Ali Abbas Zafar's 'Jogi' is set pat-in-the-middle of the 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom in Delhi but is curiously disinterested in the transpiring violence. To be fair, the film does show scenes of brutality from one of the most shameful episodes in independent India's history. In those three days, appalling, politically-sanctioned violence engulfed the Indian national capital and thousands of innocents lost their lives. But the effect of those horrors -- horrors that serve as a chilling reminder that men are just beasts with less hair and will lose all pretense of compassion at the drop of a hat &nbsp;-- is severely impaired by a trite, dull story involving personal vengeance.

For those who don't know, the 1984 pogrom was a result of the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984, by her radicalised Sikh bodyguards. The assassination was the result of Operation Blue Star, an ill-advised, ill-planned, and artillery-backed full-frontal military operation ordered by Gandhi to eliminate the Khalistani terrorist Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. Bhindranwale was holed up with other militants in Amritsar's Golden Temple. But also in the temple complex were civilians, many of whom died in the crossfire. The Akal Takht, the highest seat of earthly authority for Sikhs, was laid to waste.&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/X3VgZVsvt-U" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

I have already given more context to the events depicted her than the script provides. Jogi (Diljit Dosanjh) is a young Sikh man who is unaware of Gandhi's assassination. While on a local bus, he and his elderly father are assaulted by their co-passengers. Unable to comprehend what is happening, he is told bluntly that his very religion is why he is being beaten.

Kumud Mishra's comically-evil politician (a stand-in for people like Sajjan Kumar, no doubt) is seen freeing criminals lodged for serious crimes and arming them with petrol bombs and metal rods. Each man is promised money, assigned to specific localities, and sicced on only Sikh-owned homes like rabid hounds. Never underestimate an enterprising Indian ringleader inciting a mob to violence. He also provides police officers with voter lists with Sikh names marked in red.&nbsp;

One of the cops, Chautala, played by Mohd. Zeeshan Ayyub, turns out to be honest and an old friend of Jogi. Coordinating with his friend, Chautala arranges for Jogi's family to leave for Punjab, even as the rest of the locality's Sikhs hide in a Gurudwara.&nbsp;

Also Read:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-%E2%80%98everything-everywhere-all-at-once%E2%80%99-movie-review-this-michelle-yeoh-starrer-is-a-cinematic-miracle-516701">&nbsp;‘Everything Everywhere All At Once’ movie review: This Michelle Yeoh-starrer is a cinematic miracle</a>

Also in the police force is Lalli (Hiten Tejwani), who, we are told, has hated Jogi, once his pal, for years and is willing to let the entire community get murdered if his foe would also be among the casualties. The reason for Lalli’s vendetta against his former friend is revealed in a flashback that is ludicurously out of place. Lalli is also given a redemption of sorts. He is not the anti-hero the film thinks he is.

'Jogi' is at its strongest when its focus is on the pogrom&nbsp;and its immediate impact. Whenever it goes too deep into the characters and their (badly written to boot) backstories, it loses focus. Personal stories surely have a place in overarching narratives. They give a certain flavour and intimacy to horrific events such as this. But those massacres were just not acts of revenge (and assuredly not for personal revenge). They were carefully orchestrated by politicians and targetted a single community with surgical precision.&nbsp;

Watch 'Jogi' only if you are a fan of Dosanjh, who is really in top form here, doing his best with the material he is saddled with. Mishra is also effective in a stereotypical role of a politician who sees the murders and rapes as a means to proceed to higher echelons of the party. Zeeshan Ayyub is also reliably good, but an actor of his calibre deserves characters with more depth than that.&nbsp;

'Jogi' is streaming on Netflix.

 
&nbsp;

Ali Abbas Zafar's 'Jogi' is set pat-in-the-middle of the 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom in Delhi but is curiously disinterested in the transpiring violence. To be fair, the film does show scenes of brutality from one of the most shameful episodes in independent India's history.

Ali Abbas Zafar's 'Jogi' is set pat-in-the-middle of the 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom in Delhi but is curiously disinterested in the transpiring violence. To be fair, the film does show scenes of brutality from one of the most shameful episodes in independent India's history. In those three days, appalling, politically-sanctioned violence engulfed the Indian national capital and thousands of innocents lost their lives. But the effect of those horrors -- horrors that serve as a chilling reminder that men are just beasts with less hair and will lose all pretense of compassion at the drop of a hat -- is severely impaired by a trite, dull story involving personal vengeance. For those who don't know, the 1984 pogrom was a result of the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984, by her radicalised Sikh bodyguards. The assassination was the result of Operation Blue Star, an ill-advised, ill-planned, and artillery-backed full-frontal military operation ordered by Gandhi to eliminate the Khalistani terrorist Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. Bhindranwale was holed up with other militants in Amritsar's Golden Temple. But also in the temple complex were civilians, many of whom died in the crossfire. The Akal Takht, the highest seat of earthly authority for Sikhs, was laid to waste. I have already given more context to the events depicted her than the script provides. Jogi (Diljit Dosanjh) is a young Sikh man who is unaware of Gandhi's assassination. While on a local bus, he and his elderly father are assaulted by their co-passengers. Unable to comprehend what is happening, he is told bluntly that his very religion is why he is being beaten. Kumud Mishra's comically-evil politician (a stand-in for people like Sajjan Kumar, no doubt) is seen freeing criminals lodged for serious crimes and arming them with petrol bombs and metal rods. Each man is promised money, assigned to specific localities, and sicced on only Sikh-owned homes like rabid hounds. Never underestimate an enterprising Indian ringleader inciting a mob to violence. He also provides police officers with voter lists with Sikh names marked in red. One of the cops, Chautala, played by Mohd. Zeeshan Ayyub, turns out to be honest and an old friend of Jogi. Coordinating with his friend, Chautala arranges for Jogi's family to leave for Punjab, even as the rest of the locality's Sikhs hide in a Gurudwara. Also Read: ‘Everything Everywhere All At Once’ movie review: This Michelle Yeoh-starrer is a cinematic miracle Also in the police force is Lalli (Hiten Tejwani), who, we are told, has hated Jogi, once his pal, for years and is willing to let the entire community get murdered if his foe would also be among the casualties. The reason for Lalli’s vendetta against his former friend is revealed in a flashback that is ludicurously out of place. Lalli is also given a redemption of sorts. He is not the anti-hero the film thinks he is. 'Jogi' is at its strongest when its focus is on the pogrom and its immediate impact. Whenever it goes too deep into the characters and their (badly written to boot) backstories, it loses focus. Personal stories surely have a place in overarching narratives. They give a certain flavour and intimacy to horrific events such as this. But those massacres were just not acts of revenge (and assuredly not for personal revenge). They were carefully orchestrated by politicians and targetted a single community with surgical precision. Watch 'Jogi' only if you are a fan of Dosanjh, who is really in top form here, doing his best with the material he is saddled with. Mishra is also effective in a stereotypical role of a politician who sees the murders and rapes as a means to proceed to higher echelons of the party. Zeeshan Ayyub is also reliably good, but an actor of his calibre deserves characters with more depth than that. 'Jogi' is streaming on Netflix.

'Jogi' movie review

I was not particularly excited about Olivia Newman's 'Where the Crawdads Sing'. I had read Delia Owens' eponymous novel, the movie's source material, and found it rather boring with tedious prose and a plot riddled with contrivances than one can count. But going into the movie, I wanted to keep an open mind. The casting of Daisy Edgar-Jones, who was superb in 'Normal People' and 'Fresh', in the main role signalled nice things ahead.&nbsp;

No such luck.

The story of 'Where the Crawdads Sing'&nbsp;is about Kya (Edgar-Jones), a girl who was abandoned by her family when very young and grew up alone in a shack deep in a South Carolina marsh. Her father was abusive and violent, and her traumatised mother one day just left. Her siblings followed one by one.&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PY3808Iq0Tg" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

The people in a nearby town built a legend around the 'Marsh Girl', and Kya was shunned. She became a persona non grata in the town for most people. Only an African-American couple, the Madisons (Sterling Macer Jr and Michael Hyatt) and a young would-be biologist Tate (Taylor John Smith) showed her any kindness. At her shack, she had only herself and nature to keep company.

Thanks to Tate, Kya learns writing and uses her self-taught knowledge of the flora and fauna of the marsh to become a published author. But after a town jock on the periphery of the marsh is found dead,&nbsp;she, due to prevalent prejudice against her and the proximity of the crime to her shack,&nbsp;becomes the prime suspect.

I have the same complaints with 'Where the Crawdads Sing' the movie as I had with 'Where the Crawdads Sing' the book. For one, the final reveal was unearned. There was hardly anything storytelling to make that 'twist' feel credible. And Owens could not decide what was the book actually about. It was simultaneously a lot of things at once -- a murder mystery, a courtroom drama, a romance, and so on. In the end, it was none of those. It was just a decent story, badly told.&nbsp;
<img alt="where the crawdads sing" data-caption="Daisy Edgar-Jones in 'Where the Crawdads Sing'." data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="94a69011-f704-4998-a6cc-b9fc2f06b1f3" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/where-the-crawdads-sing-1200.jpeg" />
In addition to those, the insipid adaptation, scripted by Lucy Alibar, dilutes already vague themes of 'Where the Crawdads Sing'. There is a greater disconnect between the different 'genres', the pacing is inconsistent, and the framing device is bizarre.&nbsp;

I admit it is probably unfair to the movie to watch it with preconceived notions, and I do believe I might have enjoyed the movie to a greater extent if I hadn't read the book. And it is not as if the movie is without any redeeming qualities. Edgar-Jones once again gives her all to the character and&nbsp;her commitment to the performance somewhat kept me interested in the movie. But she had to shoulder a lot of poor writing in this movie. The visuals crafted by cinematographer Polly Morgan are pleasing to the eyes and another good thing about the movie.

