Aranyak is the new Netflix show about the two cops, Angad (Parambrata Chattopadhyay) and Kasturi (Raveena Tandon), who are handed over an extremely difficult murder case that involves numerous people around the hill station. The murder mystery becomes personal when they realize that the case ties with their dark past or compromises the family security. The superstitious theory about the return of some serial killing Leopard-man becomes certain when the diggings indicate that this all leads to a hunter in the jungle.
Not sure if Aranyak is based on the famous Bengali novel by the same title written by Bibhutibhushan Bandopadhyay. But the credit should be given to the writing and the screenplay of the show. I think the mystery is very complicated and has the driving factor that makes you binge-watch all eight episodes. I think the season finale doesn’t do justice as compared to how all the previous seven episodes were maintaining the storytelling. The last episode ran in haste and the conclusion of the season looked pretty weak to me.
I think this show marks the return of Bollywood‘s mast-mast girl, Raveena Tandon. Maybe I am wrong but I noticed her years ago in Anurag Kashyap‘s Bombay Velvet song. Anyway, I don’t remember Raveena in any memorable role in the past. And even here, she was just average. Her facial reactions were flat and there were many scenes where her performance needed a push but she couldn’t. Veteran Parambrata had another impressive number in his acting credits. Ashutosh Rana also gave a decent show.
If I am not wrong, there will be another season. This should have been a mini-series. But for now, Aranyak is a very interesting mystery thriller to get entertained.
Two astronomers find out that a comet is about to hit the planet in six months. So they try to explain and alarm the catastrophic situation to the president and to the media but to their shock, no one believes them or takes them seriously. Instead, Adam Mckay shows a deep disturbing materialistic world where humans are greedy, careless, and irresponsible.
Don’t Look Up is a mockumentary or an ugly horoscopic ultra-predictor of the cosmic negligence that is excessively thoughtful. The elements may connect to everything how the world revolves now like global politics or global warming. Adam Mckay since The Big Short has been pretty much critical about US politics and the new dark dramedy is a poetic way of protesting.
I think the film will definitely make rounds at the Oscars. Nominations for the best editing, original screenplay, actor, actress, director, and picture look very likely to me. The final thirty minutes were simultaneously disturbing, destructive, and melancholic. Looking at the plotline, I was eager to know how the film is going to conclude and Adam Mckay perfectly put it to an end. Don’t Look Up definitely is one of the best films of the year.
Milestone is about the fallout of a night-shift truck driver Ghalib who has recently lost his wife, has to compensate to his in-laws, has a terrible backache, has to train a new intern, has to shoulder his friend who has lost his job, and (I am not done) is in danger of losing his own job. So basically, Milestone is a 90-minute art movie about the mental and physical struggle of a broken man who is lost in the wake of tragedy.
When I watched this film on Netflix, it reminded me of the peak era of Bollywood’s parallel cinema of the 1970s and 80s when the directors like Shyam Benegal, Mahesh Bhatt, Mrinal Sen, Goutam Ghose, Govind Nihalani, and many more were producing the best of art films. Or maybe this is some homage or tribute to their works.
It is a slow-burner and may not buy the mainstream audience or perhaps even the sensible viewers. But for those who are keen to watch some really good artwork, Milestone is that product to ask your 90 minutes.
There is no music, no songs, no entertainment, simple and on several occasions very thought dialogues. Direction and cinematography are unusual. The film clearly shows that the filmmakers were serious to present quality work.
Yes, I won’t miss my usual and favorite part of the review at all, writing/screenwriting. See the story is frankly about a few days of man after the tragedy. The real piece of work is in screenwriting. Some impressive detailing and camera shots made this film sublime. The director stretched pretty much time on a few scenes that may demand attention. For example, there is a scene in the truck when the intern asks Ghalib why he left and he responds if he knows who Saddam Hussein was. The intern is blank and Ghalib stares at him. So the director exhausts the scene on the audience to understand the depth of agony and political tense when millions of Indians were stuck in the Gulf war and left in the early 90s.
Milestone has been screened in some international films festivals and has made some distinctions. This film is highly recommended to that sensible audience who are eager to watch some quality film in a 90-minute slow-burn. For me, this pretty much is one of the best films of the year.
TV news anchor Arjun Pathak gets his biggest break when he interviews a terrorist who has just tried to blow a bridge alarming the national security sensing a high-level terror attack. With time, catching the terrorist becomes complicated due to his demands and Pathak struggles to find the solution to end this madness.
