Little hero, big adventures
Sci-fi/Action/Adventure
ANT-MAN AND THE WASP
CAST: Paul Rudd, Evangeline Lilly, Michael Douglas, Michael Pena
DIRECTION: Peyton Reed
3 stars
‘Ant-Man and the Wasp’ continues the chronicles of Marvel’s lightweight and insect-sized superhero Ant-Man. In this edition we see Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) wearing his Ant-Man suit that enables him to both shrink and supersize, to pass through cracks and tricky spaces to help his mentor Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and Hank’s daughter Hope aka The Wasp (Evangeline Lilly) in their quest to bring back Hank’s wife (Michelle Pfeiffer) who has been trapped in a different quantum reality for 30 years. 2015’s ‘Ant-Man’ went through many production hiccups that, among others, saw director Edgar Wright walk out before shooting even began. Wright was replaced by Peyton Reed. But Reed and lead actor Paul Rudd were able to prove the skeptics wrong through an entertaining movie with a funny and likable underdog super-hero. Three years later, Reed and Rudd try to replicate the same magic. Amid the large universe-saving exploits of the rest of the Avengers, the Ant-Man saga is yet again strung together with a scaled down personal adventures. And the results are mixed this time. We get knocked out by the amazing and smart fight scenes and snappy dialogues but the science-heavy story feels messy and crisscrosses at lightning speed between parallel sub-plots.
At one point of the movie, Hank and Hope have a jargoned discussion about quantum dimensions, and a perplexed Scott asks, “Do you guys put ‘quantum’ in everything?” This is a question that many audience members would constantly ask while watching ‘Ant-Man and the Wasp’.
Speaking of the villains, the movie has one evil-minded businessman Sonny Burch, played with effortless sleaze and a cowboy drawl by actor Walton Goggins. Burch is after Hank’s high-tech science lab that can be easily shrunk into a rolling suitcase. Bruch wants to get his hands on the lab to strengthen his weapon business. Meanwhile a mysterious super-villain Ghost (Hannah John-Kamen) is also after Hank’s lab for her own needs. Burch and Ghost create hurdles for Ant-Man and his team in their plan to safely rescue Hank’s wife.
When the story’s not spinning your head with long chatty scenes about ‘quantum’ stuff, the supporting characters draw you in with their hilarious gags. In particular, Michael Pena as Scott’s expendable buddy and Abby Ryder Fortson as Scott’s feisty pre-teen daughter get to shine. But the show belongs to the 49-year-old funnyman Paul Rudd, who appears to be in his mid-30s in the movie. Unlike, say, Deadpool’s caustic sarcasm, Rudd’s Ant-Man benefits from the humor that emanates from his Average Joe likability and humanistic views. His scenes with his on-screen daughter are the film’s most poised and heartfelt ones, which in turn make up for his slack chemistry with Evangeline Lilly’s Hope.
Their performances nearly iron out the narrative excess of ‘Ant-Man and the Wasp’. It’s definitely a good outing at the big screen but I wouldn’t stress that this movie shouldn’t be missed.
Who should watch it?
Even without cameos from other superheroes from the Marvel Cinematic Universe, loyal Marvel fans would derive a lot of pleasure from Ant-Man this time as well. As for those who prefer large scale adventure like the ‘Avengers: Infinity War’, they might be a little disappointed by the grounded approach of ‘Ant-Man and the Wasp’.
A piece of red cloth
That day you used a piece of red cloth
To blindfold me and the sky
And asked me what do you see
I said I saw happiness
This really made me feel good
It made me forget I have no place to live
You asked me where I want to go
I said I want to follow you
I didn’t see you or the road
You also held my hands
You asked me what I want
I said I want you to decide
(Cui Jian, A piece of red cloth (‘yi kuai er hong bu’). Translation from Mandarin, mine) Some reckon it is too early to judge the Oli-led government. But, then, what exactly has he accomplished in more than four months in office, except making promises?
The promised and proposed trains, airports and major infrastructure projects take time and nobody is saying we want all those right now. But our pundits, politicians and journalists have meshed the infrastructure projects with nationalism and we are being told to silently bear the unbearable, tolerate the intolerable and not question the government if we want the train and other goodies. But big projects with neither definite timelines nor funding or planning nor anything, do not constitute nationalism or development. Nationalism is not only about infrastructures; there’s much more to it.
