IN BOB WE TRUST: "Fantastic Four Sucks ...Now What?"

The first episode of our now-official full-series pickup through 2016 with ScrewAttack!

Read more »

Brothers

Rating : 3/10
Release Date : 14th August, 2015
Time : 158 minutes
Director: Karan Malhotra; Writer: Siddharth-Garima based on the movie Warrior, written by Gavin O’Connor and Cliff Dorfman; Music : Ajay-Atul
Starring : Akshay Kumar, Siddharth Malhotra, Jackie Shroff, Shefali Shah, Jacqueline Fernandez



Most Hindi films suffer from the curse of the second half, where they aren’t able to sustain the story, dialogue all the way through. Not this one. Brothers has one of the worst first halves I’ve ever seen – we are introduced to alcoholism, death, ‘Masoom’-like, estranged step-brothers, a jailed father, kidney failure, financial debt, hallucinations – and, yes, there is maybe 5 minutes worth of fighting too. No one smiles in the entire pre-interval portion and it’s dull, dreary, melancholic, downright depressive, and also, from a story point of view, completely unnecessary. And then, the second half, thankfully, is all about the fighting – though even here they lose no opportunity to bring in the emotional angle…

Story-wise, it’s just enough to say that Jackie Shroff is the father, an ex-fighter and an alcoholic. Shefali Shah, the long suffering mom, Jackie’s wife. Akshay, the elder son, married to Jacqueline (in a non-existent role). And Siddharth Malhotra is the younger (literally) brother from another mother (the Masoom angle). When Jackie is released from jail, two things are clear – a businessman has got permission from the government to bring the sport of MMA (mixed martial arts) to India (kind of legalizing street fighting). And, one brother is not talking to the other or the father… Next thing we know (and after just one street fight each & no core fighting /marital art skill), both the brothers are amongst ten elite fighters from all over the world, chosen for the first finals in Mumbai, competing for a Rs 9 crore prize.

Now, because they spent the entire first half in the soppy stuff, we know none of the other fighters, which makes it drearily predictable in terms of the outcome…

The fight scenes aren’t bad but because we don’t really care for anyone, it’s quite boring in a sense. Rajrendranath Zutshi (remember him from Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak?) as a sports commentator, at least brings a touch of levity and vigour to the proceedings. The performances are half-decent, the songs are terrible, and the item number (with Kareena Kapoor) one of the most ridiculous in terms of either the lyrics, music or choreography.

This is the official remake of Warrior (I haven’t seen it) but I think it’s telling that the original’s length is 100 minutes while this one is bloated by a full, unnecessary hour. I know everyone in the film industry thinks Indian cine-goers need more emotion, drama – but perhaps not by that much or that depressing ?

Read more »

Six Months Later, I Am Alive

So. Today is exactly six months to the day that I was abruptly, without forewarning (rudely and rather unprofessionally, actually, now that I reflect on it) informed that my near-decade (8 years!) of tenure at The Escapist was at an end - just like that.

I have no interest in elaborating any further than the original posts on the matter in terms of "what went down" or "the REAL story," except to say that I have in fact become a bit more "enlightened" as to opinions held and things said about me and my work by... "persons" (or, perhaps, just "person") that I had naively considered friends or, at least, good-faith business partners that leave me deeply suspicious about the circumstances of my departure and profoundly disappointed in the behavior of... "persons," I'll leave it at that.

The six months since have been difficult. Film Criticism is a difficult career to make money in, and it requires an erratic schedule that makes secondary employment equally difficult to maintain. In addition, my personal life was rocked by a extremely painful and drawn-out family issue that nearly-drained what resolve I had been left with. And while yes, I can credit the decency and heartfelt support of my fans with my surviving all of this... the truth of the matter is that I don't think I would have yet made it without the support of my colleagues, my friends, my family and one special person  ('nuff said) in particular who was a light in dark times when I needed one most.

