Lootera: the review

Lootera is a story set in the 1950's, soon after India's independence. The main story is in two times, separated by a year and an intermission. It tells the story of a zamindar's daughter falling in love with an archeologist, how they fall in love before falling apart, only to run into each other again. The film is an adaptation of the Last Leaf, which thankfully the movie duly acknowledges in the end credits.

The film does a pretty good job of transporting the viewer into the 1950s. Every frame screams a simpler, quieter time set in rural India. The props, the makeup and the sets are all authentic, and a sight for sore eyes. The pace of the story matches the slowness of the time, but in a pleasant way.

The performances of Ranvir Singh and Sonakshi Sinha can be described as fairly decent, but not spectacular. This is the only movie of Ranvir Singh I have seen since Band Baja Baraat, so he had a reputation to live up to. This role is completely different from his earlier ones, and he does not disappoint. As I said, decent but not spectacular. He is yet another example of an Indian male actor who looks far better with shorter hair than with long tresses (I haven't found an exception yet). Sonakshi Sinha on the other hand, has a history of such low-ball movies that it is difficult not to meet that bar. Thanks to the role, the makeup and her performance, she finally shows some semblance of an acting spark in her. Her face is strangely suited more for frowns and grimaces than big grins (reminding me yet again of Reena Roy), which is why I think she suits this role more. It is definitely a step up for her, even if the slope is low.

The director and music composer deserve some special mention. Unlike the popular and critical opinions, I absolutely hated this director's last movie: Udaan. So this movie is to me, an improvement of his record. Udaan was just different, this one is different and for the most part, nice. He does a good job at going back in time and keeping us there. The music is quite hummable. My favourite song is Ankahee. The songs are not period-drama masterpieces like Lagaan and Jodha Akbar, but they are genuine and fit well with the story.

Where this film failed the most is its erroneous marketing. The name "Lootera" pretty much gives away most of the plot. To make matters worse, the promos of the movie eliminate any possibility of the title having a metaphorical meaning rather than a literal one. That it was an adaptation of the Last Leaf further minimized intrigue (I had not heard of this book before, but a simple google search spilled the beans about its plot). With all this, the only saving grace would have been an outstanding plot and superlative star-studded performances. Only then can a movie whose plot has nothing mysterious would still mystify the audience enough to go see it. And this movie has neither: the plot is decent but not groundbreaking, and so are the performances. Therefore it all averages out to an average movie rating from me.

Ranjhanaa: the review

Its been a while since I have seen a movie early enough to post a meaningful review. Thanks to my parents and the cooperation of my kids, we got to see Ranjhanaa, and I'm glad I did.

Ranjhanaa is a love story that works on many levels. It is unpredictable in several parts, predictable in far fewer instances than regular Hindi romantic films. But the success of its script is not in its unpredictability, but in its reality. Its two main characters are as ordinary, human and flawed as one would hope but not expect in a Hindi movie. Complete with good performances and cinematography, Ranjhanaa is definitely worth a watch.

Its heartening to see a movie shot in the Hindi belt of India and not as senseless as Dabaang. Varanasi, whenever included in a Hindi movie, is usually depicted with all its religiosity and depressing one-dimensional realities. In this movie it creates the perfect context for both the main characters. Despite never having traveled to that part of the country, and perhaps even more so because I have been away from India for so long, there is a strange romance about the chaotic existence of the city as depicted in this movie.

This is probably Sonam Kapoor's meatiest role to date. While Aisha seemed to come naturally to her, in this role she is entrusted to break her typical childish image. She puts in a decent performance overall, averaging some impressive scenes with other mediocre ones. While she has honed the skill of playing a bubbly girl (which actress hasn't?), she falls a bit short when it comes to showing her character's greatest flaws. Or perhaps it seems that way because of the actor she shares the screen with.

Dhanush impresses in this movie. This guy looks extremely unlike any other Hindi movie actor in the past decade, as far away from bulging biceps and Greek-god looks as one can be. I must admit I cringed at the thought of a South Indian actor who admits that he does not know Hindi portraying what seems like a "roadside Romeo" character from UP. But apart from a few dialogues where his accent shows in a subtle manner, he has done an impressive job hiding his lack of knowledge of Hindi. His extremely ordinary looks are his greatest asset in playing this character. He carries off the comic scenes and the emotional ones with panache. And if you have seen the promos, this guy can literally shave off years from his face!

He must share at least part of his success with the script writer. His character is both self-aware and wonderfully flawed. He is romantic, idiotic, impulsive and clueless and frankly that is much more multi-dimensional than the fluff Hindi movie heroes are made of. In the end I must crown this as my favorite part of this movie: the contradictory, flawed reality of his character.

The editing is crisp, and the direction is good. Music by AR Rahman is strictly average. But then again, a good script complemented with good performances never need the makeup of music and dance.

Agent Vinod: the review

As one watches movies, one forms a general opinion about their categories and wants every movie to fortify that opinion. For example I feel weird seeing women in western clothes dancing on pub music in a marathi movie. Agent Vinod is probably headed for a similar fate, even though the movie overall is quite impressive.

