<p>Now that is the 'Pinocchio' I like.</p>

<p>In September this year, Disney released a live-action remake of the 1940 animated classic 'Pinocchio'. Directed by Robert Zemeckis, the film robbed the original of the magic that made it special in the first place. Classic 2D animated films have a certain artistic value. Transforming those beautifully handcrafted frames to drab reality, as a rule, is never a good idea, especially when the attempt is just to cash in on the nostalgia and not to do something fresh. (Just an aside, but Disney should really stop remaking animated films). Now Netflix's stop-motion animated pic 'Pinocchio', also called 'Guillermo del Toro's 'Pinocchio'', is not surprisingly a much, much better adaptation—edgy, darker, and way more emotionally satisfying.</p>

<p>Directed del Toro and Mark Gustafson and scripted by del Toro and Patrick McHale, the film changes the period of the film but hovers closer to the original story by Italian author Carlo Collodi. Instead of the 1880s, the film is set in Fascist Italy. del Toro's films, although often concerned with otherworldly monsters and weird creatures, never shy away from contextualising stories and characters firmly in their politics and social milieu. Only, he extensively uses metaphors, and many tend to utterly miss the point of his stories.</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Od2NW1sfRdA" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>He has always been attracted to those who do not belong. His movies, many of which can be characterised as fairy tale movies for adults, more often than not explore the weird and the monstrous. For him, monsters do not exist for our fear and loathing. He thinks of them as manifestations of our inner demons. Monsters in his stories are strange and often repellent, but simultaneously beautiful in a strange way.&nbsp;</p>

<p>'Pinocchio' follows the titular puppet, carved by one Master Geppetto (David Bradley) who has been grieving for his son. Put in a little fairy magic and, lo and behold, the puppet comes alive. This is not good news to Geppetto, however, who sees the "fire hazard" as an abomination—not only unworthy to be son, but something to be abhorred, to be disgusted by.&nbsp;</p>

<p>And honestly, the puppet is indeed depicted as quite ugly, a misshapen carving only vaguely humanoid in appearance (which is, again, closer to Collodi's original story). The mischievous and impudent boy yearns to become a real human boy. For Geppetto, he comes to fill the void left by his son. Pinocchio, on the other hand, finds his humanity and a sense of purpose.</p>

<p>Sebastian J. Cricket (Ewan McGregor) is also there, serving as the narrator and a pal of Pinocchio. Despite the 'unfinished' look, 'Pinocchio' comes across as more endearing than he has any right to be. Child actor Gregory Mann does a great job of bringing out the innocence and lovability of the character. Right from the first moment, it opens its eyes, so to speak, you will fall in love with its little lump of wood with anthropoid features. I know I did.&nbsp;</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Tbl5Lbi4xEs" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>The story has other minor changes from the original novel. For instance, instead of The Coachman, we get a government official Podestà, who thinks, Pinocchio, a puppet who cannot die (for long anyway), would be the perfect soldier to take on Italy's enemies.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The visuals, as expected from a film made by del Toro and stop motion master Gustafson are quite pleasing. There is something about the stop-motion technology that feels granular, and authentic (I am aware this is a magic-infused animated setting), and the visual aesthetic perfectly suits the story.&nbsp;</p>

<p>There are so many awe-inspiring moments, and once again you end up wishing Netflix released some of its projects on the big screen here in India. A theatrical screen would have embellished the meticulous imagery. Alexandre Desplat's outstanding would also have been better served with cinema-quality surround sound. As it is, 'Pinocchio' is one of this year's pretties looking and sounding films.</p>

<p>The film explores those trademark del Toro themes of a sense of belonging, lost innocence, distinctiveness, authoritarianism, and so on. Since this is Mussolini's era, Il Duce himself turns up, shooting the performing puppet and sending him to one of his many deaths. It must be said that the political setting does not gel as well as you would expect. It feels slightly forced, and the transpiring events are not particularly affected by the regime ruling Italy.</p>

<p>The ending is a gut punch, an emotional payoff worthy of the character arc.&nbsp;</p>

<p>'Pinocchio' is fantastic.</p>

<p>&lt;<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


Now that is the 'Pinocchio' I like. In September this year, Disney released a live-action remake of the 1940 animated classic 'Pinocchio'. Directed by Robert Zemeckis, the film robbed the original of the magic that made it special in the first place.

Now that is the 'Pinocchio' I like. In September this year, Disney released a live-action remake of the 1940 animated classic 'Pinocchio'. Directed by Robert Zemeckis, the film robbed the original of the magic that made it special in the first place. Classic 2D animated films have a certain artistic value. Transforming those beautifully handcrafted frames to drab reality, as a rule, is never a good idea, especially when the attempt is just to cash in on the nostalgia and not to do something fresh. (Just an aside, but Disney should really stop remaking animated films). Now Netflix's stop-motion animated pic 'Pinocchio', also called 'Guillermo del Toro's 'Pinocchio'', is not surprisingly a much, much better adaptation—edgy, darker, and way more emotionally satisfying. Directed del Toro and Mark Gustafson and scripted by del Toro and Patrick McHale, the film changes the period of the film but hovers closer to the original story by Italian author Carlo Collodi. Instead of the 1880s, the film is set in Fascist Italy. del Toro's films, although often concerned with otherworldly monsters and weird creatures, never shy away from contextualising stories and characters firmly in their politics and social milieu. Only, he extensively uses metaphors, and many tend to utterly miss the point of his stories. He has always been attracted to those who do not belong. His movies, many of which can be characterised as fairy tale movies for adults, more often than not explore the weird and the monstrous. For him, monsters do not exist for our fear and loathing. He thinks of them as manifestations of our inner demons. Monsters in his stories are strange and often repellent, but simultaneously beautiful in a strange way. 'Pinocchio' follows the titular puppet, carved by one Master Geppetto (David Bradley) who has been grieving for his son. Put in a little fairy magic and, lo and behold, the puppet comes alive. This is not good news to Geppetto, however, who sees the "fire hazard" as an abomination—not only unworthy to be son, but something to be abhorred, to be disgusted by. And honestly, the puppet is indeed depicted as quite ugly, a misshapen carving only vaguely humanoid in appearance (which is, again, closer to Collodi's original story). The mischievous and impudent boy yearns to become a real human boy. For Geppetto, he comes to fill the void left by his son. Pinocchio, on the other hand, finds his humanity and a sense of purpose. Sebastian J. Cricket (Ewan McGregor) is also there, serving as the narrator and a pal of Pinocchio. Despite the 'unfinished' look, 'Pinocchio' comes across as more endearing than he has any right to be. Child actor Gregory Mann does a great job of bringing out the innocence and lovability of the character. Right from the first moment, it opens its eyes, so to speak, you will fall in love with its little lump of wood with anthropoid features. I know I did. The story has other minor changes from the original novel. For instance, instead of The Coachman, we get a government official Podestà, who thinks, Pinocchio, a puppet who cannot die (for long anyway), would be the perfect soldier to take on Italy's enemies. The visuals, as expected from a film made by del Toro and stop motion master Gustafson are quite pleasing. There is something about the stop-motion technology that feels granular, and authentic (I am aware this is a magic-infused animated setting), and the visual aesthetic perfectly suits the story. There are so many awe-inspiring moments, and once again you end up wishing Netflix released some of its projects on the big screen here in India. A theatrical screen would have embellished the meticulous imagery. Alexandre Desplat's outstanding would also have been better served with cinema-quality surround sound. As it is, 'Pinocchio' is one of this year's pretties looking and sounding films. The film explores those trademark del Toro themes of a sense of belonging, lost innocence, distinctiveness, authoritarianism, and so on. Since this is Mussolini's era, Il Duce himself turns up, shooting the performing puppet and sending him to one of his many deaths. It must be said that the political setting does not gel as well as you would expect. It feels slightly forced, and the transpiring events are not particularly affected by the regime ruling Italy. The ending is a gut punch, an emotional payoff worthy of the character arc. 'Pinocchio' is fantastic. <

'Pinocchio' movie review: Guillermo del Toro's puts a whimsical spin on this oft-adapted story

<p>Will Smith perhaps irreversibly damaged his reputation when he decided to answer comedian Chris Rock's words with a blow during the Oscars ceremony earlier this year. That smack will likely reverberate through the actor's entire career. One can — and should —admire his utter commitment to his role in Antoine Fuqua's<strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-emancipation-reviews-will-smiths-first-film-after-oscar-slap-garners-mixed-reception-539657"> 'Emancipation'</a></strong>, a film that purports to be a slavery drama but ends up feeling like a period-action film. But being a part of this neo-Blaxploitation film will not exactly do wonders for Smith's already shaky reputation.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Preceding the release, the actor had requested while speaking on several talk shows that the film should not be unfairly judged by his actions, and that several other people worked hard to make the movie. It was admirable, I thought. But even if the ghost of the slap did not hover over the film, it would still fail to pass muster. It is not a bad movie, mind you. There is enough emotion and pathos, I suspect,&nbsp;in Smith's performance alone to sell the movie to his fans. But Fuqua for some reason decided to direct it like an action-thriller, and yet in his heart wanted it to look and feel like a slavery drama. The result is a film without any identity, and it does not quite work as either.</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wafyhTpWpUs" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>'Emancipation' is inspired by the life of one remarkable Peter, also known as Whipped Peter. An escaped slave who fled a plantation in Louisiana after hearing of Abraham Lincoln's emancipation proclamation and joined the Union Army to take on the Confederates. While not much is known about the man himself, an image of his back scarred with whip marks has survived, which was widely circulated by abolitionists.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Played by Smith, Peter's story in the film begins with him quoting the Bible to his wife and children, and saying at one point "God loves you." This is a recurring theme here, as Peter argues with other, less devout slaves over the existence of a benevolent, all-powerful deity watching over the world. Yes, he insists, He exists. He says that even as he suffers insults and whips from slavers, who incidentally invent Biblical verses to justify to the slaves the torment they inflict. Indeed, God works in mysterious ways. The Biblical theme does feel out of place here. Maybe this is the non-believer in me speaking, it would have been more compelling to make Peter a cynic after all the horrors he has witnessed.</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hGoNxmTDsJs" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>In the first act, everything you would expect from a slave drama is here. Slavers liberally use the N-word, describe slaves in simian terms, keep them up tightly packed in cages like poultry, and of course how they are above the darker-skinned humans in the divine hierarchy. Nothing here is historically inaccurate, and it all happened. Humans have been horrible to each other almost throughout recorded history, and the slave trade is one of the most reprehensible and shameful things to ever happen. But 'Emancipation' often borders on gratuity. Slavery porn, I feel, is the term I am looking for.</p>

<p>A coherent film based on Whipped Peter's story could have been inspiring and rich with drama, but 'Emancipation' watches like a film that a hypothetical machine would churn out if it was instructed to manufacture the perfect Oscar bait. It is as though Smith kept the film as a second alternative to score an Oscar nomination if 'King Richard' did not succeed. It has that "prestige" look and often seems appears to be a bad parody of one of HBO's crime dramas. Visually, the film is nearly but not exactly black-and-white, another choice probably to give the film a pretentious aesthetic but that does not justify its presence.&nbsp;</p>

<p>'Emancipation' is neither pacey nor interesting enough to be a good action movie, it does have anything new to say about the nature of slavery and, well, emancipation, to be a good slave drama.</p>

<p>&lt;<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


Will Smith perhaps irreversibly damaged his reputation when he decided to answer comedian Chris Rock's words with a blow during the Oscars ceremony earlier this year.

