The movie is a ten course dinner – At a roadside fast food joint. It starts with a story called Matrimony, a sarcastic title really, because the theme is adultery with a O. Henry ishtyle ending, complete with Guy de Maupassant - necklace. Each story takes about 15 minutes and that’s what it is about - Ten unrelated stories.
Five of them directed by Sanjay Gupta, the rest by Jasmeet Dhodi, Rohit Roy, Hansal Mehta, Meghna Gulzar, Apoorva Lakhia. Yes they give you Mandira Bedi, Arbaaz khan and Sudanshu Pandey for starters. The main course is about Mahesh Manjrekar, Jimmy Shergill, Suniel Shetty, and Anupam Kher. They serve rare wines like Shabana Azmi and Naseehruddin Shah. Dessert consists of Nana Patekar and out of season fruits like Sanjay Dutt and Amrita Singh. Tarina Patel, Neha Dhupia, Masumeh, Dia Mirza Mandira Bedi provide the spice. Sounds like a hell of a cast right? – No, Wrong. The actors are great but the stories and the screenplay cannot contain them. Shabana Azmi and Naseehruddin shah are known to give the kind of performances that leaves the director open mouthed and wide eyed, till somebody else says “cut”, they are acting in a hopelessly predictable story like “Rice Plate” which should have belonged to the National Integration era of the nineties. The scripts are lazy and predictable. “Kya tumne pyaar kiya?”, “(silence)”, “Aapne mere sawaal ka jawaab nahi diya”, “kuch sawaalon ke jawaab nahin hotey (stupid smile)” or something to that effect. The six chefs serve you famous delicacies and rare wines, in greasy cracked plates and dirty tea-glasses. The ten course dinner then turns into a gigantic, silver screen sized Misal Pao, wholesome but difficult to digest. Overall it is little more than a film festival of various directors; this raises the hopes of the audience, every time the name of the next director flashes on screen and every time the hopes are crushed. Kartar Singh Duggal's short story, “Pooranmashi” and “Gubbare” by Gulzar are outstanding stories with great endings. The two junior artistes in “Rise and Fall’ are good too.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Bombay To Goa
Yet another film that couldve done it but didnt. No, it isnt a sequel, prequel or remake and has no connection with the 1972 amitabh starrer. The film has no big names to boast of and wouldnt have made any difference if it did. The movie has most of the popular "Great Indian Laughter Challenge" Champions under one screen and they provide a pathetic replay of what they did in front of Shekhar Suman minus the Navjyot Sidhu laughter. It is more closer to the recent "Honeymoon Travels Pvt. Ltd"
Sunil Pal and Vijay Raza are the two main protagonists. Sunil wins a contest similar to GILC and with the prize money decides to start a bus service from Bombay To Goa. He is helped in his endeavour by Raza, and together they manage to whip up a bus "taarzan-The wonder car" ishtyle. The passengers are a range from Raju Shrivastav to Ehsaan Qureshi. A couple of ex-bar dancers, Deepak Shirke, Mac Mohan (samba) etc. contribute to the confusion. The laughter is staged and the story line is compromised against the scanty jokes. Most of the acts are premeditated and stick out horribly besides being uncomfortable to human logic.
The director Raj Pendurkar couldve have been more stern, Most times the actors get selfish to showcase their own talents with no respect to the story line. The comedy is old and feeble.
At best the film is just like one of the C-grade horror films only that it is comedy actor marketing that is being disguised as a comedy film.
Sunil Pal and Vijay Raza are the two main protagonists. Sunil wins a contest similar to GILC and with the prize money decides to start a bus service from Bombay To Goa. He is helped in his endeavour by Raza, and together they manage to whip up a bus "taarzan-The wonder car" ishtyle. The passengers are a range from Raju Shrivastav to Ehsaan Qureshi. A couple of ex-bar dancers, Deepak Shirke, Mac Mohan (samba) etc. contribute to the confusion. The laughter is staged and the story line is compromised against the scanty jokes. Most of the acts are premeditated and stick out horribly besides being uncomfortable to human logic.
The director Raj Pendurkar couldve have been more stern, Most times the actors get selfish to showcase their own talents with no respect to the story line. The comedy is old and feeble.
At best the film is just like one of the C-grade horror films only that it is comedy actor marketing that is being disguised as a comedy film.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
AABRA KA DAABRA (3-D)
This is the kind of movie this blog is meant for. There is a contest in which the children have to collect wrappers or something like that and where the prize is admission to any school in the country. Now imagine, Harry potter wins this contest and thats how he gets admission to hogwarts! and guess who has organised the contest? PARLE-G the biscuit company in collaboration with camlin colours.
Yes. This is a copy of the Harry potter movie. Only that harry is called shanu. two hundred years ago the school aabra ka daabra has been founded by guru sachitanand, who gets killed by an evil magician who dies too aka voldemort. Thats the beginnig of this unbearable film, or rather copy of a film.
