Author: Alton Williams

My Name Is Khan ****½

With Asperger’s Syndrome becoming far more widely recognized by the people of the world, more films featuring characters with the condition are starting to appear. Last year saw the fantastic American indie film Adam tackle the issue of Asperger’s and relationships. Now we have something very different in the form of My Name Is Khan. Coming out of the Bollywood filmmaking stable – even though it is not a Bollywood film in the traditional sense, this not being a musical in any way and actually being something of an international production, with dialogue being in Hindi, Urdu and English and, due to the multinational nature of the story, featuring American actors as well as Indian ones – My Name Is Khan focuses more on some of the negative preconceptions that can arise due to a lack of understanding of Asperger’s and how those with it are affected by the condition as well as dealing with the issue of changing racial perceptions in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. My Name Is Khan is literally the first Bollywood movie I have ever seen so my knowledge of the background of this huge area of filmmaking is limited but, based on the evidence of this film, it is not hard to see the appeal.

Rizwan Khan (Shahrukh Khan) is a Muslim from the Borivali section of Mumbai who suffers from Asperger’s Syndrome, a form of high-functioning Autism that complicates socialization, prevents him from fully understanding the world around him and causes him to display behaviours that many would consider to be odd. After the death of his mother, he moves to San Francisco to work for his brother there and it is here that he meets Mandira (Kajol), a Hindu single mother with whom he develops a bond and eventually marries. Things go well in Rizwan’s life for some time as he, Mandira and her son Sameer (Yvaan Makaar) live the dream but after the tragic events of 9/11 everything changes. With racial hatred towards Muslims growing, tragedy strikes their family and Mandira, blaming Rizwan for what has happened forces him away. Misinterpreting her sarcastic suggestion for him to meet the US President to say “My name is Khan, and I am not a terrorist” as a genuine request, Rizwan sets out on an epic journey to do just that, following the President as he goes on tour around the country. Along the way, he gets detained by authorities who mistake his disability for suspicious behaviour, helps apprehend some genuine terrorists, forms new friendships, shows what true heroism is and inspires the entire nation – all so that he can win back the love of Mandira.

At the start of My Name Is Khan, a disclaimer reads “The protagonist in this film suffers from Asperger’s Syndrome, a form of Autism. While the film endeavours to depict the character as authentically and sensitively as possible, it is a work of fiction and hence certain creative liberties have been taken in the portrayal of the condition.” While it doesn’t reflect on the quality of the performance by Shahrukh Khan, this disclaimer is apt as the performance is certainly not one of the more restrained portrayals of a character with Asperger’s Syndrome, in fact being quite an over the top one. While “certain creative liberties” may have been taken, however, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the performance doesn’t ring true to life. While the portrayal isn’t the most restrained and perhaps doesn’t reflect the majority of people with Asperger’s, as someone with the condition myself, I can say that there almost certainly are people out there just like Rizwan. And it is the depiction of Rizwan that truly makes the film work. Shahrukh Khan is superb in the central role (as is Tanay Chheda who portrays the young Rizwan), perfectly displaying the mannerisms and eccentricities of an individual with Asperger’s. He perfectly captures all the different facets that can be found in people with Asperger’s in real life, from the difficulty in maintaining eye contact to the discomfort with physical contact, and the way he takes everything literally at face value to the manner in which certain sights and sounds trigger anxiety attacks. All of this rings true and all of it I, and probably many other with the condition, can personally relate to. The strong central performance, along with well written dialogue and a strong plot, ensures that we do truly believe in the character, his life and his journey, everything he says and does seeming completely plausible – the way he freaks out over things that most people take for granted; the way he interprets everything literally, such as Mandira’s suggestion that he meet the President; his inability to understand basic social cues; the way his behaviour gets misconstrued and the way he fails to comprehend why he is treated in a certain way. The relationship between Rizwan and Mandira also convinces, thanks to a terrific chemistry of sorts between a perfectly paired Khan and co-star Kajol (who delivers a very strong performance in her own right). The nature of Rizwan having Asperger’s means that he is unable to express his emotions openly (something which is represented in the film through him writing his feelings down in a diary, which we hear as voiceover narration) but even without us seeing the emotion on screen, there is still a certain spark between Khan and Kajol when their eyes first meet that makes us truly believe in them as a couple. Even though the relationship seems to progress very quickly, it never fails to seem organic and we really can buy that they are falling in love with one another. This delightful love story at the heart of the film is the driving force for the entire plot and for a good while, the film is happy and cheerful, reflecting the joy of Rizwan and Mandira’s life together, the film tending towards the comic during this period, with a sweet and quirky sense of humour akin to what you would expect from the better films that the romantic comedy genre have to offer. When the events of 9/11 come into the film, however, things take on a much different, darker tone, the comic being replaced by the tragic and in a way that seems completely natural. Suddenly, an easy to watch film becomes much harder going (although still worth sitting through). You see, this film isn’t just about Asperger’s Syndrome, it is also about the changing attitudes towards Muslims following the tragic events of 9/11. With Rizwan, the fact that he is a Muslim is every bit as important to the plot as the fact that he has Asperger’s Syndrome. Without either one there would be not film but together they set the stage for his epic journey. In this regard the film also succeeds, painting an all too realistic picture of the racial hatred that erupted in America post 9/11, even if it doesn’t have much to say that hasn’t been said before and, ultimately, it is the Asperger’s aspect that prevails in the end. If the film falls short of being perfect, it is because the long running time (2 hours 34 minutes) combined with the hard subject matter that arises post 9/11 make for a film that is occasionally hard to watch and the climax of the film tends towards the saccharine, abandoning the realism that has been the order of the day up to that point in favour of an unbelievably happy ending where the best of humanity prevails and love conquers all. This isn’t to say that it is a bad way to go out as it ensures the film ends on a high note, just that given some of the harder stuff that has come before it is somewhat difficult to really buy into it. Additionally, the manner in which the film shifts between languages, with a character one moment speaking English and the next speaking Hindi or Urdu (those unfamiliar will have difficulty discerning which is which) often proves confusing, especially when a character is speaking in these languages to people who shouldn’t be able to understand them yet clearly do. So, My Name Is Khan falls somewhat short of being a masterpiece but nonetheless proves to be a very compelling and very well made film that is inspirational, moving, heartwarming and epic. A very powerful movie going experience indeed.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)