Will Smith perhaps irreversibly damaged his reputation when he decided to answer comedian Chris Rock's words with a blow during the Oscars ceremony earlier this year. That smack will likely reverberate through the actor's entire career. One can — and should —admire his utter commitment to his role in Antoine Fuqua's 'Emancipation', a film that purports to be a slavery drama but ends up feeling like a period-action film. But being a part of this neo-Blaxploitation film will not exactly do wonders for Smith's already shaky reputation. Preceding the release, the actor had requested while speaking on several talk shows that the film should not be unfairly judged by his actions, and that several other people worked hard to make the movie. It was admirable, I thought. But even if the ghost of the slap did not hover over the film, it would still fail to pass muster. It is not a bad movie, mind you. There is enough emotion and pathos, I suspect, in Smith's performance alone to sell the movie to his fans. But Fuqua for some reason decided to direct it like an action-thriller, and yet in his heart wanted it to look and feel like a slavery drama. The result is a film without any identity, and it does not quite work as either. 'Emancipation' is inspired by the life of one remarkable Peter, also known as Whipped Peter. An escaped slave who fled a plantation in Louisiana after hearing of Abraham Lincoln's emancipation proclamation and joined the Union Army to take on the Confederates. While not much is known about the man himself, an image of his back scarred with whip marks has survived, which was widely circulated by abolitionists. Played by Smith, Peter's story in the film begins with him quoting the Bible to his wife and children, and saying at one point "God loves you." This is a recurring theme here, as Peter argues with other, less devout slaves over the existence of a benevolent, all-powerful deity watching over the world. Yes, he insists, He exists. He says that even as he suffers insults and whips from slavers, who incidentally invent Biblical verses to justify to the slaves the torment they inflict. Indeed, God works in mysterious ways. The Biblical theme does feel out of place here. Maybe this is the non-believer in me speaking, it would have been more compelling to make Peter a cynic after all the horrors he has witnessed. In the first act, everything you would expect from a slave drama is here. Slavers liberally use the N-word, describe slaves in simian terms, keep them up tightly packed in cages like poultry, and of course how they are above the darker-skinned humans in the divine hierarchy. Nothing here is historically inaccurate, and it all happened. Humans have been horrible to each other almost throughout recorded history, and the slave trade is one of the most reprehensible and shameful things to ever happen. But 'Emancipation' often borders on gratuity. Slavery porn, I feel, is the term I am looking for. A coherent film based on Whipped Peter's story could have been inspiring and rich with drama, but 'Emancipation' watches like a film that a hypothetical machine would churn out if it was instructed to manufacture the perfect Oscar bait. It is as though Smith kept the film as a second alternative to score an Oscar nomination if 'King Richard' did not succeed. It has that "prestige" look and often seems appears to be a bad parody of one of HBO's crime dramas. Visually, the film is nearly but not exactly black-and-white, another choice probably to give the film a pretentious aesthetic but that does not justify its presence. 'Emancipation' is neither pacey nor interesting enough to be a good action movie, it does have anything new to say about the nature of slavery and, well, emancipation, to be a good slave drama. <

'Emancipation' movie review: Self-important and ponderous, Will Smith's Oscar bait is dead on arrival

<p>2022 has been pretty good for movies. While COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect the theatrical film business to an extent, studios and filmmakers are no longer delaying projects. Numerous movies, both indie, and big studio products, were released this year, and a lot of them proved to be commercial successes. 2022 proved that theatrical film releases are here to stay, even as streaming releases gained even more popularity. But which films raked in the most money at the worldwide box office? Most of the films were part of a popular franchise, which is sadly nothing new.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Also Read:&nbsp;<strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-mcu-had-a-terrible-2022-what-went-wrong-540467">MCU had a terrible 2022. What went wrong?</a></strong></p>

<p>So anyway, here is the list of the highest-grossing movies of 2022, in terms of worldwide collections. The list has a reverse order.</p>

<h2>10. 'Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore'</h2>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y9dr2zw-TXQ" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>We might never see the sequel and the franchise might never end, but 'Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore' was a decent success for Warner Bros. The 'Fantastic Beasts' franchise is set in the same world as the 'Harry Potter' movie series. It tells the story of the great conflict between a young Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law) and Grindelwald, who was the most powerful dark wizard the world had ever seen until Voldemort arrived, from the perspective of a young magizoologist Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne). The film grossed $405 million.</p>

<h2>9. 'Moon Man'&nbsp;</h2>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/254pTHplAa0" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>A Chinese science fiction comedy, 'Moon Man' follows an astronaut who is stranded on the moon after an asteroid destroys all life on earth. It was an adaptation of South Korean illustrator Cho Seok's webcomic series Moon You. 'Moon Man' grossed $460 million.</p>

<h2>8. 'The Battle at Lake Changjin II'</h2>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_n6d1EKOYN4" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>A sequel to 2021's 'The Battle at Lake Changjin', which also broke many records at the Chinese box office, The Battle at Lake Changjin II' is based on the Battle of Chosin Reservoir during the Korean War. The film, like its predecessor, has been termed propagand by critics. It grossed $626.5 million.</p>

<h2>7. 'Black Panther: Wakanda Forever'</h2>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_Z3QKkl1WyM" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>The 30th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and a sequel to 2019's 'Black Panther', this film was directed by returning director Ryan Coogler and written by Coogler himself with Joe Robert Cole. They had an enviable task of writing a story without Chadwick Boseman, the star of the first film who died in 2020 of colon cancer. The script, centring around him, had to be rewritten and a new Black Panther had to be there, in order to justify the title. Though, the role of T'Challa, the real name of the superhero and the king of Wakanda, was not recast. Letitia Wright, Lupita Nyong'o, Danai Gurira, Winston Duke, Dominique Thorne, Florence Kasumba, Michaela Coel, Tenoch Huerta, and others were in the film. It is still in theatres and has grossed $732.9 million.</p>

<h2>6. 'Thor: Love and Thunder'</h2>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Go8nTmfrQd8" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>Directed by Taika Waititi, who returned from the third movie, 'Ragnarok', 'Thor: Love and Thunder' had Thor and Portman's Jane Foster, who becomes Mighty Thor and wields Mjolnir, being pitted against Christian Bale's fearsome villain Gorr the God Butcher. Despite mixed reviews, the film grossed $760.9 million.</p>

<h2>5. 'The Batman'</h2>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mqqft2x_Aa4" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>Matt Reeves' 'The Batman', starring Robert Pattinson in the lead, is probably the best Batman movie ever about Batman. The film was a reboot of the franchise but wisely stepped away from an origin story -- we have seen that Crime Alley Wayne murders too many times on the screen to be interested now -- but still told the story of a young Caped Crusader coming to terms with his grief-fulled rage and violence. It was also visually stunning with lurid oranges contrasted with drab greys and blacks.&nbsp;It grossed $770.8 million.</p>

<h2>4. 'Minions: The Rise of Gru'</h2>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6DxjJzmYsXo" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>'Minions: The Rise of Gru' is the second iteration in the 'Minions' series, which itself is a prequel to the 'Despicable Me' franchise. Steve Carell, Pierre Coffin, Taraji P. Henson, Michelle Yeoh, RZA, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Lucy Lawless, Dolph Lundgren, Danny Trejo, Russell Brand, Julie Andrews, and Alan Arkin have lent their voices to the film. &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;It grossed $939.4 million.</p>

<h2>3. 'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness'</h2>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aWzlQ2N6qqg" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>None other than Sam Raimi had agreed to direct a 'Doctor Strange' film after the first film's Scott Derrickson opted out. It was exciting. And in hindsight one wishes Raimi had chosen some other project for his MCU debut. 'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness' was an utter mess. The premise was delicious, and Raimi at the helm augured good things. Elizabeth Olsen's Wanda Maximoff or Scarlet Witch was involved, and she looked angry in trailers. The movie revealed her as the main villain, and somebody with the ability to even defeat the Master of Mystic Arts himself. Even mixed reviews did not prevent the film from earning $955.7 million.</p>

<h2>2. 'Jurassic World Dominion'</h2>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fb5ELWi-ekk" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>'Jurassic World Dominion' was the conclusion of the 'Jurassic World' trilogy. The film marked the return of the original trio (Sam Neill, Laura Dern, and Jeff Goldblum), from 1993's blockbuster 'Jurassic Park'. It did not receive positive reviews. It, however, became a blockbuster with over $1 billion in box office returns.</p>

<h2>1. 'Top Gun: Maverick'</h2>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/giXco2jaZ_4" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>Directed by Joseph Kosinski and written by Ehren Kruger, Eric Warren Singer, and Christopher McQuarrie from a story by Peter Craig and Justin Marks, 'Maverick' was the sequel to the 1986 classic 'Top Gun' and brought back Cruise in the role of Pete "Maverick" Mitchell, who is now a test pilot and flight instructor. Cruise has single-handedly nearly monopolised the action genre with 'Mission: Impossible' movies, and he proved it yet again with 'Maverick'. The film was a non-stop entertainment ride from start to finish. Oh, and it is the highest-grossing movie of 2022, with $1.48 billion in earnings.<br />
&nbsp;</p>


2022 has been pretty good for movies. While COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect the theatrical film business to an extent, studios and filmmakers are no longer delaying projects.

2022 has been pretty good for movies. While COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect the theatrical film business to an extent, studios and filmmakers are no longer delaying projects. Numerous movies, both indie, and big studio products, were released this year, and a lot of them proved to be commercial successes. 2022 proved that theatrical film releases are here to stay, even as streaming releases gained even more popularity. But which films raked in the most money at the worldwide box office? Most of the films were part of a popular franchise, which is sadly nothing new. Also Read: MCU had a terrible 2022. What went wrong? So anyway, here is the list of the highest-grossing movies of 2022, in terms of worldwide collections. The list has a reverse order. 10. 'Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore' We might never see the sequel and the franchise might never end, but 'Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore' was a decent success for Warner Bros. The 'Fantastic Beasts' franchise is set in the same world as the 'Harry Potter' movie series. It tells the story of the great conflict between a young Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law) and Grindelwald, who was the most powerful dark wizard the world had ever seen until Voldemort arrived, from the perspective of a young magizoologist Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne). The film grossed $405 million. 9. 'Moon Man' A Chinese science fiction comedy, 'Moon Man' follows an astronaut who is stranded on the moon after an asteroid destroys all life on earth. It was an adaptation of South Korean illustrator Cho Seok's webcomic series Moon You. 'Moon Man' grossed $460 million. 8. 'The Battle at Lake Changjin II' A sequel to 2021's 'The Battle at Lake Changjin', which also broke many records at the Chinese box office, The Battle at Lake Changjin II' is based on the Battle of Chosin Reservoir during the Korean War. The film, like its predecessor, has been termed propagand by critics. It grossed $626.5 million. 7. 'Black Panther: Wakanda Forever' The 30th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and a sequel to 2019's 'Black Panther', this film was directed by returning director Ryan Coogler and written by Coogler himself with Joe Robert Cole. They had an enviable task of writing a story without Chadwick Boseman, the star of the first film who died in 2020 of colon cancer. The script, centring around him, had to be rewritten and a new Black Panther had to be there, in order to justify the title. Though, the role of T'Challa, the real name of the superhero and the king of Wakanda, was not recast. Letitia Wright, Lupita Nyong'o, Danai Gurira, Winston Duke, Dominique Thorne, Florence Kasumba, Michaela Coel, Tenoch Huerta, and others were in the film. It is still in theatres and has grossed $732.9 million. 6. 'Thor: Love and Thunder' Directed by Taika Waititi, who returned from the third movie, 'Ragnarok', 'Thor: Love and Thunder' had Thor and Portman's Jane Foster, who becomes Mighty Thor and wields Mjolnir, being pitted against Christian Bale's fearsome villain Gorr the God Butcher. Despite mixed reviews, the film grossed $760.9 million. 5. 'The Batman' Matt Reeves' 'The Batman', starring Robert Pattinson in the lead, is probably the best Batman movie ever about Batman. The film was a reboot of the franchise but wisely stepped away from an origin story -- we have seen that Crime Alley Wayne murders too many times on the screen to be interested now -- but still told the story of a young Caped Crusader coming to terms with his grief-fulled rage and violence. It was also visually stunning with lurid oranges contrasted with drab greys and blacks. It grossed $770.8 million. 4. 'Minions: The Rise of Gru' 'Minions: The Rise of Gru' is the second iteration in the 'Minions' series, which itself is a prequel to the 'Despicable Me' franchise. Steve Carell, Pierre Coffin, Taraji P. Henson, Michelle Yeoh, RZA, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Lucy Lawless, Dolph Lundgren, Danny Trejo, Russell Brand, Julie Andrews, and Alan Arkin have lent their voices to the film. It grossed $939.4 million. 3. 'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness' None other than Sam Raimi had agreed to direct a 'Doctor Strange' film after the first film's Scott Derrickson opted out. It was exciting. And in hindsight one wishes Raimi had chosen some other project for his MCU debut. 'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness' was an utter mess. The premise was delicious, and Raimi at the helm augured good things. Elizabeth Olsen's Wanda Maximoff or Scarlet Witch was involved, and she looked angry in trailers. The movie revealed her as the main villain, and somebody with the ability to even defeat the Master of Mystic Arts himself. Even mixed reviews did not prevent the film from earning $955.7 million. 2. 'Jurassic World Dominion' 'Jurassic World Dominion' was the conclusion of the 'Jurassic World' trilogy. The film marked the return of the original trio (Sam Neill, Laura Dern, and Jeff Goldblum), from 1993's blockbuster 'Jurassic Park'. It did not receive positive reviews. It, however, became a blockbuster with over $1 billion in box office returns. 1. 'Top Gun: Maverick' Directed by Joseph Kosinski and written by Ehren Kruger, Eric Warren Singer, and Christopher McQuarrie from a story by Peter Craig and Justin Marks, 'Maverick' was the sequel to the 1986 classic 'Top Gun' and brought back Cruise in the role of Pete "Maverick" Mitchell, who is now a test pilot and flight instructor. Cruise has single-handedly nearly monopolised the action genre with 'Mission: Impossible' movies, and he proved it yet again with 'Maverick'. The film was a non-stop entertainment ride from start to finish. Oh, and it is the highest-grossing movie of 2022, with $1.48 billion in earnings.

