On PK

PK is a typical Rajkumar Hirani film - A mix of comedy with some romance thrown in , a preachy message - well shot , reasonably acted and decent music.
The movie is worth a watch - but I'm still disappointed. It's paradoxical that one can watch a brainless movie and come out happy (golmaal 3?) since expectations are non-existent but a good movie that doesn't match expectations feels worse or a movie that could have been so much better - if only they had let me(joking) direct and write parts of it, feels that much worse
The movie is similar in theme to Oh My God - Both these movies are against organized religion and the organizers while still supporting a theistic view. The irony of course , is that they don't seem to realize that they are in fact promoting one version of religion (a personal monotheistic one with one benevolent God) while making the pointed criticism of why are there so many religions? And why would any God want this confusion. But they don't seem to realize that it applies to their view too.
I first had an idea to write a book about this based on what I vaguely remember what Sagan had said in one of his books and I paraphrase - In our grand universe - the earth is a pale blue dot , the distinctions of religion or countries are too small. So an Alien who would observe us , our customs , what would he think especially when it came to religion. (not exactly original I guess?)
But I never went ahead with that idea - and this is in a nutshell , the story of PK. There is also a romance track that we shall ignore.

Over time there have been similar things - People seriously consider the question of "If Aliens exist are they saved by Jesus's sacrifice? Or would they have their own version of Jesus" - If you think thats crazy consider that various noted religious leaders have considered the questions of "Do pets go to heaven? How about babies? Unbaptized babies? Is there an intermediate stage between Death and Hell?" - There are answers of course - religion always has answers - but ponder how these leaders have arrived at the answers!
John Loftus' outsider test for religion also ponders a similar theme.
I guess my main complaint is that the satire is not biting enough and is needlessly diluted by the romantic plot + alien thrown in. Also an unnecessary bomb blast. While this maybe the "oh a bollywood movie needs this to be successful" - but many movies are successful in bollywood these days and they arent typical bollywood movies. I also think this tackles the easy, obvious problems in religion. It doesn't deal with the core things that make religion problematic - i.e. How do you verify the truth of a truth claim , given that humans are imperfect and everything we "know" is ultimately something we believe we know. And while the movie alluded to it , it didnt really drive home - Why is there evil in the world? And why wouldnt a God do something about it (or if there is a reason why would we think this God is good?)

Movies

While watching 3 idiots , I realized something about movies, sometimes the most boringly predictable movies are the ones you really like. In the blue corner you might take movies like Sixth Sense, Memento or Seven. The movies that you must see at least twice. Because the first time, the twist catches you unawares and you have to go back and see the movie with that fresh bit of information. In the red corner you have movies like 3 idiots, Avatar, The Munna Bhai series, The Pixar series where a few minutes into the movie and you already know the major plot points and how its going to end. And you like the movies anyway. And you watch them again because you remember the good times. What then makes a movie a complete package? A good story? A good twist? Good actors? Humor? Action? A combination of the above? Anything , everything? I'm not including critics choices, because they seem to have tastes that are alien to the rest of us(dark depressing movies always seem to do well, as do any movies that deal with the holocaust) or they have expectations that, well, defy expectations. Do you go into a Transformers movie expecting excellent performances and believable plot lines? but evidently the critic does. Sometimes an incredibly complex sophisticated movie does well, and sometimes a popcorn dumbed down crowd pleaser. You might say the audience is fickle but then I'm only dealing with my tastes, I like both the crowd pleaser and the complex movie. The fast paced action flick as much as the slow burn art movie. I like a comedy as much as I like a human interest story. I like good acting as much as watching Captain Kirk ham it up.
Perhaps the journey is more important than the destination which is why the twist or lack of it doesn't make a difference.

Who watches the watchmen

So I watched the movie, and even though it is a faithful reproduction of the book , it's nowhere near as great as the book. Also watched Hugh Laurie/Stephen Fry in Jeeves and Wooster which is also faithful and well enacted , but nowhere near as good as the P.G. Wodehouse book it has adapted and I wonder whats the difference?
And I guess, for me atleast , its because of the innate superiority of the book medium over the movie medium, which in no particular order are
1) You have to use your imagination. No matter how good a director or actor is, no matter how good the special effects are , your imagination can always beat them. And the visual drawn form will always be better than the real life actors. Ozymandias in the comics looked as he should. In the movie , he just looks weird/funny. They say in comics, whats not shown between the panels has to be as good as what is shown , because the reader fills in those gaps. However in a movie you are normally shown most of it. Some directors like Hitchcock excelled in what a good comic does so beautifully, what is not shown can be as terrifying or as beautiful as what is.
2) You can read at your own speed. You can read it again immediately, you can flip back anytime. Perhaps you can do this with a recorded movie but its not the same (and everyone knows to get the real experience , you have to go to a theatre). While reading watchmen , I had to pause and reread multiple pages. I didn't the significance of the Reverse symmetry chapter till I read the annotations online. I had to reread the Ozymandias dialog at the end. I had to reread the rorshachs origin. I had to reread Rorshachs death. Everytime I read a P.G. Wodehouse book, I would pause and laugh before continuing to read. Some of the scene descriptions are hilarious which are ofcourse absent from the serial.
3) Some books are serialized and continue for years, and are multilayered (like Sandman, Lucifer). While some movies can make the same claim , they rarely have the same scope. The multilayering aspect too is pretty much limited. TV series could have made the same claim , but there are precious few. Truthfully there are few books that do the above though.