Merry Christmas as the name suggests, is a Christmas movie through and through, the undercurrents of Christmas themes are strong here, and Crime exists to add the extra punch. I love the idea. For people like me who cannot stand saccharine holiday films after a point, this is a perfect concoction of crime and the holiday spirit. (Alas the movie released 3 weeks later than it should have.)
Sriram Raghavan’s crime noirs are full of references to other classics, sly tricks and clever writing. Merry Christmas is no different. It’s been 24 hours and me and my brother are still finding little details that we missed, such is the layering here.
The buildup in the first hour is intense. It’s practically a slow-burning rom-com but as a viewer there are enough hints that there’s something off. Enough to keep your eyes peeled for any hidden clues, hints of crime or something being off. (Why isn’t the door locked? What’s that sound? Why did the record stop?) There are many, but it’ll probably take a couple of more viewings to grab them all! Vijay Sethupathi’s deadpan humor keeps you entertained along the way.
The second half picks pace and that’s when things get really interesting, as the Who? Why? How? of the crime unfolds. It’s a ride with delightful little cameos from Vinay Pathak, Ashwini Kalsekar and Radhika Apte.
The story is well paced, twists are timed well, I kept waiting for the next twist to drop given how sinuous the whole film is. Plus the whole film is littered with hints and foreshadowing which acts like an icing on the cake. You couldn’t ask for more intrigue honestly.
Vijay Sethupathi and Katrina Kaif are perfectly cast. Their performances uplift the movie even when the writing threatens to slag a bit.
Given how good the movie is overall, its minor foibles stick out even more. The ending could’ve landed better, I personally felt it to be just a bit unsatisfactory (again, perfect ending for a holiday movie, does it make sense when not in the festive spirit, probably not that much. I also felt that they played all their cards a little too early in the second half. I kept waiting for that one more twist that would end the film on a great note but it never came. And then there was that intriguing subplot with Radhika Apte which was left hanging without proper closure, I still wonder what happened there.
Overall, minor issues aside, Merry Christmas is a delightful, twisted holiday-noir film that cannot be missed.
Rating: ★★★★☆
Vidit Bhargava
A self driving car mutilates a human. But it “couldn’t” have. Robots are sacred in this world, they can do no harm to humans. A few moments later we get to see the car’s number plate, it aptly begins with “GAO MA”. It’s hilarious, it’s also the tone that the show takes throughout, one that’s delightfully absurd.
OK Computer is not a vision of the future. It’s future telling us just how messed up our present is. A commentary about all that’s wrong with our world today from the perspective of a world that many assume we’d be in. Be it the unwavering faith we so readily put in just about anyone or how enamoured we are with technology and the corporations that sell that technology to us. It’s a show with a lot to say! Perhaps a little too much.
If there’s one thing that’s clear from the start, it’s that the show has no room for seriousness. It’s much closer in treatment to "The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy", than say “WestWorld” or “I, Robot”. The creators are very clear here, it’s a show that just loves its H2G2 references, they’re hidden everywhere! (The name comes from Radiohead’s OK Computer which itself is a reference to a dialog from the series that goes something to the tune of ‘OK Computer I want full manual control now’). It’s futile to expect a serious plot here. The murder mystery is just hook to tell you about something completely different. It’s also not a show that’s in love with the futuristic science and technology. It’s one that is admittedly frustrated about it (I don’t blame them, Honestly it’s all of us at this point). This is a setup ripe for deadpan humour, and the show is great at it.
Writer Anand Gandhi whose recent previous works have had a cult like following is on a tough journey here. The Absurdist Sci-Fi comedy demands a constant stream of gags while keeping the show tethered to a core story. He doesn’t always succeed. The gags are great! Gandhi gets the absurdist comedy part of the show on point. He possesses a deep understanding of the world he’s created, from Robotics to VR, it’s a future of all the elements we are seeing germinate today. And the humour is just sliced on the fine line between this futuristic tech world and the socio-political landscape of today. It’s brilliant satire.