10 highest-grossing movies of 2022: 'Doctor Strange 2', 'Jurassic World Dominion', & 'Top Gun Maverick'

<p>The Marvel Cinematic Universe is in the doldrums. Ever since the so-called 'Infinity Saga' ended with 2019's 'Avengers: Endgame', many MCU movies and shows have struggled to recreated the pre-Endgame magic. Not including the two specials from Marvel Studios, we saw three movies and three TV shows, and with an exception of 'She-Hulk', they all were disappointments (to this scribe, at least. You may differ). It appears James Cameron's prophesised so-called 'Avengers Fatigue' is finally here. Clearly, too much of anything, even MCU, is bad. Marvel Studios and its parent company Disney decided to expand the MCU by launching a half-dozen (or so) TV shows to support the new streaming service Disney+, and it has had the reverse effect. MCU feels smaller somehow.</p>

<p>Also Read:&nbsp;<strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-mcu-had-a-terrible-2022-what-went-wrong-540467">MCU had a terrible 2022. What went wrong?</a></strong></p>

<h2>MCU's loss is DCEU's gain?</h2>

<p>Meanwhile, the rumours of MCU's demise, exaggerated though they may be, can augur well for DC Extended Universe or DCEU. While the MCU started with 2008's summer release of Jon Favreau's 'Iron Man', the DCEU's beginning came half a decade later in 2013 with Zack Snyder's 'Man of Steel', and it has only played catchup since then.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Starring Robert Downey Jr in the role, 'Iron Man' was a runaway, unexpected, hit. The superhero was not a well-known one among film audiences, and frankly neither were the Avengers that came later for the general audience who were not comic book readers. But Marvel Studios, with Kevin Feige at the helm, had trust in themselves and the cast (even Robert Downey Jr, who was pretty much persona non grata back then due to his substance abuse issues run-ins with the law) and crew that paid off.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Also Read:&nbsp;<strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-thanos-idiotic-plan-and-other-things-that-make-absolutely-no-sense-in-marvel-movies-498039">Six things that make absolutely NO sense in Marvel movies</a></strong></p>

<p>The challenge in front of 'Iron Man' was also 'The Dark Knight', Christopher Nolan's grownup oriented 'The Dark Knight' was more of a crime thriller than a full-fledged superhero pic. But the Dark Knight trilogy, featuring Christian Bale in the role, was its own self-contained universe. And it was not until 'Man of Steel' that DC really looked into building a cinematic universe.</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PjJofEuSA78" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>Starring Henry Cavill in the role of Superman, the film was a standalone film that was supposed to eventually lead to the formation of the Justice League. But the film was poorly received, and Snyder's gloomier Superman was rejected by fans. The film was a decent commercial success and received mixed critical reviews. The next two releases -- 'Batman V Superman' and 'Suicide Squad' -- were even more heavily panned by critics and disappointed at the box office as well, the former especially when it had the main three DC superheroes. While the next, 'Wonder Woman', was a huge success, the joy was ruined by 'Justice League' later that year, grossing about $650 million on a budget of an incredible $350 million</p>

<p>The biggest reason DC films are a mess is there has been a lack of unifying vision throughout the DCEU history, with nobody like Feige to oversee the films and the cinematic universe. And no, Zack Snyder is not it as his vision was already roundly rejected by both critics and fans. And I am saying it as somebody who loved 'Zack Snyder's Justice League'.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Also Read:&nbsp;<strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-thanos-idiotic-plan-and-other-things-that-make-absolutely-no-sense-in-marvel-movies-498039">Six things that make absolutely NO sense in Marvel movies</a></strong></p>

<h2><a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-the-suicide-squad-director-james-gunn-to-lead-dc-studios-promises-some-of-the-biggest-grandest-stories-528475">James Gunn and Peter Safran at DC Studios' helm</a></h2>

<p>DC Films, that rudderless ship, is no more. Make way for DC Studios, a new studio that has filmmaker James Gunn and producer Peter Safran at the helm. That happened in October this year. David Zaslav, the chief of Warner Bros Discovery, had been looking for a suitable person to lead the next phase of the DC film universe.&nbsp;</p>

<h2>Is DCEU's future bright under Gunn and Safran?</h2>

<p>Also Read:&nbsp;<strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/all-upcoming-dc-movies-shazam-2-the-flash-man-of-steel-2-and-others-530628">All upcoming DC movies: 'Shazam 2', 'The Flash', 'Man of Steel 2', and others</a></strong></p>

<p>Absolutely. Gunn has been in the Marvel and DC) superhero business since he helmed 2014's 'Guardians of the Galaxy'. it is a credit to his writing and filmmaking that some of the obscure characters in the comics populated the cast of one of that year's best superhero movies. The film featured a found family of the galaxy's biggest rejects, two of whom were not even human, and one of them was a robot. And yet infused with his unique brand of humour, solid writing, and a talented cast of actors and voice actors, the film became a huge hit and also impressed critics.</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rLM-bmdTuy0" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>His next for Marvel Studios, 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2' was an even bigger commercial success.</p>

<p>After being banned by Disney for controversial old tweets, Gunn switched sides to DC. He chose a soft reboot of the 2016 movie 'Suicide Squad'. The film, called 'The Suicide Squad' marked Gunn's return to films with a bang. It released in 2021 and starred a huge cast of actors Margot Robbie, Idris Elba, John Cena, Joel Kinnaman, Sylvester Stallone, Viola Davis, David Dastmalchian, Daniela Melchior, Michael Rooker, Jai Courtney, Peter Capaldi, Alice Braga, and Pete Davidson.</p>

<p>Apart from 'The Suicide Squad', Gunn also wrote and directed a John Cena-fronted spinoff series called 'Peacemaker' for HBO Max, which was also received well.</p>

<h2><strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/why-james-gunn-leading-dc-studios-is-a-great-news-for-fans-528511">Why is Gunn going to be great for DC?</a></strong></h2>

<p>As we have seen already, Gunn is really good with the superhero genre, possibly the best around right now. He grew up on a steady diet of comics, and has repeatedly shown an uncanny knack for crafting moving stories with multiple, varied characters forgetting their differences and coming together for a common goal. With 'Peacemaker', he proved that he is good with sole characters as well if it allows him to dismantle the character in his own way and instill his irreverent humour.&nbsp;</p>

<p>DC movies have suffered for a long time without any skipper to direct things. There have been competing visions, execs who have disagreed over the direction the properties should go in, and so on. What the company needed at this time is somebody exactly like Gunn: who has a proven track record in the genre and is a geek and knows these characters well. Under Gunn and Safran, the future of DC films is bright.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<h2>What to expect from DCEU in the future?</h2>

<p>Earlier this year, it was confirmed that Henry Cavill will return to the role of Superman. He appeared in the role in the post-credits scene of 'Black Adam', basically challenging the man in black for a fight. We should see the return of Justice League, since except for Ben Affleck's Batman, every other character has already got or is getting their own solo movies, and can face a common threat by teaming up in a JLA movie. We know Zaslav wants DCEU to go the way MCU went — multiple superheroes versus one big supervillain.&nbsp;</p>

<p>DC already has Darkseid, who appeared in 'Zack Snyder's Justice League'. Gunn and Safran have also promised the "Biggest Story Ever Told across multiple films, television shows, &amp; animated projects," which does make it look like the DCEU is going to be more unified from now on.</p>


The Marvel Cinematic Universe is in the doldrums. Ever since the so-called 'Infinity Saga' ended with 2019's 'Avengers: Endgame', many MCU movies and shows have struggled to recreated the pre-Endgame magic.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is in the doldrums. Ever since the so-called 'Infinity Saga' ended with 2019's 'Avengers: Endgame', many MCU movies and shows have struggled to recreated the pre-Endgame magic. Not including the two specials from Marvel Studios, we saw three movies and three TV shows, and with an exception of 'She-Hulk', they all were disappointments (to this scribe, at least. You may differ). It appears James Cameron's prophesised so-called 'Avengers Fatigue' is finally here. Clearly, too much of anything, even MCU, is bad. Marvel Studios and its parent company Disney decided to expand the MCU by launching a half-dozen (or so) TV shows to support the new streaming service Disney+, and it has had the reverse effect. MCU feels smaller somehow. Also Read: MCU had a terrible 2022. What went wrong? MCU's loss is DCEU's gain? Meanwhile, the rumours of MCU's demise, exaggerated though they may be, can augur well for DC Extended Universe or DCEU. While the MCU started with 2008's summer release of Jon Favreau's 'Iron Man', the DCEU's beginning came half a decade later in 2013 with Zack Snyder's 'Man of Steel', and it has only played catchup since then. Starring Robert Downey Jr in the role, 'Iron Man' was a runaway, unexpected, hit. The superhero was not a well-known one among film audiences, and frankly neither were the Avengers that came later for the general audience who were not comic book readers. But Marvel Studios, with Kevin Feige at the helm, had trust in themselves and the cast (even Robert Downey Jr, who was pretty much persona non grata back then due to his substance abuse issues run-ins with the law) and crew that paid off. Also Read: Six things that make absolutely NO sense in Marvel movies The challenge in front of 'Iron Man' was also 'The Dark Knight', Christopher Nolan's grownup oriented 'The Dark Knight' was more of a crime thriller than a full-fledged superhero pic. But the Dark Knight trilogy, featuring Christian Bale in the role, was its own self-contained universe. And it was not until 'Man of Steel' that DC really looked into building a cinematic universe. Starring Henry Cavill in the role of Superman, the film was a standalone film that was supposed to eventually lead to the formation of the Justice League. But the film was poorly received, and Snyder's gloomier Superman was rejected by fans. The film was a decent commercial success and received mixed critical reviews. The next two releases -- 'Batman V Superman' and 'Suicide Squad' -- were even more heavily panned by critics and disappointed at the box office as well, the former especially when it had the main three DC superheroes. While the next, 'Wonder Woman', was a huge success, the joy was ruined by 'Justice League' later that year, grossing about $650 million on a budget of an incredible $350 million The biggest reason DC films are a mess is there has been a lack of unifying vision throughout the DCEU history, with nobody like Feige to oversee the films and the cinematic universe. And no, Zack Snyder is not it as his vision was already roundly rejected by both critics and fans. And I am saying it as somebody who loved 'Zack Snyder's Justice League'. Also Read: Six things that make absolutely NO sense in Marvel movies James Gunn and Peter Safran at DC Studios' helm DC Films, that rudderless ship, is no more. Make way for DC Studios, a new studio that has filmmaker James Gunn and producer Peter Safran at the helm. That happened in October this year. David Zaslav, the chief of Warner Bros Discovery, had been looking for a suitable person to lead the next phase of the DC film universe. Is DCEU's future bright under Gunn and Safran? Also Read: All upcoming DC movies: 'Shazam 2', 'The Flash', 'Man of Steel 2', and others Absolutely. Gunn has been in the Marvel and DC) superhero business since he helmed 2014's 'Guardians of the Galaxy'. it is a credit to his writing and filmmaking that some of the obscure characters in the comics populated the cast of one of that year's best superhero movies. The film featured a found family of the galaxy's biggest rejects, two of whom were not even human, and one of them was a robot. And yet infused with his unique brand of humour, solid writing, and a talented cast of actors and voice actors, the film became a huge hit and also impressed critics. His next for Marvel Studios, 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2' was an even bigger commercial success. After being banned by Disney for controversial old tweets, Gunn switched sides to DC. He chose a soft reboot of the 2016 movie 'Suicide Squad'. The film, called 'The Suicide Squad' marked Gunn's return to films with a bang. It released in 2021 and starred a huge cast of actors Margot Robbie, Idris Elba, John Cena, Joel Kinnaman, Sylvester Stallone, Viola Davis, David Dastmalchian, Daniela Melchior, Michael Rooker, Jai Courtney, Peter Capaldi, Alice Braga, and Pete Davidson. Apart from 'The Suicide Squad', Gunn also wrote and directed a John Cena-fronted spinoff series called 'Peacemaker' for HBO Max, which was also received well. Why is Gunn going to be great for DC? As we have seen already, Gunn is really good with the superhero genre, possibly the best around right now. He grew up on a steady diet of comics, and has repeatedly shown an uncanny knack for crafting moving stories with multiple, varied characters forgetting their differences and coming together for a common goal. With 'Peacemaker', he proved that he is good with sole characters as well if it allows him to dismantle the character in his own way and instill his irreverent humour. DC movies have suffered for a long time without any skipper to direct things. There have been competing visions, execs who have disagreed over the direction the properties should go in, and so on. What the company needed at this time is somebody exactly like Gunn: who has a proven track record in the genre and is a geek and knows these characters well. Under Gunn and Safran, the future of DC films is bright. What to expect from DCEU in the future? Earlier this year, it was confirmed that Henry Cavill will return to the role of Superman. He appeared in the role in the post-credits scene of 'Black Adam', basically challenging the man in black for a fight. We should see the return of Justice League, since except for Ben Affleck's Batman, every other character has already got or is getting their own solo movies, and can face a common threat by teaming up in a JLA movie. We know Zaslav wants DCEU to go the way MCU went — multiple superheroes versus one big supervillain. DC already has Darkseid, who appeared in 'Zack Snyder's Justice League'. Gunn and Safran have also promised the "Biggest Story Ever Told across multiple films, television shows, & animated projects," which does make it look like the DCEU is going to be more unified from now on.

