Tyler Perry wants to be taken seriously as a filmmaker, so this review of “Madea’s Destination Wedding” will do so. Even though it’s the latest in his series about his most famous character, the combative but goodhearted grandmama Mabel “Madea” Simmons, and is, like nearly all of the rest, fitfully amusing but slovenly and easily forgotten.

In this one, Madea and company head to the Bahamas and get into shenanigans at a luxury hotel. It’s unfortunately typical of Tyler Perry’s comedy output. It runs an hour and forty-five minutes but feels much longer. A strain of misogyny runs through it. It doesn’t introduce any story complications, much less any real stakes for the characters, until more than halfway through its running time. It largely consists of improv-heavy chunks of light clowning; that’s a strange phrasing, admittedly, but what else do you call a scene that doesn’t have anything resembling shape, much less a satisfying payoff?

Perry, as usual, is the credited writer and director in addition to playing multiple characters from Madea’s family, the Simmons, including Madea’s wild-haired, shambling, rascally brother Joe and their earnest son Brian, a prosecutor (played by Perry without special makeup). The story begins with a comedy set piece: Madea, her ex-husband Leroy Brown (David Mann), and their daughter Cora (Tamela Mann) getting accosted at a gas station by would-be robbers, whom Madea bashes into submission with her purse. Then we jump to Joe and his ex-wife Debra (Taja V. Simpson), a former drug addict who cleaned up and married a rich guy, in a fancy restaurant, where they are to be joined by their son B.J. (Jermaine Harris) and daughter Tiffany (Diamond White). Tiffany shows up with a dreadlocked young man named Zavier (Xavier Smalls) who exudes smugness and greets Joe with “Whassup, my n—a?” This is the prospective groom that Tiffany wants her dad to approve of. She’s never mentioned him until this moment.

The destination wedding of the title has already been locked into place by Debra’s rich husband, who is prepared to foot the bill for both the bride and groom’s families. Brian’s pride prevents him from accepting. He’s understandably peeved that Tiffany agreed to this scenario without introducing her man first, and thinks Zavier is a sleazy character. But Brian and other members of the family accept the arrangement and go to the Bahamas to support Tiffany, with Brian putting down a deposit for incidentals.

It takes half the movie for them to get to the Bahamas, check in, look at their rooms, and experience the many splendid areas of the hotel, which include a casino and a huge water slide. The scene where they check in takes several minutes. So does the scene where they figure out the logistics of their lavish suite of rooms. There’s a scene in a gift shop where lots of stuff is added to their bill, and scenes in the casino where Joe gambles and tells the house to add his tally to the bill. You can see where things are going.

There’s a funny, purposefully overwrought sequence where Xavier invites Joe and Leroy to his bachelor party. Joe convinces the pious and clean-living Leroy that it’s a gospel-themed party, practically a church service. Leroy ends up surrounded by scantily clad, twerking dancers, shrieks like a child, and sprinkles them with holy water. Perry is often a hoot playing both Madea and Joe (who twerks very slowly while balancing on his cane). But there’s a lot of flab in the scenes of banter and misunderstanding.

“The Nutty Professor” this ain’t. Little thought has been given to how people end up where they need to be to overhear something they shouldn’t or interfere in a conversation that was supposed to be private. Sometimes people walk up and stand there in plain view while the others remain oblivious to their presence. Farce should be more meticulous than this. It’s like Perry isn’t even trying. Quality control is low even by his hit-and-miss, too-many-movies-a-year standards.

You could say this is disappointing if Perry hadn’t been mostly disappointing for a very long time. From the start of his prolific, at times machine-like filmography, there have been times when he seemed to be evolving as an artist—I’m mainly thinking of “For Colored Girls,” “Mea Culpa,” and “A Jazzman’s Blues,” where he was more adventurous with camera placement, editing, and the expressive use of color. “A Jazzman’s Blues,” based on his first screenplay, might be his best movie overall; it certainly has the best final shot: a Georgia man who just learned he’s of mixed-race parentage and that his Black father was lynched, sits down on his white mother’s front porch, and the camera pulls back at such an angle that a Confederate flag above the entrance obscures our view of him. But just when it seems like he’s about to level up as an artist, he reverts his default, which is half-assing it.

