405550384531271680 Other noteworthy performances include those of Josh Hutcherson as Everdeen’s friend, admirer and fellow Hunger Games winner Peeta Mellark, Woody Harrelson as the duo’s perennially drunk yet admirably considerate mentor Haymitch Abernathy and Donald Sutherland as the heartless tyrant President Snow. New cast members Philip Seymour Hoffman as Plutarch Heavensbee the new Gamemaker, Hunger Games’ new heartthrob Sam Claflin (Finnick Odair), Jena Malone (Johanna Mason) and Lynn Cohen (Mags) as the former winners participating, also give memorable performances respectively. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="340"] Catching Fire cast. Jena Malone, Sam Claflin, Philip Seymour Hoffman & Lynn Cohen. Photo: AFP[/caption] https://twitter.com/addison_angelo/status/405902311911747584 Unlike the previous film, Catching Fire contains noticeably fewer action sequences and is arguably less violent. While a greater emphasis on the Hunger Games tournament, shown for less than half of the film’s duration, would have been appreciated, it must be understood that the film’s primary focus lies on exploring the themes that were only given a brief mention in the previous film. Catching Fire paints the picture of an Orwellian world that is so desperately struggling to free itself from the shackles of totalitarian rule, one where an unforgiving ruler keeps his people in line by imposing mass censorship and publicly tortures anybody who does not abide by the rules set by the regime. Fear is used as an indicator to control and any sign of hope is stomped on with swiftness. In many ways, Catching Fire is darker than the first sequel of The Hunger Games, which is quite a statement given that the latter’s primary focus was on a competition that pits children against each other in a battle to the death. This bleak scenario adds complexity to this fascinating plot and makes for a watch that kept me glued throughout the film’s entirety. Catching Fire’s strong plot and premise, assisted by a stellar performance by Jennifer Lawrence as well as other cast members, make it a thoroughly enjoyable experience that builds on The Hunger Games and even surpasses it on many occasions. So buy your ticket, pick up some snacks and put your cell on vibrate as soon as possible, for you will surely regret missing these two hours and 15 minutes! https://twitter.com/TheHungerGames/status/405758959123832833 The third and last sequel to The Hunger Games trilogy, Mockingjay will be split into two parts. Part one is said to be released in November 2014 and part two in November 2015. If this film turned out to be more intense than its predecessor, then the other two coming up will definitely be nail-biting.

While my friend and I were having coffee, he shared an interesting observation with me:

“I always wondered why the black people were unable to overcome the practice of slavery in the United States through revolt?”

 “Hasn’t this always been the case when it comes to dynamics between oppressor and oppressed? It is not just the physical scare that prevents a revolt, but a psychological one.”

‘The less you talk, the better chance you have of survival’.

As I sat in a cosy small Indie cinema in the dark waiting for the film to start, I was struck by the strangest sense of déjà vu...

‘Will this be another lack lustre Woody Allen film or a hidden gem?’

“Jasmine always had the good genes; she was always the favourite in the family”

The year 2013 has been a fantastic year for films – a film about an HIV positive patient, another about the smirk of a drug lord with metal teeth; one about a lesbian love affair and another showing the re-enactment of a genocide. The year saw the triumph of documentaries such as The Act of Killing, the emergence and success of acting careers with the likes of Mathew McConaughey and Bruce Dern, and the introduction of low-key Indie style filmmaking into mainstream cinema with Inside Llewyn Davis. These elements made 2013 a very special year for the world of cinema. On January 16, 2014 the Oscar nomination list was announced. Although some of my personal favourites did not make it on the list, one thing is for certain – it will be quite a competition this time around. A number of its critics believe the Academy not to be impartial when it comes to handing out the Oscar and claim that melodramas and historical epics are much more popular with the Academy than comedies. They also assert that actors who play in biopics have a better chance of receiving the golden statue than fictional ones. And the complaint list goes on. I personally think that most of the criticism is quite valid. And so, in this list I have decided to examine the major nominees and have dissected it into two different categories – who I think should win and whom the Oscar might actually go to. So, here is my dissection of the list of nominees for the 2014 Oscars: Best movie -12 Years A Slave -American Hustle -Dallas Buyers Club -Her -Nebraska -Captain Phillips -The Wolf of Wall Street -Gravity -Philomena My opinion: Her The Oscar might go to: Gravity [embed width="620"]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x18pdsv_watch-her-film_lifestyle[/embed] I believe that Her is one of those films that not only visually stands out from the rest but compels you to become emotionally engaged with the protagonist. Although I believe that the Oscars snubbed Inside Llewyn Davis undeservedly, Her is still the most deserving film on the list in my opinion. But Gravity seems to have won their hearts with its visual effects and will probably grab the gold. Yes, it is a good film but certainly not the most innovative film on this list – at least not that I think. Best actor in a leading role -Bruce Dern for Nebraska -Chiwetel Ejiofor for 12 Years a Slave -Matthew McConaughey for Dallas Buyers Club -Christian Bale for American Hustle -Leonardo DiCaprio for The Wolf of Wall Street [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Photo: AFP[/caption] When I saw this list, my first thought was,