Marvel's loss is DC's gain: How DC Studios can cash in on MCU's struggles to outdo competition

<p>In 1928, English author DH Lawrence got his final novel 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' published privately through a little-known Italian publisher. Judging by the clandestine nature of the publishing, he must have had some idea as to the kind of storm the novel, about an erotic extra-marital relationship, would create. The moral views from the Victorian era persisted, and the novel was widely condemned, even termed obscene.</p>

<p>(This particular word 'obscene' and its adjective form 'obscenity would come to mean a lot to the novel's future publisher, Penguin, which won the obscenity trial against the Crown in 1960, ushering in a new era of erotic fiction.)</p>

<p>The story had numerous and detailed descriptions of sexual acts in an illicit relationship, and not surprisingly scandalised many. But as so happens with illicit things, the novel became a much-discussed topic, albeit in hushed tones. That time was the beginning of the sexual revolution, which enabled an era in which sex and related concepts, at least in the western world, could be discussed openly.</p>

<p>'Lady Chatterley's Lover' proved to be catnip to that generation.</p>

<p>However pathbreaking and scandalous it was in 1929 though, today, the 'bodice-ripper' content in the novel cannot hold a candle to the erotic novels of today. The story's current appeal lies in what it wants to say, beyond all the sex.</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZOkXE3B0pDA" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>Laure de Clermont-Tonnerr's adaptation, streaming on Netflix, is an almost straight adaptation of the story. The original tale has admittedly aged incredibly well. The story follows a young woman called Constance Reid (Emma Corrin) who is married to an upper-class husband, Sir Clifford Chatterley. Paralysed from the waist down due to an injury during his service&nbsp;in World War I, Clifford is decent enough but like many rich British men of that era, loves things more than he does people.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Also, due to the nature of his injury, Clifford requires constant care but would only allow Reid, now called 'Lady Chatterley', to help him. She abhors the isolation of the country manor, and also misses the crowded streets and culture of London.</p>

<p>Alone and dissatisfied, both emotionally and physically, Lady Chatterley finds herself attracted, sexually, to the gamekeeper Oliver Mellors. The idea may even have been put, unwittingly, in her mind by Clifford, who wants a child to inherit his wealth and would not mind one out of wedlock, so long as the act of sex is purely practical and Constance does not get emotionally involved.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Initially outraged, she comes to find&nbsp;virtues in&nbsp;Clifford's idea. With Oliver, Constance finds not just sexual pleasure, but love and emotional support — something her husband had failed to provide.</p>

<p>Corrin, who was brilliant in the difficult role of Princes Diana in 'The Crown', is absolutely magnetic and lovely as Constance. Just like she silenced her critics with her performance in the royal drama, she proves herself more than capable of handling the complex role. She perfectly embodies Constance's vulnerabilities and struggles as an independent-minded woman forced to become something akin to a scullery maid in service of her stuck-up husband. Her performance is immaculate down to small details.&nbsp;</p>
<img alt="lady chatterley's lover" data-caption="A still from 'Lady Chatterley's Lover.'" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="ab9a8294-284b-4289-aa01-0a1ce7af592a" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/lady-chatterley-lover%20%281%29.png" />
<p>Jack O'Connell as Mellors portrays a rough-edged man with a heart of gold. Also a veteran of the Great War, he was spurned by his wife, who did not even have the decency of granting him a divorce. Like Constance, he is something of a contrarian as well. He now lives a quiet life spends his time caring for chickens and reads James Joyce's books (Joyce was a controversial author then) in his cottage.&nbsp;</p>

<p>And when things get steamy, his chemistry with Corrin appears to come across from the screen in waves. Preceding any, um, NSFW act, there is sexual tension in the air between the two thick enough to be cut with a knife. Earlier lost in the stuffiness of her husband's mansion, Constance finally breaks free in Mellors' arms. And with him, she becomes a woman unleashed.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Of course, retaliation comes. Not only has Constance broken the supposed sanctity of marriage, but she has also fornicated with a man from the working class — an unforgivable sin in contemporary British society.</p>

<p>'Lady Chatterley's Lover' has a lot to say about the feudal nature of the 1920s British society and the place of women in it. It also offers a sharp commentary on the modern world, and it is frankly shocking how much the perspectives towards women and their sexual freedom hasn't changed. The original story, and thus the film, was smart to portray Clifford not as a monster, but as a product of his class and background. Even in the end, he did not realise he had done anything wrong.&nbsp;</p>

<p>One can argue that 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' does not do enough to give the story a modern update. In my books, I thought David Magee's script was lean and well-written with strong dialogue. For while the sexually-charged passages may have become tame to modern audiences exposed to pornography and sex scenes in movies, the novel's themes, themes, however, have remained as relevant as ever. Some might say, the themes, of class and gender, sex and masculinity, mind and body, have somehow only&nbsp;gained relevance over the last century.</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


In 1928, English author DH Lawrence got his final novel 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' published privately through a little-known Italian publisher. Judging by the clandestine nature of the publishing, he must have had some idea as to the kind of storm the novel, about an erotic extra-marital relationship, would create.

In 1928, English author DH Lawrence got his final novel 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' published privately through a little-known Italian publisher. Judging by the clandestine nature of the publishing, he must have had some idea as to the kind of storm the novel, about an erotic extra-marital relationship, would create. The moral views from the Victorian era persisted, and the novel was widely condemned, even termed obscene. (This particular word 'obscene' and its adjective form 'obscenity would come to mean a lot to the novel's future publisher, Penguin, which won the obscenity trial against the Crown in 1960, ushering in a new era of erotic fiction.) The story had numerous and detailed descriptions of sexual acts in an illicit relationship, and not surprisingly scandalised many. But as so happens with illicit things, the novel became a much-discussed topic, albeit in hushed tones. That time was the beginning of the sexual revolution, which enabled an era in which sex and related concepts, at least in the western world, could be discussed openly. 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' proved to be catnip to that generation. However pathbreaking and scandalous it was in 1929 though, today, the 'bodice-ripper' content in the novel cannot hold a candle to the erotic novels of today. The story's current appeal lies in what it wants to say, beyond all the sex. Laure de Clermont-Tonnerr's adaptation, streaming on Netflix, is an almost straight adaptation of the story. The original tale has admittedly aged incredibly well. The story follows a young woman called Constance Reid (Emma Corrin) who is married to an upper-class husband, Sir Clifford Chatterley. Paralysed from the waist down due to an injury during his service in World War I, Clifford is decent enough but like many rich British men of that era, loves things more than he does people. Also, due to the nature of his injury, Clifford requires constant care but would only allow Reid, now called 'Lady Chatterley', to help him. She abhors the isolation of the country manor, and also misses the crowded streets and culture of London. Alone and dissatisfied, both emotionally and physically, Lady Chatterley finds herself attracted, sexually, to the gamekeeper Oliver Mellors. The idea may even have been put, unwittingly, in her mind by Clifford, who wants a child to inherit his wealth and would not mind one out of wedlock, so long as the act of sex is purely practical and Constance does not get emotionally involved. Initially outraged, she comes to find virtues in Clifford's idea. With Oliver, Constance finds not just sexual pleasure, but love and emotional support — something her husband had failed to provide. Corrin, who was brilliant in the difficult role of Princes Diana in 'The Crown', is absolutely magnetic and lovely as Constance. Just like she silenced her critics with her performance in the royal drama, she proves herself more than capable of handling the complex role. She perfectly embodies Constance's vulnerabilities and struggles as an independent-minded woman forced to become something akin to a scullery maid in service of her stuck-up husband. Her performance is immaculate down to small details. Jack O'Connell as Mellors portrays a rough-edged man with a heart of gold. Also a veteran of the Great War, he was spurned by his wife, who did not even have the decency of granting him a divorce. Like Constance, he is something of a contrarian as well. He now lives a quiet life spends his time caring for chickens and reads James Joyce's books (Joyce was a controversial author then) in his cottage. And when things get steamy, his chemistry with Corrin appears to come across from the screen in waves. Preceding any, um, NSFW act, there is sexual tension in the air between the two thick enough to be cut with a knife. Earlier lost in the stuffiness of her husband's mansion, Constance finally breaks free in Mellors' arms. And with him, she becomes a woman unleashed. Of course, retaliation comes. Not only has Constance broken the supposed sanctity of marriage, but she has also fornicated with a man from the working class — an unforgivable sin in contemporary British society. 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' has a lot to say about the feudal nature of the 1920s British society and the place of women in it. It also offers a sharp commentary on the modern world, and it is frankly shocking how much the perspectives towards women and their sexual freedom hasn't changed. The original story, and thus the film, was smart to portray Clifford not as a monster, but as a product of his class and background. Even in the end, he did not realise he had done anything wrong. One can argue that 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' does not do enough to give the story a modern update. In my books, I thought David Magee's script was lean and well-written with strong dialogue. For while the sexually-charged passages may have become tame to modern audiences exposed to pornography and sex scenes in movies, the novel's themes, themes, however, have remained as relevant as ever. Some might say, the themes, of class and gender, sex and masculinity, mind and body, have somehow only gained relevance over the last century.

'Lady Chatterley's Lover' movie review: Emma Corrin shines in this sexy, well-acted adaptation

<p>The Marvel Cinematic Universe or MCU is the biggest film franchise of all time. By far. There is no other that can even come close, be it box office returns or the cultural impact. However, it appears the so-called 'Avengers fatigue' prophesised by James Cameron all those years ago is finally coming into effect. When Marvel Studios and its parent company Disney decided to expand the MCU by launching half-dozen (or so) TV shows to support the new streaming service Disney+, fans were overjoyed. They were, after all, going to get a lot more of their favourite Marvel superheroes on the big and small screen. But as it turns out, too much of anything can be bad.&nbsp;</p>

<p>If you are generous, you could call 2022 for MCU mediocre (MCU = Mediocre Cinematic Universe?). But somebody making an honest assessment would call it, um, awful. There is indeed a crisis in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. After an average 2021, it was expected and hoped that Marvel Studios will pull its socks up to deliver better movies and TV shows, but nearly everything fell flat. The studio released three movies and three TV shows this year (I am not including the specials 'Werewolf by Night' and 'The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special'), and with the single exception of 'She-Hulk' they all disappointed to varying extents.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Note that this scribe has ignored both critical reception and commercial performance in favour of his own opinion on MCU shows and movies. Treat everything as such.</p>

<p>Also Read:&nbsp;<strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-thanos-idiotic-plan-and-other-things-that-make-absolutely-no-sense-in-marvel-movies-498039">Six things that make absolutely NO sense in Marvel movies</a></strong></p>

<h2>What projects did Marvel Studios release this year?</h2>

<p>Yeah, well, let's go over them one by one, and analyse what went wrong with each of them.</p>

<h2>'Moon Knight'</h2>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/x7Krla_UxRg" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>Starring Oscar Isaac in the role of a man suffering from dissociative identity disorder, Jeremy Slater-created superhero series followed our hero Marc Spector and Steven Grant (two personas within one person and both played by Isaac) as he becomes possessed by an Egyptian god called Khonshu. The show also starred Ethan Hawke as a cult leader called Arthur Harrow who drags Spector/Grant into a conflict involving the Egyptian pantheon.&nbsp;</p>

<h3>So what went wrong?</h3>

<p>The series started off with two or three strong episodes with great character, dialogue, and editing. The tone was refreshingly dark, particularly when compared to the rest of the MCU fare. The early episodes also promised a worthwhile overarching mystery. However, the rest of the episodes revealed the mystery — which turned out to be not all that interesting. Also, the pacing somehow worsened as the season went on. It should have been the other way around.</p>

<p>Also Read:&nbsp;<strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/why-quentin-tarantino-martin-scorsese-et-al-are-right-about-marvel-movies-537156">Why Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, et al. are right about Marvel movies</a></strong></p>

<h2>'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness'</h2>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aWzlQ2N6qqg" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>None other than Sam Raimi had agreed to direct a 'Doctor Strange' film after the first film's Scott Derrickson opted out. It was exciting. And in hindsight one wishes Raimi had chosen some other project for his MCU debut. 'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness' was an utter mess. The premise was delicious, and Raimi at the helm augured good things. Elizabeth Olsen's Wanda Maximoff or Scarlet Witch was involved, and she looked angry in trailers. The movie revealed her as the main villain, and somebody with the ability to even defeat the Master of Mystic Arts himself.</p>

<h3>So what went wrong?</h3>

<p>The film, despite the trademark Raimi touches, was boring. Just dreadfully dull. It did not do enough to justify 'Multiverse of Madness' in the title. That promise will be fulfilled later by Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert’s ‘Everything Everywhere All At Once’ on a fraction of a budget. Perhaps the PG-13 rating hurt Raimi's sensibilities? I don't know. He had also made two superb 'Spider-Man' movies. So...</p>

<h2><strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-ms-marvel-seeing-red-episode-portrays-horrors-of-indias-partition-in-unflinching-detail-493454">'Ms Marvel'</a></strong></h2>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/m9EX0f6V11Y" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>Iman Vellani-led Marvel TV series 'Ms Marvel' featured — for the first time in MCU — a South Asian superhero. Vellani played the titular Pakistani-American teenager Kamala Khan in this Bisha K. Ali creation, who gets superpowers and becomes Ms Marvel. She is able to harness cosmic energy and use solidified light. The series wa a departure from the superhero's origins in the comics, in which she got powers due to the Inhuman gene in the wake of the Infinity storyline (her arc is worth reading, especially if you liked the series). Like 'Black Panther' and 'Shang-Chi', movies that brought the perspective of African-Americans and Asian-Americans to MCU, 'Ms Marvel' is firmly rooted in South Asian cultures.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Fans in India and Pakistan and the desi diaspora were tickled by references to Bollywood and Shah Rukh Khan, dialogues in Urdu/Hindi, Kamala's forbidding parents that are the reality of nearly every desi kid, and the presence of Hindi filmmaker and actor Farhan Akhtar as Waleed, the leader of the vigilante group, and Pakistani film star Fawad Khan. All of that made 'Ms Marvel' potentially one of the most refreshing MCU properties.</p>