Then there’s the worldview. Perry is deeply religious and fundamentally reactionary in his politics. The plot of this one pivots on a father demanding that a daughter’s fiancé earn his approval lest the marriage not happen. It portrays Tiffany with no personality or, it seems, free will, and Debra as a rich man’s trophy wife who’s trying to execute a secret agenda. And it’s been sprinkled with a little bit of religiosity. So it makes a strange kind of sense that the parts of his films dealing with criminality, addiction, and any type of sex that isn’t plain vanilla are shot more imaginatively than the parts depicting faith and goodness. (A lot of filmmakers—even the great Martin Scorsese, who once wanted to be a priest—are more exciting to watch when they’re depicting bad people.)

But the Perry films praised in this piece are melodramas, which by nature have to be intense and extreme in order to work, and Perry the actor usually doesn’t appear in them, which must free him up to think about how the movie looks. Furthermore, a melodrama can be gripping even if you find its values unrefined or merely outdated. Example: almost any melodrama that was made prior to whatever decade you’re in. The original “Mildred Pierce” is darkly pre-feminist in its portrayal of men and women, but that doesn’t matter, anymore than it matters if the values expressed in an opera or a blues song are retrograde. So really it’s all on Perry to make a great or even very good melodrama, and he hasn’t done that yet. Why? Maybe he just doesn’t want to commit to learning more about film history and technique than he already knows, because if he did, he’d have to make fewer movies.

The comedies that star Perry as the still-wildly popular Madea and various members of her family, are funny junk: collections of messy, overlong sketches with a smidge of narrative binding them together. The movie camera is a tool for artistic expression that has its own language and can speak so eloquently that dialogue is optional; you can see that Perry understands that in his melodramas, which range from pretty good to awful. But there’s no trace of that Perry in the comedies. They seem cobbled together in editing and have no visual personality. Most corporate training videos have more style movie. Perry usually just puts characters in a particular space, arranges them like pins on a clothesline, and lets the cameras run until he’s gathered enough material for the editors to work with.

Comedies like “Madea’s Destination Wedding” do practice a high level of craft, but ut it mainly has to do with the skill level needed to turn ad-lib heavy acting into something coherent when you’ve got two or more characters played by Perry acting opposite each other in the same scene. There is clearly a bit of compositing involved, but much of it looks like the product of tricks as old as the movie camera itself. I.e., they set up the actors and shoot the scene several times from various angles, making sure to only have one Perry character visible at a time (or putting doubles in the foreground with a wig on). That’s ingenious, in its elemental way. Peter Jackson did something similar in the original Tolkien trilogy, in scenes where big and small characters conversed.

Admittedly, the logistics of filming a Tyler Perry film with Perry performing multiple roles is not what most viewers will be thinking about while watching this movie. But there’s little else to recommend it except for the performances, so it’s natural for your mind to wander there.

When four top film studio musicians formed the Hollywood String Quartet in the late 1930s, its name was presumed an oxymoron. Exalted string quartet devotees belittled film soundtracks, while studio heads had a reputation for shunning classical music longhairs.

The musicians spent two intense years in rehearsal before disbanding when war broke out, and the quartet was brought back together in 1947 by two of its founders, Felix Slatkin (concertmaster of 20th ^{Century Fox Studio Orchestra) and his wife, Eleanor Aller (principal cellist of the Warner Bros. Studio Orchestra). Oxymoron or not, Hollywood produced the first notable American string quartet.}

Throughout the 1950s, the ensemble made a series of revelatory LPs for Capitol Records performing the late Beethoven string quartets and much else, while also joining Frank Sinatra in his torchy classic, “Close to You.” Everything that the Hollywood String Quartet touched was distinctive; every recording remains a classic.

The legacy of the Hollywood String Quartet is a celebration of Hollywood genre-busting and also of string quartet making. Today, the outstanding Lyris Quartet is one of many outstanding string quartets who can be heard in the latest blockbusters. Another is the New Hollywood String Quartet, which is devoting its annual four-day summer festival to honoring its inspiration as it celebrates its 25th ^anniversary.

The quartet’s festival began Thursday night and runs through Sunday in San Marino at the Huntington’s Rothenberg Hall. The repertory is taken from the earlier group’s old recordings. And the concerts are introduced by Slatkin and Aller’s oldest son, who as a young boy fell asleep to his parents and their colleagues rehearsing in his living room after dinner.