“Where’s Tom Hanks for Captain Phillips?”

“No Greta Gerwig for Frances Ha?”

“I have never seen anything like this before!”

Ali Zafar’s fifth Bollywood film, Total Siyapaa, is an outlandish comedy of errors which unfolds on a single, wild night. The movie is another version of the popular cliché of what happens when a boy meets the girl’s parents for the first time. Things are going great for the couple, Aman, played by Ali Zafar, and Asha, portrayed by the talented Yami Gautam, until Aman is persuaded, with much protest, to meet Asha’s parents. Chaos ensues as the couple face characters ranging from a Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge (DDLJ)-obsessed child, baseball-bat wielding youngsters, a chronic complainer (played skilfully by Kiron Kher), trollops with tooting accents and a nuttier than a bar of snickers granddad. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Photo: Total Siyapaa Official Facebook Page[/caption] Mix the quirks of the characters, which are, to put it mildly and in printable language, cucking frazy, with a dangerous container of frozen soup and some near murders, and you have the recipe for a mammoth Siyapaa. Interestingly, things at the house take a massive turn for the worse when Aman is asked the all too familiar question of ‘what is your family background’. This is when the parents unexpectedly learn that their Indian daughter, who was brought up as a Hindu, has chosen a Pakistani man, who follows a different religion. That’s when the already awkward dinner turns into an out and out farce. Aman, the innocent, well-spoken boy from a good family, struggles to maintain his nerve as each character presents a new challenge. As he becomes more and more entrapped by the family’s eccentricities and a host of unexpected circumstances, Aman’s relationship with Asha comes under stress too. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="522"] Photo: Total Siyapaa Official Facebook Page[/caption] His love for Asha makes him drop his accha bacha (good boy) standards and work to wriggle himself out of a welter of problems as he, against his will, finds himself in police stations, a flower shop and even the prospective father-in-law’s office. The interaction between Kiron Kher and Ali Zafar is hilarious throughout the film and there is a particularly funny scene where a distressed Aman has to deal with an elderly relative in a lavatory. While Total Siyapaa has its moments, I can’t help but think that the film, which is clearly meant to be an entertainer, has great unfulfilled potential. Initially titled Aman Ki Asha, it could have been fantastic had it included more of the comedy centred on the cultural differences between the two countries and Aman working to make peace with his antagonistic Indian family. It only touches on this matter briefly and if the script had more such banter, it would have really helped engage the audience for longer periods. The trailer and climax of the film, where the Pakistani identity of Aman is revealed, brings about an expectation of the Indo-Pak angle, which unfortunately isn’t exploited to the fullest. As a result, the film tends to meander from one comedy skit to another. The supporting cast, with the exception of the outlandish sister, played by Sara Khan, aren’t able to sparkle to the same extent that the family members did in the Meet the Parents series. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Photo: Total Siyapaa Official Facebook Page[/caption] While it’s neither engaging nor unpredictable enough to be termed a must see, there’s still plenty to commend in the film. Zafar is fantastic as the puzzled Pakistani and you can certainly relate to the very Pakistani earnestness and charm he brings to the role. The multi-talented Zafar sparkles, whether on screen or through the soundtrack, since in addition to playing the lead role, he composed and sung the songs too – the title track of which is sure to be a super-hit. One hopes he will soon become the first choice for the male lead in rom-coms too, much like Parineeta Chopra for filmmakers seeking a great female lead. [embed width="620"]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x17ngzn_total-siyapaa-official-trailer-2013-ali-zafar-yaami-gautam-anupam-kher-kirron-kher_music[/embed] Moreover, the guy is an absolute gentleman and was supremely patient despite the stampede causing attention he was getting at the premiere in Pakistan. Courteous to the core, he even left a conversation midway with Humaima Malick and Aminah Shaikh when interrupted by a humble autograph seeker. Seeing Zafar on the big screen should be a huge draw for most people, considering he is probably the man most men want to be, and of course, the man most women want to be with. All in all, if you’re looking for a light-hearted and amusing film that the lady in your life won’t object to, this ultimately harmless film, which has some great songs, one of which sees Zafar partner with Fariha Pervez, is a good pick.