An elusive inventor of a futuristic technology is named “Satoshi” (Satoshi Nakamoto anyone?); her username “notSatoshi” fooling no one but the AI. Wet robot parts are placed in a bag full of rice, before moving on to a conveyer belt. The gags on technology cover everything, from the hilarious incompetence of our AI models, to our rudimentary techniques that are bound to live on even as tech progresses.
But the show falters at creating a relatable story to tether to. The thing is it’s too absurd for you to care about any thing else. There’s just no time given to the shows many subplots. The writers have so much to say, that what could’ve been important plot points are mere blips in this 6 episode series. There’s no time given to develop characters either, so when the matters come to a head in it’s final act, you couldn’t care less about anyone. Human or Android. It doesn’t help that the show’s robotic protagonist AJEEB (a reference to the faux automation object perhaps?) has an agonisingly shrill voice. Making it unbearable at times. Not sure if it’s intentional but AJEEB makes it difficult for you to like it. Actually, I had no sympathy for any of the bots. In fact, I had little sympathy for any of the human characters either.
A question for the creators, if the robot really is gender fluid as it claims, why does it restrict its preferred pronouns to He/She, does the bot’s sentience and intelligence not teach it that gender isn’t binary? What’s the extent of the robot’s knowledge, does it get all of it from its human creators, or can it read the web at its leisure. In general, I felt the topic of sentience and the extent of the robot’s knowledge could’ve been explored further.
What the shows characters lack in depth, is made up for by their actors. Kani Kusruti as Monalisa Paul and Vijay Verma as Saajan Kundu are excellent. Their comic timing is impeccable, Verma especially seems to be having a lot of fun as the cybercrime officer. His sullen, frustrated character gets the biggest share of screen time and Verma makes the most of it. He infuses the character with relatability and knows how to land his jokes. He’s having fun here and is in with the madness. Kani Kusruti as his assistant on the crime plays the exact opposite character. While Verma’s Saajan is full of emotion, even if most of it anger and hatred towards the bots; Kusruti’s character is emotionless and is enamoured by the robotic creatures. Kusruti makes more than what she gets to work with here. Her comic timing nicely complements Verma’s. Together two help the gags coming even as the show’s pace slackens a bit towards the end, they give us the only two characters that’ll be remembered far longer than the show. It’s a feat!
Radhika Apte (Laxmi), Vibha Chhibber (DCP DCP) and Ratnabali Bhattacharjee (Trisha Singh from ZIP) are great in their roles. I just wish they had more to do here. Jackie Shroff is impressive in the small cameo he gets.
Shroff gets little to do but has an impressive cameo as the leader of JJM, a cult of anti science, anti technology members, basically a modern rendition of the Luddites. The members of the cult wear masks that harken back to a terrorist clan from the 60s, it’s the sort of gag that could’ve gone awry really quickly but is masterfully pulled off. Sadly the whole subplot lasts a mere minutes until the show meanders over to the next one.
At one point in the show a characters phone spontaneously bursts into flames, robots attack him, and his own toaster prints out a skull image on his morning toast. Practically making his life a nightmare. It’s a reminder of just how much we’ve given our lives into the hands of tech giants, and just how quickly that technology can turn on us. It’s not hard to imagine a person being locked out of the digital world, their voice silenced and their work tarnished if a suitably big corporate takes umbrage from their actions. It’s the perfect encapsulation of what this show is. We’re living in the absurd future right now. We’re just too enamoured by the “progress” to see it.