The indianness shows itself. Like when harry goes to the school for the first time, he lies that the principal is his aunty, so that the caretaker (anupam kher) should let him inside. The life of harry-shanu in hogwarts is same as the college life shown in most hindi movies.
The script as in most such films is confused. The movie tries to tell us about power of concentration, mixing yoga with tantra. The other part is the advertisements. imagine a bengali professor teaching power of concentration (prof. flitwick teaching levitation) while the blackboard plays camlin advertisements.
Malfoy is called changezi here, and is the headboy and the principals favorite.
In yet another scene, a hindi version of crab and goyle hold harry-shanus hands, when a girl hurls a parle g biscuit into his mouth and he gets shaktiman-like power.
There is a confrontation song too. where malfoys gang and harrys gang sing abuses at each other. The principal who has been played by a good looking c-grade model (who acts well though) dances a cabaret song while shanu and company look on. The story and screenplay are pathetic, like in one scene, the principal tells the students of the school that she knows some of them are into mischief, then she says that the ones who are guilty should stand up. the problem? well they are all already standing up!.
The script is tasteless too. quidditch is taught by archana puran singh and the winning captain here has the right to rusticate the losing captain from the school!
The movie like most such ventures in indian cinema, has too many computer special effects. The main parts of any fantasy film is intrigue, mystery, and a taut storyline. A childrens film should also carry a good moral message. Here the children are shown lying, and making fun of teachers. This film is at best a failed advertisement.
Monday, January 29, 2007
DON, A REVIEW
I saw the new Don today, sat through it for all the three hours and all i have to say is this:Mediocre. This current version exceeds Abhishek bachhan in spoiling our memories of the original Don and thats the worst sin a remake can commit. Especially the enormous slips.
Narcotic trade gets you death sentence in malaysia says one of the smaller villains in one scene. Then Sharukh drinks bhang in a public place in malaysia. The problem? Bhang my dear sirs come from the same plant as Marihuana.
Like someone said, clear writing comes from clear ideas and the script shows us very clearly, that nobody seems to have any idea as to what this film is about. The first half is a replica of the actual DON, and then the second half shows us that no it isnt.
So whats done in a remake? you see the older version and wonder how it could be made more better and then
Either you take the script and make the film your way with your treatment without changing the script. Like in a remake.
OR you make a parody like Ramgarh ke Sholay.
OR you make a full fledged new version, with a brand new story, without changing the core concept, ie the Titanic or the more recent Shiva.
OR you do what you want but don't call it a remake like Devdas.
YOU CANNOT DO ALL THE ABOVE.
In the first half this film is a replica of the original don, the dialogues and incidents are similar, Kareena Kapur does a Helen number etc. To make the viewer expect the second half to be the same. It then uses this expectation to spring all the surprises. Thats where it goes wrong. because right from the beginning it makes the audience compare shahrukh with amitabh, kareena with helen etc. By the the second half the audience has already rejected the film. Who wouldnt? when the story includes a plan to steal 50 crore worth of diamonds, assembling all the gadgets and technology, persuading a (wife kidnapped) computer engineer to execute it and then while climbing up the sides of the building he gets spotted by a housewife standing in a balcony?. what was the original version like? it was a Mumbai ishtyle Masala entertainer. Thats what the people search for in this film, but what they are given is something else. it is an exhibition of unreal gadgets. Discovery channel would be proud of this one.
Shahrukh khan redoes the double role of Duplicate with some Helping of Badshah. Kareena is good until she tries to imitate Helen. Boman Irani seems to know where he is going. Priyanka chopra cannot be the furious wildcat but connects with the audience as she too wears a bewildered look through most of the film. The cinematography and editing is in the tradition of the other Farhaan akhtar films. Especially the aerial shot of southern mumbai. The choreography is satisfactory. Costumes are great, especially the paunch revealing dress kareena wears in the Helen number (refer picture), Shahrukh khan wears a special jacket in the title track, the one he usually keeps for his Dandruff ads. Sets and Locations excellent. Overall i think the film should be a good lesson for other remake makers.
Narcotic trade gets you death sentence in malaysia says one of the smaller villains in one scene. Then Sharukh drinks bhang in a public place in malaysia. The problem? Bhang my dear sirs come from the same plant as Marihuana.
Like someone said, clear writing comes from clear ideas and the script shows us very clearly, that nobody seems to have any idea as to what this film is about. The first half is a replica of the actual DON, and then the second half shows us that no it isnt.
So whats done in a remake? you see the older version and wonder how it could be made more better and then
Either you take the script and make the film your way with your treatment without changing the script. Like in a remake.
OR you make a parody like Ramgarh ke Sholay.
OR you make a full fledged new version, with a brand new story, without changing the core concept, ie the Titanic or the more recent Shiva.
OR you do what you want but don't call it a remake like Devdas.
YOU CANNOT DO ALL THE ABOVE.