But, 'Where the Crawdads Sing' is still just a handsome-looking and well-acted movie that, thanks to a shoddy screenplay and direction, is an absolute chore to sit through&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

I was not particularly excited about Olivia Newman's 'Where the Crawdads Sing'. I had read Delia Owens' eponymous novel, the movie's source material, and found it rather boring with tedious prose and a plot riddled with contrivances than one can count.

I was not particularly excited about Olivia Newman's 'Where the Crawdads Sing'. I had read Delia Owens' eponymous novel, the movie's source material, and found it rather boring with tedious prose and a plot riddled with contrivances than one can count. But going into the movie, I wanted to keep an open mind. The casting of Daisy Edgar-Jones, who was superb in 'Normal People' and 'Fresh', in the main role signalled nice things ahead. No such luck. The story of 'Where the Crawdads Sing' is about Kya (Edgar-Jones), a girl who was abandoned by her family when very young and grew up alone in a shack deep in a South Carolina marsh. Her father was abusive and violent, and her traumatised mother one day just left. Her siblings followed one by one. The people in a nearby town built a legend around the 'Marsh Girl', and Kya was shunned. She became a persona non grata in the town for most people. Only an African-American couple, the Madisons (Sterling Macer Jr and Michael Hyatt) and a young would-be biologist Tate (Taylor John Smith) showed her any kindness. At her shack, she had only herself and nature to keep company. Thanks to Tate, Kya learns writing and uses her self-taught knowledge of the flora and fauna of the marsh to become a published author. But after a town jock on the periphery of the marsh is found dead, she, due to prevalent prejudice against her and the proximity of the crime to her shack, becomes the prime suspect. I have the same complaints with 'Where the Crawdads Sing' the movie as I had with 'Where the Crawdads Sing' the book. For one, the final reveal was unearned. There was hardly anything storytelling to make that 'twist' feel credible. And Owens could not decide what was the book actually about. It was simultaneously a lot of things at once -- a murder mystery, a courtroom drama, a romance, and so on. In the end, it was none of those. It was just a decent story, badly told. In addition to those, the insipid adaptation, scripted by Lucy Alibar, dilutes already vague themes of 'Where the Crawdads Sing'. There is a greater disconnect between the different 'genres', the pacing is inconsistent, and the framing device is bizarre. I admit it is probably unfair to the movie to watch it with preconceived notions, and I do believe I might have enjoyed the movie to a greater extent if I hadn't read the book. And it is not as if the movie is without any redeeming qualities. Edgar-Jones once again gives her all to the character and her commitment to the performance somewhat kept me interested in the movie. But she had to shoulder a lot of poor writing in this movie. The visuals crafted by cinematographer Polly Morgan are pleasing to the eyes and another good thing about the movie. But, 'Where the Crawdads Sing' is still just a handsome-looking and well-acted movie that, thanks to a shoddy screenplay and direction, is an absolute chore to sit through

'Where the Crawdads Sing' movie review: A tremendous waste of Daisy Edgar-Jones

'Jogi' movie review: Diljit Dosanjh is excellent in this superficial take on 1984 anti-Sikh riots

When I first saw the trailer for Ayan Mukerji's 'Brahmastra: Part One – Shiva', I remember wondering why it chose to focus on visuals of characters hurling magical light at each other and there was hardly any information about the plot and dialogue. Now I know the answer. ''Brahmastra' has a few halfway-decent ideas, good world-building, and eye-poppingly good visuals. But it is not the saviour the Hindi film industry needed. Clocking at around 167 minutes -- while somehow feeling even longer -- Brahmastra' is a slog throughout. Borrowing from Hindu myths was an interesting decision in my view, if a little hazardous in a country where many seem to be yearning to take offence from something and boycotting every movie with a big star. But 'Brahmastra' squanders the potential.

The world-building in 'Brahmāstra' is derivative&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BUjXzrgntcY" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

Hinduism has had a long history and there are thousands of tales and legends about gods, demons, supernatural creatures, and so on -- pretty much everything needed to build a cinematic universe that Mukerji intended. And indeed, the world-building in 'Brahmāstra' is not exactly bad, but it does not feel fresh. It has borrowed from several movie franchises from the west like 'Harry Potter', 'The Lord of the Rings' and, of course, the Marvel Cinematic Universe'. The film has lifted the Chosen One trope from western pop culture as well. Sometimes, the 'inspiration' goes too far. For instance, the powers of Mouni Roy's villainous Junoon, the Queen of Darkness, carry a strong resemblance with Elizabeth Olsen's Scarlet Witch in MCU to a suspicious degree. When is a piece of creativity a homage and when does it become derivative? 'Brahmāstra' does tend to blur the lines.

Despite being too "inspired", the mythology built in 'Brahmastra' has potential

However, I did not mind the derivative part much and had actually expected that. The mythology of the intended AstraVerse, as the cinematic universe is named, does throw up a few fascinating ideas. It revolves around a bunch of MacGuffins. In this world, the LotR-style prologue tells us, sages and warriors called forth the powers of heavens eons ago and were gifted with weapons of untold power, each representing an element -- like fire, wind, light, and water -- or some diety like the Nandi Astra that harnesses the powers of Nandi.

There was a weapon more powerful than any other: the 'Brahmastra' (One Ring to rule them all, haha), with the power to obliterate all life in the universe. One person wanted it all to himself but was stopped by another. In the process, Brahmāstra was broken into three pieces, each of which was entrusted to members of a secret society called Brahmansh. The weapon will stay dormant until the pieces are joined. And the destruction of the cosmos will follow. Which is not what the protagonists want.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-brahmastra-movie-review-ranbir-kapoor-alia-bhatts-film-works-for-its-special-effects-not-for-its-story-514432">'Brahmastra' movie review: Ranbir Kapoor-Alia Bhatt's film works for its special effects, not for its story</a>

Cut to the present. Ranbir Kapoor's Shiva is a man with a mysterious connection to fire. A DJ by profession, he spots Alia Bhatt's Isha among the audience and falls in love with her. Shiva is accustomed to strange visions and one evening sees a scientist being ambushed by two assassins clad like ninjas and none other than Roy's Junoon -- as it is happening. The scientist, we are told, was one of the Brahmansha and had a piece of the Brahmastra. Shiva and Isha then go on a journey to save Nagarjuna's Anish Shetty, who is awaiting a similar fate in Varanasi. Later, they find Amitabh heading what remains of the Brahmansha in the high Himalayas, with Big B's character serving as Gandalf to Ranbir's Frodo (the parallels are eerie, I tell you).

Visuals are the highlight

'Brahmastra' knows what kind of movie this is and where most of the money, I presume, has been spent. The visual effects are truly awe-inspiring at times. And it is not just the magical beams and fireballs and everything else computer generated. It is also the more quotidian stuff. For instance, a scene in which hundreds of devotees dance during Durga Pooja to the tunes of Shiva looks absolutely spectacular with a camera. The cinematography, by multiple people according to Wikipedia, provides gorgeous imagery. It is so good that even the high-quality CGI-driven visuals look gaudy and distracting after&nbsp;a while.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2Y1A_oRuDQo" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

'Brahmastra' is sometimes excessive -- throwing everything at the audience that it deems would be enjoyed

Despite the consistently splendid imagery, 'Brahmastra' can be excessive. Mukerji, who earlier directed Ranbir in 'Wake Up Sid' and 'Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani', is not a fan of subtlety, I gather. Every single scene has to be overwrought and filled with import. Perhaps that was the studio demand? I don't know. In one scene, Shiva is just walking in the streets and Pritam is playing drums in the background.&nbsp;

The dialogues are atrocious

As I said above, the writing is fine as far as the world-building goes, but it's the dialogues that truly sink the movie. You know, you have to expect poor writing when you are going to watch a big-budget Hindi movie. It is a given at this point. But even by that standards, 'Brahmastra' is terrible.&nbsp;

There is one piece of conversation that I am not likely to forget anytime soon. Shiva jokes to Isha that she got burnt in her love, pointing to a burn she got on a shoulder during an engagement with the assassins. To this, she responds something along the lines of 'long back'. 'Pyar ki aag' is a phrase I thought I would never hear outside of 90s' Hindi cinema. It felt to me at times that Ranbir and other actors are doing a bit -- &nbsp;they must be -- or the movie is simply an overlong SNL sketch. Or perhaps the words coming out of their mouths are meant to be ironic or campy? No, none of that. Everything is uttered with a straight face. Whatever the jokes the movies have don't land. The actors act like the budget could afford two or three facial expressions.

Oh, and everything has to be spelled out. Every. Single. Thing. Repeatedly, just in case the audience did not get what the titular weapon does in the last dozen times. The script is chock-full of exposition and did not have the decency to make the conversation remotely interesting.&nbsp;

I don't ask this question lightly: did they hire a turnip to write the dialogues?&nbsp;

When I first saw the trailer for Ayan Mukerji's 'Brahmastra: Part One – Shiva', I remember wondering why it chose to focus on visuals of characters hurling magical light at each other and there was hardly any information about the plot and dialogue.