The show also falters when it tries to take itself too seriously. Honestly, there’s no need to hammer the message in, when you’ve already alienated anyone looking for a straightforward drama here. (You lost those viewers in the pilot, you’re not getting them back in the final episode)
This presents a more broader question though. Who is this show really for? It’s a very small niche. As a country, the majority are still basking in the glory of tech, special effects, science fiction and what not. So a WestWorld or a Blade Runner gets so much more attention than say Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (honestly, outside of a cult created by high school kids in late 2000s and early 2010s, I haven’t met many Indians who read it and actually enjoyed it). OK Computer is sadly going to end up being a one season show, even if there’s so much to like about it. Perhaps that’s why the creators wanted to stuff everything in, in such a short span? A more receptive audience and a more patient writing could’ve seen Gandhi get his own “Trilogy of five parts” ;)
“Pav Bhaji!?” The show’s protagonist asks in puzzlement as he prods over a body lying in a pool of blood, mutilated beyond recognition. It’s a great gag that still makes me laugh. But it’s also a clear reflection of the films story. It’s like a Pav Bhaji, with so many vegetables but none of them gaining a dominant taste. It’s good for the dish, I am not sure how good that’s for the show.
I thoroughly enjoyed watching OK Computer. I can’t remember the last time I’ve laughed so much at such satire. At the same time it’s equally distressing to see it fail in the places it does. Nevertheless, it’s uniqueness and awareness of technology alone, is rare and worthy of appreciation.
Rating: ★★★☆☆ ( I liked it, you may or may not )
—
42 is the size of Saajan’s shoes. So now you know without doubt where Gandhi is looking for his Answers. :P
Vidit Bhargava
I’m not a big fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The Marvel movies that are good are good because they have something to say, and do so in a format that is far more approachable than any other drama. I loved Black Panther, I thoroughly enjoyed the original Iron Man but I don’t really enjoy the mass market entertainers that the Avenger’s films are. The constant need to create an ever expanding cinematic universe only seems like a big money grab. “You liked this one movie? You must watch all others to make sense of this next one.” It’s a terrible way to make people watch your stories, it’s a great way to make money. But I digress, for now I wanted to write about Marvel’s latest offering, WandaVision. A nine-episode show presented as a Disney+ Original. Instead of something you’d have to go to a theatre to watch.
WandaVision’s uniqueness and perhaps its biggest strength, is its storytelling, it’s the way it masterfully integrates with the episodic format to tell the story it wants to, is an amazing testament to how creatively the medium can be utilised. This is what kept me coming back to the show. It’s smartly written, ties in what seem like random, disjoint events and leads the show to a climax where, even though predictable, sets up the good narrative that crescendos towards a probing end. It’s good to see Marvel asking questions like the one it tries to ask with WandaVision and they almost pull it off.
Almost. Marvel’s urge of compulsively tying everything into the MCU acts as a double edged sword here. On one occasion the tethering to a previous movie’s events gives them room to be even more creative and lead the show to a place where they do. But on another occasion it completely takes the show off the rails with the consistent foreshadowing of future content. It’s a shame that the show ends in the way it does. A subplot involving Vision trying to figure out a popular paradox barely does much to restore the depth that the show is stripped of when it gets over ambitious with its “universe expansion project”. It’s a pity to see such an exceptional show fall so steeply in its last two episodes.
This sharp linkage to previous works makes me wonder, just how important this Marvel Cinematic Universe strategy is for Marvel. Is it more important than the story it’s trying to present? Sometimes it’s best to focus on telling a story, not creating a world where other stories can spurt out. And that’s my biggest gripe with these shows and movies, it’s hard not to look at it as a corporate money grab, even when the art tries to shine so much brighter. At the end of the day, they really just want you to come back and watch what happens in the next one they just showed you a glimpse off, is it not? Alas, it seems like such strategies are here to stay until the public tells them otherwise.
In terms of acting, the usual suspects are effortless, Elizabeth Olsen as Wanda, and Paul Bettany as Vision are dependable. I particularly enjoyed watching Kat Dennings (Darcy Lewis), Randall Park (Jimmy Woo), and Teyonah Parris (Monica Rambeau); the trio give some of the shows best moments. It’s a pity we don’t see them often in other Marvel movies. (Sign me up for a Darcy Lewis spin-off!)
