Taare Zameen Par

This movie, like Lagaan, is one heck of a pathbreaker. Like Lagaan, I can't see any other producer financing a movie like this. Taare Zameen Par casts light on a problem that the world refuses to acknowledge.

TZP is the story of a dyslexic child and his struggle with conforming with the world and competing with it as every child his age is forced to do. But the gem in the script and direction is that you can replace dyslexia with just about any hidden problem in children today, and an equally poignant movie can be made. The movie is full of analogies that make the audience understand the protagonist in the same way that he understands the world. However the best analogy comes in the second half, when dyslexic children are compared with the mentally retarded ones. As sad and pitiable the condition of the latter is in our society, at least we recognize their deficiency. The former get to face their problems without so much as an acknowledgement from anybody else that the problem even exists. And this portrayal allows every audience member to relate the movie to his/her personal life--whether it be dyslexia, or even a simple hatred for maths and science.

TZP succeeds in portraying the problem and offering a cinematic solution without being jingoistic, preachy and idealistic. A teacher diagnoses dyslexia because he was himself one and he works with such children. Parents bring up their children by only comparing their own with others'. They refuse to recognize their child's problem because the world refuses to recognize it. And even when they do, saving their own face as potentially bad parents comes before actually realizing what their child is going through. And ample proof and examples are provided to state that dyslexia is not a one-way street to the mental asylum, neither is it the end of the road for any future achievers. So much so that it makes the rest of us feel bad about not being one of the elite dyslexics!

Aamir the director has done a fine job and has admittedly been helped by a dream script. The credit of trusting the script, financing it and then making a product that resists all temptations to include crowd-pulling story-detractors goes solely to him. Apart from 1-2 songs, Aamir's direction is at its absolutely best during all the songs and is ably complemented by Shankar Ehsaan Loy's soothing scores and Prasoon Joshi's poignant poetry. The pace of the movie meanders between captivating and locally pointless, but the former moments stick with us far more. The genius of Amole Gupte shines through in the concept of the movie, his research on the topic, and the meaningful portrayal of the child's emotions through his simple paintings. The movie promises to be a pathbreaker from the very first frame when it acknowledges all parents and teachers that they interviewed, instead of a slew of commercial thank-yous to channels, banks and sponsors.

The cast is perfect. Inspite of being a die-hard Aamir fan, I couldn't help but feel that Akshaye Khanna of DCH would've been an equally powerful candidate for Aamir's role in the movie. Aamir's greatest contribution as an actor in this movie is that he has stepped aside and let Darsheel Safary get all the limelight. Although his tears upon realizing Darsheel's dyslexia seem a bit contrived, his overall portrayal is very Denzel Washington--keeping it simple with just a sprinkling of cinematic acting. Tisca Chopra as the helpless mother is quite good. Her character is beautifully etched as a well-meaning mother torn between her husband's wily discipline and her son's helplessness. I'm sure most students will relate to the father in the movie :-). Darsheel Safary, for a kid that young, is very versatile as an actor.

All in all, a movie with a superstar acting, directing and producing and not having any of the following: (1) Swiss locales (2) a single love story (or even a heroine) (3) item songs/celebrity guest appearances (4) odes to the patriotic (read rich) NRI. Go Amole and Aamir!
Amit

Aaja Nachle: the review

A simple story, quite predictable, with only one famous actor (trying to make a comeback), a debutant director and yet quite a nice, successful and appealing product: Aaja Nachle.

The premise of Aaja Nachle is Madhuri Dixit, who is settled in the US, having long moved on from her past life in India. News of her guru's impending death brings her and us face-to-face with her past: her parent's aspirations and her lover's dreams quashed by her romance with an American photographer encouraged by her liberal dance guru. Upon return she discovers that the disdain of her fellow Shamilites about her hasn't decreased, and her dance school is in the danger of being replaced by a shopping mall.

So she sets off to make her small town realize the importance of having a dance school, and to a certain extent, find and repair her long-lost roots. Thus begins the quest for a Laila-Majnu play, realized by the most unusual and incompetent of Shamili's home-grown would-be talent.

Nothing about the story jumps out at you. Everything (eventually) happens as one would predict. The movie is peppered with small wins: how Madhuri convinces the local politician, how she motivates her actors, above-average music by Salim Sulaiman and decent performances by everybody. The best part of the movie however, is the climax. After hearing Laila-Majnu of all things in the first 40 minutes of the movie, I started resigning my fate to yet another rendition of a very ghisa-pita story, something that I was sure would either be too artsy or anticlimactic for me to appreciate. The play however, is surprisingly well-executed, and is the highlight of the movie because it is good and contextually believable.

Several factors come together to make this movie the perfect comeback vehicle for Madhuri and launching vehicle for the director. A bunch of very talented actors with little star power allow Madhuri to shine through without letting it be a one-(wo)man cinematic effort. It is downright impossible to believe she is a mother of two and nearly 42 years old. She looks as if she never aged, she dances as if she never stopped, she acts as if she never left. Very competent performances from Konkona Sensharma, Kunal Kapoor (from RDB), Raghuvir Yadav (Mungerilal), Ranbir Shorey, Vinay Pathak and Yashpal Sharma make the movie complete. A brief but well-executed cameo by Akshaye Khanna is also worth mention. A surprise of sorts among all of the above however is Vinay Pathak, as one gets to see his dance moves in this movie. Many conventional stars couldn't have done a better job.

Overall, certainly worth a watch if you like movies that don't necessarily have one big crowd-pulling (f)actor.

Baawariya--the review

Nope, that's not a spelling mistake. "Baawariya" is every single person who went to see this movie hoping for something nice. Saawariya is the longest April fool's joke in the world. See it, and you will be lost for words...you will never be able to pinpoint just which aspect is its worst.

The movie begins with a sentence that should be at its end: "...you won't find this city anywhere on a map, because it is in my thoughts..." . You should remember that sentence till the very end to console yourself of the fact that at least an absurdity like this does not exist in reality.

Saawariya is (allegedly) the story of a happy-go-lucky Raj in a fictitious city falling in love with a you-can-love- her-but-cannot- have-her Sakina (in reality, she is a you-can-love- her-but-she- is-too-stupid girl). Reel after reel takes you through sets describing this fictitious set, trying to describe this artsy love story. This movie and my adulation of Sanjay Leela Bhansali forces me to be an optimist and try and pinpoint the positives of this movie....

Let's see....the sets are good (but they look very fake so you're really seeing a play with props)...... the music is very good (but even Hum Aapke Hai Kaun was better peppered with songs than this one).....there is an interval (raising the false hope that the movie will get better in the second half)...and inspite of all the fears in one's mind, the movie does eventually end.

Ranbir Kapoor is the one redeeming factor in this movie. He looks good and very confident in front of the camera. He seems to dance well and has a good physique (which is about all that is required these days). He has an innocent face that helps him a lot in this movie. Unfortunately after him, the next best thing is Zohra Sehgal, followed by Rani Mukherjee. Sonam Kapoor is as squeaky as the initial Aishwarya--makes me want to open her mouth and pour some machine oil to stop the squeaking. She doesn't have to do much except look pretty, and she looks decent although not drop-dead gorgeous. Salman Khan is good, only because he does not have to dance, only broods, speaks in a baritone and has a total of 5 lines.

The movie has an overwhelming blue aura, which gave me the blues. The movie tries to look artsy, sad and romantic at the same time, so you can guess what it ends up being. My greatest disappointment was the whole concept and the fact that a gifted director like Sanjay Leela Bhansali believed in it. The movie is not a love story because the story is practically non-existent and moves at snail speed. The movie is not an ode to artsy films, RK films or the novel it is inspired from, only because it can only be an insult to anything it is supposed to pay respect to. The only good thing that I can think of is that you can pause the movie at any frame, print it and sell it as a really good work of art.

There is a thin line between genius and lunatic: Sanjay Leela Bhansali took 5 steps back, came running and jumped over it.