When I first saw the trailer for Ayan Mukerji's 'Brahmastra: Part One – Shiva', I remember wondering why it chose to focus on visuals of characters hurling magical light at each other and there was hardly any information about the plot and dialogue. Now I know the answer. ''Brahmastra' has a few halfway-decent ideas, good world-building, and eye-poppingly good visuals. But it is not the saviour the Hindi film industry needed. Clocking at around 167 minutes -- while somehow feeling even longer -- Brahmastra' is a slog throughout. Borrowing from Hindu myths was an interesting decision in my view, if a little hazardous in a country where many seem to be yearning to take offence from something and boycotting every movie with a big star. But 'Brahmastra' squanders the potential. The world-building in 'Brahmāstra' is derivative Hinduism has had a long history and there are thousands of tales and legends about gods, demons, supernatural creatures, and so on -- pretty much everything needed to build a cinematic universe that Mukerji intended. And indeed, the world-building in 'Brahmāstra' is not exactly bad, but it does not feel fresh. It has borrowed from several movie franchises from the west like 'Harry Potter', 'The Lord of the Rings' and, of course, the Marvel Cinematic Universe'. The film has lifted the Chosen One trope from western pop culture as well. Sometimes, the 'inspiration' goes too far. For instance, the powers of Mouni Roy's villainous Junoon, the Queen of Darkness, carry a strong resemblance with Elizabeth Olsen's Scarlet Witch in MCU to a suspicious degree. When is a piece of creativity a homage and when does it become derivative? 'Brahmāstra' does tend to blur the lines. Despite being too "inspired", the mythology built in 'Brahmastra' has potential However, I did not mind the derivative part much and had actually expected that. The mythology of the intended AstraVerse, as the cinematic universe is named, does throw up a few fascinating ideas. It revolves around a bunch of MacGuffins. In this world, the LotR-style prologue tells us, sages and warriors called forth the powers of heavens eons ago and were gifted with weapons of untold power, each representing an element -- like fire, wind, light, and water -- or some diety like the Nandi Astra that harnesses the powers of Nandi. There was a weapon more powerful than any other: the 'Brahmastra' (One Ring to rule them all, haha), with the power to obliterate all life in the universe. One person wanted it all to himself but was stopped by another. In the process, Brahmāstra was broken into three pieces, each of which was entrusted to members of a secret society called Brahmansh. The weapon will stay dormant until the pieces are joined. And the destruction of the cosmos will follow. Which is not what the protagonists want. Also Read: 'Brahmastra' movie review: Ranbir Kapoor-Alia Bhatt's film works for its special effects, not for its story Cut to the present. Ranbir Kapoor's Shiva is a man with a mysterious connection to fire. A DJ by profession, he spots Alia Bhatt's Isha among the audience and falls in love with her. Shiva is accustomed to strange visions and one evening sees a scientist being ambushed by two assassins clad like ninjas and none other than Roy's Junoon -- as it is happening. The scientist, we are told, was one of the Brahmansha and had a piece of the Brahmastra. Shiva and Isha then go on a journey to save Nagarjuna's Anish Shetty, who is awaiting a similar fate in Varanasi. Later, they find Amitabh heading what remains of the Brahmansha in the high Himalayas, with Big B's character serving as Gandalf to Ranbir's Frodo (the parallels are eerie, I tell you). Visuals are the highlight 'Brahmastra' knows what kind of movie this is and where most of the money, I presume, has been spent. The visual effects are truly awe-inspiring at times. And it is not just the magical beams and fireballs and everything else computer generated. It is also the more quotidian stuff. For instance, a scene in which hundreds of devotees dance during Durga Pooja to the tunes of Shiva looks absolutely spectacular with a camera. The cinematography, by multiple people according to Wikipedia, provides gorgeous imagery. It is so good that even the high-quality CGI-driven visuals look gaudy and distracting after a while. 'Brahmastra' is sometimes excessive -- throwing everything at the audience that it deems would be enjoyed Despite the consistently splendid imagery, 'Brahmastra' can be excessive. Mukerji, who earlier directed Ranbir in 'Wake Up Sid' and 'Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani', is not a fan of subtlety, I gather. Every single scene has to be overwrought and filled with import. Perhaps that was the studio demand? I don't know. In one scene, Shiva is just walking in the streets and Pritam is playing drums in the background. The dialogues are atrocious As I said above, the writing is fine as far as the world-building goes, but it's the dialogues that truly sink the movie. You know, you have to expect poor writing when you are going to watch a big-budget Hindi movie. It is a given at this point. But even by that standards, 'Brahmastra' is terrible. There is one piece of conversation that I am not likely to forget anytime soon. Shiva jokes to Isha that she got burnt in her love, pointing to a burn she got on a shoulder during an engagement with the assassins. To this, she responds something along the lines of 'long back'. 'Pyar ki aag' is a phrase I thought I would never hear outside of 90s' Hindi cinema. It felt to me at times that Ranbir and other actors are doing a bit -- they must be -- or the movie is simply an overlong SNL sketch. Or perhaps the words coming out of their mouths are meant to be ironic or campy? No, none of that. Everything is uttered with a straight face. Whatever the jokes the movies have don't land. The actors act like the budget could afford two or three facial expressions. Oh, and everything has to be spelled out. Every. Single. Thing. Repeatedly, just in case the audience did not get what the titular weapon does in the last dozen times. The script is chock-full of exposition and did not have the decency to make the conversation remotely interesting. I don't ask this question lightly: did they hire a turnip to write the dialogues?

'Brahmastra' offers some awe-inspiring CGI action but is butchered by a dreadful script

Just like every year, the winner announcements at the just concluded 74th edition of the Emmy Awards also did not please or satisfy everybody. It is safe to say that most TV buffs were miffed with something or other. On social media sites and elsewhere, many viewers have expressed their disappointment and displeasure at some of the decisions the Television Academy jury made while voting for the winners. Some others were pleasantly surprised as well at winners in a few of the categories. Going into the ceremony, 'Succession' was the frontrunner with 12 major nominations.&nbsp;'The White Lotus' and Ted Lasso followed with 11 and 10 nods, respectively. 'Succession' ended up taking the biggest prize of the evening. But 'The White Lotus' was the biggest overall winner with&nbsp;5 wins. 'Ted Lasso' was the runner-up with 4 trophies.&nbsp;

Here are all the surprises and snubs at this year's Emmys. Do you agree?

Also Read:&nbsp;Emmys 2022: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-emmys-2022-squid-game-star-lee-jung-jae-creates-history-takes-best-drama-actor-trophy-515616">'Squid Game' creates history, wins two trophies in acting and directing categories</a>

<h2>Snub</h2>

<h2>'Better Call Saul'</h2>

For most of its history 'Better Call Saul', a spinoff of 'Breaking Bad', has arguably been the best show on television. The show was supposed to be a story of a decent man becoming a poorer, sleazier version of himself largely through his own action. But the show became so much more, so much more than even its predecessor. While its second volume will compete in next year's Emmys, it is still incredible to think that the show has not won a single 'major' Emmy to date (excluding Creative Arts Emmys), and that includes the part of its superb final season.

If not Bob Odenkirk, at least Rhea Seehorn deserved an Emmy for her consistently committed performance in a show that did not revolve around her character but that she still made her own.&nbsp;

It must be noted that this year only part 1 of the show was considered for this year's awards. Part 2 will contest next year.&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-emmys-2022-ted-lasso-the-white-lotus-leading-heres-the-complete-winners-list-updating-live-515602">Emmys 2022: 'Succession', 'The White Lotus' 'Squid Game' win big, here's the complete winners' list</a>

<h2>Surprise</h2>

<h2>'Ted Lasso'</h2>

Jason Sudeikis won his second consecutive Emmy for Apple TV+'s popular comedy series 'Ted Lasso'. He was awarded the Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series trophy. This is a pleasant surprise as 'Ted Lasso' served as a balm to many a tortured soul during the Covid-19 pandemic. When the world was suffering, the show gave that warm, fuzzy feeling of togetherness. And with its second season, the show proved that it had more depth than earlier expected. Sudeikis has led the show like a true leader, giving other talented actors ample opportunity to shine instead of hogging all the space like many others would have done.

Brett Goldstein also won a trophy, his first individual Emmy, in the Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series. He plays the role of gruff and grumpy but good-at-heart Roy Kent in the show.&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qUliAN4NYHU" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

<h2>Snub</h2>

<h2>Anthony Carrigan ('Barry')</h2>

Anthony Carrigan has been a sensation as the politest gangster ever NoHo Hank in Bill Hader-starrer HBO dark comedy series 'Barry'. But sadly, his amazing work has not been recognised by the Television Academy. And that is a shame. He was nominated for the Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series this year and went home empty-handed despite deserving the trophy.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

<h2>Surprise</h2>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Such an exciting moment for Matthew Macfadyen, who won an <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Emmy?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Emmy</a> for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series for <a href="https://twitter.com/succession?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Succession</a>! 😎🌟 <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Emmys2022?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Emmys2022</a> <a href="https://t.co/jOwEljtqlN">pic.twitter.com/jOwEljtqlN</a>
— Television Academy (@TelevisionAcad) <a href="https://twitter.com/TelevisionAcad/status/1569503447489314816?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 13, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

<h2>Matthew Macfadyen ('Succession')</h2>

English actor Matthew Macfadyen does a mean American accent in the acclaimed HBO series 'Succession' but that is hardly his only achievement. With his performance as Tom Wambsgans, Macfadyen has created a character about whom we learn something new pretty much every episode. And somehow, the character still feels like a flesh and blood person, instead of a dramatis persona. Macfayeden is scary good in the role, and it is nice to see great talent being recognised. 
&nbsp;

Just like every year, the winner announcements at the just concluded 74th edition of the Emmy Awards also did not please or satisfy everybody. It is safe to say that most TV buffs were miffed with something or other.