The celebrated conductor Leonard Slatkin credits his vociferous musical appetite to his parents, who, he said Thursday, enjoyed the great scores written in this golden age of movie music and also championed new classical music as well as the masterpieces of the past. L.A. had no opera company in those days, and Slatkin said his parents likened film scores to modern opera scores.

Just about everyone has heard his parents in one film or another. Take “Jaws,” which is celebrating its 50th ^{anniversary. That’s Aller’s cello evoking John Williams’ shark-scary earworm.}

You’ve no doubt heard New Hollywood violinists Tereza Stanislav and Rafael Rishik, violist Robert Brophy and cellist Andrew Shulman on some movie. IMDb counts Brophy alone as participating on 522 soundtracks. You might also have heard one or more of the musicians in the Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra, Los Angeles Opera Orchestra or Los Angeles Philharmonic.

The New Hollywood String Quartet, from left: Rafael Rishik, Andrew Shulman, Tereza Stanislav and Robert Brophy.

(Sam Muller)

The New Hollywood’s programming may not encompass the original quartet’s range, but it is nonetheless a mixed selection of pieces that have somewhat fallen by the wayside, such as Borodin’s Second String Quartet. The original quartet’s performances and swashbuckling recording of the Borodin surely caught the attention of L.A. director Edwin Lester. In 1953 Lester created and premiered the musical “Kismet,” which adapts parts of the Borodin quartet, for Los Angeles Civic Light Opera, before it went on to be a hit on Broadway.

Times have changed and the New Hollywood brings a more robust tone and more overt interaction to its effusive interpretation compared with the silken and playful Slatkin and crew, who were all Russian-trained players. Hugo Wolf’s short “Italian Serenade,” which opened the program, was here lush and Italianate, while on an early 1950s disc it dances more lightly.

The big work was César Franck’s Piano Quintet. Slatkin noted that the recording, released in 1955, didn’t sell well, probably thanks to the album cover’s saturnine painting of a composer that few would recognize. Slatkin also noted that his parents weren’t enamored of their performance, but then again, he explained that they were temperamentally ever ready to find fault.

That recording, which features his uncle, Victor Aller, a graceful pianist, is slow and commanding. Jean-Yves Thibaudet was the right guest in every way for the big-boned performance at the Huntington. He is a French pianist with a flair for German music, well suited for the Belgian French composer’s Wagner-inspired score.

Thibaudet is also a longtime L.A. resident and an especially versatile performer who happens to be featured on the new soundtrack recording of Dario Marianelli’s “Pride & Prejudice,” which tops Billboard’s classical and classical crossover charts. He and Slatkin also go back decades, having performed together and become such good friends that the conductor turned pages for him in the Franck.

Seeing the 80-year-old Slatkin onstage evoked a remarkable sense of history, reminiscent of the roots to L.A.’s musical openness that his parents represented. On my drive home Thursday, I couldn’t resist following the route Albert Einstein would have taken after practicing his violin when he lived a 12-minute bike ride away during his Caltech years — the time Slatkin’s parents were making music history at the studios. Like them, Einstein played with the L.A. Philharmonic (although invited once not because he was a good violinist but because he was Einstein).

The New Hollywood and Thibaudet made no effort to relive the past in Franck’s quintet. Instead, in their opulence and expressive explosiveness, they showed Hollywood how to produce a remake that’s magnificent.

In the meantime, Leonard Slatkin, who is a former music director of the L.A. Phil at the Hollywood Bowl, returns later this month to the venue where his parents met in 1935 at a Hollywood Bowl Symphony competition. He will conduct a July 24 program that includes a recent work by the next generation of Slatkins. His son, Daniel, is a film and television composer.

Over the years, Rajkummar Rao established a good will among the audience with his performances and script selection. More often than not, his films are backed by commendable scripts and relatable characters. In an attempt to give an image makeover to himself, he selected the script of ‘Maalik’, a rags-to-riches story. After generating enough curiosity with the trailer, the film was released in theatres today. How did Rajkumar Rao perform in a ferocious gangster role? Did the director, Pulkit, come up with a well-packaged commercial action entertainer? Did the Miss World 2017, Manushi Chhillar, finally score a hit? Let’s figure it out with a detailed analysis.