The reason this movie is trying to swim upstream is because no matter how hard it tries, a Hindi movie that looks and feels like a Hollywood thriller (for the most part) is bound to disappoint those who expect a Hindi movie to be anything but. As I saw some of the filmy fighting scenes in Agent Vinod my mind wandered to comparing it to English spy movies like Mission Impossible and the Bourne series and how well made they were. A few seconds later I realized how much crap from an English movie I was willing to swallow without calling it filmy (e.g. anybody tried to jump from a high speed train to a helicopter and then strategically blast your way back, aka Mission Impossible? I wonder how many moviegoers would've found it as thrilling if it were SRK and not Tom Cruise).

Agent Vinod is an Indian spy movie about...well Agent Vinod. What makes this movie different from the other sporadic Bollywoodian attempts in this genre is that it actually manages to be taut most of the times. A globetrotting, spy-busting RAW agent is actually believable and in places, a bit thrilling. Sure Mr. Vinod has 9 lives, but which agent doesn't! The plot of busting a conspiracy across borders to explode a dirty bomb is in line with the current version of terrorist paranoia. The plot quite plausibly moves across different countries, laying different challenges for our desi spy. A special mention about the climax (without a spoiler hopefully): the climax has overall a very predictable (and anticlimactic) ending. However try to picture a Speed-like scenario (no, there are no bombs on buses here) but in chaotic populous India and you'll see that cacophony and seemingly hackneyed twists to the plots are inevitable. Look at the climax from this point of view and you may not be as disappointed.

The most remarkable aspect of the movie is that belying my expectations, Saif Ali Khan actually carries off the role with great panache. A toned body but without a ridiculously rippled belly, mixed with occasional wry humour. The action sequences are shot quite well and seem raw rather than unbelievable (the fist fights in particular). Without seeming like a martial arts expert, Saif carries off the action sequences impressively (if I heard someone say that a few years ago I would've scoffed) with a little help from the cameraman. The movie leverages his strengths: wry humour and decent acting, without revealing his usual weaknesses: dancing and excessively histrionic scenes.

I must admit that in general, I do not like Kareena Kapoor at all. But she has now managed to surprise me with surprisingly good looks and very decent acting twice: 3 idiots and now Agent Vinod. She often looks stunning in this movie. Her role is on the bridge from "item girl" to "serious protagonist" and she manages to balance it reasonably well (she has almost equal screen time as AV in the movie, but the movie is still AV). The other actors are passable and do nothing to deserve special mention.

The music of the movie is noteworthy in that the movie is almost without songs (yes, for a movie of this kind, it is a plus). The three songs that it does have actually advance the story (which is good because the songs by themselves are no great shakes). An absolutely romantic song in the backdrop of a gory shootout was quite uncanny and impressive (that the director thought this would be a good idea and actually managed to execute it well).

Overall I recommend seeing this movie, if not out of the love for movies, then to simply encourage the director and producers for a well-made attempt in a genre that Bollywood has failed to succeed in and viewers have failed to stomach.

Agneepath: the review

In this era of remixed songs, rehashed tunes and remade movies, here is another one: Agneepath. A "modern" twist to the financially unsuccessful but nevertheless emphatic original with Amitabh Bachchan in the immortal persona of Vijay Dinanath Chauhan.

The 21st century Agneepath maintains the story of the original movie, with twists befitting the renewed action genre and an execution that relies more heavily on histronics, music and in-your-face violence. Since the story isn't new, here it is: a village teacher killed in a conspiracy, with a young and angry son growing up to become a criminal while harboring his mission to avenge his father's murder. The modern Vijay Dinanath Chauhan isn't a don by himself, but the silent right-hand man of a new character, Rauf Lala pitted against the old villain, Kancha (Cheena omitted notably). He is less established, more impulsive and melancholy and possesses a personality much lesser towering than the original.

Since the movie is a remake, let me stick with a comparative analysis of the old and new. The new one definitely wins in fleshing out almost every character of the plot, its biggest success with the villain Kancha. This new movie, as publicity suggests, makes the character more cruel, ruthless and sadistic, and then hands its reins to an actor who reinvents it as well as himself. Much like Saif's Langda Tyagi, the appearance of Kancha wins half the battle in portraying this deviant of a human being. The new Kancha looks like an adult-movie counterpart of Voldemort, the famous Harry Potter villain. Add to it some extremely well-written one-liners and this was a role waiting to succeed with even a modest execution. But Sanjay Dutt does not disappoint with just a modest execution, but one that adds new shades to the penned evil in this character. The protruding eyes and the towering physique of Sanjay Dutt makes Kancha visibly invincible and reduces everybody else to minions. It was flat out funny to watch Aamir Khan bash someone the size of Mukesh Rishi in Baazi, but even with Hrithik's toned physique, he ends up looking puny and filmy trying to beat Kancha in a fistfight. With about 20 years on Hrithik, that is even more impressive for Sanjay Dutt.