Dhamaka is the official remake of the South Korean film, The Terror Live. Directed by Ram Madhvani who made Neerja. There is no doubt that just like Neerja, Dhamaka is another top-class nerve-building intensity and the first half is the clear proof. The film lifts up the attention in a few minutes at the start and successfully attracts the audience and builds curiosity.
Dhamaka offers a few scenes that have been shot with careful direction like the entire build-up of Arjun struggling to recover after he vomited. Or another scene of giving a hope of possible reunion that ends up with a tragedy when the bridge collapses.
Technical excellence? Impressive sound design throughout the film and compelling screenplay and direction in the first half. Amruta Subhash had an impressive supporting role and Mrunal Thakur is one of the new talents who are serious about the profession and trying to make the name. This has to be Karthik Aaryan‘s best performance to date and maybe one of the best leading performances of the year. His expressional timing and behavioral attitude were sharp and handled with delicacy.
But handling the continuity of such a potential plot towards the last phase lowed the anticipation. A well-settled first 40 minutes into the film held a lot of promises but numerous plotholes raised the eyebrows.
One major problem is the dramatization of a typical newsroom trying to break a news on air. The seriousness and hullabaloo of the room get an odd feeling about the authenticity over covering a national outcry of terrorism. If the terrorist is so prepared to blow the proportions of the building, how come he believes in a theory that a minister can come to the show to apologize when he could have asked for forgiveness from any platform. If he was eventually hiding in the building, how come the anti-corruption unit did not spot out and took so long to trace out? The film shows that the call on the phone was coming from the IT room. How come no one noticed that?
When Arjun depicted that his earphone had the bomb, the police began to solve the mystery of who would fix that in his ear. I don’t understand how come no one in the newsroom identified the possibility. This is their daily routine and they all know each other who is assigned what work. What politician doesn’t cooperate with such sensitive issues on air and put the lives of many at-risk after suggesting that he must not enrage him? A journalist died in the bridge collapse and there were no injuries when the body was found. Really?
Yes, the film successfully shows the reality behind the news media politics and all the black efforts that are made to dramatize/sensationalize the events. But Dhamaka will be remembered for Karthik’s performance who looked like the captain of the sinking ship. If the efforts were made in dramatizing more compelling writing on the situational tense and newsroom drama, this may have been one of the best films of the year.
Bombay Rose is an animated film about flower sellers Kamala and Salim who falls in love but are reluctant due to some restraints.
This 90-minute drama is an exuberant work of art because it took 60 artists to produce frame-by-frame painted animation on the computer for more than a year. The credit should be given where it is due, Bombay Rose is kaleidoscopic and vibrant.
And then the film was not just about Kamala and Salim’s romanticism. Director Gitanjali Rao scented this artistic work with some impressive detailing in the screenwriting. For example, the character of Ms. Desouza was life. A yesteryear actress of the 1950s, her melancholic loneliness, visiting graveyard, and the scene where she walks with Kamala’s sister Tara and the epoch changes.
A few may observe that the director pressed the importance of cats in the film. It is not like it just showed up in one scene but a few screen minutes were given to keeping and caring for pets. Two characters kept cats, one was Ms. Desouza and the other was Tipu. Desouza was old and lonely while Tipu was mute and deaf. Figurative and thoughtful.
The film also highlighted the social issue of child labor. They also interconnected the thickness of the plot within the frame like Ms. Desouza’s grave visit and Salim’s flower business was so much everyday walk-the-talk society moments. Usage of old Bollywood hit songs in the film enhanced the grace of the presentation. Some well-known versatile artists like Makarand Deshpande, Anurag Kashyap, Shishir Sharma, Virendra Saxena, and Amardeep Jha gave voice to the characters.
Bombay Rose also gives a sharp image of the typical middle-road stories that remind you of the 1970s Bombay. The dialogues are natural and character-driven; differ with the characters and give a real feel instead of a reel. If the film was transformed from animation to live-action, the direction will somewhere give you a feel of old-school quality social-drama directions of Basu Chatterjee and Hrishikesh Mukherjee.
Bombay Rose was screened in Venice and Toronto film festivals and has met with the deserving critical acclaim. The film is a marvelous state of finesse in mosaic and cinematic poetry of a typical Bombay street diary.
A wealthy secret organization invites scores of participants who suffer financial crises and heavy loans. The participants eagerly join and are sent to a secret place for a few days where they have to accept the rules and play six games to win the jackpot. Little do they know the price they have to pay to end their financial miseries. They have zero clue about the horrors they have to confront.