Just like every year, the winner announcements at the just concluded 74th edition of the Emmy Awards also did not please or satisfy everybody. It is safe to say that most TV buffs were miffed with something or other. On social media sites and elsewhere, many viewers have expressed their disappointment and displeasure at some of the decisions the Television Academy jury made while voting for the winners. Some others were pleasantly surprised as well at winners in a few of the categories. Going into the ceremony, 'Succession' was the frontrunner with 12 major nominations. 'The White Lotus' and Ted Lasso followed with 11 and 10 nods, respectively. 'Succession' ended up taking the biggest prize of the evening. But 'The White Lotus' was the biggest overall winner with 5 wins. 'Ted Lasso' was the runner-up with 4 trophies. Here are all the surprises and snubs at this year's Emmys. Do you agree? Also Read: Emmys 2022: 'Squid Game' creates history, wins two trophies in acting and directing categories Snub 'Better Call Saul' For most of its history 'Better Call Saul', a spinoff of 'Breaking Bad', has arguably been the best show on television. The show was supposed to be a story of a decent man becoming a poorer, sleazier version of himself largely through his own action. But the show became so much more, so much more than even its predecessor. While its second volume will compete in next year's Emmys, it is still incredible to think that the show has not won a single 'major' Emmy to date (excluding Creative Arts Emmys), and that includes the part of its superb final season. If not Bob Odenkirk, at least Rhea Seehorn deserved an Emmy for her consistently committed performance in a show that did not revolve around her character but that she still made her own. It must be noted that this year only part 1 of the show was considered for this year's awards. Part 2 will contest next year. Also Read: Emmys 2022: 'Succession', 'The White Lotus' 'Squid Game' win big, here's the complete winners' list Surprise 'Ted Lasso' Jason Sudeikis won his second consecutive Emmy for Apple TV+'s popular comedy series 'Ted Lasso'. He was awarded the Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series trophy. This is a pleasant surprise as 'Ted Lasso' served as a balm to many a tortured soul during the Covid-19 pandemic. When the world was suffering, the show gave that warm, fuzzy feeling of togetherness. And with its second season, the show proved that it had more depth than earlier expected. Sudeikis has led the show like a true leader, giving other talented actors ample opportunity to shine instead of hogging all the space like many others would have done. Brett Goldstein also won a trophy, his first individual Emmy, in the Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series. He plays the role of gruff and grumpy but good-at-heart Roy Kent in the show. Snub Anthony Carrigan ('Barry') Anthony Carrigan has been a sensation as the politest gangster ever NoHo Hank in Bill Hader-starrer HBO dark comedy series 'Barry'. But sadly, his amazing work has not been recognised by the Television Academy. And that is a shame. He was nominated for the Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series this year and went home empty-handed despite deserving the trophy. Surprise Such an exciting moment for Matthew Macfadyen, who won an #Emmy for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series for @Succession! 😎🌟 #Emmys2022 pic.twitter.com/jOwEljtqlN — Television Academy (@TelevisionAcad) September 13, 2022 × Matthew Macfadyen ('Succession') English actor Matthew Macfadyen does a mean American accent in the acclaimed HBO series 'Succession' but that is hardly his only achievement. With his performance as Tom Wambsgans, Macfadyen has created a character about whom we learn something new pretty much every episode. And somehow, the character still feels like a flesh and blood person, instead of a dramatis persona. Macfayeden is scary good in the role, and it is nice to see great talent being recognised.

Emmys 2022: Biggest snubs and surprises

The recently concluded Emmy Awards 2022 featured several surprises, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-emmys-2022-squid-game-star-lee-jung-jae-creates-history-takes-best-drama-actor-trophy-515616">historic wins</a>, and snubs. For the first time ever, for instance, Lee Jung-jae of 'Squid Game' won the Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series, becoming the first actor to win the trophy in that category for a non-English performance. Singer-actor Zendaya won another Emmy for her performance in HBO's 'Euphoria' in the Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series category, and became the youngest two-time Emmy winner ever. Going into these awards, thus, one could not be blamed for assuming that the Emmys would be an exciting awards ceremony. If only that were true.

Also Read:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-emmys-2022-biggest-snubs-and-surprises-515631">&nbsp;Emmys 2022: Biggest snubs and surprises</a>

Emmys 2022 were missing the magic

Despite a couple of surprises and a few upsets, the ceremony was all too predictable. All in all, 'The White Lotus' ruled the night with 5 wins, followed by 'Ted Lasso' with 4 trophies, and 'Succession' with 3. Now, these are all great shows and these wins are not upsets as such (though 'Better Call Saul' should have swept the ceremony in this scribe's opinion). And of course, it is a matter of subjective opinion. But these decisions do echo the rest of the ceremony -- the monologue, the antics of people like Cedric the Entertainer, and so on.

The ceremony already did not have the prestige of Academy Awards and the laxity and booziness of the Golden Globes (that allows for 'oops' moments nearly every year) and the Television Academy clearly played it too safe. The jokes were not only a few and far between but also not funny. They also felt like the NBC and the organisers were afraid to offend their audience's sensibilities and the gags written by whatever comedians they had were perused for anything remotely provocative. It is not that everything has to be saturated in contemporary politics, but everything had an air of being monitored for anything thrilling.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-emmys-2022-ted-lasso-the-white-lotus-leading-heres-the-complete-winners-list-updating-live-515602">Emmys 2022: 'Succession', 'The White Lotus', 'Squid Game' win big, here's the complete winners' list</a>

The mishaps

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oH0HFxo1dCU" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

Now, the Emmys 2022 did not exactly have any glaring misstep. But the awkward opening monologue by Kenan Thompson (wearing a top hat for some reason I am past caring) was already the last straw for me. But sitting through these ceremonies is an occupation hazard and I then saw 'recreations' of theme songs of TV shows with dance performances like 'Friends', 'The Brady Bunch', and 'Game of Thrones -- each was worse than the other. This opening was not just tepid, it was in-your-face offensive. You know, I would rather watch all the nominated shows in one sitting than endure such shoddy television.

A realisation strikes me that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association was really onto something when the organisation held this year's Golden Globes without any televised ceremony.&nbsp;

It is my job, dear reader, to watch awards ceremonies like the Emmys 2022. But it is likely not yours. Count your blessings.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The recently concluded Emmy Awards 2022 featured several surprises, historic wins, and snubs. For the first time ever, for instance, Lee Jung-jae of 'Squid Game' won the Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series, becoming the first actor to win the trophy in that category for a non-English performance.

The recently concluded Emmy Awards 2022 featured several surprises, historic wins, and snubs. For the first time ever, for instance, Lee Jung-jae of 'Squid Game' won the Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series, becoming the first actor to win the trophy in that category for a non-English performance. Singer-actor Zendaya won another Emmy for her performance in HBO's 'Euphoria' in the Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series category, and became the youngest two-time Emmy winner ever. Going into these awards, thus, one could not be blamed for assuming that the Emmys would be an exciting awards ceremony. If only that were true. Also Read: Emmys 2022: Biggest snubs and surprises Emmys 2022 were missing the magic Despite a couple of surprises and a few upsets, the ceremony was all too predictable. All in all, 'The White Lotus' ruled the night with 5 wins, followed by 'Ted Lasso' with 4 trophies, and 'Succession' with 3. Now, these are all great shows and these wins are not upsets as such (though 'Better Call Saul' should have swept the ceremony in this scribe's opinion). And of course, it is a matter of subjective opinion. But these decisions do echo the rest of the ceremony -- the monologue, the antics of people like Cedric the Entertainer, and so on. The ceremony already did not have the prestige of Academy Awards and the laxity and booziness of the Golden Globes (that allows for 'oops' moments nearly every year) and the Television Academy clearly played it too safe. The jokes were not only a few and far between but also not funny. They also felt like the NBC and the organisers were afraid to offend their audience's sensibilities and the gags written by whatever comedians they had were perused for anything remotely provocative. It is not that everything has to be saturated in contemporary politics, but everything had an air of being monitored for anything thrilling. Also Read: Emmys 2022: 'Succession', 'The White Lotus', 'Squid Game' win big, here's the complete winners' list The mishaps Now, the Emmys 2022 did not exactly have any glaring misstep. But the awkward opening monologue by Kenan Thompson (wearing a top hat for some reason I am past caring) was already the last straw for me. But sitting through these ceremonies is an occupation hazard and I then saw 'recreations' of theme songs of TV shows with dance performances like 'Friends', 'The Brady Bunch', and 'Game of Thrones -- each was worse than the other. This opening was not just tepid, it was in-your-face offensive. You know, I would rather watch all the nominated shows in one sitting than endure such shoddy television. A realisation strikes me that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association was really onto something when the organisation held this year's Golden Globes without any televised ceremony. It is my job, dear reader, to watch awards ceremonies like the Emmys 2022. But it is likely not yours. Count your blessings.

Emmys 2022: Why are awards shows such predictable borefests these days?

I am not overly fond of Disney giving a live-action treatment to classic animated films. For one, this indicates that the House of Mouse is unwilling to experiment on original scripts, and would rather fall back on tried and tested intellectual properties. For another, Classic 2D animated films have a certain artistic value. Transforming those beautifully handcrafted frames to drab reality robs them of the magic that made them special in the first place.&nbsp;The only way a live-action adaptation would be worth making would be if it did something entirely fresh and innovative with the story. Robert Zemeckis' 'Pinocchio', which aims to remake the 1940 classic of the same name, is another disappointment in a long series of them.

The first 'Pinocchio', released in 1940, was a landmark in animation films. Based on the fantasy novel 1882 'The Adventures of Pinocchio' by Italian author Carlo Collodi, the film is regarded as one of the finest animated movies of the Golden Age of American Animation. Even now, this simple, well-told tale has not lost its appeal. The story follows a lifelike puppet made to resemble a young boy by a woodcarver called Geppetto who yearns for a son. Geppetto's wishes upon a star to transform the puppet into a real boy. And that is exactly what happens.&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gV_0pYoCssc" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

Pinocchio then goes off on a journey of self-discovery and meets a variety of characters. He also realises that his nose grows in length when he is lying. It was a heartwarming tale full of adventure.

In the 2022 film, Zemeckis has written a redo that is basically a dull, painfully faithful&nbsp;retread save for a few minor differences. More importantly, the charm of the original film is gone. Even the truly impeccable CGI work by VFX artists, with&nbsp;characters like 'Pinocchio', Jiminy Cricket, Figaro the kitten, and Cleo the goldfish, and the presence of Tom Hanks -- none of it&nbsp;saves it from becoming a vastly inferior work.

If you have watched the original, you might want&nbsp;to skip this. Apart from the live-action part and photorealistic 3D visuals, there is nothing really new here. Certainly, there is nothing inherently offensive here also. The film is just totally unessential, something that I have felt with nearly every other Disney live-action remake.&nbsp;You might enjoy 2022 'Pinocchio' if you have not seen the 1940 classic. But even in that case, I would recommend watching the original first.&nbsp;

For everyone else, Guillermo del Toro's take on the story&nbsp;comes out later this year.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

I am not overly fond of Disney giving a live-action treatment to classic animated films. For one, this indicates that the House of Mouse is unwilling to experiment on original scripts, and would rather fall back on tried and tested intellectual properties.