The next accolade goes to Rauf Lala. Rishi Kapoor neither looks nor registers in one's mind as a ruthless guy, but he gives a remarkable performance. He is less helped by make-up and dialogues and therefore pulls it off based mostly on his sharpened acting. Convincing the audience to hate and be disgusted with yesteryear's' chocolate-boy Rishi Kapoor truly speaks of the scriptwriter and actor's abilities.

With that, how about VDC himself? I have to say Hrithik falls short in this star-studded line-up. His portrayal occasionally borders on confused. Most of the time he is shown as this drunk melancholy person who seeks revenge, but evidently very deep inside. The crazed obsession of his character with Kancha is significantly blunted by his human side that Hrithik's performance seems to inadvertently emphasize on. Its telling that I found Hrithik's best acting in an action movie to be the 20 minutes when he gets to bond with his younger sister. Its like remembering James Bond for his crying scene. While VDC's character is somewhat most humanized in this version of the movie, Hrithik is not able to convincingly transit from the helpless deprived human to the brazen criminal. He wants to kill Kancha, but when the time comes, his plot seems extremely pedestrian. It does not help the movie at all when Hrithik's entry follows the close-up-on-bicep, running Hrithik "Krrish style". That one scene sets the tone: it is Hrithik, not VDC. Thankfully the script did not require him to dance like he usually does! What proved a strength to Sanjay Dutt and Rishi Kapoor is a liability to Hrithik: his looks. No matter how much he rolls in mud and dust, he does not look like a poor common man. Destitude, yes (in Guzaarish), but not "street". His prince-in-disguise looks don't work in this movie.

The movie is quite gory, a bit more so than Ghajini. The action in the climax, though, sometimes borders on laughable and thoroughly adrenaline-induced. What else could make a multiply-stabbed Vijay lift an extremely hefty-looking and uninjured Kancha and then paralyze him with a big boulder?? But that is masala film for you! An astonishing blooper completes the climax when a Vijay who is stabbed in his stomach earlier tears his shirt later to reveal a relatively unblemished 6-pack belly! The only redeeming thing about the climax are Kancha's caustic and devilish dialogues.

Priyanka Chopra plays the part of the pretty starry-eyed girl well enough. Another big USP of the movie is its music. Most of the songs are quite melodious and actually fit well in the movie. Chikni Chameli is definitely not its best song (i.e. there are better ones). Hopefully Ajay-Atul are here to stay.

In the end, maybe worth a watch. But leave behind the kids and any ladies who cannot witness Hrithik die on screen!

Harry Potter 7.2: the review

Saw the last of the Harry Potter movie series two days ago. I would summarize it as "(Small) Hits and (Big) Misses".

HP 7.2 is a Harry Potter movie made mostly for Harry Potter loyalists (a reasonably sound strategy since that is a big big club!). The movie has a sense of inevitability around it. Everybody knows Voldemort is going to die and Harry Potter is going to emerge victorious. Everybody also knows the path to his death: the Horcruxes. Since the books are so wildly successful, the movie makers didn't really have a lot of suspense to reveal in the movie. While that is true for all HP movies, it is especially true for this one because everybody knows the end of all good vs. evil stories.

First, the hits. The CG effects in the movie are pretty good. I must say they are much more inspired from the Mummy movies than previous HP movies (the bad guys don't just die, they literally disintegrate). A few significant parts of the last book were well depicted in this movie, most notably Snape's memory and the Room of Requirement parts.

The biggest disappointment of this movie is the complete lack of closure. One of the biggest strengths of the HP series is how the author has managed to weave together the most innocuous of occurrences and give everything significance, that are finally revealed in the last two books. The last book obviously has some big ones, that the movie sadly ignores or merely glosses over. The biggest disappointment by far (spoiler alert!) is the killing of Voldemort. After 6.5 books of hardships, killings and torture, the bad guy is finally supposed to die. Lots of lovable characters have been killed in the process. The book offers a modicum of redemption for those alive by killing Voldemort in full view of all the survivors. Harry reveals at least some secrets before killing Voldemort for everybody to comprehend. Nobody including Harry knows whether he will succeed until about 2 paragraphs before he does, because it is all conjecture and hearsay for him. Unfortunately the movie decides to make the climax a personal and very short duel between the two, with nobody around. Harry tells nobody anything afterward, and nobody seems even a little bit eager to know either. Harry gets no redemption from revealing to Voldemort part of what he knows about him. Nagini's killing is simply a "oh here's a sword that magically appeared, there's a snake, let me put 2+2 together" rather than a "passing the torch on" moment that the book depicts. The biggest whopper of a revelation, the story of Severus Snape, is left for only Harry to appreciate. The book scripts a rather boring death of one of its most sadistic characters (Bellatrix Lestrange) by pitting her against the unlikeliest of rivals. Instead of spicing up this part, the movie only enhances its mundaneness. The rise and fall of each character that fits into the whole saga was portrayed quite reasonably by earlier movies, and this movie just makes the end too obvious for anyone to actually watch and enjoy. Its like watching the 4th or 5th sequel to Jaws: just going through the motions of showing a story the movie already assumes everybody in the audience is well-versed with.