Yes, there have been similar plots before like The Hunger Games and The Maze Runner but this South Korean tv show Squid Game cannot be compared for having similar elements. One, the former shows were adapted from their novels but the latter is created by the writer and director himself, Hwang Dong-hyuk. Plus the script of Squid Game was developed back in 2008 when the creator himself was in financial crisis too. So let’s assume that the foundation of this show was laid by his own lows. Indeed, the stories are gritty, moving, and compelling when you have bad times in life. Would the show have worked if produced in 2008? A kind of million-dollar question applicable in George Lucas‘ shoes when Star Wars was struggling to exist after Star Trek happened a decade ago.
I think Squid Game qualifies to be considered a complete source of entertainment where the games, the anticipation, the drama, and the suspense was thrilling, mesmerizing; and in all honesty, the show built a tremendous harmony of dark elements and forced humor in the writing. Just super brilliant work in the production design, contrasting colors of the interior so compelling and you are in some hypnotic illusion when the synchronized ladder climbing from different directions trying to reach the event.
The show is meeting immense global popularity and the kind of plot is hooking millions of viewers around the world, the story must also be subjected to observe how the ugliness of realities are made so warmly welcomed. Squid Game is easily one of the darkest satire on social capitalism on the global level. The highly rich people having fun of witnessing the poor turned into evils and murderers for the greed and hunger for money. Exaggeration of childhood games placed on adults becoming some harmless flying birds for the hunting season.
The world-famous music, ‘The Blue Danube‘ has found a new place in history and will be remembered for a reason. I must also admit that it wasn’t certainly perfectly crafted writing at all. Dong-hyuk did miss some portions that he should have taken into account. The heaviest of all criticism rests over lacking character developments. For example, I wanted to know the making of the Front Man. There was so much potential in the character but didn’t utilize. Police officer Hwang and the foreigner Ali Abdul were wasted. Ali Abdul’s introduction was one of the most intense scenes of the show when he holds Gi-hun from one hand before the girl looks back.
If there is a follow-up season then I think the creator has made a big mistake in the ending. With all the limited content offered for the writing of the plot, the story concludes with most of the characters meeting their deserving ends. So continuing out of nowhere, you need much a bigger picture to attract the viewers for eight or nine new episodes again. The biggest revelation in the finale was needless. But again, do we really need the second season? Can you just leave that secret organization and the dirty power kill scores of participants? Should the madness be stopped by someone or was that a slap on our hypocritic cheek? So if there is the second season then the writer, with all the global hype, is taking a huge responsibility.
But overall, Squid Game is one of the most exciting shows released by Netflix. This is easily recommendable to all the viewers who are looking for a potential story.
I am mesmerized to the directional greatness of Martin Scorsese whose crime drama detailing lost not an inch of fascination. The Irishman is remarkably constructed in the very same crime tone as Scorsese’s previous unforgettable crime works like Mean Streets, Goodfellas, Casino, etc. I am impressed by how can any director maintain the same aura of directional artistry for more than 5 decades. The Irishman is a ridiculously superior crime saga of around 3 hours and 29 minutes.
It is not the hype of this hugely awaited film for which I am excited, it is the brilliance of the filmmaking, narration, production designing blended with rich performances by the stellar casting and spectacular action sequences which have impressed me.
Another aspect worth mentioning is Scorsese’s careful use of onscreen chemistries. I am talking about two of the most talking pairs of the film; Robert de Niro with Joe Pesci and with Al Pacino. Sad to see Joe Pesci gone slow and less angry due to old age but each of his screentime was worth and displayed a memorable performance.
But with de Niro’s splendid performance in years, I will say it was Al Pacino’s magnificent supporting role equating with de Niro’s leading character. Al Pacino as Jimmy Hoffa was a talking point in the entire middle part of the film. Scorsese fixed them together in the most suitable screen minutes and heavy dramatic moments of the final hour. Every sensible viewer will enjoy their chemistry, especially in the final hour.
Hoffa’s political adversity highlighted some political tensions between Kennedy and Nixon eras. Some of the most notorious crime families were also depicted like Genovese, Philly, Gambino, and Colombo.
The Irishman is a phenomenal film. The final 30 minutes will drop you, break you and wreck you. There is no aspect that doesn’t impress you. In my opinion, the film deserves the Oscar nominations for the best picture, director, actor (de Niro), supporting actor (Pacino), editing, production design, and cinematography at least. Maybe also for the adapted screenplay which I have read to be very precise, for a few I have doubts which I don’t like to ponder here.