WandaVision had a lot of promise, far too much for its own good. And when it all comes crashing in the final episodes, the steep decline is so much more disappointing. Sadly, I’ll remember WandaVision for what could’ve been Marvel’s most innovative content in years only to be squandered by an overly ambitious MCU expansion strategy. Move beyond the MCU and Marvel’s content may be fun again.
Rating: ★★★☆☆
Vidit Bhargava
For someone as disinterested in stocks as me, Scam 1992 came as a pleasant surprise with its gripping storytelling and careful placement of stock market jargon, making the show approachable without dumbing it down. Scam 1992 is a very good attempt at historical re-telling, it largely skirts away from drama and focuses on its central characters instead.
The casting choices are top notch. Pratik Gandhi (as Harshad Mehta) and Shreya Dhanwanthary (as Sucheta Dalal) are great picks for the lead characters. Supported by an ensemble that includes good actors like Nikhil Dwivedi (Good to see him back after a long hiatus), Satish Kaushik, and Rajat Kapoor in a cameo role.
The filmmakers do a good job setting up a period drama. The cars, the computers are all on point. There’s a scene in the show where Harshad Mehta’s character can be seen using Lycos(dot)com; it’s the sort of little detail that pays off and gives a proper nostalgic vibe to anyone who used computers in the late 90s or early 2000s. (My first email was on Lycos Tripod, it was a moment of nostalgic accuracy to see that website pop-up on Mehta’s computer)
But good acting and such consistently engaging screenplay only invite further scrutiny. And that’s when the cracks show up. Harshad Mehta’s story is a tightrope walk between the illegal, the morally questionable and being a wolf in a wolves world. It’s not easy to tread a story like this one. And despite its best attempts, Scam 1992 does falter on numerous occasions. The makers show Harshad Mehta’s story as one that of rags to riches, a shrewd businessman, a family man, and his fall as ultimately one that of someone being made a scapegoat in an industry that worked actively to protect its incumbents. While much of it is true, it’s also a lopsided take. In reality, Mehta’s schemes weren’t very smart and were designed for him to profit off them through means that can only be described dubious at best. The story however, draws sympathy towards Mehta’s character but never really makes the viewer fully appreciate the wrongs of his deeds. It’s never able to show the extent of the greed that powered him.
The show’s dialogues aren’t particularly great either. The characters, especially that of Harshad Mehta consistently talk in Idioms (in all three languages at that!). Perhaps Mehta talked in this manner, but the way they’re presented never really come off as genuine. It sticks like a sore thumb in an otherwise impeccable performance by Pratik Gandhi.
Another major issue with Scam 1992 is it’s choppy characterisations. While the leads get enough to sink their teeth into. A lot of characters I felt were left under developed, or their arcs rushed through. K Madhavan’s (played by Rajat Kapoor) character for example never gets a proper character arc. It’s a two episode cameo that’s rushed through. Sucheta Dalal’s is another character this time a leading one, that also falls prey to some poor writing. It’s a character that vacillates between professionalism and being easily offended. The two traits that often collide when in the presence of the show’s other lead. Dalal’s character seems to randomly pick between the two.
Despite the choppy characterisations though, these are characters that left a strong mark, primarily due to the exceptionally talented actors that portray them. Rajat Kapoor as K Madhavan leads by example. He packs a punch in the small role he gets. It’s just two episodes but Kapoor’s performance stayed much longer in memory than a lot of others. Same for Shreya Dhanwanthary, who makes Sucheta Dalal’s character believable despite its flaws. She’s done a far better job than the character that’s been written for her.
The show’s creator, Hansal Mehta reuses a lot of tropes from one of his previous films, ‘Omertà ’ ( a spectacular yet under appreciated drama), for example mixing real world footage with the shot frames. Using a different viewport for showing the “recorded” information and finally leaving much of the judgement to the viewer, this final thing is both good and bad. While Omertà was a clear black and white character study of a person whose crimes need no explanation for their heinousness, Scam 1992 is a little more nuanced and involves a lot more gray area. And leaving the judgment to the viewer’s intelligence is on one hand asking for a lot, but on the other it’s good that a show leaves you with something to think about. It’s a double edged sword, it could leave people with a well rounded view of the scam, but could also lionise a largely imperfect figure.