For somebody who has never read the books, the movie may make some sense but only as a traditional brainless action movie. The essence of "action with a deep, complete story" is missed in such an experience. The mystery of why Harry Potter repeatedly survives so many assassination attempts that the last book explains (a bit implausibly) is replaced by "enough of the bad guy, this time the same duel with the same red-and-green light is going to inexplicably and fatally backfire" in the movie. And no curse names this time: the duel resembles that in the Ramayana, with the viewers only wowing the visual effects and not hearing the curse names that the books have familiarized so much. (And for those who have not read the book, there is significance attached to the actual curses used in the final duel).

This movie also takes the most liberties with changing the story line than what I remember from the others. Most of the deviations make sense in the movie, and in any case what the movie omits is much more sinful rather than what the movie changes. I was hoping the movie does deviate from the book in the end by publicly revealing more about Voldemort, but the movie went the completely opposite way.

And why is this movie called "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2"? The Deathly Hallows are almost absent in reel time and significance in this movie! The conversation between Dumbledore and HP while "in death" is critical to the title of the movie and to many mysteries, and once again, comes off as two characters mouthing off the keywords from the book chapter to merely preserve continuity.

Thus, the movie disappoints. By reading the books, I have irreparably lost the point of view of the unread movie goer and thus may be harsher than most. However I must reveal that it was the first four movies that finally compelled me to read the books. For a movie series that carried such power, the end was dull.

Every movie that owes its origins to a book is either an ode to the author, tries to effectively depict visually what the book says, or extends the book a bit by using visuals to accomplish what writing could not. The point of making a movie from a book is effective and emphatic storytelling mostly through execution and cinematography, because the script is already out there for everybody to read. There is near unanimity that when it comes to good books, the movies always fall short. This is true about the HP series as well, but the books begged for movie remakes because of their rich visual content. While others in the series omitted nuances from the story in the interest of time and still managed to be self-complete, this last one takes far too much liberty. Neither will it satisfy a Harry Potter fan, not will it "convert" a watcher into a reader like earlier ones did for me.

By the way, for those who have not read the books and/or have not seen the movies, here is my rating on them:

1. Harry Potter and the Sorceror's stone

Book: B

Movie: B

Tip: If you think HP is childish (like I did), don't start from this one as it is likely to enforce that belief.

2. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Book: B

Movie: A

Tip: No other book seems so "retrospectively significant".

3. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Book: Reading...

Movie: B

Tip: Since I haven't read this one, I'm very eager to see how the book is. The story of this book seems the best fit for a movie adaptation, and I'm not convinced yet such a concept can be captured more effectively in writing.

4. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Book: A

Movie: A

Tip: This movie converted me to a reader.

5. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Book: C

Movie: C

Tip: This book and the movie is too slow and not meaty enough.

6. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

Book: A

Movie: D

Tip: The most disappointing of all the movies (the last one comes a close second). The depressing movie replaced the sentiment of the story from a fact-finding thriller to a melancholy inevitability of the end of one of its central characters. The last book is virtually "un-understandable" without this one, so critical is its content to the saga. The movie alas, can be skipped.

7. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Book: A

Movie: B, C

3 idiots: the review

Aal iz well...with this movie I mean!

Any college graduate will identify with this movie, although it may have a special effect on engineers. 3 idiots is the story of the life of 3 friends in and after college in this era of engineering-mania.

This is one of those movies whose script cannot be effectively narrated through words, so I won't attempt it. It is also not one of those movies that you may want to see again and again. But nevertheless, it is a thoroughly enjoying, enlightening and paisa-vasool movie and has all the usual strengths of its participants, synergistically creating an extremely satisfying 2 hours and 50 minutes of story telling.

The theme of the movie as the promos give away, is the rat race in joining the best college, excelling, then continuing the same struggle with changing opponents throughout life. Albeit in a filmy way, the movie throws light on a subject that is close to my heart--the "manufacturing" of engineers by treating college education like a certificate course that has immediate but short-term benefits. And yes, it does take some filmy imagination and story-telling to get the point across.

But onto the participants. My personal bias towards Aamir Khan forces me to spend only a few words on him in this review. His body language and mannerisms subtract most of the years his wrinkles add, making him a very believable college student in about 75% of the scenes in the movie. Again, perhaps not surprisingly, he pulls off his college mischievous self better than his character's serious side. It is difficult to decide whether he was selected for this role, or the role was written with him in mind. Like Munnabhai's Circuit, it is just plain difficult to imagine any other actor in his role.

Fully justifying the name of the movie are the other two actors: Sharman Joshi and Madhavan. They dispel any fears in the viewer's mind that this would be a "1 idiot and 2 sidekicks" kind of movie. Madhavan is the other chameleon of our film industry, magically adding and subtracting muscle and age from one movie to another. Sharman Joshi once again proves that he's not made just for bufoonery but can convincingly shed a tear or two, and perhaps compel the audience to too. Boman Irani, a regular feature in Hirani's films, entertains, awes but does not surprise us with his good performance. Again, his character will remind each one of us of a former professor, minus the filmy sheen. Personally a bit of a surprise for me was Kareena Kapoor, who otherwise I struggle to tolerate. She looks good and acts well in the smallest of the 5 main roles.