<p>Also Read:<strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/ms-marvel-episode-4-goes-full-desi-with-farhan-akhtar-pasoori-and-a-rickshaw-chase-492980">&nbsp;'Ms Marvel' episode 4 goes full desi with Farhan Akhtar, Pasoori and a rickshaw chase</a></strong></p>

<h3>So what went wrong?</h3>

<p>Apart from the South Asian diaspora representation, the film did not really have a lot to offer to its audiences. Vellani was sparkling in the role but even she could not save the show from average writing and direction.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-thor-love-and-thunder-review-chris-hemsworths-mcu-film-proves-marvel-formula-has-lost-its-charm-495191">'Thor: Love and Thunder'</a></strong></h2>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Go8nTmfrQd8" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>2017's 'Thor: Ragnarok' remains one of the best MCU movies ever made. It reinvented Thor from a grumpy, self-righteous bore to somebody actually fun, and could crack jokes at his own expense. 'Love and Thunder' promised to take forward the adventures of Hemsworth's Thor. The film, directed by returning Taika Waititi, also promises two Thors at the price of one: Natalie Portman's Jane Foster, who gains the ability to wield Mjolnir now and becomes Mighty Thor.. The superhero also faced a new enemy in the form of Oscar-winning actor Christian Bale's menacing Gorr the God Butcher, who vowed to kill every god after his pleas to save his family and people went unheeded.&nbsp;</p>

<h3>So what went wrong?</h3>

<p>If it can be said, the film was too jokey for its own good. The script, by Waititi and Jennifer Kaytin Robinson, could not recreate the magic of the first film. The trouble, I felt, is that the film was missing that immaculate cocktail of intelligent, humour-laced writing and carefully crafted set pieces, that made 'Ragnarok' one of the best MCU entries. There were too many random things in the film, thrown into it as though to make sure SOMETHING will work. Despite Waititi being given more control this time (I assume), it felt crafted in the traditional Marvel mould — designed as per the good old formula that Kevin Feige et al have perfected over the last one and a half-decade. In other words, the film watches like your typical MCU movie.</p>

<h2><strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-she-hulk-finale-review-tatiana-maslanys-mcu-show-caps-off-a-great-season-with-a-gonzo-finale-525045">'She-Hulk: Attorney at Law'</a></strong></h2>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/u7JsKhI2An0" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>This is the one MCU product that I unadulteratedly loved. Which is a stark contrast to popular opinion. The thing is, 'She-Hulk: Attorney at Law' achieved exactly what it had set out to do: create a funny, self-aware superhero origin story with a smart, fourth-wall-breaking heroine and its 'legal comedy drama' aspects. 'She-Hulk' had a couple of uneven episodes and jokes that did not land, but its finale more than made up for its shortcomings. Titled 'Whose Show Is This?' it poked fun at the superhero genre and its timeworn tropes, MCU, and the MCU's architect Kevin Feige himself.&nbsp;</p>

<h3>So what went wrong?</h3>

<p>Nothing much, really. The show was really well done, and to reiterate it did what it promised.</p>

<h2><strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-black-panther-wakanda-forever-beautiful-as-a-homage-to-chadwick-boseman-it-sinks-as-a-film-533247">'Black Panther: Wakanda Forever'</a></strong></h2>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_Z3QKkl1WyM" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>The 30th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and a sequel to 2019's 'Black Panther, 'Black Panther: Wakanda Forever' was the biggest MCU disappointment, for it had the highest expectations for any Marvel project this year. &nbsp;Directed by returning director Ryan Coogler and written by Coogler himself with Joe Robert Cole, the film assumed a poignance as the main star of the franchise, Chadwick Boseman, died before the filming could begin. He passed away from colon cancer in 2020. &nbsp;The script, centring around him, had to be rewritten and a new Black Panther had to be there, in order to justify the title. Though, the role of T'Challa, the real name of the superhero and the king of Wakanda, had to be recast. Letitia Wright, Lupita Nyong'o, Danai Gurira, Winston Duke, Dominique Thorne, Florence Kasumba, Michaela Coel, Tenoch Huerta, Martin Freeman, and Angela Bassett star.</p>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/critically-speaking-is-black-panther-wakanda-forever-a-worthy-sequel-533395/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<h3>So what went wrong?</h3>

<p>'Wakanda Forever' was indeed a beautifully elegiac and emotional homage to Boseman, but it does not quite succeed at being a worthy sequel to the original. The plot was too rambling and incoherent for 'Wakanda Forever' to be anything but average as a film. A majority of the time needlessly bestowed upon supporting characters could easily have been sliced off to make it much leaner. After about halfway through it, I just stopped caring about what was happening. The film completely lost me when the typical MCU spectacle and action engulfed the screen.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>What is the reason new MCU movies and shows are lacking in quality?</strong></p>

<p>Too much expansion, too quickly. That is the prime reason. Earlier, the interconnectedness of MCU movies used to be a fun thing. Now, it's just annoying whenever a character in a project references another movie or show in MCU. It feels artificial and tacky, precisely because we are so used to that. There is little innovation, and despite the promise of projects that we in India would call 'hatke' like 'WandaVision, almost none of them have delivered the goods. Due to the&nbsp;abundance of content, Feige cannot have quality control over everything. And thus, MCU and fans are suffering.</p>


The Marvel Cinematic Universe or MCU is the biggest film franchise of all time. By far. There is no other that can even come close, be it box office returns or the cultural impact.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe or MCU is the biggest film franchise of all time. By far. There is no other that can even come close, be it box office returns or the cultural impact. However, it appears the so-called 'Avengers fatigue' prophesised by James Cameron all those years ago is finally coming into effect. When Marvel Studios and its parent company Disney decided to expand the MCU by launching half-dozen (or so) TV shows to support the new streaming service Disney+, fans were overjoyed. They were, after all, going to get a lot more of their favourite Marvel superheroes on the big and small screen. But as it turns out, too much of anything can be bad. If you are generous, you could call 2022 for MCU mediocre (MCU = Mediocre Cinematic Universe?). But somebody making an honest assessment would call it, um, awful. There is indeed a crisis in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. After an average 2021, it was expected and hoped that Marvel Studios will pull its socks up to deliver better movies and TV shows, but nearly everything fell flat. The studio released three movies and three TV shows this year (I am not including the specials 'Werewolf by Night' and 'The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special'), and with the single exception of 'She-Hulk' they all disappointed to varying extents. Note that this scribe has ignored both critical reception and commercial performance in favour of his own opinion on MCU shows and movies. Treat everything as such. Also Read: Six things that make absolutely NO sense in Marvel movies What projects did Marvel Studios release this year? Yeah, well, let's go over them one by one, and analyse what went wrong with each of them. 'Moon Knight' Starring Oscar Isaac in the role of a man suffering from dissociative identity disorder, Jeremy Slater-created superhero series followed our hero Marc Spector and Steven Grant (two personas within one person and both played by Isaac) as he becomes possessed by an Egyptian god called Khonshu. The show also starred Ethan Hawke as a cult leader called Arthur Harrow who drags Spector/Grant into a conflict involving the Egyptian pantheon. So what went wrong? The series started off with two or three strong episodes with great character, dialogue, and editing. The tone was refreshingly dark, particularly when compared to the rest of the MCU fare. The early episodes also promised a worthwhile overarching mystery. However, the rest of the episodes revealed the mystery — which turned out to be not all that interesting. Also, the pacing somehow worsened as the season went on. It should have been the other way around. Also Read: Why Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, et al. are right about Marvel movies 'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness' None other than Sam Raimi had agreed to direct a 'Doctor Strange' film after the first film's Scott Derrickson opted out. It was exciting. And in hindsight one wishes Raimi had chosen some other project for his MCU debut. 'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness' was an utter mess. The premise was delicious, and Raimi at the helm augured good things. Elizabeth Olsen's Wanda Maximoff or Scarlet Witch was involved, and she looked angry in trailers. The movie revealed her as the main villain, and somebody with the ability to even defeat the Master of Mystic Arts himself. So what went wrong? The film, despite the trademark Raimi touches, was boring. Just dreadfully dull. It did not do enough to justify 'Multiverse of Madness' in the title. That promise will be fulfilled later by Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert’s ‘Everything Everywhere All At Once’ on a fraction of a budget. Perhaps the PG-13 rating hurt Raimi's sensibilities? I don't know. He had also made two superb 'Spider-Man' movies. So... 'Ms Marvel' Iman Vellani-led Marvel TV series 'Ms Marvel' featured — for the first time in MCU — a South Asian superhero. Vellani played the titular Pakistani-American teenager Kamala Khan in this Bisha K. Ali creation, who gets superpowers and becomes Ms Marvel. She is able to harness cosmic energy and use solidified light. The series wa a departure from the superhero's origins in the comics, in which she got powers due to the Inhuman gene in the wake of the Infinity storyline (her arc is worth reading, especially if you liked the series). Like 'Black Panther' and 'Shang-Chi', movies that brought the perspective of African-Americans and Asian-Americans to MCU, 'Ms Marvel' is firmly rooted in South Asian cultures. Fans in India and Pakistan and the desi diaspora were tickled by references to Bollywood and Shah Rukh Khan, dialogues in Urdu/Hindi, Kamala's forbidding parents that are the reality of nearly every desi kid, and the presence of Hindi filmmaker and actor Farhan Akhtar as Waleed, the leader of the vigilante group, and Pakistani film star Fawad Khan. All of that made 'Ms Marvel' potentially one of the most refreshing MCU properties. Also Read: 'Ms Marvel' episode 4 goes full desi with Farhan Akhtar, Pasoori and a rickshaw chase So what went wrong? Apart from the South Asian diaspora representation, the film did not really have a lot to offer to its audiences. Vellani was sparkling in the role but even she could not save the show from average writing and direction. 'Thor: Love and Thunder' 2017's 'Thor: Ragnarok' remains one of the best MCU movies ever made. It reinvented Thor from a grumpy, self-righteous bore to somebody actually fun, and could crack jokes at his own expense. 'Love and Thunder' promised to take forward the adventures of Hemsworth's Thor. The film, directed by returning Taika Waititi, also promises two Thors at the price of one: Natalie Portman's Jane Foster, who gains the ability to wield Mjolnir now and becomes Mighty Thor.. The superhero also faced a new enemy in the form of Oscar-winning actor Christian Bale's menacing Gorr the God Butcher, who vowed to kill every god after his pleas to save his family and people went unheeded. So what went wrong? If it can be said, the film was too jokey for its own good. The script, by Waititi and Jennifer Kaytin Robinson, could not recreate the magic of the first film. The trouble, I felt, is that the film was missing that immaculate cocktail of intelligent, humour-laced writing and carefully crafted set pieces, that made 'Ragnarok' one of the best MCU entries. There were too many random things in the film, thrown into it as though to make sure SOMETHING will work. Despite Waititi being given more control this time (I assume), it felt crafted in the traditional Marvel mould — designed as per the good old formula that Kevin Feige et al have perfected over the last one and a half-decade. In other words, the film watches like your typical MCU movie. 'She-Hulk: Attorney at Law' This is the one MCU product that I unadulteratedly loved. Which is a stark contrast to popular opinion. The thing is, 'She-Hulk: Attorney at Law' achieved exactly what it had set out to do: create a funny, self-aware superhero origin story with a smart, fourth-wall-breaking heroine and its 'legal comedy drama' aspects. 'She-Hulk' had a couple of uneven episodes and jokes that did not land, but its finale more than made up for its shortcomings. Titled 'Whose Show Is This?' it poked fun at the superhero genre and its timeworn tropes, MCU, and the MCU's architect Kevin Feige himself. So what went wrong? Nothing much, really. The show was really well done, and to reiterate it did what it promised. 'Black Panther: Wakanda Forever' The 30th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and a sequel to 2019's 'Black Panther, 'Black Panther: Wakanda Forever' was the biggest MCU disappointment, for it had the highest expectations for any Marvel project this year. Directed by returning director Ryan Coogler and written by Coogler himself with Joe Robert Cole, the film assumed a poignance as the main star of the franchise, Chadwick Boseman, died before the filming could begin. He passed away from colon cancer in 2020. The script, centring around him, had to be rewritten and a new Black Panther had to be there, in order to justify the title. Though, the role of T'Challa, the real name of the superhero and the king of Wakanda, had to be recast. Letitia Wright, Lupita Nyong'o, Danai Gurira, Winston Duke, Dominique Thorne, Florence Kasumba, Michaela Coel, Tenoch Huerta, Martin Freeman, and Angela Bassett star. So what went wrong? 'Wakanda Forever' was indeed a beautifully elegiac and emotional homage to Boseman, but it does not quite succeed at being a worthy sequel to the original. The plot was too rambling and incoherent for 'Wakanda Forever' to be anything but average as a film. A majority of the time needlessly bestowed upon supporting characters could easily have been sliced off to make it much leaner. After about halfway through it, I just stopped caring about what was happening. The film completely lost me when the typical MCU spectacle and action engulfed the screen. What is the reason new MCU movies and shows are lacking in quality? Too much expansion, too quickly. That is the prime reason. Earlier, the interconnectedness of MCU movies used to be a fun thing. Now, it's just annoying whenever a character in a project references another movie or show in MCU. It feels artificial and tacky, precisely because we are so used to that. There is little innovation, and despite the promise of projects that we in India would call 'hatke' like 'WandaVision, almost none of them have delivered the goods. Due to the abundance of content, Feige cannot have quality control over everything. And thus, MCU and fans are suffering.