I won't say that it's been easy: As "newly free" to work on other projects and give free time to my loved ones as I feel, I miss the reliable routine (and yes, the reliable paycheck) of Escape to The Movies. I miss The Big Picture achingly, and it breaks my heart every time a fan tells me how much those shows meant to them and how much they miss them, too. I had a wonderful space where I had an extraordinary amount of freedom (for awhile, anyway...) to say pretty-much whatever I wanted and have it published/broadcast on a major (or, rather, it used to be...) website - a privilege I worked hard to not abuse - and I am under no illusions that I'll easily find a space that good again. I am still pained, however fleetingly, to be without it and, yes, I have nothing but hatred in my heart for every force and circumstance that led to it's loss. That's probably a little immature, but it is what it is. I work hard to expel "pain" from my psyche, but the memories of people and things who have wronged me and mine I keep for a long, long time.

BUT! Fortunately, my propensity to not forgive does not keep me from moving on. And as I survey the last six months and the place I've come to, I feel a sense of overwhelming pride (and gratitude, to those who have helped) at where I have "arrived;" even though I have no intention of resting on my laurels or declaring that this is "good enough" - as some in my life have no doubt tired of hearing me say, "It's NEVER enough!" - this doesn't look too shabby:

THE MOVIEBOB PATREON is holding steady and allowing me to produce and deliver content to fans and Patrons while also maintaining a livable-life.

Escape to The Movies is gone, but MOVIEBOB REVIEWS are alive, well and popular on YouTube.

REALLY THAT GOOD, a longform film-appreciation series that was an unrealized dream-project for years, is slowly becoming what I wanted it to be.

THE GAME OVERTHINKER, my original passion-project, wrapped up after 100 episodes on MY terms, the way I wanted it to.

I have re-affirmed my longstanding relationship with ScrewAttack - the web outlet that was the first to give me a shot as a viable content-creator back in the day and has been by far the most fair, honest and open business partners I have dealt with in my professional career. THE ALL-NEW GAME OVERTHINKER lives on as part of this relationship, and after a strong-showing in a six-episode "pilot" order, I am happy to announce that the series has been given a full bi-weekly order through 2016!

Speaking of ScrewAttack, they are also responsible for helping the legacy of The Big Picture live on through IN BOB WE TRUST - ALSO newly-blessed with a full bi-weekly order through 2016!

More recently, you may have heard that my review of PIXELS became a viral sensation, amassing nearly 2 million views and counting and even being featured on national stages like THE HOWARD STERN SHOW.

Locally, the PIXELS review landed me a guest-spot on one of Boston's #1 radio shows, TOUCHER & RICH...

...And, perhaps my favorite "WTF am I doing HERE!?" moment of this most-recent roller-coaster: I was profiled in THE NEW YORKER.

And it goes beyond all that as well. The success of MOVIEBOB REVIEWS and the other projects has put me into contact with sources and opportunities that could well mean the next logical BIG steps of my career - including developments and avenues that I had never even considered open to me.

Make no mistake: I do not consider myself "back" or even close to "comfortable" - whatever that means. I have always had my eyes on bigger things, bigger opportunities and the capacity to dream bigger than I can even concieve of now... and then achieve those dreams so that I might conceive of even more. Frankly, I don't want to stop until I'm living whatever the film/gaming/geek-media version of Alexander weeping at the realization that there are no worlds left to conquer is (though, for now, regular access to a heated pool would be just swell.)

But I am happier than I expected to be six months ago. I am more stable than I expected to be six months ago. And despite how much I truly miss what was, warts and all, a job I really loved... I am on-balance better off than I was six months ago.

If you were among the folks who stepped up to dance on my "grave" when things looked bleakest... I can only say that I hope your life has gotten better from whatever pathetic state you must have been in for that to be a viable entertainment option for you - though if it hasn't, chances are you and misery deserve each other and I hope that seeing me not only survive but thrive causes you inexplicable suffering.

If you are among the "persons" whose decision-making contributed to me being (however briefly) "professionally-unmoored," shall we say... I hope the knowledge that the success I'm having and the career-growth I'm experiencing could also have benefited you and your outlets, but now won't. To be perfectly blunt, in fact: I hope the traffic, publicity and mainstream press attention for that independently-produced PIXELS review makes you GAG.

If you are among the people who supported me through this time personally... well, you already know how I feel, but thank you and I love you, anyway.