Wild Target ****

You could easily be forgiven for being completely unaware of this little British comedy out in cinemas this week. The marketing and promotion for Wild Target have been so poor that the film has slipped in largely under the radar. And it’s a shame, because good British made comedies like this are something of a rarity in this time of cinemas being overloaded with blockbusters from the USA. A small scale production with hardly the most original of premises – it is, in fact, a remake of a 1993 French film named Cible Emouvant – Wild Target is nonetheless a quintessentially British film, featuring a cast that consists entirely of British actors, even though British born director Jonathan Lynn’s resume has more recently consisted of American features rather than British ones, this being his first film since 2003’s The Fighting Temptations, his film prior to that being 2000’s very enjoyable Bruce Willis and Matthew Perry starring American comedy The Whole Nine Yards. Does Wild Target follow in the tradition of great British comedies and hit the target square one or does it miss wildly?

Victor Maynard (Bill Nighy) is a middle-aged hit man with a reputation for lethal efficiency. Generally working alone, Victor lives to please his formidable mother, Louisa (Eileen Atkins), but his professional routine is interrupted when he finds himself drawn to Rose (Emily Blunt), one of his intended victims. Vivacious and uncontrollable, Rose is an expert con artist, who has just scammed Ferguson (Rupert Everett) out of a lot of money. Victor is assigned to deal with the girl, but ends up not only sparing Rose’s life but protecting her and forming a connection with someone else for the first time in his life. In the process he unexpectedly acquires a young apprentice in the form of Tony (Rupert Grint). Now Victor has two keep his two new companions alive while he attempts to thwart the murderous attentions of his rival assassins Mike (Gregor Fisher) and Dixon (Martin Freeman).