MCU had a terrible 2022. What went wrong?

<p>In Anvitaa Dutt's 'Qala', Tripti Dimri essays the titular heroine, Qala Manjushree,&nbsp;a famed and wealthy playback singer in what appears to be the 1930s and 1940s India. Her life appears to be the same as&nbsp;a successful celebrity. That is, until we see her haunted, seemingly literally, by a shadow, someone, from her past. The narrative switches to Qala's childhood. She was born to a mother Urmila (Swastika Mukherjee) who hated her for, as she saw it, killing her twin brother in the womb.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Qala's childhood was spent in futile attempts at pleasing her mother by practicing her vocal skills for hours on end, not realising that no matter how much she tries to be a good singer, she would never be what her mother desires: a son who could further her legacy in classical music.</p>

<p>It is not as though Urmila actively hates her daughter, the thing is she refuses to acknowledge her existence most of the time. When she does so, she is distracted as though she has other, more important matters to attend to.</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2g2sXGixh3w" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>Then comes Jagan, played by Babil Khan, the son of the late Irrfan Khan. A superior talent to Qala at least in Urmila's opinion, he quickly became the son she never had.</p>

<p>In the present, despite being a top talent in the industry, Qala is unable to find happiness. Whatever successes she finds in her life, one of which is a Golden Vinyl, she is unable to shake off that feeling of inadequacy prompted by her mother's scorn and refusal to keep in touch.</p>

<p>Soon enough, as memories that are triggered by the aforementioned apparition flood back, Qala has a mental breakdown, and is unable to distinguish between what is real and what's just in her mind.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Once again, Dutt, who earned acclaim for her impressive (if a bit uneven), directorial debut 'Bulbul' in 2020, weaves a compelling tale of ambition, envy, rampant misogyny, and mental health. It is easy to see that she has grown quite a bit in the intervening two years. Her direction is assured, and her command of the admittedly strong material (she has also written the script) is robust.</p>
<img alt="qala" data-caption="Tripti Dimri and Babil Khan in 'Qala'." data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="c866d11e-837c-49a5-bd6d-aca8914e33dc" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/qala.png" />
<p>The good writing extends to the characters that really do feel like living, breathing people. Given the character, many other actors would have descended into melodrama, but Dimri portrays Qala with rare, refreshing nuance, giving a full-bodied performance.&nbsp;Even Urmila, certainly a loathsome character, is given a humane touch. Even she earns sympathy, in the end. Swastika is fantastic in the role.</p>

<p>Babil as Jagan is not given a lot of dialogue, but he does appear to carry an intensity in his eyes similar to his legendary father. The young actor clearly has talent.</p>

<p>Like 'Bulbul', 'Qala' is also an absolute visual feast. The period setting is realised in immaculate detail. Whether it is the snowy, desolate landscapes of a hamlet in the Himalayan foothills, or the interiors of a recording studio, the images are crafted with the precision of a surgeon by Siddharth Diwan, who also handled the camera for Anvitaa in 'Bulbul'. The sumptuousness of the imagery also translates to set and costume design.</p>

<p>I did find 'Qala' a bit too long. The plot appears to be stretched too thin before the credits roll. But this is just a minor nitpick, for most of its runtime, this film leaves you awed. And once again, I find myself asking about a Netflix movie: why is this film not in theatres?</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


In Anvitaa Dutt's 'Qala', Tripti Dimri essays the titular heroine, Qala Manjushree, a famed and wealthy playback singer in what appears to be the 1930s and 1940s India.

In Anvitaa Dutt's 'Qala', Tripti Dimri essays the titular heroine, Qala Manjushree, a famed and wealthy playback singer in what appears to be the 1930s and 1940s India. Her life appears to be the same as a successful celebrity. That is, until we see her haunted, seemingly literally, by a shadow, someone, from her past. The narrative switches to Qala's childhood. She was born to a mother Urmila (Swastika Mukherjee) who hated her for, as she saw it, killing her twin brother in the womb. Qala's childhood was spent in futile attempts at pleasing her mother by practicing her vocal skills for hours on end, not realising that no matter how much she tries to be a good singer, she would never be what her mother desires: a son who could further her legacy in classical music. It is not as though Urmila actively hates her daughter, the thing is she refuses to acknowledge her existence most of the time. When she does so, she is distracted as though she has other, more important matters to attend to. Then comes Jagan, played by Babil Khan, the son of the late Irrfan Khan. A superior talent to Qala at least in Urmila's opinion, he quickly became the son she never had. In the present, despite being a top talent in the industry, Qala is unable to find happiness. Whatever successes she finds in her life, one of which is a Golden Vinyl, she is unable to shake off that feeling of inadequacy prompted by her mother's scorn and refusal to keep in touch. Soon enough, as memories that are triggered by the aforementioned apparition flood back, Qala has a mental breakdown, and is unable to distinguish between what is real and what's just in her mind. Once again, Dutt, who earned acclaim for her impressive (if a bit uneven), directorial debut 'Bulbul' in 2020, weaves a compelling tale of ambition, envy, rampant misogyny, and mental health. It is easy to see that she has grown quite a bit in the intervening two years. Her direction is assured, and her command of the admittedly strong material (she has also written the script) is robust. The good writing extends to the characters that really do feel like living, breathing people. Given the character, many other actors would have descended into melodrama, but Dimri portrays Qala with rare, refreshing nuance, giving a full-bodied performance. Even Urmila, certainly a loathsome character, is given a humane touch. Even she earns sympathy, in the end. Swastika is fantastic in the role. Babil as Jagan is not given a lot of dialogue, but he does appear to carry an intensity in his eyes similar to his legendary father. The young actor clearly has talent. Like 'Bulbul', 'Qala' is also an absolute visual feast. The period setting is realised in immaculate detail. Whether it is the snowy, desolate landscapes of a hamlet in the Himalayan foothills, or the interiors of a recording studio, the images are crafted with the precision of a surgeon by Siddharth Diwan, who also handled the camera for Anvitaa in 'Bulbul'. The sumptuousness of the imagery also translates to set and costume design. I did find 'Qala' a bit too long. The plot appears to be stretched too thin before the credits roll. But this is just a minor nitpick, for most of its runtime, this film leaves you awed. And once again, I find myself asking about a Netflix movie: why is this film not in theatres?

'Qala' movie review: Tripti Dimri film weaves a compelling, visually stunning tale

‘Black Panther: Wakanda Forever’ is finally here. Director Ryan Coogler had a Herculean task of making a worthwhile sequel without its biggest star, the late Chadwick Boseman. Did he succeed? Watch Critically Speaking to find out.

Critically speaking: Is 'Black Panther: Wakanda Forever' a worthy sequel?

<p>Quentin Tarantino has become the latest respected filmmaker to earn brickbats for his less-than-positive comments on movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, or rather in this particular case, their impact on the theatrical business. While speaking to Tom Segura on his podcast, Tarantino, in his usual blunt manner, said, “I don’t love them. No, I don’t. I don’t hate them. But I don’t love them. I mean, look, I used to collect Marvel comics like crazy when I was a kid. There’s an aspect that if these movies were coming out when I was in my twenties, I would totally be f***ing happy and totally love them. [But] they wouldn’t be the only movies being made, they would be those movies amongst other movies. I’m almost 60 so I’m not quite as excited about them.”</p>

<p>He added, “My only axe to grind is they’re the only things that seem to be made. And they’re the only things that seem to generate any kind of excitement amongst a fan base or even for the studio making them … So it’s just the fact that they are the entire representation of this era of movies right now. There’s not really much room for anything else. That’s my problem. It’s a problem of representation.”</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WCx67cnQQf8" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>Also Read:&nbsp;<strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/marvel-actor-are-not-movie-stars-quentin-tarantino-on-marvel-isation-of-hollywood-536672">Marvel actors are not movie stars: Quentin Tarantino on 'Marvel-isation of Hollywood'</a></strong></p>

<h2>What is the impact of MCU?</h2>

<p>Owned by Disney, Marvel Studios' giant spandex filmic empire, shortened to MCU, spans 30 movies and almost $1 billion per movie in worldwide box office receipts ($27.982 billion in returns at the time of writing). That's a lot of money, and it has allowed theatrical chains to also fill their coffers. One might almost assume that MCU is a force for good for cinema halls. In one aspect it is, yeah. These movies do lure millions of moviegoers to theatres.&nbsp;</p>

<p>But MCU's meteoric rise to the top of Hollywood has come at a cost of smaller movies. Well, smaller is maybe not the correct word. Try movies not related to any existing franchise or recognisable IP (intellectual property). The reason there has been an influx of films in franchises like Marvel, DC, Star Wars, Fast &amp; Furious, and so on is that at the moment, and this is a sort of generalisation, these are the movies that work and justify their $200 to $250 (typically) price tags. Shelling out over $200 million on original movies, even if such movies come from names like Martin Scorsese, is no longer viable -- something even Netflix, a streaming service, learned to its sorrow. 'The Irishman', released in 2019, reportedly cost $250 million, with marketing and promotions costs included.</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7OQ7HebQBIM" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>While at the moment, it is still the biggest streaming service by far with 220.7 million subscribers (Amazon's Prime Video is a distant second with 175 million subscribers), Netflix lost almost a million subscribers between April and July this year. It could have lost more, had it not been for 'Stranger Things', a show that winds up with its upcoming season.</p>

<p>Also Read:&nbsp;<strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-simu-liu-slams-quentin-tarantinos-comment-on-marvel-actors-calls-golden-age-of-hollywood-white-as-hell-536693">Simu Liu slams Quentin Tarantino's comment on Marvel actors, says Golden Age of Hollywood was 'white as hell'</a></strong></p>

<h2>How did the Marvel vs cinema debate begin in the first place?</h2>

<p>It was Marty himself who, certainly without meaning to, kicked off the whole shebang over Marvel vs Cinema in 2019. While speaking to Empire magazine, he said, “I tried, you know? But that’s not cinema. Honestly, the closest I can think of them, as well-made as they are, with actors doing the best they can under the circumstances, is theme parks. It isn’t the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being.”</p>

<p>After Scorsese, filmmakers like Francis Ford Coppola (who was blunter, called Marvel movies "despicable"), Jane Campion, James Cameron, Ridley Scott, Alejandro G. Iñárritu, Bong Joon-Ho, among others have aired their grievances against the MCU movies or their domination of the cinematic landscape that has come at a cost of original films.</p>

<p>Also Read:&nbsp;<strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-thanos-idiotic-plan-and-other-things-that-make-absolutely-no-sense-in-marvel-movies-498039">Six things that make absolutely NO sense in Marvel movies</a></strong></p>

<h2>Is there truth to the opinion of these filmmakers?</h2>

<p>This debate of Marvel being pitted against cinema (or "real" cinema) has proved incredibly resilient and nobody appears to come to a consensus as to whether MCU movies are really detrimental to cinema as a whole or not. It is not as if MCU movies are bad. But the problem, as Tarantino said, is all we seem to see are superhero movies. Of course, that is not true. Studios like A24 continue to champion indie fare. But it does appear that way due to the sheer amount of money being poured into the development, production, post-production, marketing, promotion, and finally release of superhero films. And such money ends up being worthwhile because they do have a huge audience around the world, and if they are good enough, will recoup all that money.</p>

<p>So to briefly answer the question, yes. MCU movies are greatly entertaining, are mostly written well, feature decent performances, are action-packed and family-friendly, but they are also shallow in terms of cinematic experience and go by a definite formula (put in a few jokes, one-liners, perhaps reference to 80s or 90s pop culture once in a while, CGI mayhem of a final battle, and so on). In short, they are not challenging enough for the discerning movie buff. All that would be fine, but the fact that they so comprehensively dominate the business in terms of marketing and pop culture footprint makes sure that there are fewer and fewer people wanting to see original films. They would rather watch what they know and expect.&nbsp;And thus, fewer and fewer creatives, writers, and directors are willing to venture out and make non-superhero and non-franchise movies. And that, dear readers, is a problem.</p>

<p><br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


Quentin Tarantino has become the latest respected filmmaker to earn brickbats for his less-than-positive comments on movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, or rather in this particular case, their impact on the theatrical business.