Om Shanti Om--the review

After months of watching movies months after they have released, here is a "fresh" review.

Om Shanti Om is the first Farah Khan movie that I have seen. And I must admit her style brings an air of much-needed freshness into the usually insipid "hatke" films that Bollywood claims it churns out. This movie is, as admitted by her, a tribute to the melodramatic films of the 70s, and begins quite promisingly.

Om Prakash Makhija (SRK) is a junior artiste acting in films of the 70s, wanting to make it big time and head-over-heels over the famous heroine Shantipriya (a gorgeously 70s Deepika Padukone). He, his friend ably played by Shreyas Talpade and his filmy mother played by Kiron Kher provide a lot of laughs as they play typical moviebug-bit smalltimers. Today's big names struggling in those times have been sprinkled and ridiculed much to everybody's delight. SRK shines in this part of the movie, as the script calls for him to ham (something he is truly the King Khan at). Loud music, louder costumes, ghise-pitey dialogues (tons of maaa references) make it truly a treat to watch.

The 15-minute interval takes us ahead by 30 years to the reborn SRK and the potshots at current movies continue, again done quite well. Alas here is where Farah Khan and OSO lose their moorings.

The film would have worked as a terrific spoof to the movies of the 70s, but it soon becomes one of them. It has everything-- a reincarnation, a contrived plot, even the usual stretch-till- it-breaks execution. And also some features from today's films, namely an unfit star-studded song and a highly mediocre item song by SRK. The star-studded song is merely meant to be a crowd puller (and is surprisingly better woven in the movie than most of its kind) but it really doesn't add anything except 5 minutes of a boring song. 80% of its star cast are today's struggling actors anyway.

SRK performs well in this movie. Deepika Padukone looks drop-dead gorgeous in clothes that span two eras. She doesn't have a lot of acting to do, but doesn't screech, squeal or act stupid (which translates to a very decent debut considering she's a model). The music is strictly average, barring a very melodious Ajab Si from KK. The background score by Sandeep Chowta is much better and definitely an asset to the second half. Shreyas Talpade looks good, acts well and holds his own playing a young and an old man in front of SRK. Kiron Kher is good as always. Arjun Rampal is surprisingly convincing.

All in all, the movie is much better, funnier and interesting at portraying the 70s than today. It highlights the maladies of the 70s movies much to the audience's delight, and also exemplifies all that is wrong with today's movies (which was not funny 'coz it wasn't a part of the spoof) : useless item songs, stretched to the plot's limits and publicity-hungry jabs that have nothing to do with the story.

The weird logic of worship

Strange are the beliefs of people over what God wants. Has a mother ever been pleased by killing her own children? How can cruelty and sacrifice be the road to kindness and forgiveness? Sacrifice of animals for the betterment of humankind achieved a new low today, or did it?

Apparently this has been going on for years and years. Innocent dumb animals sacrificed amongst a celebration of death in the name of pleasing God. I'm no messenger of God, but killing a living being just to please God is the most illogical of all forms of worship. Especially when the priest retorts that people who oppose this must oppose cow slaughter instead. That priest is the biggest sinner of all. People do it out of blind faith spread by such priests who have more clout than anybody else. "No one has the right to meddle with people's faith"....ponder on that for some time and think about who else can say this for justifying what on the basis of religion..

Imagine such a bloodbath where cries of pain and suffering are drowned by chants and cheers of celebration. What is this if not a grotesque and perverse interpretation of all that the God they claim to please stands for. Take the animals out and bring innocent women in. Welcome to the Taliban...

The men in blue with red faces

Hype over our Indian cricket team claims one more victim--the team itself. With an embarrassing defeat from Bangladesh and a knock-out punch from Sri Lanka, the men in blue are looking towards an early exit from the ICC World Cup. The fortune of the mighty men in blue rests with the "minnows" they got defeated by.

I can virtually hear the millions of "match fixing" cries from Indian fans, although I do not believe our matches were actually fixed. Match fixing is just the favourite excuse that fans hide behind every time some little thing in cricket does not happen as expected. Just before the India-Sri Lanka decider I had heard aplenty about how the match was going to be fixed for India to win, since the World cup officials cannot afford the team of a country from where the majority of sponsorships came from, to get kicked out before the Super 8s. So much for conspiracy theories and confidence over match-fixing. Neither is the elitist blame of players playing for advertisement contracts than their country--just because it may happen does not mean we should assume it always does.

However this team seems like a shadow of the team we saw four years ago in SA. It was quite inspiring to see the team come back in the last WC after a dismal start, the way they re-thought their strategy, shuffled the team a bit, delegated decision making to able team players and showed renewed unity and resolve against their opponents, both in the World cup and their critics back home. This team simply does not show any signs of resurrection.

Our batsmen can hardly be termed the greats judging from this performance. They surrendered to a less-than-best bowling side, in a way undeserving to them and the bowlers they faced. With so much collective experience and talent I refuse to believe they could not figure out their opponents. The only explanation is that they probably did not study their opponents enough, for reasons best known to them. In front of Bangladesh they appeared as tentative as somebody facing a fast bowler for the first time. I distinctly got the impression that they were looking at their possible opponents in the Super 8s so much that they forgot to think about the match at hand. Wickets fell early, and incoming batsmen showed no signs of adapting to the crisis. The power-plays resembled the mundane 3rd afternoon of a Test match.

Indian bowling was never great, and they were probably as good as they could be. Even then they lacked the simple discipline of consistency. It looked like they tried too much. Preferring Harbhajan over Kumble still remains a mystery to me. Ditto for preferring Agarkar over Pathan. At the very least Pathan bats.

This was exacerbated by Dravid's reactive captaincy. Only against Sri Lanka did he employ the service of Sachin and Saurav over Sehwag for bowling. Field placing was either orthodox or reactive or both. But most of all lacked the agression and jump in the team's body language on the field that Ganguly had managed to instill over the years. Ganguly's captaincy had its banes, but let's not forget what good he did.

This team, along with its captain and coach, need to think long and hard over what went wrong--too much experimentation, obsession with sweeping changes post-Ganguly, or obsession with the World cup? When this team goes back to India, I do not think facing the fans' wrath should be their biggest concern. Not facing it due to the fans' indifference, apathy and disgust is. And if Bangladesh loses to Bermuda catapulting India to the Super 8's, they need to think long and hard over whether they deserve to be there...

Bollywood and the US

With films like Crouching Tiger... I have always wondered why American audiences are not as receptive to Indian films as they seem to Chinese films. I saw the movie, some of the contexts were obviously very Chinese since I was amused at how men flying in a movie could be considered Oscar-worthy serious.

But Indian films are slowly catching up. My lab mate was handed a DVD of Umrao Jaan (the old one) by his dad to watch as a representative good Hindi movie. Of course along with that was given "Bride and Prejudice" with the precedent of Bend it like Beckham. Needless to say, I warned him about the slowness of the first and the lack of quality in the second :-) But he has been really eager to watch the hindi film "Fight Club" because initially he thought it was an impossible remake of the English Fight Club and was dying to see how songs could have been accommodated in a drama of multiple-personality. I have told him repeatedly it has nothing to do with the English movie, but that doesn't seem to curb his enthusiasm of wanting to watch it! Well...I warned him.

Recently my wife has been on a Bollywood awareness spree. Her American colleague at work has a Vietnamese wife who is crazy about Indian films (Hindi-Vietnamese cousin cousin?) She has been feeding them with all our Hindi movie DVDs and coming back with rave reviews for each. Of course the subtitles are critical, but with these days Hindi film producers are doing a much better job with the subtitles. Maybe Bollywood masala goes better with "fry rie" than burger and fries!

Eklavya--the review

Interpretative cinema seems to be the big thing in Bollywood currently. At last the script writers seemed to have found meat in our own background, history and folklore and are looking to capture its essence in Bollywood movies. First Rang De Basanti, then Omkara and now Eklavya, it seems to be a promising trend.