Overall, The Irishman is one of Martin Scorsese’s finest works, easily one of the greatest crime films, one of de Niro and Pacino’s most memorable roles of their careers.
Mandatory Credit: Photo by Evan Agostini/Invision/AP/Shutterstock (10428524co)
Joe Pesci, Al Pacino, Martin Scorsese, Robert De Niro, Harvey Keitel. Actor Joe Pesci, left, actor Al Pacino, director Martin Scorsese, actor Robert De Niro and actor Harvey Keitel pose together at the world premiere of “The Irishman” at Alice Tully Hall during the opening night of the 57th New York Film Festival, in New York
2019 NYFF – “The Irishman” World Premiere, New York, USA – 27 Sep 2019
It is my firm believe that when the producers and the director decides to make a film based on an individual, your account your narration your presentation should be precise especially in a case when the individual has a disturbed life blended with the personal violence, shattered image, serious accusations, drug abuse and complicated relations with the family and friends.
The Indian cinema with many unforgettable celebrities offer scores of background stories which has the required material to translate their lives in the reels. Sanjay Dutt is one such story and when the project was announced, I was excited. But when the news broke that Rajkumar Hirani would be directing this, my court of judgments objected the announcement with a question mark bigger than the one in the headline of the cropped newspaper from the scene.
Because Raju Hirani is known to present the subjects and messages to the viewers with a screenplay which can adjust a well equipped rib-tickling comedy. Munnabhai duology, 3 Idiots and PK worked well with the humor because the stories of all the four films were fictional and flexible enough to bend with a typical Hirani humor.
But Baba’s story is dark, real, serious, traumatic, painful and disturbing. Will Raju Hirani make his first serious film or will his directional artistry of presenting sensitive subjects in a cleverly humorous way, this time on the real subject, will work again?
When the teaser and trailer were released, the presentations didn’t buy me at all. Because the seriousness of the content was glorified and looked entertaining instead of thought-provoking. So I said to myself, let me watch the film first and decide if the biopic justifies.
Now that I have watched on Netflix, I am much convinced to conclude that Sanju is easily one of the worst biographic films I have ever watched. This work is easily Raju’s worst. Raju making Sanju is like Taika Waititi making Thor: Ragnarok.
Sanju is bad, really bad, on many counts. One major reason is that when you watch the film and if you are a good observer, you realize that the motive of this film is to give a visual presentation of Sanjay Dutt by his close friend Raju Hirani concluding “Look guys! he was a bad boy, now he is a good boy, so please forgive him”. Baba doesn’t need to earn his name, people love him, people adore him. He has one of the biggest fan-following among the South Asians on a global stage. So stop being naive and focus on the most sensitive incidents of his life because this film is extremely sympathetic to the actor.
And that is where Sanju disappoints me. The screenplay dreadfully emphasizes on his drug usage and relation with his father than anything. You make a lengthy 160-minute film avoiding many important moments and touching a couple of topics is not a smart move. A director can do a lot of things in a screen time of 160 minutes.
Fine! Sanju has to be a miniseries to focus and touch all the vital portions of his disturbed timeline. Fine! everything cannot be presented in a very limited screen length. The director may have to divide the film into two like Gangs of Wasseypur, or consider sequel or trilogy, or overtake Tamas, LOC Kargil, and Mera Naam Joker to make the longest Hindi-language film ever to justify Baba’s life story. But I am not asking or expecting to somehow show a complete Sanjay Dutt story. At least mention or give the reference of the missing parts.
How disappointing is it to watch only the current wife, Manyata Dutt, but completely ignoring his other two wives? Especially the first one, Richa Sharma, who died of the brain tumor and was mentally disturbed by the rumors of her husband getting married to Madhuri Dixit. Speaking of the latter, Sanjay-Madhuri affair being once the most famous talk of the town got no space in the screenwriting of the film. With this effect, Baba’s eldest daughter Trishala is automatically out of the frame and shows only two young kids from the current wife, Manyata.
It is strange that Baba admits to the biographer to have slept with at least 300 women including the harlots but the director is scared of speaking a few close ones in his life. Neither his off-screen affair with Tina Munim comes to exist nor Madhuri in the film. But a character Ruby is perhaps intermingled to many of his relationships. Ruby is portrayed by Sonam Kapoor in a short role but gives an impressive performance.