Quentin Tarantino has become the latest respected filmmaker to earn brickbats for his less-than-positive comments on movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, or rather in this particular case, their impact on the theatrical business. While speaking to Tom Segura on his podcast, Tarantino, in his usual blunt manner, said, “I don’t love them. No, I don’t. I don’t hate them. But I don’t love them. I mean, look, I used to collect Marvel comics like crazy when I was a kid. There’s an aspect that if these movies were coming out when I was in my twenties, I would totally be f***ing happy and totally love them. [But] they wouldn’t be the only movies being made, they would be those movies amongst other movies. I’m almost 60 so I’m not quite as excited about them.” He added, “My only axe to grind is they’re the only things that seem to be made. And they’re the only things that seem to generate any kind of excitement amongst a fan base or even for the studio making them … So it’s just the fact that they are the entire representation of this era of movies right now. There’s not really much room for anything else. That’s my problem. It’s a problem of representation.” Also Read: Marvel actors are not movie stars: Quentin Tarantino on 'Marvel-isation of Hollywood' What is the impact of MCU? Owned by Disney, Marvel Studios' giant spandex filmic empire, shortened to MCU, spans 30 movies and almost $1 billion per movie in worldwide box office receipts ($27.982 billion in returns at the time of writing). That's a lot of money, and it has allowed theatrical chains to also fill their coffers. One might almost assume that MCU is a force for good for cinema halls. In one aspect it is, yeah. These movies do lure millions of moviegoers to theatres. But MCU's meteoric rise to the top of Hollywood has come at a cost of smaller movies. Well, smaller is maybe not the correct word. Try movies not related to any existing franchise or recognisable IP (intellectual property). The reason there has been an influx of films in franchises like Marvel, DC, Star Wars, Fast & Furious, and so on is that at the moment, and this is a sort of generalisation, these are the movies that work and justify their $200 to $250 (typically) price tags. Shelling out over $200 million on original movies, even if such movies come from names like Martin Scorsese, is no longer viable -- something even Netflix, a streaming service, learned to its sorrow. 'The Irishman', released in 2019, reportedly cost $250 million, with marketing and promotions costs included. While at the moment, it is still the biggest streaming service by far with 220.7 million subscribers (Amazon's Prime Video is a distant second with 175 million subscribers), Netflix lost almost a million subscribers between April and July this year. It could have lost more, had it not been for 'Stranger Things', a show that winds up with its upcoming season. Also Read: Simu Liu slams Quentin Tarantino's comment on Marvel actors, says Golden Age of Hollywood was 'white as hell' How did the Marvel vs cinema debate begin in the first place? It was Marty himself who, certainly without meaning to, kicked off the whole shebang over Marvel vs Cinema in 2019. While speaking to Empire magazine, he said, “I tried, you know? But that’s not cinema. Honestly, the closest I can think of them, as well-made as they are, with actors doing the best they can under the circumstances, is theme parks. It isn’t the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being.” After Scorsese, filmmakers like Francis Ford Coppola (who was blunter, called Marvel movies "despicable"), Jane Campion, James Cameron, Ridley Scott, Alejandro G. Iñárritu, Bong Joon-Ho, among others have aired their grievances against the MCU movies or their domination of the cinematic landscape that has come at a cost of original films. Also Read: Six things that make absolutely NO sense in Marvel movies Is there truth to the opinion of these filmmakers? This debate of Marvel being pitted against cinema (or "real" cinema) has proved incredibly resilient and nobody appears to come to a consensus as to whether MCU movies are really detrimental to cinema as a whole or not. It is not as if MCU movies are bad. But the problem, as Tarantino said, is all we seem to see are superhero movies. Of course, that is not true. Studios like A24 continue to champion indie fare. But it does appear that way due to the sheer amount of money being poured into the development, production, post-production, marketing, promotion, and finally release of superhero films. And such money ends up being worthwhile because they do have a huge audience around the world, and if they are good enough, will recoup all that money. So to briefly answer the question, yes. MCU movies are greatly entertaining, are mostly written well, feature decent performances, are action-packed and family-friendly, but they are also shallow in terms of cinematic experience and go by a definite formula (put in a few jokes, one-liners, perhaps reference to 80s or 90s pop culture once in a while, CGI mayhem of a final battle, and so on). In short, they are not challenging enough for the discerning movie buff. All that would be fine, but the fact that they so comprehensively dominate the business in terms of marketing and pop culture footprint makes sure that there are fewer and fewer people wanting to see original films. They would rather watch what they know and expect. And thus, fewer and fewer creatives, writers, and directors are willing to venture out and make non-superhero and non-franchise movies. And that, dear readers, is a problem.

Why Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, et al. are right about Marvel movies

<p>Disney's latest animated feature 'Strange World' takes inspiration from classic adventure movies and pulp magazines but fashions a story that unfortunately has little wow factor. This was apparent to me by what little marketing I saw of the film, a clear sign of a studio giving up on its own film. It is not that 'Strange World' is completely irredeemable. It can be a diverting experience for kids. Though, in the Inox Kiddle theatre where I watched the film, the kids appeared to be more interested in the slides, going "Whee!" every now and then. I didn't mind the obtrusion. I knew exactly where the film was going less than halfway through it.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The Clades are a family of explorers, and exploring is what they shall do until the Day of Judgment. Or at least that is the outlook of the patriarch Jaeger Clade (Dennis Quaid) believes. He ventures out into the mountains with his son Searcher (Jake Gyllenhaal) around the land of Avalonia. On such a trip, Searcher discovers a plant that exudes energy. Satisfied, he wishes to return, but Jaeger wants to go ahead and find out what is beyond the mountains. Furious with what he perceives as a lack of courage and ambition, he continues, while the rest of the expedition comes back to their lands.</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bKh2G73gCCs" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>A quarter of a century later, Avalonia is overflowing with prosperity due to the said energy-giving plant, dubbed Pando. Searcher is now a farmer who grows Pando and lives a quiet life away from the city. He is also a married man and his kid, Ethan (Jaboukie Young-White), is more like his grandpa than he would have liked. His farm is visited by Avalonia president Callisto Mal (Luci Liu), who informs him that a sort of corruption is destroying Pando crops. An expedition beneath the earth will have to be taken to find out the cause.&nbsp;</p>

<p>'Strange World' is a beautiful-looking film. The colours are used judiciously and carefully. Beneath the planet, the Avalonians discover a whole new world, something we have seen in numerous films and novels (Jules Verne's 'Journey to the Center of the Earth'). However, the treatment of the world underneath is quite inventive, and goes beyond the look of the surroundings.</p>

<p>There are creatures with no discernible sense organs but still appear to emit sound and be aware of their surroundings. Some resemble giant octopi, only made out of jelly. Some are dragon-like but are deemed less dangerous due to their fuzzy, translucent bodies. Some are just blobs. All that gives an air of otherworldliness to the world beneath the ground.&nbsp;</p>

<p>However, as good as a visual experience 'Strange World' might be, it fails as a film. The script, not exactly 'bad' per se, is painfully predictable. There is a narrative turn at the end, something I suspect the writer Qui Nguyen and director Don Hall, thought to be a twist. But the only thing it will elicit is a drawn-out groan. That the film comes from the stables of Disney makes one mind inclined towards one kind of denouement. 'Strange World' ends exactly as you would expect.</p>

<p>Cinematic pleasure can be derived from 'Strange World' only if you comfort-watch animated movies, and want to see familiar tropes and plot points.</p>

<p>Nguyen and Hall last collaborated on 'Raya and the Last Dragon', which was a thrilling, immersive experience that kept the viewer on their toes—not so much this one. If you have not seen that film, I'd suggest catching up with it instead.</p>

<p><br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


Disney's latest animated feature 'Strange World' takes inspiration from classic adventure movies and pulp magazines but fashions a story that unfortunately has little wow factor.

Disney's latest animated feature 'Strange World' takes inspiration from classic adventure movies and pulp magazines but fashions a story that unfortunately has little wow factor. This was apparent to me by what little marketing I saw of the film, a clear sign of a studio giving up on its own film. It is not that 'Strange World' is completely irredeemable. It can be a diverting experience for kids. Though, in the Inox Kiddle theatre where I watched the film, the kids appeared to be more interested in the slides, going "Whee!" every now and then. I didn't mind the obtrusion. I knew exactly where the film was going less than halfway through it. The Clades are a family of explorers, and exploring is what they shall do until the Day of Judgment. Or at least that is the outlook of the patriarch Jaeger Clade (Dennis Quaid) believes. He ventures out into the mountains with his son Searcher (Jake Gyllenhaal) around the land of Avalonia. On such a trip, Searcher discovers a plant that exudes energy. Satisfied, he wishes to return, but Jaeger wants to go ahead and find out what is beyond the mountains. Furious with what he perceives as a lack of courage and ambition, he continues, while the rest of the expedition comes back to their lands. A quarter of a century later, Avalonia is overflowing with prosperity due to the said energy-giving plant, dubbed Pando. Searcher is now a farmer who grows Pando and lives a quiet life away from the city. He is also a married man and his kid, Ethan (Jaboukie Young-White), is more like his grandpa than he would have liked. His farm is visited by Avalonia president Callisto Mal (Luci Liu), who informs him that a sort of corruption is destroying Pando crops. An expedition beneath the earth will have to be taken to find out the cause. 'Strange World' is a beautiful-looking film. The colours are used judiciously and carefully. Beneath the planet, the Avalonians discover a whole new world, something we have seen in numerous films and novels (Jules Verne's 'Journey to the Center of the Earth'). However, the treatment of the world underneath is quite inventive, and goes beyond the look of the surroundings. There are creatures with no discernible sense organs but still appear to emit sound and be aware of their surroundings. Some resemble giant octopi, only made out of jelly. Some are dragon-like but are deemed less dangerous due to their fuzzy, translucent bodies. Some are just blobs. All that gives an air of otherworldliness to the world beneath the ground. However, as good as a visual experience 'Strange World' might be, it fails as a film. The script, not exactly 'bad' per se, is painfully predictable. There is a narrative turn at the end, something I suspect the writer Qui Nguyen and director Don Hall, thought to be a twist. But the only thing it will elicit is a drawn-out groan. That the film comes from the stables of Disney makes one mind inclined towards one kind of denouement. 'Strange World' ends exactly as you would expect. Cinematic pleasure can be derived from 'Strange World' only if you comfort-watch animated movies, and want to see familiar tropes and plot points. Nguyen and Hall last collaborated on 'Raya and the Last Dragon', which was a thrilling, immersive experience that kept the viewer on their toes—not so much this one. If you have not seen that film, I'd suggest catching up with it instead.

'Strange World' movie review: Visually inventive, this Disney film is let down by its predictable plot

<p>Dutch film director Halina Reijn's 'Bodies Bodies Bodies' is one of the most satisfying and funny slasher thrillers you will see this year. The film harkens back to Agatha Christie's celebrated mystery novel 'And Then There Were None' and similarly puts a bunch of people — 21st-century youngsters, in this case — in a single location and cuts them off from the rest of the world. In the film, the location is a vacation house owned by the richest kid (Pete Davidson's David) and a hurricane shuts down all cell, and landline connectivity, and electricity. Oh, and a killer, with a predilection for using shiny sharp weapons, is on the loose.</p>

<p>Sophie (Amandla Stenberg) is a recovering addict who arrives unannounced with her girlfriend Bee ('Borat Subsequent Moviefilm' breakout Maria Bakalova) to the 'hurricane party' — which, I gather, is a thing in the United States where adventuresome people party before or even during a hurricane. They are not very enthusiastically welcomed by David, his girlfriend Emma (Chase Sui Wonders), Jordan (Myha'la Herrold), Alice (Rachel Sennott), and her boyfriend Greg (Lee Pace making a meal of the role of a dumb but hot middle-aged man).</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cTzGKsZjBOY" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>After a binge of booze and cocaine, they decide to indulge in a party game, called Bodies Bodies Bodies, where one of them becomes a murderer, and the others have to find out their identity. The concept soon seeps into real life when they scatter to play the game. Suddenly, David staggers towards them while clutching a gushing neck wound and dies. In disbelief and afraid for their own lives, they first team up to find Greg, who had gone to bed early and may be ex-military — &nbsp;which, they conclude, makes him most likely to be a killer.&nbsp;</p>

<p>But bodies continue to pile up, tension intensifies, and still, there is no hint as to who is the killer. And it's still network and electricity blackout. The characters then turn on each other, their barely concealed prejudices, insecurities, and grudges bursting forth. The result is less disturbing and more hilarious. Even as it ratchets up the suspense, 'Bodies Bodies Bodies' retains its humour. It is often inappropriately funny, blackly funny.</p>

<p>Through its setup, the film captures the modern-day, technology-related anxieties of millennials and later generations. The script, Kristen Roupenian has written the story and Sarah DeLappe has the screenplay credit, peppers in themes of privilege and faux-progressivism of white liberals. The film never gets ponderous, though, and these themes actually tie nicely into the film's humour. The fans of gore will not be disappointed, though it is not gratuitous.</p>

<p>'Bodies Bodies Bodies' is a wickedly funny slasher thriller that should be at the top of your watch list.</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


Dutch film director Halina Reijn's 'Bodies Bodies Bodies' is one of the most satisfying and funny slasher thrillers you will see this year. The film harkens back to Agatha Christie's celebrated mystery novel 'And Then There Were None' and similarly puts a bunch of people — 21st-century youngsters, in this case — in a single location and cuts them off from the rest of the world.