Having said that, that is the only association that Eklavya can have with those two movies. While RDB and Omkara were different AND captivating, Eklavya can boast mostly of only the former. It is based in India soon after independence where a semblance of the royal family still existed with their archaic beliefs and superstitions. Amitabh Bachchan as Eklavya is the royal guard whose dharma is to protect the King and his family. Saif plays the prince to Queen Sharmila and King Boman. Jackie Shroff is the King's brother, while Sanjay Dutt plays the untouchable cop who has reverence for Eklavya and disdain for the royal family. The story is about Eklavya's tryst with following his dharma, eons after the original Eklavya followed his dharma for his guru Dronacharya.

The movie is strictly average as far as the main script is concerned. Apart from a little twist in the second half, there is nothing out of the ordinary in the script itself. The abstract connection between Amitabh's Eklavya and the original Eklavya is a bit of a thinker and not completely obvious. Casting is also average, with Jackie Shroff and Sanjay Dutt having to mouth a grand total of 10 lines. Saif as Prince Harsh is not extraordinary, but the role didn't demand many histrionics either. Amitabh Bachchan as Eklavya also does not get to do anything spectacular, and so he is as good as in any other of his movies.

The movie's USP is its execution. The pace of the movie and its editing is very crisp--there aren't many moments where nothing seems to be going on. The story is told very well, interweaving innocuous-looking but important parts of the script nicely. The direction too, is pretty good for the most part. The songlessness of the movie helps a lot, and so does the good camera work. Editing especially deserves praise as there were no scenes dragging themselves to death. In short, a short (2 hours) and crisp movie, worth watching more to appreciate the effort than to see a well-made movie.

The most entertaining part of the experience was undoubtedly the trailer from Munnabhai Chale America. Can't wait!

Proof that liquor fries the brain!

People do strange things under the influence. And conversely, I have seen people do such strange things in public that I am almost sure that they were drunk (or ridiculously not conscious of themselves).

It is a well-known fact that liquor destroyes the liver. But apparently it also fries the brain--case in point. For no apparent reason, he started running towards a window and went right through it, in an inebriated state. Even the Gods must've laughed for the first 10 floors or so before uttering "let there be overhangs". And now he's not sure if this will make him drink less.

Still I'm happy there exist such people in this world. After all, we need someone to look at and feel good about ourselves! Any chance this guy would be nominated for a Darwin? (Well no, he's still alive...)

Is this even cheating anymore?

Throughout my school and college life, I have seen and heard of newer and newer ways of cheating and getting away with it. However this story adds a new meaning to the word cheating.

Its so bad, its truly funny. In my SSC exam I have had the invigilator come to me and ask me for my answer sheet because some other kid didn't know how to answer a particular question. The reason people get away with it is that everybody seems to think that cheating is just a natural extension of how "we are as humans, we are as society" and how it apparently proves that our education system is catered towards the wrong things, prompting people to cheat and get away with it. All crap--poor excuses from spineless people who browbeat their way ahead because they lack any substance or character. Only a miniscule fraction of those who cheat really have no other choice, the remaining use that miniscule fraction to explain away their dirty ways.

I wish all the cheaters stop blaming their parents, their (lack of) intelligence, their poor and unprivileged background and the "world we live in". Cheat and thou shall be punished. I'd like to see a revenge of the nerds beating up those who cheat their way to success. The reason why cheating is proliferating is that most of the times it happens without any consequence. Well, let's create consequence. Hammer one cheater in public and his brethen will get the message. Don't worry about whether your conscience is absolutely clear or not; when you see a cheater being punished (even by yourself) your conscience will awaken automatically. Its time we stop accepting lame reasons and hold people accountable. Challenge the person who cuts in line, challenge the policeman who asks you for a bribe, challenge your colleague who offers one, raise your voice when you reply to a bribe request for everybody else to hear. There is no hypocrisy in challenging cheating--it is good in the absolute sense. If we search for that one other pious person who has never cheated in life to challenge all cheaters, we prevent ourselves from reforming into that person. The next time a person scoffs at you for doing things the honest way, just say "why not, what is the harm". It is indeed a sad world when one feels ashamed of being honest.

a new movie genre!

Here are some attributes of a film being screened in Minneapolis:

"Sensuous Comedy,
Great Characterizations,
Crispy Screenplay,
Absolutly NO Vulgarity,
Marvelous Songs along with Balayya's three dimensional Character are highlights of the film."

I'm trying hard to imagine what "sensuous comedy" means, especially if there is "absolutely no vulgarity". Any suggestions? And thank god for the 3D hero, I was tired of looking at billboards for 3 hours :-)

superpower superpower supertalk

"Superpower by 2020", "India is a superpower..." Indians all over the world have found a new coin phrase for their own country. Here is what an American consultant (and many Indians) feel about it. The dichotomy of superpower and superpoverty in India is remarkable. Looking at problems like corruption, poverty, illiteracy and the government itself, it is remarkable what strides India has made in the last 50 years. Then again, looking at our intellectual manpower, labour, IT successes and BPO resources, it is remarkable that India is still so behind in so many of the world's benchmarks of a superpower.

As an Indian, I am ecstatic and relieved that at last Indians have found something that they love to tout about their own country. We as a nation, as a people, are always critical of our own society, our own government, our own problems, our own cricketers and we are habituated to blaming someone else for them. Youngsters criticize our religion, our culture, our backwardness in thought, our lack of thinking progressively as a nation, elders lament the loss of religion and culture in the younger generation, and both unite to criticize the government (for things they deserve and they don't). Its great to see people sharing a common dream about their country and loving to talk about it. For such a psyche to embrace India's dream of being a superpower is nothing short of a miracle for me. True, we aren't there, in fact we're far from it, but then dreaming about something you already have is silly isn't it?

But that is the common man's dream. The government unfortunately seems to have built its own cocoon in which India IS a superpower. It is good for the minister of commerce to say "India is the future", but the "India Shining" campaign reeks of a government that seems self-complacent that they're doing everything right, inspite of all the problems rigging India. Infosys is India's biggest IT company, but to get to its office you have to dance your way through potholes and horrible traffic. People get killed over protests against religious conversions for money, but nobody bothers to ask the poor man why he converted for Rs. 500. Superpower is just a word, a coin phrase. It doesn't feed a single empty stomach, it doesn't get the economy a single paisa. Let's not get caught in the word--if people are taken care of, being called a superpower isn't necessary, and if they aren't being called a superpower is useless.

And besides, with the current perception of the "lone superpower" in the world, I'm not sure I'd like to belong to one!

Blogging 2.0

This message is just to test that my blogging mailing list is functioning again, now that I have restarted my blog.

Sports everywhere!

I must admit that even after 4 years of living in the US, I still do not understand the game of football. I can't say I have made an honest effort too, either :-)

But watching the superbowl game and reading all the articles on it the next day was great! It reminded me of the frenzy that cricket matches cause back home, followed by every Tom, Dick and Harry (actually Tarun, Damodar and Hari) commenting about how the teams played! I guess sports spurs the same frenzy everywhere! Great going Colts!

Nope, I don't have more than 24 hours

Nope, I didn't watch all those movies in one day and write those reviews! I'm hoping to restart this blog after about 6 months of blogging block...so pasting my earlier reviews!

Salaam-e-ishq: the review

If this is his idea of a salute to love, the man either needs to seriously learn how to salute, or never fall in love!