I am not overly fond of Disney giving a live-action treatment to classic animated films. For one, this indicates that the House of Mouse is unwilling to experiment on original scripts, and would rather fall back on tried and tested intellectual properties. For another, Classic 2D animated films have a certain artistic value. Transforming those beautifully handcrafted frames to drab reality robs them of the magic that made them special in the first place. The only way a live-action adaptation would be worth making would be if it did something entirely fresh and innovative with the story. Robert Zemeckis' 'Pinocchio', which aims to remake the 1940 classic of the same name, is another disappointment in a long series of them. The first 'Pinocchio', released in 1940, was a landmark in animation films. Based on the fantasy novel 1882 'The Adventures of Pinocchio' by Italian author Carlo Collodi, the film is regarded as one of the finest animated movies of the Golden Age of American Animation. Even now, this simple, well-told tale has not lost its appeal. The story follows a lifelike puppet made to resemble a young boy by a woodcarver called Geppetto who yearns for a son. Geppetto's wishes upon a star to transform the puppet into a real boy. And that is exactly what happens. Pinocchio then goes off on a journey of self-discovery and meets a variety of characters. He also realises that his nose grows in length when he is lying. It was a heartwarming tale full of adventure. In the 2022 film, Zemeckis has written a redo that is basically a dull, painfully faithful retread save for a few minor differences. More importantly, the charm of the original film is gone. Even the truly impeccable CGI work by VFX artists, with characters like 'Pinocchio', Jiminy Cricket, Figaro the kitten, and Cleo the goldfish, and the presence of Tom Hanks -- none of it saves it from becoming a vastly inferior work. If you have watched the original, you might want to skip this. Apart from the live-action part and photorealistic 3D visuals, there is nothing really new here. Certainly, there is nothing inherently offensive here also. The film is just totally unessential, something that I have felt with nearly every other Disney live-action remake. You might enjoy 2022 'Pinocchio' if you have not seen the 1940 classic. But even in that case, I would recommend watching the original first. For everyone else, Guillermo del Toro's take on the story comes out later this year.

'Pinocchio' movie review: Disney's live-action remake is devoid of original's magic and creativity

'Cars on the Road' is a spinoff animated series set in the 'Cars' universe from the Pixar movie series. Owen Wilson and Larry the Cable Guy reprise their roles of Lightning McQueen, the racecar, and Mater, a rundown, rusted tow truck, respectively, from the movies. The episodes trace their adventures as they go on a cross-country road trip across the United States. Their destination is the wedding of Mater's sister. But to paraphrase Ralph Waldo Emerson it's not the destination that matters, it's the journey, and the journey of watching these shorts is certainly worthwhile -- even if you have only a passing acquaintance with the franchise.

The writing-producing team of Steve Purcell and&nbsp;Marc Sondheimer have crafted a fun and well-written series of shorts that explore themes like friendship and camaraderie. Some of the episodes riff on popular movies like 'The Shining' and 'Mad Max' in surprisingly creative ways.&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-Vui-DhwIAg" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

The visuals of those movies are recreated in stunning detail. The animation style is always interesting and often amazing. The budget may be low, but the studio behind this production is still Pixar, and they never miss. The visuals are vivid and vibrant.

To me 'Cars on the Road' appeared to be an amuse-bouche for an inevitable fourth 'Cars' movie, but it turned out to be much more than that. A lot of craft has gone into this series of shorts. Even in the short runtimes of 9-10 minutes, the writing makes sure the episodes give a fulfilling experience. Every episode is self-contained and has a proper beginning and denouement. Granted, the series will not exactly satiate those looking for an actual 'Cars' sequel. But for everyone else, there is quite a bit of humour and action here, and loads of fun to be had.

'Cars on the Road' is a spinoff animated series set in the 'Cars' universe from the Pixar movie series. Owen Wilson and Larry the Cable Guy reprise their roles of Lightning McQueen, the racecar, and Mater, a rundown, rusted tow truck, respectively, from the movies.

'Cars on the Road' is a spinoff animated series set in the 'Cars' universe from the Pixar movie series. Owen Wilson and Larry the Cable Guy reprise their roles of Lightning McQueen, the racecar, and Mater, a rundown, rusted tow truck, respectively, from the movies. The episodes trace their adventures as they go on a cross-country road trip across the United States. Their destination is the wedding of Mater's sister. But to paraphrase Ralph Waldo Emerson it's not the destination that matters, it's the journey, and the journey of watching these shorts is certainly worthwhile -- even if you have only a passing acquaintance with the franchise. The writing-producing team of Steve Purcell and Marc Sondheimer have crafted a fun and well-written series of shorts that explore themes like friendship and camaraderie. Some of the episodes riff on popular movies like 'The Shining' and 'Mad Max' in surprisingly creative ways. The visuals of those movies are recreated in stunning detail. The animation style is always interesting and often amazing. The budget may be low, but the studio behind this production is still Pixar, and they never miss. The visuals are vivid and vibrant. To me 'Cars on the Road' appeared to be an amuse-bouche for an inevitable fourth 'Cars' movie, but it turned out to be much more than that. A lot of craft has gone into this series of shorts. Even in the short runtimes of 9-10 minutes, the writing makes sure the episodes give a fulfilling experience. Every episode is self-contained and has a proper beginning and denouement. Granted, the series will not exactly satiate those looking for an actual 'Cars' sequel. But for everyone else, there is quite a bit of humour and action here, and loads of fun to be had.

'Cars on the Road' review: Pixar's spinoff series is visually stunning

'The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power' premiered with two episodes on September 2. The series, a prequel to JRR Tolkien's iconic fantasy novel 'The Lord of the Rings' and Peter Jackson-directed film trilogy, has received positive reviews with a rating of 84 per cent on the review aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes. But the user ratings on the site and on IMDB are less than flattering. But this is likely not due to a general consensus among the viewers. On the contrary, the dismal ratings are a result of the ever-prevalent phenomena called 'review-bombing' by a small minority of fans who are disgruntled about the show not exclusively being populated by white actors.&nbsp;

Why? Let me explain.

<h2>Tolkien, the man behind 'The Lord of the Rings'</h2>

English author JRR Tolkien is remembered as the father of fantasy fiction. His landmark works 'The Hobbit' and 'The Lord of the Rings' pretty much made the fantasy genre what it is today. Among the authors he influenced are JK Rowling and George &nbsp;RR Martin. With Middle-earth, the setting of his stories, Tolkien created a detailed world full of multiple races, locations, and even myths -- basing much of it on Norse mythology. And not just that, Tolkien created entire languages with their own grammar and syntax -- a task possible because he was also a noted philologist.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-the-lord-of-the-rings-the-rings-of-power-review-a-majestic-fantasy-tv-series-worthy-of-jrr-tolkien-511819">'The Lord of the Rings The Rings of Power' review: A majestic fantasy TV series worthy of JRR Tolkien</a>

<h2>Accusations of racist undertones in Tolkien's works</h2>

For all his incredible achievements, Tolkien's works were said to be suffused with conscious or unconsciously racist. For instance, the elves in his writings were said to be wisest and fairest of all beings, the most perfect creations of Eru Ilúvatar. They were also literally the fairest. They were also morally perfect. The men, who were not so fair, were prone to evil. Same with dwarves, who many saw as a representation of the "gold-digging" trope that has been seen in fiction as a thinly-veiled reference to Jews. But races with darker skin, like orcs, were wholly evil and corrupt and violent, and had no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/x8UAUAuKNcU" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

But another school of thought, towards which I incline, argues that in Tolkien's stories characters were more defined by class rather than literal races. Also, that Tolkien at least did not intend racist divisions of races is illustrated by the fact that Tolkien could not decide on the origin of orcs. Were they an actual race? An artificial creation? We don't know, but no origin of orcs is 'canon'. It is said that Tolkien's worldview, derived from catholicism, could not fathom beings who did not have free will (if they were solely created to commit evil deeds, for instance). But neither could hundreds and thousands of them could choose to be evil, could they? Thus, Tolkien remained unable to solve the orc dilemma.

<h2>Tolkien's letter to a German publisher asking for evidence that he is not a jew</h2>

Even the harshest of Tolkien critics would agree that the themes of his stories did not align with a lot of xenophobic prominent Europeans of that time, including the British. That he was implacably against Nazism can be gleaned from a letter he sent to a German publisher who wanted to ensure Tolkien was not a jew.

He responded by saying, "Thank you for your letter. I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by arisch. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people. My great-great-grandfather came to England in the eighteenth century from Germany: the main part of my descent is therefore purely English, and I am an English subject — which should be sufficient. I have been accustomed, nonetheless, to regard my German name with pride, and continued to do so throughout the period of the late regrettable war, in which I served in the English army. I cannot, however, forbear to comment that if impertinent and irrelevant inquiries of this sort are to become the rule in matters of literature, then the time is not far distant when a German name will no longer be a source of pride. Your enquiry is doubtless made in order to comply with the laws of your own country, but that this should be held to apply to the subjects of another state would be improper, even if it had (as it has not) any bearing whatsoever on the merits of my work or its sustainability for publication, of which you appear to have satisfied yourselves without reference to my Abstammung."