Being a die-hard fan of the classic television show, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Sarah Michelle Gellar, and knowing that there are many others like me out there, I think it is about time a Buffy movie was released. The show was based on Joss Whedon’s 1992 movie with the same name. After the movie failed to top at the box office, it was converted into a television series. Buffy the Vampire Slayer which aired on television from 1997 to 2003, gained a huge fan following and has been listed as one of the best shows of all time. [embed width="620"]http://vimeo.com/60082016[/embed] Although Buffy was a major success for Warner Brothers and the United Paramount Network (UPN) and inspired many vampire series and movies such as Twilight, The Vampire Diaries and True Blood, they failed to deliver the iconic essence that Buffy is still known for. I find it completely ironic and at times, downright annoying, that many people are simply unable to accept the fact that Buffy the Vampire Slayer came way before these movies and television shows. I have followed the series since I was seven-years-old and honestly speaking, Buffy the Vampire Slayer is the only show I have come across that actually encompasses all the genres including drama, horror, romance, thriller, some humour and of course, lots of action. These are glaringly missing in both, True Blood and The Vampire Diaries since both the series’ focus on one s­­­­pecific genre. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="540"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] And what leaves a stale taste in the mouth is the fact that Twilight, The Vampire Diaries and True Blood showcase a number of elements that have already been depicted in Buffy. The best part about Buffy, or rather one of the best parts since I always find it so hard to choose just one, is that there’s something for everyone. Contrary to what people think about it being a ‘show for girls’ there are quite a few episodes to which boys can relate to as well. Take for example, The Body – an episode in which Buffy Summers’ mother, Joyce, dies of natural causes. The way in which Buffy faced her mother’s death was so realistic that it gave me goose bumps. There was no music and the feel of the entire episode was sombre – something which a number of shows today lack including The Vampire Diaries and True Blood. These human relationships were what made Buffy so much more than simply a vampire show. The other shows didn’t have these little human touches and there were no motherly figures in Elena Gilbert’s (The Vampire Diaries) and Bella Swan’s (Twilight) lives. The Gift was another great episode in which Buffy Summers sacrificed herself to save the world. She was the superhero (ine) in the series, whereas in recent shows and films such as The Vampire Diaries, True Blood and Twilight, it is all about love and high-school parties. Elena and Bella were both shown to be ordinary young girls and if you ask me, they didn’t look like they could slay a vampire even if their lives depended on it… just saying! The best thing about Buffy was that although it was about vampires, there was so much more going on in the show and this variation is what made it so exciting. In addition to slaying vampires, Buffy was also shown as a loyal friend, a loving daughter and someone who saved the lives of innocent people. She led a secret life as a slayer while struggling to keep up with her ‘normal’ life. Buffy was the only series in the late 1990s that introduced the concept of vampires and demons on television. And Twilight’s storyline, to me, seemed like a clear rip-off of Buffy considering that its plot focused on Bella who falls deeply in love with a vampire. If you remember, this concept was first introduced in Buffy in which the main character falls for two vampires in the entire series. What these shows lacked was originality, something that Buffy could boast in every single episode of the series. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="540"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] Now, now don’t go about criticising me for mocking Twilight and the rest for their romance-based plots while Buffy also had some of the same. My point was that the latter encompassed so much more than just brooding vampires, ditsy prom queens and the clichéd love triangle. And it was this that gave, and continues to give, Buffy an edge over the rest of the series. It gave its young audience something to look up to. They saw how Buffy struggled with her life and how she tried against all odds to save innocent people from painful death while keeping her noble work hidden. This was refreshing for both, boys and girls. Boys had more to see than just a pretty face and girls were inspired by the ‘super girl’ Buffy was portrayed as. Undoubtedly, Buffy was a work of art. The show connected with its audience and delivered something new every day. In contrast, the more recent vampire shows and movies are centred on eroticism and monotonous storylines. The realism of the show was such that I was often tempted to believe in vampires and of course, pretty, intelligent vampire slayers. Even the cinematography, props and makeup made their mark, especially considering technology, at the time, was not as futuristic as it is today. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="540"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] In my opinion, there isn’t a single episode of Buffy that would disappoint a fan and if you still don’t believe me, pick any and watch it – I guarantee you will be hooked. Even today, the show is watched by millions of viewers globally and I don’t see why a Buffy film shouldn’t follow the success of the show. Not only would it give its fans something to look forward to, it would also provide a comeback for Sarah Michelle Gellar’s film career, especially since she hasn’t done a movie in almost six years now. I, for one, would be first in line to buy a ticket if a Buffy movie came out.