Recipe for SEI: Take 5.2 love stories, film them, then give the tape to a 5 year old with a scissors. Then whatever the kid does with them for 30 minutes, try to stick the tape back as best as you can, and then release the film.
A four-hour monstrosity of a movie, it isn't even worth 2 hours. This movie will be discussed in all film schools in India about what not to do when making a film. The execution is even more bizarre, trying to club together a cartoon film, a bollywood movie and a reality show in one entity! The movie is about 6 couples in different parts of the world, in different situations, with the common problem of love. Out of these, only 2 of them can actually be called love, the others are affairs, reality shows, just plain desperation or what has been touted as a love story and beaten to death several times by Bollywood. Akshay Khanna is a loverboy who is freaked out at the idea of marrying his girlfriend, Anil Kapoor is a 40-year old family man who is just bored to death of his monotonous life and looks for some adventure. Govinda is a dare-to-dream taxiwalla in Delhi who dreams of a gori mem coming into his life. Sohail Khan is a desperate man just wanting to "do it" after marrying, but fate simply does not let him. John Abraham and Vidya Balan are a couple eternally in love even when life tests them. If you figure out what Salman Khan and Priyanka Chopra were all about, please let me know!

Let me begin by mentioning what I thought were mere flashes of good or tolerable film-making in this movie. The idea seems fresh for Bollywood, although I'm told that Love Actually is based on this premise. The execution is interesting at some places. The music is good (don't get me started about the placement of songs in the movie though). And believe it or not, the director has managed to weave these stories into each other quite well (in the sporadic moments that these characters that are strangers to each other just happen to cross paths). Lastly, all the heroines look very good in the movie. That is about it.

I think only the story of John and Vidya is worth any appreciation and time. Their story had room for some extremely filmy twists and turns and the director has resisted the temptation to make most of them. They were appropriately cast for their part. Govinda's story is like a 2007 version of Raja Hindustani, and he and Shannon Esra do have some entertaining moments on screen. The scene where Govinda's filmy dream about how the gori of his dreams will appear actually materializes is quite innovative. Anil Kapoor has almost nothing to do, except a scene where he hopelessly tries to act like a 19-year old to impress his girlfriend and thoroughly embarrasses himself (he is meant to do that in the story). Akshaye Khanna is the quintessential bachelor who freaks out at the idea of commitment and of course, realizes in 4 hours that he is wrong. Priyanka Chopra plays the item-girl actress who creates a fictitious love interest for publicity and to get an offer from "karan johar", and is bamboozled when Salman Khan appears as her fictitious hero in real life. Of course, like any other reality show, she ends up (oh so fakely) falling for him in the end. Sohail Khan and Isha Koppikar form the remaining 0.2 part of the movie.

The end is especially traumatic for the audience, when the movie refuses to end like an tasteless chewing gum that just cannot be spit out. Heroes borrow each other's dialogues, poor Ayesha Takia gets married in three phases, and Salman Khan says the same thing twice. I was especially puzzled, intrigued and disappointed at the fact that Govinda had only about 10 seconds of dancing, while we were subjected to robotic Salman and mediocre Akshaye for 2-3 entire songs! I mean that's just poor resource management.
To conclude, the director should've just stuck to John and Vidya's love story. That would've resulted in a much shorter and hopefully much better movie (one with a script!). But then with Kal Ho Na Ho as precedence, what was I thinking?

Guru: the review

Guru is the character essay of Gurukant Desai, a villager who dreams big and is shrewd enough to make it come true. Like the fate of Gurukant Desai, the movie keeps meandering between the good and the bad.

Seemingly inspired by the life of Dhirubhai Ambani, Guru tells the story of a villager who always has grand plans for life. He is shown to be a go-getter, someone whose confidence and swagger never reduces in the toughest of situations. He is quick to learn the ways of the world and then change them to suit his own ambitions. His business-like approach to life often takes toll on his personal life, but he has his relationships to keep the human alive inside him. And so goes the story of Guru, from rags to insane riches, from fame to infamy.
The story is so dominated by this one character, that most other characters either seem unnecessary or downright distracting. Aishwarya doesn't get to actually act till maybe the last 30 minutes of the movie. Vidya Balan exists only to show Guru's human side. Madhavan is wasted in a role that could've been done by anyone who looks 25 and has a sparkle in his eyes. The only exception is the character of Mithun Chakraborty, who is Guru's mentor and later, bitter opponent.
Abhishek Bachchan as Guru is a good choice, neither the best nor the worst. He pulls off the role with sincerity. Although his acting cannot be classified as spectacular, he does justice to the role most of the time. Most noteworthy are his get-up and his body language, more than his histrionics. He conveys Guru's arrogance, swagger and disdain nicely, but looks awkward in Guru's more philanthropic moments. He does have quite a few scenes in the movie where he has to pull off an Amitabh and comes off looking truly junior to the senior Bachchan. Aishwarya has nothing to do in the movie till the last 30 minutes, when she has to emote a bit and look stressed out. Mithun Chakraborty performs well and to his true calibre. Others are not mentionable because they're either too vague or too unnecessary.

Mani Ratnam has stuck to his penchant for looking as authentic as possible, whether it being recreating India of the yesteryears or coming up with a mostly believable and thorough script. However he has some things against him in this movie that are normally his strong points. For one, the music is pathetic. Each song more ridiculous than the previous one, and made even more ridiculous by thrusting it in inopportune moments in the movie. The first 30 minutes test your patience with 2 non-descript songs, especially the rain song by Aishwarya where she ends up looking more mentally deranged than bubbly, thanks to the insane choreography. The background score is also quite pathetic, considering the magical background scores that Mani Ratnam has enjoyed with A R Rahman in the past. It was quite obvious that he struggled with writing the end of this movie, as the end was a bit of a mismatch to the whole story and the true character of Guru. Bringing country and patriotism into a story that is full of sheer opportunism sounded a bit strange.

Overall, watch it if you are Mani Ratnam loyalist, or wish to see Abhishek Bachchan take up a role of Amitabh proportions.

Kabul Express: the review

A short, songless film rooted in despair, war and a country torn apart. A film where people from different nations come together and in the face of death and fear, end up finding some long lost threads, before parting again. Kabul Express is truly a different film.
The film has a certain DCH feel, as there is really no story. It is just a short part of 5 lives. Two photographers who come to Afghanistan to interview a Taliban so that their journalism careers take off meet an Afghan and an American, alongwith a Pakistani. And so begins their journey in Afghanistan.
The director deserves a pat on the back for several reasons. He has kept the film taut and songless. He has captured war-ravaged Afghanistan beautifully, and has juxtaposed that nicely against Arshad Warsi's character that brings out humour in despair and death. He has also done a very good job at showing how ordinary humanity gets caught in politics. While the Pakistani fights as a Talib for his army, his own army deserts him at the behest of the Americans. The Pakistanis who guard the border and help their comrades are forced to shoot them. Afghanis think its pakistan's fault and Pakistanis return the favour. And the interesting "Oil for Pepsi" theme to the war. He also deserves full marks for authenticity, which goes beyond the landscape into Afghani conversations, lifestyle and yes, some disturbing violence. His best achievement is however a scene when the Pakistani accidentally catches an old Dev Anand song on his radio as they near the Pakistan border, and he and the Indians start singing what unsuspectingly emerges as a common thread between them.

Arshad Warsi walks off with the best lines in the movie, which are as apt and funny as he is. John Abraham has far less impressive lines in the movie. But the movie is so different and engrossing that all that he does or doesn't do can be overlooked easily. For once his rugged appearance does match his surroundings.

Overall, a very watchable film, irrespective of how accurate it is historically and politically. It is worth watching simply to applaud and encourage the effort...

Baabul: the review

Ravi Chopra and his "back to the 60s" theme shows up once again in his latest product, Baabul. As I experienced with my friends, the title was enough to scare a lot of people from watching the movie, expecting a Nirupa Roy-type tearjerker of a family drama.

Baabul is the story of a father-in-law who treats his daughter-in-law as his own daughter, plays matchmaker after she becomes a widow and fights his family over her rights inspite of being a widow. The movie puts across the message quite emphatically and tries to be as non-preachy as it can, but it takes an eternity for it to arrive at the real story...