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Tl44vcVIRmQ" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

<h2>The trouble with 'The Rings of Power'</h2>

'The Rings of Power' does not specifically adapt any of Tolkien's works. Instead, it expands upon the lore and world-building he did in the appendices attached 'The Lord of the Rings'. As the subtitle of this JD Payne and Patrick McKay creation suggests, the series is based on the forging of Rings of Power, and is thus set during the Second Age when Sauron was an individual and not a flaming eye he became in the Third Age. 'The Lord of the Rings', on the other hand, and Peter Jackson's immensely successful and multiple Academy Award-winning trilogy of movies, centred around the War of the Ring, when Frodo and his allies took on the might of the Dark Lord and destroyed the One Ring.&nbsp;

'The Rings of Power' has done the unpardonable sin of casting actors of colour in a few roles instead of white. It is another matter that a majority of the actors are still white. The biggest controversy has been generated by Ismael Cruz Córdova's Arondir, a silvan elf. Certainly, Tolkien was a man of his time and had prejudices that were common then. But he was still progressive for his time as he did not support the Nazism that many of his countrymen were doing. If were alive today his stories will surely be more diverse to represent the demographics in western countries.

Whining about actors of colour in Middle-earth adaptations is not just racist, it is also against the spirit of these stories in which multiple races come together to fight a common enemy, 
&nbsp;

'The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power' premiered with two episodes on September 2. The series, a prequel to JRR Tolkien's iconic fantasy novel 'The Lord of the Rings' and Peter Jackson-directed film trilogy, has received positive reviews with a rating of 84 per cent on the review aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes.

'The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power' premiered with two episodes on September 2. The series, a prequel to JRR Tolkien's iconic fantasy novel 'The Lord of the Rings' and Peter Jackson-directed film trilogy, has received positive reviews with a rating of 84 per cent on the review aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes. But the user ratings on the site and on IMDB are less than flattering. But this is likely not due to a general consensus among the viewers. On the contrary, the dismal ratings are a result of the ever-prevalent phenomena called 'review-bombing' by a small minority of fans who are disgruntled about the show not exclusively being populated by white actors. Why? Let me explain. Tolkien, the man behind 'The Lord of the Rings' English author JRR Tolkien is remembered as the father of fantasy fiction. His landmark works 'The Hobbit' and 'The Lord of the Rings' pretty much made the fantasy genre what it is today. Among the authors he influenced are JK Rowling and George RR Martin. With Middle-earth, the setting of his stories, Tolkien created a detailed world full of multiple races, locations, and even myths -- basing much of it on Norse mythology. And not just that, Tolkien created entire languages with their own grammar and syntax -- a task possible because he was also a noted philologist. Also Read: 'The Lord of the Rings The Rings of Power' review: A majestic fantasy TV series worthy of JRR Tolkien Accusations of racist undertones in Tolkien's works For all his incredible achievements, Tolkien's works were said to be suffused with conscious or unconsciously racist. For instance, the elves in his writings were said to be wisest and fairest of all beings, the most perfect creations of Eru Ilúvatar. They were also literally the fairest. They were also morally perfect. The men, who were not so fair, were prone to evil. Same with dwarves, who many saw as a representation of the "gold-digging" trope that has been seen in fiction as a thinly-veiled reference to Jews. But races with darker skin, like orcs, were wholly evil and corrupt and violent, and had no redeeming qualities whatsoever. But another school of thought, towards which I incline, argues that in Tolkien's stories characters were more defined by class rather than literal races. Also, that Tolkien at least did not intend racist divisions of races is illustrated by the fact that Tolkien could not decide on the origin of orcs. Were they an actual race? An artificial creation? We don't know, but no origin of orcs is 'canon'. It is said that Tolkien's worldview, derived from catholicism, could not fathom beings who did not have free will (if they were solely created to commit evil deeds, for instance). But neither could hundreds and thousands of them could choose to be evil, could they? Thus, Tolkien remained unable to solve the orc dilemma. Tolkien's letter to a German publisher asking for evidence that he is not a jew Even the harshest of Tolkien critics would agree that the themes of his stories did not align with a lot of xenophobic prominent Europeans of that time, including the British. That he was implacably against Nazism can be gleaned from a letter he sent to a German publisher who wanted to ensure Tolkien was not a jew. He responded by saying, "Thank you for your letter. I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by arisch. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people. My great-great-grandfather came to England in the eighteenth century from Germany: the main part of my descent is therefore purely English, and I am an English subject — which should be sufficient. I have been accustomed, nonetheless, to regard my German name with pride, and continued to do so throughout the period of the late regrettable war, in which I served in the English army. I cannot, however, forbear to comment that if impertinent and irrelevant inquiries of this sort are to become the rule in matters of literature, then the time is not far distant when a German name will no longer be a source of pride. Your enquiry is doubtless made in order to comply with the laws of your own country, but that this should be held to apply to the subjects of another state would be improper, even if it had (as it has not) any bearing whatsoever on the merits of my work or its sustainability for publication, of which you appear to have satisfied yourselves without reference to my Abstammung." The trouble with 'The Rings of Power' 'The Rings of Power' does not specifically adapt any of Tolkien's works. Instead, it expands upon the lore and world-building he did in the appendices attached 'The Lord of the Rings'. As the subtitle of this JD Payne and Patrick McKay creation suggests, the series is based on the forging of Rings of Power, and is thus set during the Second Age when Sauron was an individual and not a flaming eye he became in the Third Age. 'The Lord of the Rings', on the other hand, and Peter Jackson's immensely successful and multiple Academy Award-winning trilogy of movies, centred around the War of the Ring, when Frodo and his allies took on the might of the Dark Lord and destroyed the One Ring. 'The Rings of Power' has done the unpardonable sin of casting actors of colour in a few roles instead of white. It is another matter that a majority of the actors are still white. The biggest controversy has been generated by Ismael Cruz Córdova's Arondir, a silvan elf. Certainly, Tolkien was a man of his time and had prejudices that were common then. But he was still progressive for his time as he did not support the Nazism that many of his countrymen were doing. If were alive today his stories will surely be more diverse to represent the demographics in western countries. Whining about actors of colour in Middle-earth adaptations is not just racist, it is also against the spirit of these stories in which multiple races come together to fight a common enemy,

'The Rings of Power' backlash explained: Was JRR Tolkien racist?

The most compelling horror movies are often about quotidian things. Ari Aster's 'Hereditary', the most frightening film of 21st century in this scribe's view, chills the viewer to the bone not because its plot features a pagan deity trying to take over the world by using vulnerable humans as his host -- though that would have been enough -- but because Aster realises like no other horror filmmaker that most compelling scares come from what is familiar. The movie explores familial trauma and grief. Demons or zombies or vampires then appear pudding in comparison.

Now, Idris Elba-led 'Beast', a survival horror thriller directed by Baltasar Kormákur, is nowhere near as highbrow or as complex as 'Hereditary'. On the contrary, thematically and plot-wise, it is as simple as its lean runtime of 93 minutes suggests. But this movie also taps into a very genuine fear of being stalked by a blood-maddened apex predator in his territory.&nbsp;

The film begins with a prologue where a group of poachers kills an almost entire pride in the dark of night. But a lone lion escapes and picks them off one by one.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oQMc7Sq36mI" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

Nate Samuels (Elba) is an American doctor who is visiting a forest reserve in South Africa for a lion safari to reconnect with his young daughters. Before their mother's death from cancer, Nate had separated from her and kept dithering over coming back. His elder daughter Meredith (Iyana Halley) has reason to resent her father and dislikes being dragged out into the middle of nowhere. Norah (Leah Sava Jeffries), the younger one, is more sensitive and forgiving of her father and is actually enthusiastic about the experience.

After meeting with his old friend and Martin Battles (Sharlto Copley), a wildlife biologist and their host, they set off for a safari. Along the way, they meet a pride of fully grown lions and lionesses. The terrifyingly beautiful animals greet Martin like an old friend. One of the lionesses has a wound in a paw that appears to be the result of a gunshot. Apparently, poachers prowl the lands, looking to earn big bucks by selling lion skins, teeth, and bones. In a village, they find scenes of a massacre. Pretty much everyone is mauled to death by what looks like a lion, but even more disconcertingly, none have been eaten -- just left for dead. This is not your typical lion's behaviour, Martin informs.

It turns out&nbsp;that the culprit, a particularly huge and particularly furious lion who has been killing every human he meets, was the same beast that was left alone after the poachers decimated his entire pride. And soon enough it is Nate, his daughter, and Martin who are the feline's target.

The movie's title questions whether the kind of qualities we associate with beasts -- ferocity, cruelty, and violence -- would not apply to the humans who casually kill for sport and commercial gain as opposed to animals who kill only to survive.&nbsp;

And that is as deep as the movie goes. This is not a complaint, mind you. Once in a while, a movie comes that delivers all the thrills without taxing your brain too much. Having a lead as charismatic as Elba also helps. His character is kind of inconsistent -- by turns goofball who often swivels to emotional intensity -- but the actor manages to sell it.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-the-lord-of-the-rings-the-rings-of-power-review-a-majestic-fantasy-tv-series-worthy-of-jrr-tolkien-511819">'The Lord of the Rings The Rings of Power' review: A majestic fantasy TV series worthy of JRR Tolkien</a>

But the real stars of the movie are the lions. The reason is the quality of CGI and animation is simply outstanding, especially in a movie of a comparatively low budget. In a scene when the lions, the friendly ones, surround and hug Martin gave a happy jolt to me. It was breathtaking to watch. We see the entirety of the evil beastie only in the end and if I didn't know better, I would have thought they trained a real lion to claw and bite in a friendly way.

The camera angles by cinematographer Philippe Rousselot when the lion attacks are astonishingly effective in close quarters, often giving a first-person view of the ensuing carnage. This movie at times felt 3D without actually being 3D. Preferably, watch this movie in a theatre. The thrills are carefully crafted and surround sound effects complement the visuals nicely. This is thrilling filmmaking in every sense of the word.