If the prime minister were a nationalist, as his supporters make him out to be, he would have made sure that all schools in Nepal had computers and internet access before doling out expensive MacBook Air to his ministers to make the government digital and efficient. If he really wanted our well-being, he would have tried to upgrade the services, equipment and quality of government hospitals so that we, the poor majority, would get the same treatment in Nepal which the politicians, himself included, get abroad.
If he was concerned about us, he would have made sure that the Dairy Development Corporation, a government entity, would send at least cleaner dairy products to the market so that we can consume them without fearing coliform and E.coli infestation. If he really thought about our safety, he would make sure at least our roads have traffic signals. If he wanted to make our lives easy, he would have made government offices efficient and corruption-free. If he cared about us, then the corrupt, past and present, would be behind the bars. Now ask yourself: what has the government done so far?
Taxes are raised but we have no idea where and how our tax money is spent because we still depend on foreign aid for almost everything. Our cash-strapped government loses almost Rs 350 million a day in customs revenue to leakages but it is doing nothing to control it, if not stop it altogether.
A doctor is waging a war against the medical mafia that wants to make money by providing mediocre education to students for tuition fees that’s beyond the capacity of the majority. A television program is allegedly shut down because the host dared to ask a minister uncomfortable questions. But there’s not a word from the government on what exactly happened. Moreover, the places where Mr Oli himself protested and vandalized for the people’s rights are now restricted areas. Why doesn’t he do good things that will make people not want to protest at all? Instead he has asked his party cadres to strongly counter the voices that are questioning him and his way of (not) doing things.
Why hasn’t the government been able to guarantee that the law of the land applies equally to all, rich and poor, weak and strong, politicians and commoners? Nepotism and favoritism are still rife and you need to be either connected to someone powerful or be rich enough to bribe big time to get government and diplomatic positions.
The Oli government has made us forget that more than foreign evils, it is our domestic demons that need to be exorcised first. Stalin-worshipping fake communists have made us forget all our present necessities and priorities by blindfolding us with nationalism and utopian dreams.
As Cui Jian, the ‘Father of Chinese Rock’ alludes to in his famous song, the government decides, we follow.
Welcome to democratic Nepal ruled by a nationalist government!
Oli’s paradise?
I had not expected the Oli government to start facing public criticism so soon, a mere five months into its likely five-year term. When the communist alliance secured an absolute majority, a lot of people felt this was an opportunity for the government to bolster peace, prosperity and stability. But things are taking a negative turn too soon. The Oli government’s popularity is gradually beginning to erode due to a combination of its actions and inactions. It is becoming glaringly apparent that turning rhetoric into reality will take much more than what the government currently has to offer.
But considering the high hopes many people had, lack of rapid progress on key day-to-day struggles is giving rise to a growing sense of anger and despair.
The major trend that we see is that of misplaced priority. There seems to be little to no effort at relieving everyday stressors for people or even on larger projects that would remove those stressors. The government instead seems bent on making things difficult for many people. It is obvious that it is more focused on centralized control than on devolved growth.
For one, this government is not serious about the constitution. The majority of the actors involved in drafting the constitution are now a part of this government and yet it lacks the passion and commitment to uphold constitutional values.
It behaves as if it is above the constitution. If the political actors and the government do not own up the constitution, and abide by it, fertile ground for a fresh conflict will be created.
Instead of building a system of governance based on laws, government ministers are making serious decisions without proper legal basis. The announcement of the end of transport syndicate, Home Ministry’s direction to regulate NGOs/INGOs, weak or dysfunctional constitutional bodies like CIAA are but a few examples of how ministers’ whims inform government decisions. As a result, federal, provincial as well as local level governments are becoming weaker.
Perhaps the government is not clear about how it wants to steer national level policies on health, education, diplomacy, human rights and more. It also doesn’t seem to be taking into account possible backlash on far-reaching decisions. In fact there seems to be no process for consultation with relevant stakeholders before decisions are made. For instance, the new integrity policy and medical education bill suggest that the government is unaware of the impact of pushing agendas without broader consultation and ownership.
Most shockingly, there is no eagerness to learn from practices and policies that have and haven’t worked in the past. Instead of enhancing knowledge and harnessing best practices, the government seems to believe that having attained two-thirds majority, there is no further scope for growth. As such, decisions are not informed and evidence-based, but rather made at personal whims.