The first half of the movie is almost totally pointless and a waste of reels for the most part. Knowing what the meat of its story is, thank God the movie didn't start with Salman Khan (their son)'s birth! (Oh no, wait, it did.) There is totally timepass stuff with Salman and Amitabh playing buddies, Salman's antics to woo Rani, marriage, happy unmarried and married life, and the usually family stuff that veteran Bollywoodian fans have seen more than enough of. The problem is, it almost contributes nothing to the real story, which doesn't begin till after the intermission. The love story is pretty timid, everybody laughs, sings and parties ala Hum Aapke Hai Kaun. Unfortunately, although Salman Khan looks somewhat younger than himself in a few of his earlier movies, he still looks too old to be a bachelor and then eventually marry Rani Mukherjee.

The second half elevates the movie and gets better and better till the end of the movie, so thankfully the movie doesn't leave a sour taste in the mouth at the end. The main plus of this part of this movie is that I felt that the tears were shed in the right amounts and at the right places, and so were words. There is no unnecessary preaching about the state of widows and Indian society by Amitabh's character, beyond what is necessary for the situation. Very often movies like these take an eternity to come to the point, and once they arrive there, take another eternity to get it over with. Fortunately the latter is not true for this movie. We did not always have to wait for the scene to get over after we have digested what it was saying.

The movie needs some serious editing, especially in the first half. The songs, except Bawari Piya Ki by Sonu Nigam and Bebasi by Kunal Ganjawala are eminently forgettable, but they are difficult to forget since they go on and on in the movie. Amitabh's singing worked much better in Baghbaan than here, where it seems more forced than natural. And what is it with people's ridiculous dressing sense? I swear I saw Chameli-type clothes on screen at least twice!

Amitabh is what Amitabh does, so I need not say more. This is a much more restrained performance by him, where his dialogues have more power than their delivery. Hema Malini looks her age and still unbelievably gorgeous. Alas she still has her funny and nostalgic accent :-) Salman is ok-ok in the movie and so is Rani. John Abraham once again tries very hard to move his face, but alas it is too frozen and metallic. His character has a lot of meat in this movie, but his face is all bones. But at least his metallic face matches his robotic body, a fact evident from his numerous attempts at dancing!

All said and done, as Poonam said, this movie tells a similar story as Kuch Kuch Hota Hai. But with a father-in-law replacing the 8-year old as the sutradhar of this love story, it seemed to make much more sense to me, even without all the other goodies that KKHH had to offer.

Dhoom 2: the review

Remember how you purchase a really cool looking firecracker during Diwali. You wait until the moment when you have to light it, and it just fizzles out. Welcome to Dhoom 2.

After Dhoom, the makers of Dhoom2 created a lot of hype, with a "stellar" star cast as Abhishek Bachchan, Aishwarya Rai and Hrithik Roshan on the screen at the same time, with some cool-looking promos with a suave cop and a cool thief. I think they themselves bought into it more than the audience, since that is all this movie is about, hype.
The movie's (alleged) plot is about Mr. A, an international thief who robs only invaluable things, is a master of disguise, and has managed to fool police all around the world. Nobody knows what he does with his loot, nobody knows where he will operate next. And he brings Jai Dixit (Small B), Ali (Uday Chopra) and Shonali (Bips) together to catch him. Like an oracle Jai predicts Mr. A's next move within 10 seconds of hearing his exploits, but even then Mr. A manages to give them the slip multiple times. Until Jai plants a mole with Mr. A, which Mr. A also manages to win over. Thus starts a final heist, which is also successful, followed by a motobike chase amongst valleys (reminded of Dhoom 1?), and of course it has to end happily since there are too many people on screen whom we hate to see dying.
Dhoom 2 is so cheesy that it reeks. 21st century effects meet Dharmendra and Jeetendra's death-defying bullet dodging capabilities, peppered with gravity-defying stunts. Motorbikes fly, and so do jet-skis. Aluminium is magnetic. Bullets totally miss everything, people jump on and off trains with dexterity that is impossible even if the train was stationary, and jump off cliffs with seemingly nothing other than "maa ka diya hua aashirwad", 'coz only that can save them the way that they are. Mr. A deserves all his loot, since not even one policeman, irrespective of country, is able to shoot someone who is about 20 feet away from them, pretty much a sitting duck. The background music begs the audience to consider whatever they are seeing as cool. And Bollywood finally got tired of portraying the spineless policeman who is always bought in by the villain. So they created designer police: people who wear skimpy clothes, designer outfits, have beards because that is their current hep look, travel worldwide to catch crooks, and then do anything but catch them. The camera work that I thought initially was pretty good, is so repetitive and with the sole purpose of hiding special effects glitches, that it is nothing short of jarring. There is no shot that stays for more than 5 seconds on the screen, and so you're flashed by, not the pace of the movie or the cinematography, but the fast-changing camera.

And then there's the language. I don't know who speaks like Aishwarya's Sunehri and Uday Chopra's Ali, but God help them! It is such a pathetic mix of Hindi and English that the only funny thing about it is that the director actually thinking it would be funny. And no, its not just in the dialogues--there are entire songs in that language! Which brings me to the music--there is nothing in it. The movie is full of songs, that either introduce new characters, or make it obvious that the director wanted a 5-minute filler. And not one of them is good, and Hrithik and Aishwarya dancing to highly awkward, muscle-spraining choreography doesn't help at all.

The movie is a contest of skin show between Bipasha Basu and Aishwarya Rai, and fortunately they do look very good in the movie. If only the movie were one big Garden Varelli ad instead of a 3-hour long saga of nonsense! Uday Chopra has 1-2 very funny lines (amongst a total of 736 lines, so you get the picture). Abhishek Bachchan is in the movie for the sake of completeness--he was one of the main reasons Dhoom 1 worked, and so they simply couldn't do without him. The movie does gross injustice to the current ultra-cool image of AB. But Hrithik Roshan walks away with most of the screen time, and gets to do the relatively smart stuff in the movie. Although he is shown to be meticulous, the heist plots involve very filmy escapes. One good point (finally) in the whole movie is Hrithik's disguises. They are very good and very well-done, and only if the director had taken the extra step to make the overall plot as good.

In a nutshell, don't see it. Even if you are dying to see a toned Aishwarya sans loads of pounds, even if you are dying to see Bipasha Basu in skimpy clothes, even if you are dying to see Brazil, even if you are dying to see Abhishek and Hrithik sharing screen. I know they've done it before, but "Mai Prem ki Diwani Hoo" begs not to be counted...

Umrao Jaan: the review

Umrao Jaan was a "fish-bowl" experience for me. Being in America, coming to the theater in a Toyota Corolla after having a burrito for dinner, and then watching a 19th century epic where people use palakhis to commute, and women pray to God not to make them women in their next birth....

Umrao Jaan is another adaptation of the novel by that name, that had been earlier adapted in the older Umrao Jaan starring Rekha. The tale is very poignant and sad, and if only the movie could portray that well...

The movie is set in the royalties and brothels of 19th century Lucknow. The Lucknawi air at the time was full of poetry, riches and royale. The movie conveys this quite well, and the director's attention to detail for the most part is commendable. J P Dutta's penchant for looking authentic is evident in the heavy Urdu dialogue that sometimes made me look at the subtitles for help. The main character, Umrao Jaan, is quite meticulously explored to show shades of innocence, sincerity and later the feeling of being ostracized. There are some flashes of directorial brilliance, but I'm afraid they are just that, and they are quite few.
The movie makes both its strengths and weaknesses very obvious. Anu Malik's music is quite pedantic as compared to his previous collaborations with J P Dutta, namely Border and Refugee. Melody is notably absent. The lyrics are much better, but for all tabla lovers, the tabla in all the songs is simply exquisite. I was reminded of the intricate percussion in all legendary Ghulam Ali ghazals. And except the occasional phase shift, the finger movements in the movie actually match what is being played!