'Beast', of course, has shortcomings. I did not mind the simplistic plot, but some might. Also, those who know their big cats intimately would realise that lions do not behave like that like the beast in the movie does. They do not take 5 minutes to kill a human in a fair fight (without firearms) -- more like a few seconds. And they can see in the dark as well as we see in the day so in the scene where Nate saves himself from the lion by just stopping? An actual lion would have instantly ripped his throat out. The story does take leaps of logic. Suspension of disbelief is often required.&nbsp;

But this are nitpicking in a movie that delivers exactly what it promised: a survival horror thriller in which Idris Elba and a lion fight. Nothing more, nothing less.&nbsp;

Now, I cannot stop yearning for a similar film on the man-eating tigers of Kumaon. 
&nbsp;

The most compelling horror movies are often about quotidian things. Ari Aster's 'Hereditary', the most frightening film of 21st century in this scribe's view, chills the viewer to the bone not because its plot features a pagan deity trying to take over the world by using vulnerable humans as his host -- though that would have been enough -- but because Aster realises like no other horror filmmaker that most compelling scares come from what is familiar.

The most compelling horror movies are often about quotidian things. Ari Aster's 'Hereditary', the most frightening film of 21st century in this scribe's view, chills the viewer to the bone not because its plot features a pagan deity trying to take over the world by using vulnerable humans as his host -- though that would have been enough -- but because Aster realises like no other horror filmmaker that most compelling scares come from what is familiar. The movie explores familial trauma and grief. Demons or zombies or vampires then appear pudding in comparison. Now, Idris Elba-led 'Beast', a survival horror thriller directed by Baltasar Kormákur, is nowhere near as highbrow or as complex as 'Hereditary'. On the contrary, thematically and plot-wise, it is as simple as its lean runtime of 93 minutes suggests. But this movie also taps into a very genuine fear of being stalked by a blood-maddened apex predator in his territory. The film begins with a prologue where a group of poachers kills an almost entire pride in the dark of night. But a lone lion escapes and picks them off one by one. Nate Samuels (Elba) is an American doctor who is visiting a forest reserve in South Africa for a lion safari to reconnect with his young daughters. Before their mother's death from cancer, Nate had separated from her and kept dithering over coming back. His elder daughter Meredith (Iyana Halley) has reason to resent her father and dislikes being dragged out into the middle of nowhere. Norah (Leah Sava Jeffries), the younger one, is more sensitive and forgiving of her father and is actually enthusiastic about the experience. After meeting with his old friend and Martin Battles (Sharlto Copley), a wildlife biologist and their host, they set off for a safari. Along the way, they meet a pride of fully grown lions and lionesses. The terrifyingly beautiful animals greet Martin like an old friend. One of the lionesses has a wound in a paw that appears to be the result of a gunshot. Apparently, poachers prowl the lands, looking to earn big bucks by selling lion skins, teeth, and bones. In a village, they find scenes of a massacre. Pretty much everyone is mauled to death by what looks like a lion, but even more disconcertingly, none have been eaten -- just left for dead. This is not your typical lion's behaviour, Martin informs. It turns out that the culprit, a particularly huge and particularly furious lion who has been killing every human he meets, was the same beast that was left alone after the poachers decimated his entire pride. And soon enough it is Nate, his daughter, and Martin who are the feline's target. The movie's title questions whether the kind of qualities we associate with beasts -- ferocity, cruelty, and violence -- would not apply to the humans who casually kill for sport and commercial gain as opposed to animals who kill only to survive. And that is as deep as the movie goes. This is not a complaint, mind you. Once in a while, a movie comes that delivers all the thrills without taxing your brain too much. Having a lead as charismatic as Elba also helps. His character is kind of inconsistent -- by turns goofball who often swivels to emotional intensity -- but the actor manages to sell it. Also Read: 'The Lord of the Rings The Rings of Power' review: A majestic fantasy TV series worthy of JRR Tolkien But the real stars of the movie are the lions. The reason is the quality of CGI and animation is simply outstanding, especially in a movie of a comparatively low budget. In a scene when the lions, the friendly ones, surround and hug Martin gave a happy jolt to me. It was breathtaking to watch. We see the entirety of the evil beastie only in the end and if I didn't know better, I would have thought they trained a real lion to claw and bite in a friendly way. The camera angles by cinematographer Philippe Rousselot when the lion attacks are astonishingly effective in close quarters, often giving a first-person view of the ensuing carnage. This movie at times felt 3D without actually being 3D. Preferably, watch this movie in a theatre. The thrills are carefully crafted and surround sound effects complement the visuals nicely. This is thrilling filmmaking in every sense of the word. 'Beast', of course, has shortcomings. I did not mind the simplistic plot, but some might. Also, those who know their big cats intimately would realise that lions do not behave like that like the beast in the movie does. They do not take 5 minutes to kill a human in a fair fight (without firearms) -- more like a few seconds. And they can see in the dark as well as we see in the day so in the scene where Nate saves himself from the lion by just stopping? An actual lion would have instantly ripped his throat out. The story does take leaps of logic. Suspension of disbelief is often required. But this are nitpicking in a movie that delivers exactly what it promised: a survival horror thriller in which Idris Elba and a lion fight. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, I cannot stop yearning for a similar film on the man-eating tigers of Kumaon.

'Beast' movie review: A blood-maddened lion is loose in Idris Elba-led survival thriller

With 'The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power', Amazon's aim, one presumes, was to do what HBO did with 'Game of Thrones'. Which is: to set a new bar for fantasy television and create a cinematic-level experience on the small screen. The last time the streaming service adapted a fantasy epic ('The Wheel of Time')... let's just say it did not work out so well. Admittedly, I was not a fan of the source material in that case, something that clearly coloured my opinion. But I am a fan of JRR Tolkien's writings, something of a 'Tolkienist' actually. Beginning with 'The Hobbit' at the age of 13, I have read pretty much every publicly available word the author wrote. And Amazon, due to the Tolkien fanboi that Jeff Bezos is, put an unheard of $1.25 billion to bring this series into existence.&nbsp;

I was cautiously optimistic and sort of excited. Something THAT expensive cannot be all bad, right? And it really isn't. In fact, thus far, I unadulteratedly love 'The Rings of Power'. It is not flawless, and the purist in me screamed every time the show diverged from the lore -- which is all too frequent -- but the showrunners JD Payne and Patrick McKay and their team of writers have done something interesting with the bits and pieces provided by Tolkien in the appendices.&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/x8UAUAuKNcU" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

You see, 'The Rings of Power' does not adapt any particular Tolkien book. Amazon, even with all that money, could get the rights to neither the main two books ('LotR' and 'The Hobbit') nor 'The Silmarillion', a book which is a collection of stories set in the same universe and delineate the early history of Middle-earth, including its creation myth. Adapting the main 'LotR' would have been redundant anyway, considering how big of an impact the Jackson movies had. What Amazon did get for those $250 million was everything else, which did not amount to much -- or at least that is what one would think. The Second Age could be exploited by the writers and how Sauron first became the Dark Lord after his former master Morgoth, the Lucifer of Middle-earth, was defeated. And this, if done well, could be a gripping story indeed. And it is.

Morgoth and Sauron were defeated. While Morgoth was banished to the Timeless Void, his evil endures. And his chief lieutenant Sauron escaped. Galadriel (Morfydd Clark) lost her brother to that evil and believes Sauron still exists and is orchestrating his return. Her friend, Elrond (Robert Aramayo), is sympathetic but disagrees, wanting her to hang up her sword and sail to Undying Lands.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Tl44vcVIRmQ" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

Nori Brandyfoot (Markella Kavenagh) is one of the Harfoots, proto-Hobbits, and for a member of her race, pretty observant and adventurous. She has a suspicion that not everything is right in the world. One day, she sees a man falling to the ground like a fiery meteor. Her discovery of him only increases her perplexity, especially considering Harfoots are used to quietude.&nbsp;

Arondir (Ismael Cruz Córdova) is a silvan elf and one among a group of soldiers tasked with watching over a human village and making sure they do not indulge in any devilry (like joining forces with Sauron). Now it is his time to go back, but he is reluctant, for he has fallen in love with a human woman, a local healer Bronwyn (Nazanin Boniadi), something that is forbidden among both humans and elves.&nbsp;

'The Rings of Power' world-building is intimate and expansive at the same time. Even the newbies to the franchise should not have any problem following the events of the show. The major characters, a few of which (Galadriel and Elrond) would be familiar to the fans of the film trilogy, are all sketched with impressive detail. The production quality and filming in actual locations lend a sense of realness to a story that, ironically enough, comes under fantasy.
<img alt="Robert Aramayo as elrond" data-caption="Robert Aramayo as Elrond." data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="e1559104-ab74-40da-a28a-3469cf864280" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/LOTR-rings-of-power.jpg" />
The events depicted in 'The Rings of Power' take place over thousands of years and even different ages, but are condensed to squeeze in as many crucial events in the same narrative as possible. For instance, Harfoots, which did not appear until the Third Age, exist in the series. Just like how Tolkien fanatics hated Jackson's trilogy until they actually watched it, even the biggest scepticisms should melt away before 'The Rings of Power'.

'The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power' gets the basics right when it comes to a Middle-earth adaptation. Even in the screeners I was provided with, with all the annoying watermarks, 'The Rings of Power' looked absolutely lush. Ironically, it is so good that even in its episodic form, it looks more suited to be viewed in cinemas than on TV. There are shots of imposing edifices and grand statues that tower over the mountains. There are also familiar vistas showcasing landscapes, hills, valleys, rivers, and faithful recreations of locations like Lindon -- every single frame looks stunning. The visual aspect of Middle-earth is an important aspect and the creators certainly recognised that. The aesthetic is nicely redolent of 'LotR' trilogy and also feels like its own thing.&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-rings-of-power-a-complete-character-guide-511753">'The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power': A complete character guide</a>

So did Amazon do a 'Game of Thrones' here? It is too early to tell. But 'The Rings of Power' so far does feel like an epic fantasy series worthy of Tolkien. 
&nbsp;

With 'The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power', Amazon's aim, one presumes, was to do what HBO did with 'Game of Thrones'. Which is: to set a new bar for fantasy television and create a cinematic-level experience on the small screen.

