Movie Review – Ted 2

One, for compulsion

‘Ted 2’ starts exactly where its predecessor ends. Not with John’s (Mark Wahlberg) marriage but with Ted’s (Seth MacFarlane) with Tami (Jessica Barth). Just like how America doesn’t give a fuck, here too the situation repeats, and Ted proves he’s just as human as anyone with the problems with his wife. With Amanda Seyfried instead of Mila Kunis, it’s basically a repeat of the first part in different situation, like how ‘The Hangover 2’ was criticised. Despite the criticism whether ‘Ted 2’ was as funny as ‘The Hangover 2’ was the question.

The film’s story didn’t feel really like a compulsion but the fact that the same question was not raised in part one was what it made the film special. Ted being given a special status, being hallucinated are typical stories which anyone would think of when one starts writing about a lice teddy bear. ‘Ted’ worked because it was stripped off these. That’s the beauty. So, when it starts like this here, it was ‘meh’. Despite the film running on usual lines, it was fairly entertaining with its jokes but wasn’t as wholesome as part one.

Mark Wahlberg was terrific as John. Even though all the concentration was centred around Ted. It was John who makes the film work. He looked tired and gloomy in the film, may be a bit old too but luckily for him, the story’s development can be attributed to this. He’s a man who has tried so much and still lost his wife. Or may be simply they couldn’t get Mila Kunis call sheet.

Another beautiful thing about the movie was that, just like how charming Mila Kunis was in the first movie. Amanda Seyfried does the same in the second movie. For a film, which is largely a boy-guy fantasy movie, it was a welcome change. Maybe it was overdid a little in this part like she smoking pot and playing guitar in the middle of nowhere as if she was born for John. It would have been a bit more realistic if her character had been given a slightly different flavour.

When John says, “Déjà vu” when he gets to know that Donny (Giovanni Ribisi) tries to steal Ted, it was like, what part of the film was not Déjà vu. That’s why there was no thrill around the climax. Worst part was Donny’s kidnap scenes but when John was in bed, it was absolutely clear that he was not going to die, not in this movie. Ted laughing for the joke was more funnier than the entire incident. If it had achieved in making the audience emotional and then broken up to this, it would have been amazing.

The film’s stand out scene would be the ‘cum’ scene, but that’s about it. The first part had many of those laugh out loud scenes which worked like a charm. Here may be the film tried to be nicer or just the director ran out of jokes or worst, I watched the part two too soon and, in a way, unrealistically expected it to be as much funnier as part one. Finally, why Morgan Freeman. He totally didn’t fit the movie. If he had been another guy who’d have had a hilarious interaction with John and Ted, well, that could have been some movie.

Movie Review – Unforgiven

A western for the common man

Much of my analysis of ‘Unforgiven’ could be due to my last western watch, ‘True Grit’, which coincidentally is a Revisionist Western like ‘Unforgiven’. Hailed as one of the greatest in that genre, it confounded me as to why it was a great movie. It was not so easy to dismiss it plainly as a film which didn’t work for me, it felt like it didn’t work majorly due to my lack of understanding, that’s why it was disappointing. In this season it’s the second movie after ‘Ivan’s Childhood’ which didn’t work for me for the same reason. As a fan of both Coen brothers and Tarkovsky, the disappointment is not because it didn’t work for me but because it should have worked for me but it didn’t. Thankfully ‘Unforgiven’, which I thought, wouldn’t work for me, actually worked wonderfully. At last that was some respite.

• 

The huge problem in watching a western is that, one needs to understand what it is. it’s not necessary whether we’re able to categorize between a western, spaghetti western, revisionist western etc. It’s enough as long as we know its western. There are limitations to western because it has to deal with a certain boundary and follow a definite template. It can break it but still it should be evident, one can’t just write a scene without even thinking of a long shot and lone ride in a desert. It’s about how one breaks it or how one shoots it artistically. Like how it’s our personal interest whether we like to take the road which we’ve always liked or try a new one for thrill. ‘Unforgiven’ takes the former path but doesn’t make it a cerebral experience like ‘True Grit’, instead has heart in the right place.

Even with ‘Unforgiven’, it started on a slow pace. Add to the Western template, it had Eastwood template too where he’s an old tired man where people insult him till the very end. But finally, he achieves his purpose either by coming out gloriously or by subtle means. But the fact is he gets what he wants. So, the initial scenes were like that. There was a slasher scene at first which shocks us immediately and makes us sit upright. The film follows the search of those cowboys. As it’s a revolutionist western, the role is reversed. The sheriff is a bad guy and the assassins are the good ones. The usual scenes like formation of team, long ride, conflict between members, friendship etc. all takes place. But things get interesting near the end when Sheriff starts his cruelty

Wish someone writes massy screenplay for Rajni like how Eastwood does for himself. William “Will” Munny (Clint Eastwood) almost has nothing to do till the fag end. Even he doesn’t do the final killing by himself. But once he knows that his friend Ned Logan (Morgan Freeman) is killed, he avenges his death in style. Those last few minutes are enough for the theatre to explode. Imagine how it would have been if Rajni had been in place of Eastwood and Mammootty in place of Morgan Freeman. When people write for stars, they should write like this, instead we see scenes where the stars become a big shot immediately. It’s a typical ‘Baashha’ type of screenplay but written with a lot of self-restraint.

The supporting actors are brilliant here, more than Eastwood. Though Morgan Freeman doesn’t have much of screen space or space to perform, he does his job effortlessly through a couple of scenes where he decided to go back to his home and the scene where he’s tortured by sheriff. Local sheriff “Little Bill” Daggett (Gene Hackman) is actually the star of the movie. Even though antagonist, he’s the highlight. A raw irritating villain. Gene Hackman was wonderful in it. In the last scene where he says that he doesn’t deserve such a death is such a well written scene where he’s made to look heroic even in his death. From making villains becomes good guys in the end during MGR era to villains plainly accepting their defeat with Amul baby types in Dhanush era, Tamil movies could never get this fate right. This is how you respect every character of yours. Even though the climax is all about Will, it’s Bill who dies a heroic death.