Despite its flaws, Scam 1992 is a consistently engaging watch. It’s incredibly well acted, and leaves you with something to think about, and sometimes it’s all you want from a show, something engaging and sensible. The creators of Scam 1992 provide that in ample quantities. Making the show much greater than the sum of its parts.
I thoroughly enjoyed watching it, even though the show’s not perfect.
Rating: ★★★ ½
Vidit Bhargava
Pagglait is perhaps the most misleadingly sold movies I’ve ever come across. From the trailers and marketing channels the makers seemed to insist its a “dysfunctional family drama with dark humour”. The movie however, is anything but that. It’s a doleful small town drama. Just like wedding movies, where everything involves around a central wedding event, Pagglait is a death movie; where everything involves around the events post a young man’s death.
That’s an innovative premise to begin with. It’s a new perspective at drama. The characters are ripe for what could be an engaging two hours of your time; and the actors are in sublime form. But unfortunately, the film wastes all that opportunity with weak story telling.
Unnecessary subplots mar what’s a straightforward story, what’s worse is that sometimes the writers just leave them hanging without any closure. For example, we never really fully understand why Sanya Malhotra’s character unable to grieve, decides to gorge on Chips and streat-food instead? Is it shock? Did she not know him well enough? We never really know for sure, we only get hints of an understanding of her view point in other subplots but there’s never a full picture, as the movie moves on to give her character other motives.
The film delves too deep into the post-death traditions; and the shrill, scheming, or just narrow minded characterisation of the family members provide no relief either. By the time we reach the final act, its gotten too melodramatic, too stuffy for its own good. The final act salvages the film’s rather run off the mill small town treatment to some extent but it’s too little too late. It’s a good premise and setting that’s just squandered away by heavy handed storytelling.
Pagglait is not all bad though. It’s got a strong cast that shines throughout. I didn’t find one actor that felt miscast or underperforming. Together they uplift the movie from being barely watchable to something that holds your attention for the entirety of two hours.
Rajesh Tailang, Aasif Khan, Sheeba Chaddha, Ashutosh Raina, Raghubir Yadav, Jameel Khan or Sanya Malhotra’s acting skills need no introduction. They’re great actors who have a knack of making most of what they get. And they get ample time to showcase their talents here. Particularly of note though is Chetan Sharma, who brings a unique vulnerability and fragility to his character of the deceased’s brother. It’s a character that’s been given responsibility way beyond he was ready for, and Sharma just aces the part.
A word about the film’s excellent score too. Arijit Singh’s surprisingly potent as a music composer. It’s his first film as a composer and the background score is top notch, and never really comes in the way of storytelling, it almost always compliments it.
I’m going with two out five for Umesh Bist’s Pagglait and an extra half for the spectacular performances by the ensemble. It’s a movie whose performances will be remembered for much longer than its story.
Rating : ★★ ½
Gamak Ghar is literally like watching paint dry. Except you form an emotional connect with the paint in which case you’re invested in watching it dry. That’s the best way I could describe Gamak Ghar, Achal Mishra’s film that follows the life of an ancestral home as it ages over time.
Houses thrive when they have house people who care about them. Gamak Ghar’s ancestral home is no different. The house survives major floods and disasters but what it can’t survive is people moving on from it. From, once a lively home visited oft by an extended family, to a novelty, to just standing there, dilapidated and stripped off everything but an old caretaker. It’s a reflection of how time passes, creating memories along the way.
It’s an obvious and rather monotonous ride at 1 hour 30 minutes, given how the film’s a tad too predictable for anyone who has seen ancestral homes age.
But Gamak Ghar’s brilliance lies in its evocative nature, the nostalgia is real. It takes you back in time to your own childhood, to your own old home. Gamak Ghar is worth a watch for the memories the film evokes alone.
Rating: ★★★ 1/2
Available on: MUBI