But the grand star of the show is the director and script writer, Rajkumar Hirani. He once again proves his extraordinary knack of story-telling. There's something in the film for all ages: plenty of innuendo for youngsters, interspersed with valuable and practical lessons of life for all. Perfect breaks for songs and the intermission, a watertight script and classic editing, Hirani makes no assumptions about the ability (or lack thereof) of the audience to understand his subtly hidden messages. The smooth flow of the movie truly hides and thus reveals his laudable efforts in script-writing, directing and editing. To me this was a perfect follow-up to his Munnabhai series, maintaining the entertain+think approach with new actors, new scenarios and new lessons.

My only complaint with this venture is its over-publicity. The promos of this movie on TV certainly dampened my enthusiasm a bit, although I can safely say that the promos do not disclose as much of the movie as I had feared. Whether Aamir Khan's recent off-screen antics were truly done for this film's publicity or were his personal endeavours, this film certainly does not need them. The director had me won with his cast and his reputation.

Amit

Love Aaj Kal--the review

The software industry, the automobile industry and movie characters work similarly--a new model every 5-6 years, and simple rehashes of the same old thing in between. Welcome to Saif's Love Aaj Kal.

This character is yet another rehash from DCH: confused lover boy who is the last person on earth (including the movie world and the real world) to realize he's in love with someone. It may have been presented in different versions of modernism: DCH, Salaam Namaste, Hum Tum, etc., but the message is the same. What's more, in this movie he gets to play lover boy twice!

Love Aaj Kal is the story of two NRI's in the UK who date each other for two years, and then split amicably because one of them is about to move to India, while the other plans to move to the US. A split worked out like a business strategy sees both of them wanting to be each other's "friends" and help get over each other! A Jaane Tu Ya Jaane Na breeze takes over as each finds someone else, only in this case the new "other halves" are neither stupid nor abusive. Our "friends" have no qualms meeting and socializing with each other behind the backs of their newly found loves, but one of them finally sees the smoke clearing when she's about to get married. Sanity at last? Nope, their longing for each other continues, until the movie reaches its predictable end.

There are several messages in this story as portrayed by this movie: Everything is really fair in love, be it "pseudo-cheating" or even breaking up marriages. Practical thinking never works when it comes to matters of the heart. There is no such things as being friends after breaking up. The price of the ticket may go up, but the character won't evolve. This is what our generation has come to.

First of all the movie should have been named "Love Kal Parso", because it seemed a bit out there. Am I really part of a generation that can be so fickle and yet think they are the smartest and most practical? It seemed more like Love Story 2050 to me--I could not relate to most of it. To be fair, the first 45 minutes or so did seem fresh and interesting. A lover boy of yesteryears coaching a lover boy of our time, trying to knock some sense into the practical-minded buffoon. After that it started becoming more and more predictable (you know what's going to happen if one of the lead actors gets married, and its not the end of the movie).

About the cast--Saif Ali Khan cannot go wrong with a mould that he has so preciously carved for himself over the last 7-8 years. His make-up keeps getting better as he really looks the authentic Sardarjee in his other role. Was Deepika Padukone's voice always this irritating? Somehow I don't remember noticing it in Om Shanti Om. Rishi Kapoor plays more or less his Hum Tum character with a turban and a different heroine of the yesteryears as his wife. The Brazilian actor was a revelation! (No, not the younger Saif's second girlfriend, the older Saif's love interest!) Her face has enough plasticity to qualify her as a model-turned-actress, but boy did she look her part!

All in all--a mediocre movie. The storytelling from Jab We Met may have been present, but the uniqueness of the script wasn't. Or at least the uniqueness wasn't pleasant.

Ghemento?

Much has been said about just how much "inspired" Aamir Khan's latest movie Ghajini is from the Hollywood path-breaker Memento. In anticipation of Ghajini, I watched Memento to refresh my mind a few weeks before Ghajini was released.

I have always thought Bollywood needed more "psychopathic" characters--the type that would give our best actors a chance to really show off their histrionics. I was mesmerized by Shah Rukh Khan's role in Darr which I think is one of his best performances. So Aamir Khan playing a character with psychopathic tendencies intrigued me. Needless to say, irrespective of the controversies surrounding Ghajini's story and screenplay, Aamir Khan's acting in this movie, especially his menacing expressions in occasional scenes, was an absolute treat to watch.

So here is my personal take on Ghajini and its similarities to Memento. Let me begin with what I think are the similarities between the two movies:

1. Perhaps the greatest similarity is the protagonist's anterograde amnesia--the "ability" to retain only 15 minutes of memory. While Guy Pearce in Memento still had vivid intact memories of incidents before the accident, no such luck for Aamir Khan. However this aspect which is the crux of both movies, is too similar to ignore.

2. The overall plot of the protagonist avenging his better half's death. Both characters are revengeful and quite blood-thirsty. Memento showed the latter a bit subtly, while Ghajini was more in-your-face. However again a similarity too big to ignore, irrespective of what the director and Aamir Khan himself claim.