In the first half this film is a replica of the original don, the dialogues and incidents are similar, Kareena Kapur does a Helen number etc. To make the viewer expect the second half to be the same. It then uses this expectation to spring all the surprises. Thats where it goes wrong. because right from the beginning it makes the audience compare shahrukh with amitabh, kareena with helen etc. By the the second half the audience has already rejected the film. Who wouldnt? when the story includes a plan to steal 50 crore worth of diamonds, assembling all the gadgets and technology, persuading a (wife kidnapped) computer engineer to execute it and then while climbing up the sides of the building he gets spotted by a housewife standing in a balcony?. what was the original version like? it was a Mumbai ishtyle Masala entertainer. Thats what the people search for in this film, but what they are given is something else. it is an exhibition of unreal gadgets. Discovery channel would be proud of this one.
Shahrukh khan redoes the double role of Duplicate with some Helping of Badshah. Kareena is good until she tries to imitate Helen. Boman Irani seems to know where he is going. Priyanka chopra cannot be the furious wildcat but connects with the audience as she too wears a bewildered look through most of the film. The cinematography and editing is in the tradition of the other Farhaan akhtar films. Especially the aerial shot of southern mumbai. The choreography is satisfactory. Costumes are great, especially the paunch revealing dress kareena wears in the Helen number (refer picture), Shahrukh khan wears a special jacket in the title track, the one he usually keeps for his Dandruff ads. Sets and Locations excellent. Overall i think the film should be a good lesson for other remake makers.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Guru dissapoints!!!
Was in pune the other day. cool place and i was enjoying it too until offcourse my friend dragged me to the local Inox. To see Dhirubhai Ambani, yes thats what i will call the film coz the real name reminds me of Mithun Chakraborty with shoulder length hair and white trousers driving a truck. Never mind. They could have well called him "Rajnikant Kasai" for all I care.
Ok. The Film.
Aishwarya Rai plays the role of a psychotic young woman who dances in the fields when alone. She also has chronic Hydrophilia as is evident by her masquerades in the heavy rain, and her fully clad baths in the usual village jharna which makes a special appearance in most village movies.
Abhikshek redoing the role of the paan chewing real estate agent in Bunty & Babli likes to tell everyone he meets how great he will become one day. When he isnt doing that he takes revenge on his teacher father by ringing the bell for recess.
Vidya Balan in the role of a multiple schlerosis victim and Mahadevan are both as usual.
The dialogues are good but the screenplay isnt. The story fails to explain the exact way in which the business wizard made his pile, and made it for others too. That hides the genius of the man and makes him look lucky. The film is about what he did but not how he did. The image thus conveyed is that of a gujrati robin hood fighting against a mighty parsi empire and the other enemies of the the indian economy, a robin hood who believes in alternatively, wriggling and fighting and paying his way out through tight situations. One who claims to help the economy while evading tax at the same time. That is where the confusion is created. The same man playing the role of a godfather as well as a common man. So where is Dhirubhai? God Only Knows.
Mani Ratnam usually makes refined films. This one is double filtered. filters have been used in excess, for visual demonstration refer to the Aishwarya Rai solo song. Its ok if the skies appear bluer, but fields dont look nice with a sky blue tinge do they?
The Art is excellent, and we are taken back to the old mumbai. the cast of characters is great.
Mithun Chakraborty joins Saurabh for in making a sensational comeback. Watch him. Abhishek could be in the race for best actor National award. Overall, everybody wins in this film, except Dhirubhai and Mallika Sherawat.
Ok. The Film.
Aishwarya Rai plays the role of a psychotic young woman who dances in the fields when alone. She also has chronic Hydrophilia as is evident by her masquerades in the heavy rain, and her fully clad baths in the usual village jharna which makes a special appearance in most village movies.
Abhikshek redoing the role of the paan chewing real estate agent in Bunty & Babli likes to tell everyone he meets how great he will become one day. When he isnt doing that he takes revenge on his teacher father by ringing the bell for recess.
Vidya Balan in the role of a multiple schlerosis victim and Mahadevan are both as usual.
The dialogues are good but the screenplay isnt. The story fails to explain the exact way in which the business wizard made his pile, and made it for others too. That hides the genius of the man and makes him look lucky. The film is about what he did but not how he did. The image thus conveyed is that of a gujrati robin hood fighting against a mighty parsi empire and the other enemies of the the indian economy, a robin hood who believes in alternatively, wriggling and fighting and paying his way out through tight situations. One who claims to help the economy while evading tax at the same time. That is where the confusion is created. The same man playing the role of a godfather as well as a common man. So where is Dhirubhai? God Only Knows.
Mani Ratnam usually makes refined films. This one is double filtered. filters have been used in excess, for visual demonstration refer to the Aishwarya Rai solo song. Its ok if the skies appear bluer, but fields dont look nice with a sky blue tinge do they?
The Art is excellent, and we are taken back to the old mumbai. the cast of characters is great.
Mithun Chakraborty joins Saurabh for in making a sensational comeback. Watch him. Abhishek could be in the race for best actor National award. Overall, everybody wins in this film, except Dhirubhai and Mallika Sherawat.