If you are among the fans, followers, viewers and Patreon supporters who've stuck with me and helped this ship through choppy waters: Thank you, from the bottom of my heart. My I be ever worthy of you.

And... that's really all I've got to say at this time, save to note that in a few months I'm going to be an uncle for the first time in my life; and maybe it's old-fashioned but that sort of thing throws what matters into sharp relief. Six months later, I am undefeated. I am okay. I love and am loved. I am moving onward and upward. And I am alive.


Champagne for my real friends, real pain for my sham friends.

-Bob.

Read more »

Incomplete Thoughts on STONEWALL

This piece and others like it are made possible by The MovieBob Patreon. Please take a moment and consider becoming a Patron.

One has to imagine that Roland Emmerich is genuinely surprised to be catching "friendly fire" over his gay rights historical drama STONEWALL. Sure, controversy was probably something he considered innevitable - even welcome, given the film's clear "Hey, awards season: Look at me!!!" Fall release and low-key hype machine - but surely the long-time "out" gay filmmaker and activist didn't expect to find himself under fire from elements within the LGBTQ community itself. To the degree that Emmerich self-identifies with the heroes of films, it's not hard to imagine that he feels a bit like an alternate-universe version of Bill Pullman's President Whitmore from INDEPENDENCE DAY: One who, upon delivering The Greatest Battle Speech Ever, found himself facing not applause but a chorus of indifference and even outrage: "Stuff your battle-plan, man!" "Who says we WANT to fight the aliens!?" "Since when are YOU in charge!?"

Now, as a straight white guy, I have just about the least authority imaginable about what anyone else should be upset about. But, since I am a film writer who recently released an entire video that (partly) deals with Emmerich as a political filmmaker and will almost certainly end up reviewing/covering STONEWALL a month or so from now, I think it's at least worth putting some (pre-viewing) thoughts on the matter down while we're all still considering what's to be made of this one.

It's an old joke that the worst thing that happens to a political party (or movement) is that it wins, because once the overall goal of victory is achieved the uneasy alliances ("strange bedfellows" and all that) have time to settle in, get comfortable and re-focus on all of the differences they'd temporarily set aside to take down their common adversary; often leading to renewed infighting and (sometimes) a weakening of newly-captured power. Relevant case in point: With events like the Supreme Court gay-marriage decision and an ever-growing public acceptance-tolerance thereof seemingly to signal a major generational win for LGBTQ activism; the "G" has found itself at odds with an L, B, T and Q who, rather than join in the victory celebration, would instead like to start talking about their own less "socially comfortable" concerns - the ones that they feel G forced/allowed to be "back-burnered" in favor of more immediately-attainable "foot in the door" goals.

STONEWALL (the movie-to-be and the actual event that inspired it) are uniquely emblematic of this schism. For those who don't know (and that a lot of people still don't is both the reason to make the movie and the reason to be upset about what form the movie takes) the story goes like this: Stonewall Inn was a gay bar in Greenwich Village, NY. On June 28 1969, an aggressive but by no means atypical police raid on the establishment spilled out in a mini-spectacle on the street that drew a growing crowd of onlookers. So goes the "historical legend" (an as recreated in the film's trailer) a young female patron being beaten by the police demanded "Why don't you guys do something!?" of the crowd, a which point a violent clash with the police began that ran on and off for several nights. In the aftermath, the Gay Liberation Front officially formed and the modern Gay Rights movement was essentially born.

That's the "pop-history" version of the Stonewall story, and you can see why it so appeals to Emmerich's sensibilities (his filmmaking sensibilities, I mean. Given that he was a gay teenager himself when Stonewall was news the personal appeal seems evident): His favorite story/theme is that of an individual (or an "individualist" identity) being woken up to the need for action on behalf of the greater good by an impossible-to-ignore inciting incident - think Earth's nations realizing the need for global-unity in the face of extinction in INDEPENDENCE DAY, or Mel Gibson's "I just want to keep MY land and family safe" avenging dad in THE PATRIOT, or the entire plots of THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW or 2012. So it makes sense that his version of dramatizing STONEWALL is a story about a young gay man mainly looking to find his own safety/freedom in (relatively) tolerant urban New York being galvanized into revolutionary activism by being onhand for the "Stonewall Riots."