Thus with the main character and his purpose in the movie, the source of Ghajini truly seems to be Memento. A few other similarities:

3. Written memories in terms of tattooing and taking polaroid photographs: In Ghajini's defence, the minor difference is that Aamir Khan takes two copies of most photographs and gives a copy to the subject of the photograph. This subtle difference is quite significant in Ghajini's story.

Using polaroid photographs in Ghajini has been severely criticized by some as a mindless rip-off. My rebuttal is that there is no better alternative! If Sanjay Singhania carried a digital camera (which is much more prevalent today than a polaroid camera), how would he take notes? He could leave himself audio-clips I suppose. But then how would he give a copy to another person (with the audio-clip so that they could use it as a photo ID when they met him)?

4. An attack of amnesia in the middle of a chase sequence (Ghajini climax and Memento somewhere in the middle)

Now for where I think the movies stand apart:

1. The biggest difference between the two movies (and I didn't catch this immediately) is that the themes are totally different. While Ghajini is a story of out-and-out revenge, Memento is actually about deceit and not revenge. Although Guy Pearce thinks throughout the movie that he is taking revenge for his wife's rape and murder, the whole movie is about how multiple characters deceive him for their own benefit. For example the cop who uses him to finish off criminals, the female character who uses him to get rid of her abusive boyfriend, etc.

2. Contending with the above point to be the biggest difference, is the fact that in Memento, the protagonist in fact has inadvertently killed his wife! (I can't believe all the critics of Ghajini did not acknowledge this!) Guy Pearce aids his wife's suicide without realizing it, and remembers it as the life-story of a fictitious client (he's an insurance agent). This is a shocking revelation in Memento and not merely an insignificant detail.

While these two points are not immediately obvious in the similar-looking screenplay, they are too big to go unnoticed. A few other differences:

4. The very obvious difference in screenplay. Memento unfolds backwards in 10-minute increments which is acknowledged to be the most groundbreaking part of that movie. Ghajini on the other hand, proceeds chronologically for the most part, although the flashback and current proceedings are nicely mixed.

My take on this aspect is that Memento's screenplay is so brilliant that copying it in an Indian adaptation would undoubtedly fail. Although intelligent movie-goers who have seen Memento lament at the dumbed-down Ghajini, the overall audience of Hindi movies is vastly different from Hollywood's counterpart. Therefore I vote this change, although a big step down cinematographically, as necessary to make Ghajini work.

5. Memento does not stop after Guy Pearce kills who he wants to. In fact that fact is but an insignificant detail in Memento (which is a bit moot since who he kills is his wife's rapist and not killer). The movie proceeds with its convoluted plot (very good, mind you). This strengthens my claim that Memento is not about revenge, but about deceit. Ghajini does not explore the implications of anterograde amnesia nearly as well as Memento did.

6. Like it or not, the very brief subplot of erasing all of Aamir Khan's tattoos was a very shrewd diversion from the original movie. Again made possible because Ghajini is actively pursuing Sanjay Sanghania, whereas nobody is doing so in an obvious way in Memento.

7. The love story angle: I was frankly a bit bored of this part of Ghajini because it was too long, had too many songs and took my attention away from what I thought was by far the more intriguing part of the movie--Aamir's psychopathic transformation. However I have to concede that the love story made the story and movie complete. I would claim the love story is the most significant component in the "Indianization" of Memento. I would honestly wish away the songs though...

8. The end: I wish Ghajini did not end so pathetically. Again an example of desperately trying to end a movie on a positive note. Ghajini is a thoroughly sad movie, and its this sadness that makes the movie so emphatic. A happy end of any sort just wastes the aura that the director and the actor tried so hard to establish.


The verdict: I view Murugadoss's claim that he did not see Memento before penning Ghajini as dubious. However I give him credit for creating obvious differences between Memento and Ghajini, using anterograde amnesia shrewdly in parts and successfully Indianizing the story. Thus Ghajini still qualifies as an "inspiration" rather than a rip-off, but it occasionally flirts with the boundary.

Ghajini-the review

Watch Ghajini, if not for the story, then just to see Aamir Khan in a role you have never seen him in.

Ghajini, as is popularly touted, is an out-and-out masala action thriller. But the basic premise is interesting as well--a person with extreme short-term memory loss trying to avenge the death of a dear one. Its the short-term memory loss part that is both intriguing and controversial, as Ghajini shares this theme with a popular Hollywood movie, Memento.

After having seen both, I'm inclined to say that although the basic premise of both movies is the same, the makers of Ghajini have added enough originality in the script to make it substantially different from Memento. While the strengths of Memento were its extremely innovative screenplay and the convoluted plot, the strengths of Ghajini are its rawness, intensity and performances. In any case a direct rip-off of Memento would never work in Hindi.

What makes Ghajini stand apart is the sheer ruthlessness of the character of Aamir Khan post his tragedy. The whole movie is centered around the fact that the protagonist develops an almost animal-like instinct to hunt and kill while simultaneously forgetting the very purpose of being that way. Every day for Sanjay Singhania begins with being puzzled at where he is, and then read the clues that he has left for himself to remind what the new purpose of his life is.