What is it about?

Deepak(Rajkummar Rao), based out of Allahabad, is from a poor family. Just as in any of the ‘rags to riches’ stories, he aims to become a Maalik(Owner) from a Naukar(Servant). What are the challenges, Deepak, faced in his quest to become a Maalik? Did Shalini(Manushi Chhillar), the wife of Deepak, help him to come out of the mess in which he’s stuck? What is Deepak’s relationship with Minister Shankar Singh(Saurabh Shukla)? Forms the rest of the story.

Performances:

Rajkummar Rao in the role of a deadly gangster performed well. However, he’s miscast in the role. The character like Maalik, commands the actor to possess inbuilt swag but unfortunately, it was missed in the way Rajkummar Rao carried the role. Saurabh Shukla in the role of crooked politician delivered a commendable performance as well. All other actors delivered a standard performance. There’s nothing special to talk about the performances.

Technicalities:

Cinematographer, Anuj Rakesh Dhawan is the only technician whose work is worth mentioning in the film. He captured the Allahabad raw and rustic locales of the 1990s Allahabad well. Editing by Zubin Sheikh is a big letdown, especially in the second half. At least, twenty minutes in the second half would have been edited easily. The last forty minutes of the film dragged on forever and it was a mistake from the editor. Sachin–Jigar’s songs & Ketan Sodha’s background score are very average. Let’s discuss more about the director and writer, Pulkit’s work in the analysis section.

Positives:

1.⁠ ⁠Pre-Interval Fight Sequence
2.⁠ ⁠Watchable First Half

Negatives:

1.⁠ ⁠Boring Second Half
2.⁠ ⁠Predictable Story
3.⁠ ⁠Routine Execution
4.⁠ ⁠Editing

Analysis:

KGF & Pushpa franchise movies worked out well all over the country but their performance in Hindi markets in India stood out compared to other languages. The commercial performance of the second parts of both KGF and Pushpa showed Hindi audiences’ appetite for well-packaged commercial action entertainers. There is a huge market for such films in the Hindi heartland of India but unfortunately, the Bollywood film makers in the last few years are unable to come up with solid commercial action entertainers. Rajkummar Rao’s Maalik is a desperate attempt to tap the commercial cinema potential in the Hindi markets but sadly what we get to see is a very predictable movie which was heavily inspired by KGF and Pushpa franchises.

The actors(i.e. Yash and Allu Arjun) who played the protagonist role in both KGF and Pushpa are relatively new and yet the Hindi audiences loved those two characters. It is because both Yash and Allu Arjun delivered quite a few ‘playing to the gallery’ moments with their swag and mannerisms. For a commercial entertainer to work well, the actors who play the lead character in the film should have an inbuilt swag and style. It is where, Maalik, struggled. Rajkummar Rao is a very good actor. There’s no doubt about it. He even delivered a good performance. However, it looked strange to see him in such a heavy gangster role. There was no style or swag or anything that we associate with a ‘mass’ hero in a commercial film, in Rajkummar Rao’s persona. Apart from the pre-interval action sequence, his seemingly ferocious performance as a gangster looked forced and out of place.

Another big letdown in the film is the predictability. The writer and director, Pulkit, selected a very routine script and the screenplay he chose to narrate a routine story is utterly predictable. Right from the word go, the audience will easily be able to guess the next sequence, including the twist in the climax. It is surprising to see a young director coming up with such an outdated twist. We have seen that twist in multiple movies in the past thirty years or so, starting with Krishna Vamsi’s Gulabi in 1995. There are two conflicts in the film, one in the first half and the other in the second half. The biggest mistake the director made was to come up with the face-off sequence between the protagonist and the main antagonist, upfront in both halves. It is almost impossible to sustain an audience’s attention with the remaining when a director decides to kill the main antagonist character at the very start of a tug of war. It is where the film lost track. The last forty-odd minutes in the film dragged forever with irritating action sequences one after the other.

Overall, Maalik has a watchable first half at best with a very well executed pre-interval action sequence and a boring second half that dragged on and on with a very predictable screenplay. You may give it a try watching the film when it releases on an OTT platform but it certainly don’t deserve a watch at a theatre.

Bottomline – Man’s KGF & Pushpa

Rating – 2/5

Related