These factors are creating a churning at the grassroots that will slowly chip away public confidence in this administration. The government will realize this sooner or later, but by then the damage may be done. The opportunity to deliver on some key indicators for growth is not yet lost; after all it has only been five months since this government came to power.
But frustration will mount if there continues to be opacity about government actions and if power is not devolved as per the spirit of the constitution. And we all know what mounting frustration among a young and largely unemployed citizenry means.
A worthy and explosive sequel
Crime Thriller
SICARIO 2: DAY OF THE SOLDADO
CAST: Benicio del Toro, Josh Brolin, Isabella Moner, Jeffrey Donovan
DIRECTION: Stefano Sollima
2018 is shaping up to be the year of sequels. First, it was ‘Deadpool 2’ in May, followed by ‘The Incredibles 2’ in June. Generally, sequels have a bad repute of unnecessarily trying to cash in on the popularity of their predecessors and getting away by doing pretty much the same thing all over again. But in the case of ‘Deadpool 2’ and ‘The Incredibles 2’ this didn’t apply. These follow-ups were no cheap knock-offs, and shoulder to shoulder with their respective originals. And now ‘Sicario 2: Day of the Soldado’ gives us yet another reason to believe that a sequel can stand on its own. This second chapter retains the brooding demeanor of 2015’s “war on drugs” thriller ‘Sicario’ even though some key players from the original are missing. One notable absence is director Denis Villeneuve, who is known for his ability to elicit tension through his moody and minimalist direction.
‘Sicario 2’ has been directed by Italian filmmaker Stefano Sollima, who’s mostly known for his Italian crime drama ‘Gomorrah’ where Sollima’s anything but minimalist and draws towards excessive display of blood, gore and violence. The screenplay by Taylor Sheridan is more plot-driven this time and gives Sollima the opportunity to showcase his visual craft without departing from the original film’s muted tone.
‘Sicario 2’ opens with a series of terrorist suicide bombings in the US, which compel its government to seek the expertise of special CIA agent Matt Graver (Josh Brolin) who looks harmless in his cargo shorts and sandals but has questionable methods when it comes to infiltrating his enemies. The government believes Mexican drug cartels are allowing Islamic terrorists to cross the border into US.
Graver’s given full authority to take care of the problem and play dirty if need be. He comes up with the idea of kidnapping a Mexican drug lord’s daughter (Isabella Moner) and make it look like the handiwork of a rival cartel leader, which would ultimately lead to a war between the cartels and favor the US government. To carry out the kidnapping, Graver recruits one of his most trusted and mysterious operatives, Alejandro (Benicio del Toro). But when their mission suffers a major setback—the US government finds itself at a risk of exposure for its unethical mission—Alejandro’s loyalty to his boss Graver is tested.
As the plot suggests, ‘Sicario 2’ develops more in the vein of action-adventure thrillers like the ‘Jason Bourne’ or ‘Mission Impossible’ series. It’s a drastic narrative change from the first ‘Sicario’ that was more a slow-burn mystery. Sollima handles the transition well. He’s able to orchestrate his action with a sense of unpredictability that keeps us on the edge of our seats throughout. The film is exquisitely shot by cinematographer Dariusz Wolski and hauntingly scored by Hildur Gudnadottir.
Del Toro and Brolin are two heavyweight actors ably lifting the film on their capable shoulders. Del Toro has a hypnotic presence as Alejandro. The only backstory we get about Alejandro is that he used to work for the Mexican cartels before they killed his family. Graver has since been using Alejandro’s wrath for Mexican cartels to fuel his own agenda. Graver is really as a chameleon: Mr. Nice Guy on the outside but underneath a person who can to any extreme to get what he wants.
Amid these seasoned performers is teenager Isabella Moner. Moner is feisty when we first meet her, beating up her classmate for cat calling her. As she slowly bonds with her kidnapper, Alejandro, she peels off her hardened edges and sees a father figure. Alejandro on the other hand sees his dead daughter in her.
‘Sicario 2’ benefits from the stellar acting and pulsating tension of the narrative. It may not be as cerebral and ambiguous as the first film. It does, however, intrigue and packs in plenty of surprises to make it a worthy sequel. Even when the film’s political ambitions are a bit muddled and stretched, it never fails as an action thriller.
Who should watch it?
‘Sicario 2’ is rated ‘A’ for violence and some may find it disturbing. But the film will be an ideal outing for viewers who want a taut thriller with plenty of violence.