The cast leaves a lot to be desired in many cases. Oddly enough, although the sets portray the grandeur of the era, the characters don't. All the nawabs don't really look "nawabi" rich. The only exception is Shabana Azmi who totally looks and acts the part of a money-grabbing pimp. Abhishek Bachchan as Nawab Sultan isn't the best of fits, but he does a good job. His character mainly does two things--stare at Umrao Jaan without saying anything, or saying something. Abhishek looks kinda lost in the staring part, but he has some of the best dialogues in the movie. Even though he has managed to carve a niche for himself and has successfully distanced his style from his father's, an inebriated Abhishek Bachchan seems quite similar to an inebriated Bachchan Sr. Shabana Azmi brings out the dichotomy of her character's greed for money and motherliness quite well.
Then there is the weird star cast--Puru Raj Kumar and Sunil Shetty. Puru Raj Kumar has quite some screen presence in the movie, but he could have done much more justice to his role. Sunil Shetty is a miscast. If only he had to simply appear on screen and not say anything, he would've excelled, 'coz he does look creepy in the movie. But then he opens his mouth and a totally fake Urdu accent takes over. Sunil Shetty should go back to rough, action-packed macho roles. He is very unsuitable for portraying characters that are even remotely suave or intelligent.
And lastly, Aishwarya Rai. All said and done, she has given a very sincere performance. That she will be compared to Rekha is both inevitable and unfortunate. The problem with Aishwarya Rai is that she has to take great efforts to look like her character and not herself. The glamour, jewellery and rich robes that her character wears throughout this movie do not help the cause at all, as she looks quite pretty, and hence, more Aishwarya than Umrao Jaan. But she tries her best and deserves credit for it.

The biggest flaw of the movie is its length and pace. Even though this is a character-based movie, the pace is just too slow. There are umpteen examples of scenes where you feel for Umrao Jaan and get immersed in the proceedings, but the scene goes on and on for so long, that by the time it ends, the moment has passed and you can't wait for the next scene out of sheer boredom. J P Dutta has many strengths, but brevity and editing are not some of them.

Lage Raho Munnabhai: the review

Bollywood seems to be coming back full circle with its current crop of new directors with refreshing and truly "hatke" ideas. Farhan Akhtar, John Matthew Matthan, Rakesh Mehra, Vishal Bharadwaj, and now carving his own style, Rajkumar Hirani.

Lage raho munnabhai shares its far-reaching theme with its predecessor, a rip-roaring comedy in a somewhat unrealistic setting, but with a message hidden somewhere. In its sequel, Hirani takes on the daunting task of making Gandhism relevant in today's world. The product is extremely appealing because it does the one thing that none of the earlier movies featuring Mahatma Gandhi did. This movie brings down Mahatma Gandhi from the idealistic pedestal, projects him as a human being and makes his ideology relevant to the current social set up in extremely day-to-day happenings. In this aspect it shares its theme with RDB.

Munnabhai is upto his usual self, falling head over heels over a radio jockey without meeting her, and winning a contest on Gandhiji with his hilariously devious ways, orchestrated by his loyal sidekick Circuit. Thus starts the impossible clash between a gangster bhai and the austere bapu. Gandhism is taken out from books and statues and applied to everyday problems both convincingly and hilariously, until the bubble breaks for Munnabhai, only to make him realize that Gandhiji is in his heart, not in front of him, and he's been doing Gandhi's work without divine intervention.

Rajkumar Hirani performs the task of making Gandhiji both accessible and relevant quite remarkably. The movie, without being preachy, takes Gandhism to the masses through a gangster and his antics. This is his biggest win. With the main issue of Gandhism, he also takes on blind faith in numerology, astrology and the deteriorating conditions of the elderly and weaves them together nicely to create this second and unrelated episode in Munnabhai's life. While the first movie was almost all fun with some good messages here and there, this one is much more message-oriented while uncompromising on the fun and the mass appeal.

Sanjay Dutt as Munnabhai appears a tad lethargic as compared to the first movie. His body language is a bit sluggish and he appears more love-struck and "un-bhai-like" than the first movie. But what Dutt loses, Arshad Warsi gains. Arshad Warsi is simply superb in the film. His comic timing and immaculate dialogue delivery generates continuous laughter in the theater. This movie gives a bit more depth to his character instead of keeping him as the sidekick. Like him or not, but as far as comic timing and acting is concerned, he is the next Govinda. Vidya Balan looks pretty and performs satisfactorily. I only hope her career does not go the Gracy Singh way. Boman Irani is great as usual, showing his versatility in comedy and villainy alike.

Overall a good film with lots of laughs and light-hearted Gandhism :-)

KANK: the review

Karan Johar is a megalomaniac--this fact can hardly be refuted. A typical Karan Johar film is larger-than-life, quite black and white (either people are rejoicing to no bounds or crying rivers), star-studded (an understatement) and struggling to end. His movies are in the "forget reality for 3 hours" genre. It is nice to see him finally grow up in KANK.

KANK is the story of two troubled marriages, one due to ambition and frustration, the other due to an idealized idea of love. While Dev (SRK) is a one-time star soccer player whose life deals him a cruel blow with a handicap, is married to a very ambitious Rhea (Preity Zinta), Maya (Rani) is a chronically depressed girl who has extremely idealistic and unrealistic ideas of love, due to which she cannot see the realistic love of her husband Rishi (Abhishek). A friendship between the two, started by a desire to help each other in their relationships, quickly blossoms into uncontrollable love. The rest is a series of quite complex relationship blues leading to a very realistic ending...well, almost.

From irritating 8-year olds in KKHH to rivers of tears in K3G, KANK has a mature feel to it from the word go. The first half is pretty much what everybody has heard the movie is about. The movie, like many others, could've easily collapsed in the second half in a series of melodrama, heavy dialogues and unrealistic mangnanimity. But it doesn't, and it manages to keep things quite real and believable.
The movie breaks many stereotypes that a viewer may have carried into the theater. The relationship roles are reversed; the "typical" male mistakes are committed by a female, and the typical female magnanimity is part of a male character. It left me undecided about who to feel sorry for. Karan Johar has dealt with the complexities of the relationships very well in the second half. Except for some routine scenes of unnecessary tears and hamming, he succeeds in retaining the viewers' attention. The songs, for once, seem quite well-woven in the script; nobody's dancing when they are expected to cry and vice-versa. The lack of excessive punjabiness is very relieving, so is the far lesser dose of cliched dialogues and "template" scenes. Karan Johar has worked significantly on the art of conveying without dialogues. There are a few scenes where words (or lack of words) seem very appropriate. Just when the movie is heading for a perfect realistic ending, it takes an exit to the conventional. Compared to the whole movie, the last ten minutes were a letdown for me, as Karan Johar let his desire to end the movie melodramatically get the better of him.

Out of the characters, SRK's character is easily the meatiest. He doesn't disappoint, although he could've been better. Still, considering it is a Karan Johar movie, SRK has controlled his hamming a lot. He could still benefit from a few crying lessons. Preity's character just demands male ambition and ruthlessness, and she's ok-ok. Rani's character appears lost throughout, with unearthly ideas of love and relationships. She does well. Abhishek is very good in the movie. His character is the only one that is brutally honest and sincere. This movie shows the inherited angry young man, and he gives a very sincere performance. This is definitely one actor whose learning ability seems amazing. I hated Amitabh Bachchan's character throughout; his character is pivotal to the tale, but its dichotomy of parental maturity and boyish flambuoyance is just undigestable.

While Salaam Namaste looked at spontaneous relationships maturely, this one looks at the concept of marriage maturely. I don't necessarily agree with the point of view presented, but it has been presented quite well nevertheless. The overall movie is highly watchable; don't let the 3.5 hours scare you. They whizzed past me comfortably. Karan Johar has hit several ones deep into fantasy land--this one hits much closer to home.

Omkara: the review

Omkara--Vishal Bharadwaj's re-enactment of the Shakespearean Othello, breaks away from the shackles of mediocre Bollywood at many levels.