Pakistan might not have the best movie industry in the world but Muslim countries across the world have managed to spread some truly phenomenal messages and cultural insights through their films industries. The Iranian cinema’s popularity in European film festivals and their recent Oscar win, is but one example of Muslim cinema’s increasingly transforming and often very realistic nature. In light of that, here are three thought-provoking films from different Muslim film industries that are sure to leave you pondering upon the many facets of Islamic beliefs and Muslim cultures. They will also highlight the drastic parallelism between foreign Muslim societies and Pakistan. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="304"] This movie revolves around the strong conservative values of a hakeem and the people around him. Photo: IMDB[/caption] The Clay Bird (Bangladesh) Set in a religious household on the precipice of the 1971 war, The Clay Bird criticises stubborn dogmatism to great extents; a hakim refuses to let his daughter take modern medicine or his son to go to modern schools, mullahs sit around discrediting the possibility of a West Pakistani military operation on the pretext that their ‘Muslim brothers’ would not attack them and a madrassah principal takes psychological illness as supernatural possession to be resolved with disciplinary action. Most of the students are as heartless as the staff, giving a bleak vision of the future’s model morality and also representing what the lack of parental nurturing in hostels creates. Simultaneously, another madrassah professor is displeased with the tyrannical nature of his workplace and the sheer stupidity of some practices of the overtly religious he knows, and Sufi musicians occasionally give viewers a whiff of the Islam that the madrassah refuses to teach, and judging by the nature of the self-claimed religious in the film, probably never will. There’s an interesting secular-religious debate in this film, one that is particularly important for Pakistan and its recent dealings with madrassahs, and its reluctance to admit the local nature of terrorism. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] A film by Bahman Ghobadi, which depicts the harsh prejudice shown to the Kurdish children in Iran.[/caption] Turtles Can Fly (Iran) The childish title misrepresents this devastating Iranian film on Kurdish refugee children. If The Clay Bird makes one doubt a religious society Turtles Can Fly questions the scholarly Pakistani notion that ‘secularism is the solution to all our problems’. Little children and their infant “siblings” are depicted as the survivors of Saddam Hussein’s racial Kurdish purge where on one hand the less affected are involved in getting American souvenirs and satellites for a refugee camp, while the actual victims are trying to get rid of the burdens they are too young to carry. It’s very cold and unforgiving, shunning the very concept of nationalism, especially that of the ethnic kind. This film stays with you for a long time and makes you think of the Afghan refugees that live in Pakistan as well as the similarities between the ideas of secularism in Pakistan and Saddam Hussein-era Iraq. [embed width="620"]http://vimeo.com/47888059[/embed] Secularism is solely ethnic – the Ba’ath party in Iraq represented Arabs as a superior nation. Likewise, Pakistani self-proclaimed secular parties realistically only replace religion with ethnicity, with each and every one of the parties catering to ethnic communities like the ANP for Pashtuns, MQM for Mohajirs and the PPP for Sindhis. The characters in Turtles Can Fly are the products of this finger-pointing and divisions on languages and race, just the same as any division on religious grounds, even though it unfairly receives less media coverage. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Afghanistan's first offering post-Taliban era.[/caption] Osama (Afghanistan) The first film to be shot in Afghanistan after the Taliban were defeated by a US invasion, Osama is the less sweet version of Saudi Arabia’s Wadjda, following an unnamed girl trying to survive the Taliban regime in Kabul. The Taliban have left her mother unemployed even though she is a practicing doctor simply because it is prohibited for a woman to work. She can’t even venture outside her house without a male relative and years of civil war in Afghanistan have left her without one, and probably several other women too. The only option for them to survive is to transform her into a boy: Osama Incredibly pessimistic and gloomy, the story is also very emotional because everyone knows there is no hope for these women. One can feel the suffocation women must have faced in Kabul, and the great injustice these harbingers of Sharia bring along with them. The hypocrisy this regime brings is exposed in a hamaam where outside women are veiled head to toe, yet inside a bathhouse a mullah enjoys the sight of young boys washing in front of him. This film is a must-watch for Taliban apologists who claim all these people want is an Islamic state because obviously making women wearing a burqa and introducing barbaric laws is the only difference between a Muslim state and a ‘non-muslim’ one. These lives must be the same as those of FATA, and just like Osama, no one is coming to rescue them either.