Another strange application is Baba’s friendship with a Gujarati New Yorker (based on his real best friend, Paresh Ghelani) to an extent of his being a major supporting role bigger than his father’s in the film but ignoring the popular jigarship with Kumar Gaurav, the actor and friend who risked his acting career and fame requesting his actor-father Rajendra Kumar to give his friend Sanjay Dutt the role of his brother in Mahesh Bhatt‘s Naam. Result? Sanjay Dutt’s good time in acting career began from this film. This Kumar Gaurav is someone about whom Baba once admitted to shedding his blood for him if required. A friend who is even the husband of his sister Namrata has no mention at all.
And Jim Sarbh‘s Borat look-alike character. It was an important role but I wonder if the director forgets to bring him back in the frame after he speaks to the biographer to check Kamlesh. His role ends pretty prematurely.
Only Baba’s father, Sunil Dutt, is the center of attraction from the entire Dutt parivar. Paresh Rawal plays the senior Dutt’s role which is quite an odd choice. Neither the personality nor the voice of Sunil Dutt reminds you of Paresh Rawal. Paresh Rawal’s role wasn’t close to the senior Dutt but was similar to what he did in Paa. Aamir Khan was offered Sunil Dutt’s role which he refused because of Dangal’s shooting. Paresh and Aamir both were bad choices. In fact, it is hard to find someone like Sunil Dutt to play that role. Surendra Pal perhaps. Unfortunately, there are no heart-melting scenes of the onscreen father-son to take back, neither the seaport scene nor the magic-hug scene.
Baba’s sisters hardly spoke any dialogues in the film. The mother-son onscreen chemistry is shockingly overlooked. Manisha Koirala playing his famous actress-mother Nargis has to be the only satisfying selection in the entire casting. Not only Manisha does resemble but even acts like Nargis so well and alas, she is there for only a few minutes.
At least 1993 Bombay bombings made it into the script among the traumatic incidents of Dutt’s life but even here, Raju Hirani was not interested to go deeper in details and tell us about Sanjay Dutt’s connection with Abu Salem or any terrorist involved in the tragic incident.
BAD USE OF WOMANIZING HUMOR
It is quite bizarre to observe how womanizing is taken so light because it is a sympathetic script based on Baba to clean his image. If this film was based on a notorious criminal, the confession of completing a triple century on the bed would have dropped a nuclear weapon on the viewers. On the contrary, when Baba confesses, Manyata chuckles and the biographer is impressed and it looks way odd for entertainment. Not only this, Baba’s one-night stand with his best friend’s girlfriend hardly makes any sense. This incident is true as per Paresh Ghelani but the portrayal of a well-cultured Gujarati girl shy of wearing a nightie for her man at Baba’s house suddenly turning into Venus bold enough to shamelessly expose her skin to Baba and show a willingness to make out with him looked overdramatic. From Sita to Monroe in 40 seconds, a typical Bollywood u-turn for the viewers! And what is this five-minute sequence even doing in the film in the first place? Was this sequence relevant?
These 160 minutes could have been better utilized or reduced if Raju Hirani would not have pulled a Taika Waititi. Needless and forced humor damaged the screenplay. Not only Gujarati girl scene, many irrelevant scenes like a sleepy politician, over exaggerating Tripathi’s Bapu-Sanju comparison, hospital scene with the death of Ruby’s father, Ruby’s change of heart over her favorite animal, Sanju’s scenes with Bandu Dada also made it in the cut.
RANBIR KAPOOR AS SANJAY DUTT
Now about Ranbir Kapoor as Sanjay Dutt. See, the first matter of fact is to admit that if there is anyone who can play Baba’s role is Baba himself because finding an actor to play him is most likely unworkable. So the selection of Ranbir for the role is by far the closest a director can think of because Ranbir naturally carries two exceptional qualities of Baba. One is height and the other is the voice.
No offense but sometimes I feel if Ranbir is Baba’s son more than Chintu‘s. Ali Asgar has to be Chintu’s son. Anyway, the struggle over being Baba has to be tougher because on the screen we do see Ranbir giving his best Sanjay Dutt impression as much as he can. Height and voice naturally helped Ranbir. The rest was the bravura of the makeup and styling artist whoever he/she was.
Let’s not say if this is Ranbir’s best performance to date because I believe his performance in Rockstar and Barfi was far superior to this. Because it is all about the execution of the role. Ranbir’s presentation of pain and grief in Rockstar is more compliant than in Sanju. His role in Barfi was more challenging and handicapped.
Ranbir with the gifted height and voice had strong assistance of makeup, styling and costume designing helping further to assume him Baba. But after all the tools and despite carefully adopting Baba’s mannerism, Ranbir reminds Ranbir.