And from the trailer, that looks like exactly the movie Emmerich has made. Supposedly, he's been looking to make it for more than a decade, which might explain how old-fashioned a lot of this looks; right down to the TITANIC-style "make-believe people amidst the real history" plotting and the "Johnny All-American, but gay" lead hero - which is exactly the stuff a lot of people are having a problem with.

Granted, no one outside of the studio and filmmakers have seen the finished film, but the lack of real historic figures of the moment and the Hollywood-handsome white hero is enough to set off alarm bells that were already set to "skeptical" among many contemporary activists. The main issue: While it became the "battle flag" for the "mainstream" gay-rights movement, the events at Stonewall were largely driven by the actions of LGBTQ women and particularly transgender women of color (the specific crime the bar was being raided for was "cross-dressing," which was illegal at the time) - many of whom were not wide-eyed innocents waiting to be caught-up in the sweep of history but rather established activists in the own right. 

This is essentially the recurring problem with the history of social-activism: The people who successfully media-manage social-movements understand that "Ordinary Person Rises To Greatness Thrust Upon Them" is a better, more "useful" story than the alternative (see: Rosa Parks was already a hard-working Civil Rights figure for almost a decade before the bus incident, not an unassuming everywoman who spoke up in the right moment), particularly in the way that it makes joining-up feel more welcoming to Johnny-Come-Lateleys: "I am ALSO only just now waking up to this injustice!" This means that the people who do the hard/dirty work end up getting the historical short-stick, and in this case it means that Stonewall, as a "story," is a longtime sticking-point for many in the "everybody else" wing of LGBTQ activism (and amid the additional myriad racial and class divisions therein) who've long felt that the movement has hitched it's win/loss narrative to issues of interest to "straight-acceptable" gay white men to the detriment of others' interests - "Hey, we're all happy for a win, but not ALL of us had 'being able to make it official and Mom & Dad being cool with it now because they enjoy those nice boys on MODERN FAMILY' as The Endgame here."

So it's beyond understandable that for those same people, Emmerich's STONEWALL positioning a fictional "generic" white dude (specifically, Jeremy Irvine as a studly Midwestern farm kid who flees homophobic persecution by his family/peers for the NYC gay scene) as it's main character is a continuation of "mainstream" (read: white/cisgender/male) gay activism co-opting their efforts while leaving them out of the subsequent decision-making. Hell, it's beyond "understandable," it's agreeable - even if you're going to go with a fictional lead to give you greater room to wring drama from the narrative, why does it have to be this fictional lead? Why not build the story around Ray Castro (the only "official" gay man actually arrested in the original riots) or Marsha P. Johnson (a New York drag queen already locally-famous before Stonewall) or Sylvia Rivera (a transgender activist and real-life GLF founding-member)? Are we really still, in 2015, assuming that a movie can't reach the biggest possible audience (and Emmerich's activist-filmmaking is always about getting The Message to "the masses") unless the audience-POV character looks like an archetypal handsome caucasian Prom King type?

On the other hand... I remain unconvinced that disappointment at how overly-conventional the film's story looks (like it or not, "look-conventional, message-radical" is Emmerich's default-setting for political filmmaking) is enough to indict it for "erasure," particularly with some kind of malicious intent. It would be one thing if the film was setting out to explicitly say "Marsha, Ray Castro, Sylvia Rivera etc. weren't the REAL heroes here - it was actually this white guy we made up!", that'd be monstrous, a clear case of outright malice against marginalized LGBTQ persons and the truth (and before you scoff: Emmerich's previous historical drama was about how William Shakespeare wasn't actually William Shakespeare) ...but that doesn't appear to be the film that's been made.

There is such a thing as historical fiction, and one of the ways it's most often employed is to give a narrative "arc" to real events without having to compromise the often "un-narrative-ness" of actual people's lives (the "fake" character gets the easy-to-follow 3-act-structure storyline, the "real" people he/she encounters are able to be themselves.) Another is the "mythic history" route, where the broad-strokes events are real but the people are made-up, usually as avatars of collective groups/ideas important to the time. STONEWALL appears to be splitting the difference: Johnson, Castro and other real-life figures are a part of the cast, but the main "hero" and his (notably diverse-looking) friends/allies are essentially symbolic stand-ins for "every" non-political LGBTQ person spurred to higher action by the events, "every" one who was unsure about that, "every" ally who joined the cause, etc. Again: It is a problem in itself that the film resorts to a white male (fictional) perspective of what was largely not a white male story; but this isn't an inherently "invalid" approach to this film.