Wild Target is a comedy the likes of which only the British could make. Avoiding all the lame gags that so many recent American comedies have relied on in a vain attempt to create laughs, this film instead opts to go the route taken by more old fashioned British comedies, offering up a combination of good old British wit, quirkiness and farcical humour, the laughs coming from the dialogue and the situations rather than misjudged and ill placed gags and the humour being subtle as opposed to in your face. The laughs don’t come thick and fast non-stop, but, when they frequently do come, they score big in the laugh out loud department and anyone who appreciates their humour silly but not stupid will find this film hilarious. Interestingly, Bill Nighy plays his role completely straight faced, but this works in the favour of the film, many scenes in fact being funnier for the more serious approach he brings to the role. Contrastingly, Rupert Grint – showing us that he is more than just Ron Weasley – tends to be more outright comedic, filling in the role of comic relief, not that the film needs it, as it is hilarious anyway. Emily Blunt is superb too, bringing a certain charm to the role that makes it clear why Bill Nighy’s character would be so charmed by her. Despite the improbability of the relationship that develops between Blunt and Nighy, there is an excellent chemistry between the two, with sparks really flying from the outset, and there is also a strong chemistry between Night and Grint, in the form of a father-son style dynamic. In fact, the unorthodox and offbeat family dynamic that develops between all three of the film’s leads works excellently, and it is because of these strong connections between the characters that much of the humour has as much impact as it does. Elsewhere among the cast, the against type likes of Eileen Atkins and Martin Freeman prove very funny also, the latter being positively gleeful in his villainous role. Additionally, Rupert Everett is superbly over the top in a role that sadly gives him too little screen time. So, Wild Target is a very well made British farce that anyone with a taste for good British humour should love. And it redefines the phrase “half now, half later” in hilarious fashion.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)

Killers *½

If you have seen the trailer for Killers you will likely have already gotten the sense that you have seen this film before and, if you have seen the 1994 film True Lies (starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jamie Lee Curtis and directed by James Cameron) or the 2005 film Mr. & Mrs. Smith (starring Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie and directed by Doug Liman), the chances are you have. Essentially coming off as a low budget version of either of those films (although, surprisingly, the budget isn’t that low, coming in at $75 million), Killers clearly doesn’t have originality on its side, nor does its attempted combination of romantic comedy and action seem fresh, this film being the latest in this year’s trend for male-female action comedies following the dire The Bounty Hunter and the actually very good Date Night and preceding this August’s Knight and Day. Even casting aside the issue of whether or not the film is original, it is hard to find much to get excited about going into this film. Director Robert Luketic’s last film was last year’s mediocre battle of the sexes romcom The Ugly Truth and, while both Katherine Heigl and Ashton Kutcher have proven themselves to be charismatic and charming leads time and time again, both tend to have rather poor taste when it comes to choosing film projects to star in. Is Killers another poor choice on their part? Sadly, yes.

Getting over a sudden break-up, Jen Kornfeldt (Katherine Heigl) reluctantly joins her parents (Tom Selleck and Catherine O’Hara) on a trip to the French Riviera. Unexpectedly she meets the man of her dreams, the dashingly handsome Spencer Aimes (Ashton Kutcher). Three years later, her seemingly impossible wish has come true and she and Spencer are newlyweds living the ideal suburban life. That is, until the morning after Spencer’s 30th birthday when suddenly bullets start flying. Spencer never got round to telling Jen that he’s an international super-spy, and now Jen’s perfect world has been turned upside down. Faced with the fact that her husband is a hit man, Jen is determined to discover what other secrets Spencer might be keeping. Meanwhile, she finds herself dodging bullets, keeping up appearances for the neighbours, dealing with the in-laws – and working out some major ‘trust issues’!

There are two things that prevent Killers from being a completely awful film – Katherine Heigl and Ashton Kutcher. While neither exactly amazes us with their performances or does anything we haven’t seen before, the charisma that both bring to their roles ensures that they manage to amuse even with the below par material they have to work with here. Heigl is as a delightful as ever and Kutcher brings on the charm but this film really is not worthy of their performing talents. They do a good job in their roles and even have a decent chemistry but little else positive can be said about the film. Among the supporting cast, Tom Selleck is completely wasted and Catherine O’Hara spends most of the film either drunk or getting drunk – perhaps she realised what rubbish she had signed on for. The real failing of the film though lies at the feet of director Robert Luketic. Forgetting to deliver either laughs or thrills, Luketic’s lacklustre direction, coupled with a poorly written screenplay by Bob DeRosa and Ted Griffin (the latter’s previous writing credits actually being surprisingly good), results in gags and dialogue that fail to be funny and action sequences that are lame, poorly shot and badly executed, Luketic’s inexperience in the action field clearly showing – whoever thought it would be a good idea to have a romcom director do action anyway? Additionally, plot is virtually non-existent, the film descending into a series of shoot ups that serve little purpose other than to show that absolutely no one can be trusted, and the potential for paranoia, whereby literally anyone could be an assassin, is thrown away in favour of failed attempts at humour. Showing no ingenuity whatsoever, the film gets a bit too ridiculous for its own good and a late plot twist just seems absurd. So, altogether Killers is a lame and forgettable action comedy that won’t kill the careers of either of its stars but isn’t worth your time and money either.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)