The two strengths of the movie are its screenplay, and Aamir Khan. The current story and the flashback making the current story relevant are woven very nicely in the movie, especially the way in which the flashback is woven into the narration. This is further enhanced by some slick editing that keeps the audience gripped for most of the movie. Particularly impressive are the seemingly irritating and faulty parts of the movie that eventually reveal their purpose in the overall scheme of things. The short-term memory loss could have left too many threads unfinished given Bollywood's conventional inability to be logical, but the script is watertight for the most part and that is commendable.

This role is a first for Aamir Khan, and he comes close to playing a double-role. His previous and current selves are extremely contradictory, and as good as Aamir Khan has been in romantic roles, I was always left wanting for more of his murderous side. Like Saif in Omkara, Aamir's appearance does half the convincing about he being a killing machine. The other half of course, are Aamir's extremely intense moments in the movie where he acts animalistic, revengeful and almost insane simultaneously. And its one of the rare movies in Bollywood, where shots about the protagonist exercising and flexing his muscles are very relevant to setting up his character, and not simply a crowd-pulling stunt. For his killings are quite raw. Some of the action sequences are very filmy, but overall Aamir Khan's character does look invincible.

The romantic flashback of the movie, although critical to the story, proves to be the bane. Some sequences are stretched too much possibly to make the movie an all-encompassing entertainer, and leave the audience wanting for the original focus of the movie--revenge. And the songs are especially distracting. Not only are they insipid to listen to, they unnecesarily portray Aamir Khan as a muscular lover-boy. I would much rather watch him kill a couple more :-)

The film also seems somewhat incomplete because the two facets of Sanjay Singhania's character are not linked together enough. It is a given that he transforms from a quiet suave businessman to a killer; no elaboration is provided on how this transformation takes place, and why he has taken it upon himself to avenge the tragedy.

In spite of these shortcomings, Ghajini is eminently watchable for its good screenplay, taut script and good acting. At last an action movie that is not completely filmy!

Kismat Konnection--the review

Kismat Konnection for me was another $10 gamble. I like Vidya Balan, 80-90% of her movies make at least some sense. Plus Aziz Mirza also usually doles out interesting stuff. Maybe this movie would change Shahid Kapoor's kismat...

The movie indeed starts and maintains interest for a while. Poor Raj Malhotra is all talent but rotten luck. Whatever has to go wrong, does. Enter Vidya Balan, his unsuspecting lucky charm, and his luck changes overnight thanks to her. Interesting, and full of potential. This "dream run" of the movie takes about the first one hour. After that its falls right back on earth.

Vidya Balan may be the kismat konnection for Shahid Kapoor, but her fiance in the movie is the kismat konnection for the audience. For when his short run in the movie ends predictably, the audience totally runs of luck. The love story of the two main characters then proceeds suspiciously along "Lage Raho Munnabhai" lines. There are deviations from the utterly predictable, but you miss them because they are few, far in between and quickly dampened by the utterly predictable. I enjoy the "filmy" melodramas of Bollywood where the director succeeds in making jaw-dropping U-turns to realize a happy ending, but this one really should've been left alone. For Shahid Kapoor's last stroke of luck in the movie is too much even for a movie.

Now the cast. Vidya Balan, as commented above, acts predictably for a character that is quite similar to her Munnabhai one. Her mis-costumes continue, alas. Shahid Kapoor repeatedly seems so much like he's trying to copy SRK that its difficult to give him points for acting. In this movie his hairstyle also matches SRK's DDLJ hairdo, further damning him. He should really try to carve out his own style because his current one is too SRK-like (not that that is bad, but seeming like a current star is hardly a road to stardom). He looks innocent, dances well...all in all displays his usual strengths and exposes his usual weaknesses. The only mildly entertaining character is that of Juhi Chawla, who graces us with an extended guest appearance. Nice touch, although easily lost in the overall mediocre product that is Kismat Konnection.

But undoubtedly the most irritating part of the experience is not the story, it is the music. Barring for the one title song (that seems well placed strictly in a relative sense), the music is bad, and is made worse by showing up at precisely those moments in the movie when the audience's patience is running thin.

Kismat Konnection: Shahid's other KK was surely luckier for him! I don't see the two K's saving this one.

Jaane Tu...--the review

Good films are of two kinds. There are films like Tare Zameen Par and Swades: very good scripts that simply need direction that does not spoil them. Then there are films like DCH: no story per se, but enhanced by a spectacular cinematographic effort. Jaane Tu... falls in the latter category.

Jaane Tu can be summarized as having nothing new in the script and almost everything new in the crew. And yet it clicks, it clicks big time. Two very good friends who haven't thought "that way" about each other eventually realize that they are made for each other. A simple college love story which is totally predictable should you try to put it in words. In fact the whole movie proceeds as a story narration. But its not the story that is talkworthy, its the execution.