Obviously, this is all hypothetical until the movie actually comes out, but for now you can count me (with reservations) in the "wait and see" camp. I can see where/why people are upset, and even now you can see potentially-problematic elements baked into the final product (the trailer makes it look like the brick Irvine's character throws is what "ignites" the riot, which would be both dramatically-cheezy and a provable rewriting of actual history, where it's Johnson whose reputed to have thrown the first brick); but on the other hand I can't not be a little bit optimistic about at least the "idea" that STONEWALL can even be imagined as a viable mainstream "crowd pleaser" issue-movie at this point. 

Surely, the mere fact that a major-release "Where Pride began"-themed movie, complete with trailer-narration borrowed from The President of The United States, exists can be cause for (at least) admiration while also noting both its individual and broader systemic flaws at least until there's an actual full film to examine, can't it? That's not rhetorical, I'm asking because, like I said at the beginning, I don't equipped with the proper experience and perspective to have a "strong" opinion here one way or another: Does the obvious eye-rolling "Oh, come ON!" casting of the lead and the way it evokes broader historical instances of erasing the contributions of trans persons, women and people of color from the gay-rights narrative "indict" the whole film in and of itself, or is it possible for the finished product to have virtues (being a good movie, getting at least the basic thrust of the story in front of a huge worldwide audience) that mitigate those imperfections? My instinct is more in line with the second option, but 

STONEWALL opens in U.S. theatres September 25th.


This piece and others like it are made possible by The MovieBob Patreon. Please take a moment and consider becoming a Patron.

Read more »

Mission Impossible : Rogue Nation

Rating : 7/10
Release Date : 7th August, 2015
Time : 133 minutes
Director, Writer: Christopher McQuarrie; Co-Writer: Drew Pearce based on the Television series by Bruce Geller; Music : Joe Kraemer
Starring : Tom Cruise, Simon Pegg, Rebecca Ferguson, Jeremy Renner, Ving Rhames, Sean Harris, Tom Hollander, Jens Hulten, Alec Baldwin



It’s an impossible storyline where we watch guys do impossible stunts. But you know what ? We actually have fun, especially with the familiar pulsating theme in the background. Tom Cruise may be older but he’s still got it and Rebecca Ferguson, the Swedish siren, is just va-va-voom !

Tom Cruise and his unit, the IMF, are chasing The Syndicate. Who, in turn, are chasing them and are on to their methods. Back home, Alec Baldwin, head of the CIA, is keen to wrap up the IMF and bring it under his wing. And both, he and the chilling Sean Harris, head of the Syndicate, seem to have a special ‘fondness’ for Tom…

Apart from the well-publicized plane take-off scene with Tom Cruise, there are a few marquee action scenes – a knife fight between Rebecca and Jens Hulten, a high-octane, exhilarating motorcycle chase… And, of course, the one set piece ‘impossible’ heist, which was really over the top. What I like about Cruise is that, even though he looks older, he still feels credible, at least to a degree, knowing that he does his stunts himself. And Rebecca was a revelation – face, expressions, performance, figure – she has it all !

The story is almost laughable in terms of what we’re expected to believe. The face mask trick works just too easily, even with various world leaders, but it’s a good, fun roller-coaster ride, with plenty of thrills and spills. Not often I say this, in many series / franchises, but I wouldn’t mind another one…

Read more »

Review: FANTASTIC FOUR (2015)

Read more »

Life Goals

What's this? Oh, nothing - just a write-up about/interview-with yours truly in THE NEW YORKER - only one of the most respected publications... pretty much ever, really.

Do I feel good about this? You bet your ass I do. But I feel even better about THIS passage making it into print:

"Donald Trump, for instance, gives ranters a bad name. "Fuck that guy,” Chipman said."

My work here is done.

Read more »