MrGroovilicious

I honestly believe what we are experiencing right now with this movie is an example of a term I refer to as "Blade Runner-itis," simply because it happened most prominently with Blade Runner. It's a condition where criticism for a masterpiece is so inherently negative on its original reviews simply because it is so unique in what it does that there is nothing previous with which to compare it and therefore cannot be immediately understood. Critics, while not entirely simplistic, gloss over anything they cannot immediately understand as bad and therefore these masterpieces are overlooked for a short time.

With this film, for example, it's actually a good thing that it uses so much in-genuine things like overly choreographed sequences and frequent auto-tune. The whole idea the movie presents is that Barnum achieved his whole legacy on lies. He's not REALLY creating something beautiful, he's simply putting on a show... because he's "The Greatest Showman..." the greatest liar. He promises all these performers a wonderful place to thrive and end their ridicule, only to toss them aside and abandon them. The auto-tune and unrealistic amount of choreography is another lie. There are two stand out sequences (I won't reveal what they are, no spoilers) which are the only sequences not auto-tuned, if I am correct, where the emotion is more genuine. This happens when the characters realize they've been duped and been tricked by fraud and consumed by the beautiful lie and thus seek to undo the lie. Critics complaining that the film promotes Barnum instead of vilifying his lying, scheming nature frankly either didn't watch the film at all... or are just idiotic.

I know this is one movie, but I'm going to use this as a vehicle to express my thoughts on all of modern Indian filmmaking. I believe, based on films such as the Apu Trilogy, they are capable of cinematic art but are simply aiming low and hitting that mark to get a free pass.

This film for sure gets a 1 on one thing alone, and that's the blatant plagiarism that even Murugadoss admitted to. I need say no other thing than that, and you'd understand that this film is an atrocity. That's the end of my actual review of the film, so you want my advice if you're considering watching it? Go watch Memento instead.

Now for my review of all Indian cinema. What happened to the age of masterpieces such as Pather Panchali or Aparjito or Sansar Apur!? I'll tell you. India forgot the one universal every good film must have. There is no right or wrong in film except for this one thing: your narrative is not the main point of your film. It doesn't matter how interesting your film's plot is. Hook (1991) had one of the most fantastic plots ever and it's an empty, terrible film. Stanley Kubrick's have some of the most illogical, stupidest narratives ever and they're some of the best films ever made. Why? Because they are created to express and embody a single philosophical idea or THEME.

Narrative only exists for theme. India does not seem to understand this and seems to think that narrative exists for the sake of it, rather than as an example which proves true a theme. Pather Panchali's theme is that sacrifice is essential to pursue a dream. What theme did the stupid fly reincarnation movie have? None. It was just a plot that built towards no point.

I don't say any of this to insult Indians. I say this because Indians are capable of artistic perfection if they simply understand what that is. Now go and make some of the best films in history, as you once did!

Comedy isn't a genre that should be exempt from a point. Modern comedies have lost the satirical nature, thus they're ultimately pointless. Even comedies as wacky and unrealistic as Dr. Strangelove, Monty Python's Life Of Brian, and Deadpool had a point. Clearly, the director of this film understands that. This comedy is a satire of modern big budget cinema where everyone says it's good or everyone says it's bad, which preconceives your expectations rather than allowing you to decide for yourself. And that's the whole message of this comedy; things should be decided for oneself rather than depending solely on the opinions of others.

This writer is clearly a master storyteller. You don't need dialogue to represent or confront the conflict going on in a story. With not one word of it, we understand that this character was led by critics to expect a great film and was let down as a result of these expectations. We understand with something as simple as the other version of himself holding a dollar that what he built was a time machine.

Furthermore, I like the ending's symbolism. It's a unique opportunity to display the progression of the character. The two versions of the same character from different points in time act totally different. The younger version seems very confused, reflecting his lack of insight gained as a result of the character's journey. The other, from later in time, is relaxed and fully knowledgeable of the situation as he's already gone on the journey his younger self has yet to go on. However, ambiguously, it also presents the viewer with the possibility that the character has progressed at all. The opening shot purposely shows the reviews on the billboard, with the last scene opening on a mirror of that shot. So he was disappointed because he depended on other's opinions rather than allowing himself to make his own. But isn't he still depending on another's opinion (that of his future self) rather than making up his own mind? Nice ambiguity, with very little needed to communicate it!