Since I have not read Othello I cannot comment on how much Omkara sticks to the original play. Penned and directed by Vishal Bharadwaj, Omkara is set in the gangworlds of UP. Ajay Devgan (Omkara), Saif Ali Khan (Langda) and Vivek Oberoi (Kesu) form the three pivotal characters of this drama, all part of the UP gang world. Kareena Kapoor and Konkona Sensharma form the feminine parts of the story. The story about how Langda poisons the mind of Omkara about his would-be wife because of the promotion given to Kesu over him in the gang hierarchy, and how Omkara chews on the bitter poison fed to him and commits the unthinkable...

Firstly, a comment on the star cast. Konkona Sen sharma has a smaller role, but one that she performs with elan and sincerity. Kareena has probably looked the best she ever can (which isn't saying much). We're used to seeing Ajay Devgan in these roles, as the gangster with steely histrionics, and he performs the part well. Vivek Oberoi looks a shell of himself in Company.

My greatest praise is reserved for Saif Ali Khan. His overall get-up is quite creepy, and Saif complements it with some powerful acting. As the crude, cursing, handicapped right-hand man to Omkara, Langda is jealous and scheming.

The movie is a must-see for Vishal Bharadwaj's effort, irrespective of one's awareness of Shakespeare' s works. Among the writer and the director, the writer in Vishal Bharadwaj wins this time. The plot is pretty much watertight, and although the overall story is quite routine, it has been written extremely well. There is no guillability on Omkara's part when he is brainwashed by Langda, there are no lucky breaks that Langda gets in his evil plans, and there are no Bollywoodian jerks to an otherwise extremely realistic story and setting. He has succeeded in seamlessly applying Shakespeare to UP politics and gang atmosphere, and comes up with a gem of a script. His direction, which just demands that the good script be executed with maximum realism, just complements his writing. The movie has the stark realism of a Satya, and is almost Pulp Fictionesquely ruthless and unapologetic about how UP is portrayed. Almost no songs keeps the overall film quite tight, although the story does appear a bit slow at times.

Overall, I highly recommend a watch.

Rang de Basanti: the review

Rang de Basanti is a must-see. Although I personally feel not everybody will like it and there is a fair chance it won't do too well commercially, it is a treat to watch, for what it says, and most importantly, how it says it.

Rang de Basanti is about the awakening of today's youth, whose views about their country are too simplistic and defeatistic. A group of 5 people who are fairly representative of today's youth--partying, dancing, making merry and nurturing both indifference and antipathy towards their country's condition. They are the classic youth who have cocooned themselves in their own world full of booze and merrymaking, deliberately trying to bury their neck in sand and pretending nothing bad in the world is affecting them...until it does.

The story of Rang de Basanti does not say anything new, or at least anything that any of us have not thought about before. Not too long a movie called Yuva tried to touch the same subject. While Yuva conveyed what is the right thing to do, Rang De.. is about what we wish should happen and how right and wrong that is. Where the movie's gold really lies is how the director puts his point across. I have never seen a movie that is based in contemporary times and yet ends up making the audience think of our past. The past that is lost in our history books, the past that does not leave the school compound, the past that 50 odd years later, everybody thinks he/she is competent enough to analyze and criticize. Our history books have ended up idealizing our past so much that it is something we look at from a distance, admire temporarily and quickly dismiss as irrelevant to today's times. This movie brings our past heroes from the tall pedestal to amongst us. This is the movie's biggest scoring point. May I that among the slew of Bhagat Singh movies, this one may not be the most accurate, grand, theatrical, etc. but it certainly is the most relevant!

The casting is perfect. Soha Ali Khan is a revelation--although her role doesn't demand many histrionics, she performs her role well, doesn't act too much or too little, and doesn't try to act the star or the star's sister and daughter. Sharman Joshi (Style fame) is goofy as usual, and quite convincing at that. Siddarth (from the music video "Yeh hawa..." from Aryans) also performs quite sincerely. Kunal Kapoor is good. Madhavan looks fresh and enthusiastic as usual. Here is a South Indian actor whose potential has not been tapped enough by Bollywood. Atul Kulkarni is the latest gem from the Marathi film and theater industry. His casting is perfect for the role. Again what works most in their casting is that other than Aamir, none of them are famous enough to potentially outshine the characters they play. That helps a lot in relating to their ordinary next-door characters.
Lagaan's trend of casting British actors continues with Rang de Basanti. Sue is the "sutradhaar" of this movie. She has the perfect foreign character who has heard only exotic and grand things about India and so has a very picturesque, albeit impractical impression of our country. The reality of the lowest strata of India and the apathy of today's youth hits her early and hits her hard. Alice Patten has done her homework well--her Hindi is clear and largely perfect and her acting abilities are good enough for this character. She also gets to mouth some interesting one-liners that, to my experience, excite the audiences the most.. ;-)

This movie, like DCH and unlike Mangal Pandey, is not a solely Aamir Khan movie. I am both happy and relieved to see the Aamir we all know and respect back, from the dungeons of a certain Mangal Pandey. His comic timing is perfect as usual, his childish expressions haven't changed a bit from DCH and add to it an infectious Punjabi touch, complete with accent, mannerisms and loudness, and you have a role that is tailormade for Aamir Khan and one that shines because of him. And he has some of the best one-liners in the movie :-)

My greatest appreciation though is reserved for the director. Frankly, without the director's wonderful way of putting the story, it would've been another Sunny Deol movie. The dialogues in the movie are subtle and effective, not loud and jingoistic. Atul Kulkarni's mere "sorry" for all his hatred towards a Muslim Kunal Kapoor is more stirring than the same sentiment conveyed in 10 sentences by Nana Patekar or Sunny Deol. Just when you think the movie is getting a bit too filmy and loud, the director pulls out a page from history to bring sanity and relevance to the proceedings. For those who don't know, this is Rakesh Mehra's second movie, the first one being Aks. Though Aks was largely boring and sounded too abstract at times, nobody could miss the unconventional and artsy directorial contributions in that movie. Rakesh Mehra continues to shape his style in this movie, and I think we have a new refreshing director in Bollywood who will make very thought-provoking movies out of ordinary situations. The fact that he casts biggies like Amitabh Bachchan and now Aamir Khan is a plus to bring all types of audiences into the movie theater.
To end, my reasons to watch Rang De Basanti, in order of importance:
1. The director and his storytelling.
2. The cast and their honest performances.
3. The songs. None of the songs are picturized fully, and none of them are lip-synched. This makes them short enough to appreciate, and realistic enough to add to the movie's story and pace, not take away.
4. The dialogues!
5. A movie soaked in Punjab that is not full of melodrama, family values and sarson ke khet (finally!)
6. Aamir Khan (come on, I had to mention him. He's the best!)

Neal n Nikki: the review

It is with a heavy heart and guilty conscience that I write this review, because writing this review would imply a confession that I went to the theater and saw this movie :-) Honestly I would have never gone to see this movie in a theater if I were in India, but here Indian movies really do make me that nostalgic!
Neal n Nikki is a potpourri of conventional Yash Chopra themes like sarson ke khet, romance, loads of Punjab, with "contemporary" movie stunts of his son aka Mohabbatein. Unfortunately this potpourri smells really bad!

The story is a no-brainer, in that you don't require a brain to understand the story. The part of the director and script writer's artistic abilities that this movie shows the most is their confusion and lack of focus about what this movie is supposed to be about. Is it a romantic movie, is it about NRI romance, is it about the C part in ABCD (American Born Confused Desi), is it a naughty mix of teenage capers and silly romance. The two creators of the movie will claim it is all of them; unfortunately it is none.