From the day that the trailer for Edge of Tomorrow was revealed, it was surrounded by a buzz. With Tom Cruise playing the lead and the amazing visual effects, I was sure we were in for a mega summer blockbuster; in fact, the day the film was released in Pakistan, all the shows were sold out! That, in itself, seemed thoroughly promising. [embed width="620"]http://vimeo.com/93601543[/embed] Boy was I disappointed. There was absolutely nothing extraordinary about the movie, in fact, in my opinion, it lacked a power-punch packed script and failed to keep the audience engaged in the overall plot. Its slogan, ‘Live, Die, Repeat’ pretty much sums it up; that is literally all I thought was going on throughout. This big-budget Cruise movie failed for me and here are four reasons why, [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="327"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] 1. Too much repetition The movie repeats the same scene so many times that after a little while, I couldn’t take it anymore. Halfway through the movie and I had lost all interest. Cruise’s dreams portray his future actions which he carries out once he wakes up – now, if remember correctly, Inception did something similar, but I do not recall being bored. Anyhow, so in the film he gets killed, wakes up from his dream and starts all over, dies and starts again; this cycle of waking up from his dreams and repeating the same actions again and again made the film unbearably monotonous.  Perhaps, the director thought this was a good way to get the movie to run two hours. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="599"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] 2. Overdose of action What is an action movie without Cruise’s stunts? Yes, I understand that we love the whole Mission Impossible persona Cruise carries with him, and I never thought I would say this, but sometimes, we really need to put a cap on the amount of action sequences permitted per movie; with or without Tom Cruise. The lack of a solid storyline stood out like a sore thumb in every (overdone) war incident, killing and terror scene in the film. Too much action and no content is one of the factors that contributed to this movie’s failure in my eyes. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="599"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="599"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="593"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] 3. Ordinary 3D effects Considering this was the next big sci-fi movie to hit the screens, the 3D effects were surprisingly average. With the advancement of technology and all that shebang, it was expected that such a big budget movie, famed for being 3D, would not only blow us away with the 3D effects, they would bring us things we had never seen before. Unfortunately, Edge of Tomorrow failed on both accounts. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="593"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] Spoiler alert! 4. What the hell was that ending? As the movie came to an end, I thought, ‘this is it, this is where they make this all worth the while’ and then bam, fell flat on the ground. If I had known that this movie was about a US major who was going to turn all his ‘dreams into reality’ through an alien mission, I would’ve just stopped right there. I mean, where is the creativity? [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="598"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] Sadly, the weak ending was just the cherry on top of the cake. This movie, in my opinion, is not worth the time or the money, so don’t waste either on it. To sum up my experience, all I can say is, those are two hours of my life I am never getting back and I wish I hadn’t wasted them on this.

Facing what could be his harshest critic yet, Seth Rogen’s upcoming film, “The Interview”, has been rated 4.5 nukes by the fuming Supreme Leader of North Korea whom it has satirised.  [embed width="620"]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1z9fvu_the-interview-with-james-franco-seth-rogen-trailer_shortfilms[/embed] A spokesperson for the dictatorial regime has accused the Obama administration, which allegedly ‘masterminded’ the movie, of “provocative insanity”, and deemed the movie an outright “act of war”. According to the North Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

“If the United States administration tacitly approves or supports the release of this film, we will take a decisive and merciless countermeasure.”

What Indian cinema fans feel about Salman Khan is somewhat similar to what Pakistanis feel about Shahid Afridi. We will never compare him with any other player of the world. We know he doesn’t have any clue about what he is doing most of the time and we still cheer for him. He fails more than he succeeds but we love him and want him to do well. I belong to a generation that was inspired by Salman Khan, or bhai as his fans would call him. Teenagers started going to gym, their fashion sense changed and their hairstyles varied with his new looks. I also wear a small chain in my left hand although it’s much thinner and does not have a turquoise stone in it. Granted that after two decades in the industry, bhai still does not know how to do an emotional scene but to his fans, that is a mere irrelevant complication in an otherwise simple business… It’s a bhai film, it has to be watched and it has to be a hit. That’s it. As Salman himself says in Kick,

“Dil mein aata hoon, samajh mein nahin.”

“All hail Caesar”