With 'The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power', Amazon's aim, one presumes, was to do what HBO did with 'Game of Thrones'. Which is: to set a new bar for fantasy television and create a cinematic-level experience on the small screen. The last time the streaming service adapted a fantasy epic ('The Wheel of Time')... let's just say it did not work out so well. Admittedly, I was not a fan of the source material in that case, something that clearly coloured my opinion. But I am a fan of JRR Tolkien's writings, something of a 'Tolkienist' actually. Beginning with 'The Hobbit' at the age of 13, I have read pretty much every publicly available word the author wrote. And Amazon, due to the Tolkien fanboi that Jeff Bezos is, put an unheard of $1.25 billion to bring this series into existence. I was cautiously optimistic and sort of excited. Something THAT expensive cannot be all bad, right? And it really isn't. In fact, thus far, I unadulteratedly love 'The Rings of Power'. It is not flawless, and the purist in me screamed every time the show diverged from the lore -- which is all too frequent -- but the showrunners JD Payne and Patrick McKay and their team of writers have done something interesting with the bits and pieces provided by Tolkien in the appendices. You see, 'The Rings of Power' does not adapt any particular Tolkien book. Amazon, even with all that money, could get the rights to neither the main two books ('LotR' and 'The Hobbit') nor 'The Silmarillion', a book which is a collection of stories set in the same universe and delineate the early history of Middle-earth, including its creation myth. Adapting the main 'LotR' would have been redundant anyway, considering how big of an impact the Jackson movies had. What Amazon did get for those $250 million was everything else, which did not amount to much -- or at least that is what one would think. The Second Age could be exploited by the writers and how Sauron first became the Dark Lord after his former master Morgoth, the Lucifer of Middle-earth, was defeated. And this, if done well, could be a gripping story indeed. And it is. Morgoth and Sauron were defeated. While Morgoth was banished to the Timeless Void, his evil endures. And his chief lieutenant Sauron escaped. Galadriel (Morfydd Clark) lost her brother to that evil and believes Sauron still exists and is orchestrating his return. Her friend, Elrond (Robert Aramayo), is sympathetic but disagrees, wanting her to hang up her sword and sail to Undying Lands. Nori Brandyfoot (Markella Kavenagh) is one of the Harfoots, proto-Hobbits, and for a member of her race, pretty observant and adventurous. She has a suspicion that not everything is right in the world. One day, she sees a man falling to the ground like a fiery meteor. Her discovery of him only increases her perplexity, especially considering Harfoots are used to quietude. Arondir (Ismael Cruz Córdova) is a silvan elf and one among a group of soldiers tasked with watching over a human village and making sure they do not indulge in any devilry (like joining forces with Sauron). Now it is his time to go back, but he is reluctant, for he has fallen in love with a human woman, a local healer Bronwyn (Nazanin Boniadi), something that is forbidden among both humans and elves. 'The Rings of Power' world-building is intimate and expansive at the same time. Even the newbies to the franchise should not have any problem following the events of the show. The major characters, a few of which (Galadriel and Elrond) would be familiar to the fans of the film trilogy, are all sketched with impressive detail. The production quality and filming in actual locations lend a sense of realness to a story that, ironically enough, comes under fantasy. The events depicted in 'The Rings of Power' take place over thousands of years and even different ages, but are condensed to squeeze in as many crucial events in the same narrative as possible. For instance, Harfoots, which did not appear until the Third Age, exist in the series. Just like how Tolkien fanatics hated Jackson's trilogy until they actually watched it, even the biggest scepticisms should melt away before 'The Rings of Power'. 'The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power' gets the basics right when it comes to a Middle-earth adaptation. Even in the screeners I was provided with, with all the annoying watermarks, 'The Rings of Power' looked absolutely lush. Ironically, it is so good that even in its episodic form, it looks more suited to be viewed in cinemas than on TV. There are shots of imposing edifices and grand statues that tower over the mountains. There are also familiar vistas showcasing landscapes, hills, valleys, rivers, and faithful recreations of locations like Lindon -- every single frame looks stunning. The visual aspect of Middle-earth is an important aspect and the creators certainly recognised that. The aesthetic is nicely redolent of 'LotR' trilogy and also feels like its own thing. Also Read: 'The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power': A complete character guide So did Amazon do a 'Game of Thrones' here? It is too early to tell. But 'The Rings of Power' so far does feel like an epic fantasy series worthy of Tolkien.

'The Lord of the Rings The Rings of Power' review: A majestic fantasy TV series worthy of JRR Tolkien

Marvel Studios' latest series 'She-Hulk: Attorney at Law' continues to be a charming, slickly made show that is the first true sitcom in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Quick confession: every single show from the studio until now has ended up disappointing me. While 'WandaVision', 'Loki', and 'Moon Knight' had less than satisfying finales to a strong buildup, 'The Falcon and the Winter Soldier' and 'Hawkeye' were bad from the beginning and never really got interesting. 'She-Hulk' is not spectacular, but it is fun to watch. Even the truckload of references to other franchises within the MCU feels at home due to the show's meta nature. The heroine Jennifer Walters (Tatiana Maslany) breaks the fourth wall every now and then.

The show has Walters, who as the title of the show suggests is an attorney by profession, being bestowed with the powers of a Hulk that she did not want. The first episode had her rescuing civilians after a superpowered influencer&nbsp;played by Jameela Jamil attacked during court proceedings. While she was lauded, she also lost her job as her boss fears her She-Hulk persona will always be the elephant in the courtroom.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JhRdcMm5zGw" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

In the second episode, she was hired by a law firm specialising in representing superhuman clients. And her client was revealed to be none other the Abomination, also known as Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), who claimed he has changed as a person. And the one time he was spotted taking on Wong in a fight club? It was the Sorcerer Supreme who had broken him out of prison.

In the third episode of the show, titled 'The People vs. Emil Blonsky', Jennifer tries to find out Wong so he can testify to that (if Emil is indeed innocent).

Also Read:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-she-hulk-season-1-episode-1-review-funny-and-action-packed-mcus-first-sitcom-is-here-508032">&nbsp;'She-Hulk' Season 1 Episode 1 review: Funny and action-packed, MCU's first sitcom is here</a>

The best part about 'She-Hulk: Attorney at Law' is it feels like a TV show -- and not an overlong MCU movie divided into several parts like every show before it felt. Each episode is self-contained and tells its own story. There is a clear, definite arc of the titular character, but the episodes, until now at least, still appear to be part of a whole. Many MCU fans might not like that until this moment, the show has not explicitly teased anything important to come in future (apart from the Sakaaran class-A courier craft that Jennifer and Bruce saw).

But 'She-Hulk' is funny and that makes me forgive its story for not feeling too important to the MCU as a whole. It's not laugh-out-loud funny, but funny like a proper sitcom, only without the laugh track. Jennifer breaks the fourth wall blessedly rarely but when she does, it is always amusing. In &nbsp;'The People vs. Emil Blonsky', as she is driving and thinking of getting Wong as a witness, she tells the camera, "I know you want to see Wong, I get it. I just don’t want you to think this is one of those ‘cameo every week' shows. Just Bruce. And Blonsky. And Wong" and her expression turns into disbelief. Perhaps this show is indeed a ‘cameo every week' show!

Watch 'She-Hulk: Attorney at Law' on Disney+ Hotstar.&nbsp;

Marvel Studios' latest series 'She-Hulk: Attorney at Law' continues to be a charming, slickly made show that is the first true sitcom in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Marvel Studios' latest series 'She-Hulk: Attorney at Law' continues to be a charming, slickly made show that is the first true sitcom in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Quick confession: every single show from the studio until now has ended up disappointing me. While 'WandaVision', 'Loki', and 'Moon Knight' had less than satisfying finales to a strong buildup, 'The Falcon and the Winter Soldier' and 'Hawkeye' were bad from the beginning and never really got interesting. 'She-Hulk' is not spectacular, but it is fun to watch. Even the truckload of references to other franchises within the MCU feels at home due to the show's meta nature. The heroine Jennifer Walters (Tatiana Maslany) breaks the fourth wall every now and then. The show has Walters, who as the title of the show suggests is an attorney by profession, being bestowed with the powers of a Hulk that she did not want. The first episode had her rescuing civilians after a superpowered influencer played by Jameela Jamil attacked during court proceedings. While she was lauded, she also lost her job as her boss fears her She-Hulk persona will always be the elephant in the courtroom. In the second episode, she was hired by a law firm specialising in representing superhuman clients. And her client was revealed to be none other the Abomination, also known as Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), who claimed he has changed as a person. And the one time he was spotted taking on Wong in a fight club? It was the Sorcerer Supreme who had broken him out of prison. In the third episode of the show, titled 'The People vs. Emil Blonsky', Jennifer tries to find out Wong so he can testify to that (if Emil is indeed innocent). Also Read: 'She-Hulk' Season 1 Episode 1 review: Funny and action-packed, MCU's first sitcom is here The best part about 'She-Hulk: Attorney at Law' is it feels like a TV show -- and not an overlong MCU movie divided into several parts like every show before it felt. Each episode is self-contained and tells its own story. There is a clear, definite arc of the titular character, but the episodes, until now at least, still appear to be part of a whole. Many MCU fans might not like that until this moment, the show has not explicitly teased anything important to come in future (apart from the Sakaaran class-A courier craft that Jennifer and Bruce saw). But 'She-Hulk' is funny and that makes me forgive its story for not feeling too important to the MCU as a whole. It's not laugh-out-loud funny, but funny like a proper sitcom, only without the laugh track. Jennifer breaks the fourth wall blessedly rarely but when she does, it is always amusing. In 'The People vs. Emil Blonsky', as she is driving and thinking of getting Wong as a witness, she tells the camera, "I know you want to see Wong, I get it. I just don’t want you to think this is one of those ‘cameo every week' shows. Just Bruce. And Blonsky. And Wong" and her expression turns into disbelief. Perhaps this show is indeed a ‘cameo every week' show! Watch 'She-Hulk: Attorney at Law' on Disney+ Hotstar.

'She-Hulk' Episode 3 review: Tatiana Maslany's MCU series continues to delight

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.