Neal and Nikki is the story of two people, Neal and Nikki (:-)). While Neal is this cool-dude NRI in Canada who hopelessly runs around all girls and (surprisingly) succeeds in wooing most of them, he is admittedly insecure about his own choice in relationships and so has delegated the responsibility of finding a wife for him to his mother. So mother finds one, and Neal decides to live it out one last time before making the plunge. So he goes away from his buffoon-innocently-flirtatious father and his oh-punjab-is-everything mother and decides to party in Vancouver and meet "21 girls in 21 days". He gets immensely lucky with all kind of blonde (and seemingly dumb) chicks and Nikki plays spoilsport. Nikki is this insecure girl who has just been dumped by her French bf, just loses it when she drinks (and she drinks like a fish) and for Neal, is always present at the wrong place at the wrong time. So after spoiling 2-3 of those 21 planned flings, they get to know each other, Neal fakes being her bf to make her real ex-bf jealous, jealousy succeeds, foes turn into lovers, then the usual engagement day drama followed by everything falling at the right place. So in a nutshell, Pyar To Hona Hi Tha meets DDLJ in 2 hours.
But I've wasted a lot of words on the story--its the characters that I am eager to comment on. Canada and NRIs is a good way to justify all the "hep" talk and the "hep" philosophies, but it was too modern and westernized for me to relate to. But even in that it is not consistent. A guy who wants to have 21 flings in 21 days before his marriage and pooh-poohs Nikki on her being a virgin takes so much offence when she kisses him in public. Apparently according to him a kiss between two people is supposed to have deep meaning, but one can sleep around without thinking twice :-). And the native Canadians and French-Canadians are very India-aware, 'coz her French boyfriend and his Canadian girlfriend are jealous and impressed respectively when Neal and Nikki fake romance with a Hindi song, intentionally copying famous Bollywood songs! Either keep the song parody-free, or keep the boyfriend Indian!
The lesser said about Uday Chopra, the better. But this movie has made a sensational discovery--now we all know how to make Uday Chopra look good and act well--pair him opposite Tanisha Mukherjee! It is the case of a friendly devil and the deepest sea in this movie. While Uday Chopra's acting isn't as pathetic as his looks, Tanisha matches both those aspects. She looks horrible and acts even more horribly. Remember the squeaky Aishwarya crying--Tanisha even talks like that. She can't talk, she can't dance, she can't cry. She can wear skimpy clothes however, very skimpy clothes. That immediately puts her in the chasm occupied by the Sherawats et al, for now at least.

That brings me to my last comment. As much as Hollywood is guilty of portraying the stereotypical Indian, Bollywood is guilty of portraying the stereotypical blonde. All the blondes in this movie either desperately want to sleep with someone, or who have named their body parts and take off their clothes and jump into water at the drop of a hat. So though a few Indians may be exactly how Hollywood shows them but not all are, same in this case. And if the director wanted to portray an Indian hunk who has a way with girls, at least don't choose Uday Chopra. If he must, then at least do his make-up well! With heavy makeup including lipstick on his face throughout this movie, Uday Chopra looks like a cross-dresser!
Be far-sighted if you are going to see this movie--focus on the backgrounds. Canada and especially Vancouver and Whistler are beautifully captured in this movie (Vipul you lucky guy!). In any case you wouldn't want to pay attention to what's happening in the foreground anyway!

Pyar Mein Twist: the review

This is not a new movie anymore, and if you're one of those who had never heard of it before, I was among you not very long ago :-)

Pyar mein Twist is (quite literally) a hatke movie, of the Baghbaan genre. The main theme is common, oldies romance :-)Like Baghbaan featuring Amitabh and Hema Malini, this movie brings back a jodi of yesteryears, Rishi Kapoor and Dimple Kapadia, again as lovers but about 50 years later.

The overall movie template is similar too, two familiar faces, surrounded by a bunch of hardly recognizable characters. Aman "e bhaaaai" Varma is replaced by Vikas "kkkiran" Bhalla as the actor trying to copy a superstar :-) Like Baghbaan the story isn't all that innovative, and there aren't "spectacular" subjects, scenes or characters. But its bearable. All in all, your typical crash-on-the-sofa-grab-popcorn kind of movie. Three charming actors in this movie--Rishi Kapoor, Dimple Kapadia and Farida Jalal.Rishi Kapoor and Dimple Kapadia prove that they still have in them, in the latter's case, much more than her daughters! Dimple Kapadia hovers in the positively glamorous to the absolutely gorgeous range in the movie. I have never liked her, but she has that tremendous upper-middle age charm in this movie. Rishi Kapoor doesn't have age and girth on his side, but has retained everything else that he was liked for.

Overall a neat and clean movie. If you have an evening to while away and don't want to depress yourself with serious movies or disgust yourself with sleazy ones, you can watch this one. Message to all directors and producers--if you don't have much money, want to get your money back, make a hatke film with all kinds of newcomers all at once, better make this than something else :-)

Garam masala: the review

Garam masala was a varied experience for me. The movie made me happy about certain things, sad about certain others. For those who don't know the story, don't bother much. Script-wise this is much more a David Dhawan film than a Priyadarshan film (which is not necessarily criticism since I myself am a fan of DD-Govinda movies). The point of the script is just to somehow make all the antics look cohesive and narrative.

Akshay Kumar and John Abraham are two photographer buddies who have no interest in the camera but all the interest in the world in their subjects. Both are good-for-nothing ogling men. Until John Abraham cheats, wins and leaves a dejected Akshay Kumar who decides to do away with his honest approach to life by taking to complete lying and swindling (I swear I did not see this approach in his character till he actually says so!)The rest is two guys, three gals, a cook and loads of David Dhawan style confusion, laughs, absurdities and entertainment.

I made the mistake of reading too many reviews of this movie before seeing it. I had started to expect a mindblowing performance from Akshay Kumar. His performance is not mind-blowing, but it is good. His face suits the character, his expressions are quite apt most of the times and whatever overacting he does occasionally is nicely masked by the overall impossibility of the movie. Overall he has come a long long way from his initial self. Paresh Rawal performs well in his role. You really cannot complain about this man anymore. If you don't like him in a movie, it is the director's fault, the script's fault, the dialogue writer's fault--everybody but Paresh Rawal. The man can do no wrong these days.John Abraham--what can I say? Sorry to disappoint any lady fans of him on this list, but he is as pathetic acting-wise as he has been in most others. He falls far behind Akshay Kumar (maybe that is what makes Akshay look so good) and Paresh Rawal. Even the most animated scenes cannot shake the lethargy and stiffness off his body and face. Even though I cannot understand why this man has so much female following, if they had to show him as a loser and one who doesn't get girls easily, at least they should've changed what is allegedly his normal sexy look! He looks as much a rickshaw wala in this movie as he does in every other.

Priyadarshan is slipping further down movie after movie. This movie is much better than his last one, Hulchul, which was a sorry and confused mix of drama and lame comedy. But the director is still going down. It is difficult to believe that a director who has given us movies encompassing such a wide range of topics like Virasat, Doli Sajake Rakhna and Hera Pheri is trying to cash in on the sleaze fest currently going on in the Hindi film industry. If he has to do that, at least take lessons from David Dhawan in impossibility and then do it. The camera work is the most disappointing and disturbing part of the movie. I doubt where the censor board draws a line these days, or whether it even wants to draw one. As if women dancing in skimpy clothes for nothing wasn't enough, the camera zooms into body parts now! And the context (if you really want to reason with why these shots are there in a movie) is nothing--just two guys who try to personify coolness surrounded with lively props that are supposed to represent today's gals (to prevent Indian girls from feeling offended, they are phoren girls, since "fair-skinned blondes = dumb and devoid of dignity" according to many Indian film-makers of today). And this coming from Priyadarshan is even more disappointing--the director is either losing his touch, losing his purpose of making films, or losing his producers.

As an aside, look out for the extremely uncanny props in the movie, especially during the songs.I want to watch Kyon Ki, the second and more serious movie by Priyadarshan this Diwali. But the double whammy of Salman Khan and Kareena Kapoor scares me :-)