Abbas Tyrewala deserves kudos for his story writing and story telling. All the characters in this film are written very well and none of them seem superficial, filmy or unbelievable. The movie is peppered with little sub-plots and character stories that are wholly reminiscent of DCH. All the characters grow and mature well in the course of the movie. The music of the film, like most AR Rahman renditions, grows on you once you have seen the movie.

Now the actors. Some of the best characters in this movie are the parents. Naseeruddin Shah and Ratna Pathak Shah perform their parts very well, and are very entertaining. Ditto for Jayant Kriplani and Anuradha Patel, albeit more briefly. The unknowns in the college group, especially "Rotlu" provide the perfect backdrop for the two main characters, Jai and Aditi. A special mention for the very brief but impressive debut by Prateik Babbar, Smita Patil and Raj Babbar's son. He portrays the sullen, artistic brother to Aditi quite convincingly, and let's hope he does not try to do a muscular dancing Hrithik in his quest for stardom.

Genelia Dsouza as Aditi is the most perfect cast: a peppy girl with extreme moods and a fighting streak. She looks dashing in the movie and acts well too. I sincerely hope she makes it big and we get to see her a lot more in upcoming movies.

Then of course, we have Imran Khan: the boy with Aamir Khan's lineage, boyish looks and apparently, blessings. In Jaane Tu, he delivers success based on acting and looks, not by body-building and dancing, which is a rare commodity these days. He has the apt looks demanded by the character, a chocolate-faced boy with the rare streak of anger. His acting abilitiy can be described as decent, although not spectacular. He and his character synergize each other in many ways, and that's why this is an apt debut for him. Whether he turns out to be a versatile actor like his Mamu, or another Jugal Hansraj however, remains to be seen. Let's hope he can do more than play the innocent looking college boy.

Overall, the movie is certainly worth a watch. It makes you want to go to college once again!

Jodhaa Akbar--the review

Timing, they say, is everything. Jodhaa-Akbar and the opposition to it should only enunciate the point of the story instead of censoring it.

Jodhaa Akbar is a story of the little-known side of an imperialistic Mughal emperor, an otherwise shrewd administrator and cunning politician. To see the point of the movie however, one must remove the word "Mughal emperor" from the above sentence. The movie to me, illustrates not what a certain figure in history did or did not do, but how change can sometimes be brought about by the greatest of contradictions in one's personality.

Jalal Mohammad (Akbar), an imperialist and shrewd administrator who also struggles with authority, arranges a marriage of convenience with Jodhaa, the daughter of a Rajput king weakened by his pride and the goodwill of his subjects. What begins as no less than a modern corporate merger slowly evolves into a love story that sees Akbar transform into a secularist and an authoritative ruler and Jodhaa inadvertently into a harbinger of social change from her purely personal love and devotion. And that makes the movie relevant to today's times, more than the actual historical accuracy, the name of the princess in question and the all-encompassing and omnipresent "sentiments" that seem to be hurt at the drop of a hat.

Full marks have to be given to Ashutosh Gowarikar for creating a story well-researched and executing it in a grand way. I'm not sure if the warning at the beginning of the movie predates all the opposition that it has faced, but it was enough for me to concentrate on the execution and the metaphor more than the historical accuracy. The direction is simple yet emphatic. The scenes are shot very well and repeatedly steer the movie away from the historical drab that it could have been. The sets, especially the lighting, are still of Lagaan quality.
On the negative side, it is high time the director learned the virtues of brevity and speed. 3.5 hours is far too long for a movie that does not involve a cricket match in its climax. Romance can be shown effectively by slow dialogue, epics of music and subtle story-telling. But not all three. Another aspect was that the war scenes are depicted unusually well from a bird's eye view, but the 1-1 sword fights looked somewhat raw and unmajestic.

With this movie Ashutosh Gowarikar completes his experience with the triad, Aamir, Shahrukh and Hrithik, much like Farhan Akhtar did last year. And like him, he has managed to cast these three actors in very apt roles. Hrithik works as Akbar solely because the aspect of Akbar that this movie portrays is that of romance, impulsiveness and a certain lack of authority. And of course he has the physique of a warrior so he carries off the war scenes as well. As with Shahrukh's performance in Swades, the subtle expressions on Hrithik's face are the most noteworthy part of his performance.

Aishwarya can be described with one word: celestial. She has looked truly stunning in this movie. And most importantly, the squeaky crying and pedestrian attempts at intensely emoting are almost totally absent in this movie. In a nutshell, this movie shows us a rare glimpse of how beautiful she is, and that she is capable of acting well.

Other actors for the most part have performed well too. Sonu Sood was far more impressive than I had initially suspected. Ila Arun was very good too. The rest almost have to be simply present and not perform badly. The music was a big disappointment. Much has been made of A R Rahman's renditions, especially Khwaja mere Khwaja, but I found it strictly average at best. Maybe it will grow on me.

All in all, a movie worth watching just for the effort and totally undeserving of the recent bans on it in Mumbai and other areas. The warnings and citations at the beginning should suffice to allay all misgivings. But then since when were blanket bans and protests objective and well-intended :-)

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.

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!

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 :-)

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!