Dutch film director Halina Reijn's 'Bodies Bodies Bodies' is one of the most satisfying and funny slasher thrillers you will see this year. The film harkens back to Agatha Christie's celebrated mystery novel 'And Then There Were None' and similarly puts a bunch of people — 21st-century youngsters, in this case — in a single location and cuts them off from the rest of the world. In the film, the location is a vacation house owned by the richest kid (Pete Davidson's David) and a hurricane shuts down all cell, and landline connectivity, and electricity. Oh, and a killer, with a predilection for using shiny sharp weapons, is on the loose. Sophie (Amandla Stenberg) is a recovering addict who arrives unannounced with her girlfriend Bee ('Borat Subsequent Moviefilm' breakout Maria Bakalova) to the 'hurricane party' — which, I gather, is a thing in the United States where adventuresome people party before or even during a hurricane. They are not very enthusiastically welcomed by David, his girlfriend Emma (Chase Sui Wonders), Jordan (Myha'la Herrold), Alice (Rachel Sennott), and her boyfriend Greg (Lee Pace making a meal of the role of a dumb but hot middle-aged man). After a binge of booze and cocaine, they decide to indulge in a party game, called Bodies Bodies Bodies, where one of them becomes a murderer, and the others have to find out their identity. The concept soon seeps into real life when they scatter to play the game. Suddenly, David staggers towards them while clutching a gushing neck wound and dies. In disbelief and afraid for their own lives, they first team up to find Greg, who had gone to bed early and may be ex-military — which, they conclude, makes him most likely to be a killer. But bodies continue to pile up, tension intensifies, and still, there is no hint as to who is the killer. And it's still network and electricity blackout. The characters then turn on each other, their barely concealed prejudices, insecurities, and grudges bursting forth. The result is less disturbing and more hilarious. Even as it ratchets up the suspense, 'Bodies Bodies Bodies' retains its humour. It is often inappropriately funny, blackly funny. Through its setup, the film captures the modern-day, technology-related anxieties of millennials and later generations. The script, Kristen Roupenian has written the story and Sarah DeLappe has the screenplay credit, peppers in themes of privilege and faux-progressivism of white liberals. The film never gets ponderous, though, and these themes actually tie nicely into the film's humour. The fans of gore will not be disappointed, though it is not gratuitous. 'Bodies Bodies Bodies' is a wickedly funny slasher thriller that should be at the top of your watch list.

'Bodies Bodies Bodies' movie review: An entertaining, wickedly funny slasher thriller

<p>'Good Night Oppy' is a documentary film on Opportunity, the titular NASA Mars rover that was supposed to roam the Red Planet for just 90 sols or solar days (translate roughly to 92.5 Earth days) but ended up spending 15 earth years. The rover, whose objectives were to find out potential evidence of life, present or past, on the planet, analyse its geology and climate, and so on. The documentary, co-written and directed by Ryan White, uses pensive music, computer-generated visuals (designed by the wizards at Industrial Light &amp; Magic), and archival footage to recreate the journey of the cute, WALL-E-like robot that almost assumed a kind of life of its own, despite basically being a lifeless piece of metal come alive by the magic of technology.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Often referred to as "she" as though it were a close friend or a beloved pet by the NASA scientists and not a machine, Oppy proved to be invaluable in her decade-and-half journey across the harsh, desolate, and windy surface of Mars with its cratered terrain and forbidding climate.&nbsp;</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/W4t58Yruhds" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>The documentary perfectly captures what we find alluring about the universe. It's that with earth, there are few corners, if any, that are left unexplored. But we have hardly begun with the universe, and it may be several lifetimes before we make significant headway even out of our solar system -- let alone the wider known universe. Until then, it is Mars that is the current centre of attention of cosmologists. It beckons us towards itself and challenges us to uncover its secrets. If life, or evidence of it, can be found on the planet, it can help us learn more about why the earth is the only place that is so friendly to living beings.</p>

<p>WION spoke to White and NASA scientist Doug Ellison about the documentary, Mars missions, and whether colonisation of the planet as proposed by people like Elon Musk is a good idea.</p>

<p>Here are excerpts from the interviews:</p>

<h2>Doug Ellison</h2>

<p><img alt="doug ellison" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="d7e73a1f-a277-4d89-86ce-4eeacb92368e" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/doug-ellison.png" /></p>

<p><strong>Q. Hi Doug, the documentary was absolutely fascinating. I was wondering how were you involved in the mission.</strong></p>

<p>A. So as well as helping operate some of the cameras on Opportunity, I have a long history of working with some of the data from these rovers. And so when we heard that this documentary was going to be made, Industrial Light and Magic actually reached out and said, 'Where's the best orbital data that we can use?' And so I walked them through where to find some of the data from our rovers and from our orbiters as well. And remarkably, the data they use to recreate the visuals in the movie is the data that anybody anywhere in the world can download.</p>

<p><strong>Q. &nbsp;So, space exploration is an inherently interesting subject. I mean, we all have read about interplanetary species in science fiction novels and movies. So do you agree with people like Elon Musk, that we should colonise Mars and that&nbsp;humans should be interplanetary? I mean, is it worth doing?</strong></p>

<p>A. I think we have a huge amount to learn just by engaging in the kinds of projects that send humans into space and beyond. We have a huge amount to learn about Earth and ourselves and technology by embarking on the kinds of projects that will send humans to the moon and to Mars. Mars is a really unpleasant place to really be, you know. It's successfully killed a whole bunch of spacecraft, Opportunity included. And so I imagine for a very long time, the kind of human exploration we're going to have in somewhere like Mars... it's going to be kind of like Antarctica, right? It's going to be places where some scientists go for a few months to do science stuff, and then they come home again, because it's such an unpleasant place to work. But I think we're gonna be there, hopefully, in my lifetime.</p>

<p><strong>Q. Do you believe those people who claim that Mars once had life? And then perhaps something went wrong with its atmosphere. Climate change or something similar. Any evidence for that?</strong></p>

<p>A. So we know Mars used to be more habitable than it is now. And that's kind of what Opportunity told us is that, thanks to the data provided, that Mars was significantly more habitable in the past. And I think that's what's so exciting about going and doing these missions... trying to find out the answer to those questions.&nbsp;</p>

<h2>Ryan White</h2>

<p><img alt="ryan white" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="908158ff-ae39-4368-b5c3-e6215d4963e3" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/ryan-white.png" /></p>

<p><strong>Q. How did this opportunity (pardon the pun) come about?</strong></p>

<p>A. So I had dinner in March of 2020 with Film 45, which is Peter Berg's company, and Amblin entertainment, which is [Steven] Spielberg's company, and they pitched me the idea for this documentary about the little rover that was, you know, expected to last for 90 days, and exponentially outlasted that and lived for 15 years. And it was such a charming story to get to tell as a documentary filmmaker. So much of our work is about heavy subject matters, and they're very important stories to tell. But this one felt like a unique opportunity to be able to tell a really heartwarming story about human achievement that could be very uplifting.</p>

<p><strong>Q. The very concept of Space exploration is something that's exciting to all of us, especially those who grew up on science fiction. How successful do you think Opportunity was in its objectives?</strong></p>

<p>A. I feel like Spirit and Opportunity achieved their prime objective on their mission, which was to prove that water had once existed on Mars. They unequivocally proved that through their measurements and their journeys on Mars. Their legacy is in the technology that they are currently using&nbsp;to land rovers on Mars and Perseverance who's the latest rover on Mars, her mission is to return with samples of rocks.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Q. So what was the biggest challenge you faced while making this documentary?</strong></p>

<p>A. I think one of the biggest challenges was creating a photoreal Mars. You know, we had hundreds of 1000s of photographs from these robots, because they both have nine cameras that are taking photographs all day long. But we wanted to create a film where the audience felt like they were on Mars, with these rovers during the adventure and so we were so lucky that we were able to work with Industrial Light and Magic to bring a completely authentic and realistic Mars to life.</p>

<p>'Good Night Oppy' is now streaming on Amazon Prime Video.</p>


'Good Night Oppy' is a documentary film on Opportunity, the titular NASA Mars rover that was supposed to roam the Red Planet for just 90 sols or solar days (translate roughly to 92.

'Good Night Oppy' is a documentary film on Opportunity, the titular NASA Mars rover that was supposed to roam the Red Planet for just 90 sols or solar days (translate roughly to 92.5 Earth days) but ended up spending 15 earth years. The rover, whose objectives were to find out potential evidence of life, present or past, on the planet, analyse its geology and climate, and so on. The documentary, co-written and directed by Ryan White, uses pensive music, computer-generated visuals (designed by the wizards at Industrial Light & Magic), and archival footage to recreate the journey of the cute, WALL-E-like robot that almost assumed a kind of life of its own, despite basically being a lifeless piece of metal come alive by the magic of technology. Often referred to as "she" as though it were a close friend or a beloved pet by the NASA scientists and not a machine, Oppy proved to be invaluable in her decade-and-half journey across the harsh, desolate, and windy surface of Mars with its cratered terrain and forbidding climate. The documentary perfectly captures what we find alluring about the universe. It's that with earth, there are few corners, if any, that are left unexplored. But we have hardly begun with the universe, and it may be several lifetimes before we make significant headway even out of our solar system -- let alone the wider known universe. Until then, it is Mars that is the current centre of attention of cosmologists. It beckons us towards itself and challenges us to uncover its secrets. If life, or evidence of it, can be found on the planet, it can help us learn more about why the earth is the only place that is so friendly to living beings. WION spoke to White and NASA scientist Doug Ellison about the documentary, Mars missions, and whether colonisation of the planet as proposed by people like Elon Musk is a good idea. Here are excerpts from the interviews: Doug Ellison Q. Hi Doug, the documentary was absolutely fascinating. I was wondering how were you involved in the mission. A. So as well as helping operate some of the cameras on Opportunity, I have a long history of working with some of the data from these rovers. And so when we heard that this documentary was going to be made, Industrial Light and Magic actually reached out and said, 'Where's the best orbital data that we can use?' And so I walked them through where to find some of the data from our rovers and from our orbiters as well. And remarkably, the data they use to recreate the visuals in the movie is the data that anybody anywhere in the world can download. Q. So, space exploration is an inherently interesting subject. I mean, we all have read about interplanetary species in science fiction novels and movies. So do you agree with people like Elon Musk, that we should colonise Mars and that humans should be interplanetary? I mean, is it worth doing? A. I think we have a huge amount to learn just by engaging in the kinds of projects that send humans into space and beyond. We have a huge amount to learn about Earth and ourselves and technology by embarking on the kinds of projects that will send humans to the moon and to Mars. Mars is a really unpleasant place to really be, you know. It's successfully killed a whole bunch of spacecraft, Opportunity included. And so I imagine for a very long time, the kind of human exploration we're going to have in somewhere like Mars... it's going to be kind of like Antarctica, right? It's going to be places where some scientists go for a few months to do science stuff, and then they come home again, because it's such an unpleasant place to work. But I think we're gonna be there, hopefully, in my lifetime. Q. Do you believe those people who claim that Mars once had life? And then perhaps something went wrong with its atmosphere. Climate change or something similar. Any evidence for that? A. So we know Mars used to be more habitable than it is now. And that's kind of what Opportunity told us is that, thanks to the data provided, that Mars was significantly more habitable in the past. And I think that's what's so exciting about going and doing these missions... trying to find out the answer to those questions. Ryan White Q. How did this opportunity (pardon the pun) come about? A. So I had dinner in March of 2020 with Film 45, which is Peter Berg's company, and Amblin entertainment, which is [Steven] Spielberg's company, and they pitched me the idea for this documentary about the little rover that was, you know, expected to last for 90 days, and exponentially outlasted that and lived for 15 years. And it was such a charming story to get to tell as a documentary filmmaker. So much of our work is about heavy subject matters, and they're very important stories to tell. But this one felt like a unique opportunity to be able to tell a really heartwarming story about human achievement that could be very uplifting. Q. The very concept of Space exploration is something that's exciting to all of us, especially those who grew up on science fiction. How successful do you think Opportunity was in its objectives? A. I feel like Spirit and Opportunity achieved their prime objective on their mission, which was to prove that water had once existed on Mars. They unequivocally proved that through their measurements and their journeys on Mars. Their legacy is in the technology that they are currently using to land rovers on Mars and Perseverance who's the latest rover on Mars, her mission is to return with samples of rocks. Q. So what was the biggest challenge you faced while making this documentary? A. I think one of the biggest challenges was creating a photoreal Mars. You know, we had hundreds of 1000s of photographs from these robots, because they both have nine cameras that are taking photographs all day long. But we wanted to create a film where the audience felt like they were on Mars, with these rovers during the adventure and so we were so lucky that we were able to work with Industrial Light and Magic to bring a completely authentic and realistic Mars to life. 'Good Night Oppy' is now streaming on Amazon Prime Video.

Mars rover doc 'Good Night Oppy' director Ryan White: 'Biggest challenge was to create a photoreal Mars'

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Kshitij Mohan Rawat

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.