There is one really intense scene in the jail when the pot overflows. Baba loses patience and gets emotionally disturbed. He repeatedly knocks the door while the water touches his feet. This is the time when I wait to see how Ranbir as Baba loses his patience and go maniac. But then the scene ends and moves two months later?!?!
It is not that the film is completely nil. Being a biopic, it do has some accuracies like Baba ticking all the drugs while filling the form, trying to commit suicide, the judge clearing him from terrorism, hiding heroin in his shoes while traveling with his sisters, Nargis dying a few days before Rocky‘s premiere, Tabu giving Filmfare Award for Munnabhai MBBS etc. Makeup, styling and costume designing are also top notch.
But then so many technical mistakes like chronological inconsistencies over most of the vehicles used in different timelines. Look at the KFC chain behind Baba during his struggle to reach New York. That is the current branding philosophy of the chain applied. That scene is from the 80s and KFC branding philosophy was extremely different back then.
Unnecessary tracks stretch the length and the background score is extremely ordinary. Leaves me towards Raju’s direction which I believe is the weakest of all the films he has directed. The story and the screenplay don’t buy me at all.
The filmmakers have to decide if the Indian cinema is ready for biopics. And when I say biopics, that means an honest and accurate biopics. Another point which comes to my mind is that the director must believe that a biopic can win the audience even without being concerned to entertain and box-office results.
I must appreciate that Ranbir did his best being Baba. He is a very talented actor. I am sure if project Sanju would have gone to the right man, may have pulled the right strings.
Doctor Strange is just another comedy film from the showcase of Marvel Cinematic Universe, produced with the purpose of expanding the universe by bringing its viewers to the circus for mere entertainment. The production studio makes sure that the definition of entertainment from the vocabulary of a Disney-led universe should be:
a) Just another superhero trying to be funny/silly and performing slapsticks for the sake of applauses from the critics and viewers
b) and the filmmaker’s uncontrollable masturbation over the silver-age pages of the Lee/Ditko comics.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE FILM?
Erm, ‘almost’ everything. Disagreeing with comics accuracy is the biggest sin.
1) Benedict Cumberbatch as Doctor Strange looks the best screen test ever but in camera reel, the actor is not well defined with the character detail. First thing first, BC’s building American accent doesn’t fit with the character. He would rather have spoken in the usual way he does. Secondly, the stiffness of the pain-and-gain is beyond average from the turn of the frame from ego to hero. The third is the nature bound character which urges him to act like a monkey fed with peanuts, some silly slapsticks and lame humour adding nothing to the story but for your haha’s’ in the circus show.
2) Tilda Swinton, alright you are one of the best British actors in the cinema, but the makers completely lost their mind in selecting her for the role of Ancient One. First of all, AO is a very elder male character and second, he is of an Asian origin from the fictional Himalayan land of Kamar-Taj (based on Tibet). I believe in diversity but why on earth you want to change the fundamentals? This is not the first time MCU has banged a character.
3) Wong played by Wong is more than a librarian. In comics, he was Strange’s loyal servant, but in the film, he is his teacher.
4) Baron Mordo played by Chiwetel Ejiofor, is a ridiculous portrayal in the film. Mordo helps Strange in fighting against Kaecilius whereas, in comics, Mordo to Strange is what Luthor to Superman. Mordo is counted among Strange’s greatest villains and here in one scene, he helps the doctor inform the wifi password.
5) The main antagonist is Kaecilius in the film played by Mads Mikkelsen. The irony is that he was a henchman to Mordo in the comics who used to deliver messages and hence proved that MCU is still weak in bringing the best of villains in the films (besides Loki). In comics, he isn’t a major name in the list of Strange’s strangest villains but…
6) The Cloak to Strange in the comics is the Genie to Aladdin. The cloak acts what the master wishes but in the film, the cloak is seen responding to the others. Why? Just for *thinking* entertainment?
8) The fate of the AO is completely different from the comics.
9) The film lacks a critical grip of focusing on his training. As Strange focuses on slapsticks in the basic training, AO polishes him in mere 18 months as compared to 14 years in the comics.
IS THERE ANYTHING TO PRAISE IN THE FILM?
Yes, the only plus, in fact, the biggest plus of the whole film is the visual effects. There is no limit in mastering a remarkable creativity and has a very good inspiration from Nolan‘s Inception.Both the mid-credit and post-credit scenes are potential messages to what MCU are up to in the future.
Doctor Strange overall is just another circus show with popcorns and peanuts in your hands.