Rating: **1/2
Mahesh Manjarekar has given us two very good movies in recent memory - Astitva (which happens to be one of my favorites) and Vaastav (Sanjay Dutt's second claim to fame) - in that order. And after watching the latter, I was happy that Bollywood has another talented director added to its dwindling list of such names. My happiness was however shattered by a deluge of non-sensical films from Mr Manjarekar - including the likes of Pran Jaye Par Shaan Na Jaaye, Hathyar and Padamshree Laloo Prasad Yadav. With the exception of a rare Tera Mera Saath Rahe (Ajay Devgan), I rarely saw his brilliance again. It was an utter disappointment. And then came Viruddh, coproduced by AB Corp Private Limited. And surely, The director is back in form. Although I would not rate this movie as his best creation, it is very reminiscent of what he promised in Astitva and Vaastav.
The story involves a happy family, with parents Amitabh and Sarmila and their son John Abrahim, who plays the sutradhaar of the film. People have likened it to Saaransh, but I dont think that there is any similarity other than the old parents losing their only son to death. I would give merit to Mahesh manjarekar for coming up with novelty in the idea, but the script lets you down overall. The build up of the story is amazing, with the characters winning you over with their mirth and realistic portrayal. And you find yourself smiling as the characters talk and go about their lives. But the story tends to become jittery and unstable after John dies. A plot like this should cause your eyes to tear, your handkerchiefs to be drawn out of pockets (something that 'Saaransh' and the recent 'Dhoop' did marvellously well). But Viruddh just fails to do that. The pathos does not come across, though I did feel a lump in my throat in a few scenes. The climax is the biggest let down. The idea again ia good, but execution is poor. What could have been a really awesome finale seems to be as cliched as it gets. Really disappointing.
Relationships are tricky, especially when they have to be portrayed realistically on celluloid. But in this film, Mahesh hproves that he has the knack for doing that with ease. Unlike the recent Baghban, where Amitabh and Hema were shown romancing like idiots, this film captures the "chemistry" (and "physics" I would like to add) in a very subtle and natural way. When you see Amitabh and Sharmila Tagore on screen playing the old couple, you see a couple and not two film stars. Neither of them has been unnecessarily glamorised or overplayed. I could feel that they were a normal couple which you could see in any house. To be fair, I did find a few things a bit over the top, but on the whole, the direction held the characters in place. And it is this reason that I liked the movie.
Performance wise, I think John Abrahim does okay as the son and as the sutradhar. Anusha Dhandekar maker her debut in the movie and suits her character, though she overdoes her 'acting' at times. Sharmila Tagore is great as the mother and looks very dignified throughout the movie. I would like to see more of her in such good roles. She doesnt played the overaged dream girl and looks the character. Her hair color does not seem to be consistent in the movie, but thats a small error I think. Amitabh Bachchan delivers yet another very likeable performance after Black and Sarkar. He should do more such roles that have their roots in a good script. He is very down to earth, natural and very much someone who you could relate to. Not a larger than life character at all.
Technically, the film is just alright. Though the sets and art direction doesnt seem to be that great. The jail looks like a hotel resort and the bright yellow dhoti which Amitabh wears makes you shudder. The home where Amitabh and Sharmila live is another designer house - it would have helped to use less garish colors on the walls and some lesser perfection in the interiors and the decor. And the blatant publicity for Elf Engine Oil, Western Union Bank, Nerolac Paints, and so many more seems awkward at times.
Anyhow, I would still recommend people to see the film, given that it is a sincere attempt with a half decent script and screenplay, with some very enjoyable moments in the film's first half.
April 15, 2006
April 14, 2006
Mangal Pandey - The Rising: Movie Review
Rating: **
When Aamir Khan acts in a film, there are expectations! When Ketan Mehta dons the mantle of the director of a film, there are expectations (remember Kabhie Haan Kabhie Na - one of Shahrukh Khan'sbest films to date)! When A.R. Rehman scores music for a period film,there are expectations (remember Lagaan, inarguably Rahman's most soulful compositions)! When some film takes four years to complete,there are even more expectations. When someone spends Rs 32 crores ona film, there are expectations. And 'Mangal Pandey - The Rising' (will refer to the film as MP-TR for sake of convenience) lets you down on almost all fronts. However unpleasant this may sound to all us Aamir Khan fans, but this time around, his choice of project has been more or less a disaster.The movie is based on a historical character of gargantuan importance in India's freedom struggle. 1857 marks a very important year in Indian history. The fact that the struggle of Mangal Pandey against the East India Company ignited the first sparks of freedom movement all over India is awe-inspiring. And when you go to watch a movie based on characters and incidents of such importance, one thing that you would most definitely want to feel is a heavy rush of patriotism and inspiration. Yes, 'inspired' is something I wanted to feel when I total disappointment. The film totally misses the target, and by a huge margin. Not even once do I empathise with any character of the film, if you leave alone Mangal Pandey (Aamir Khan) and Captain Gordon (Toby Stephens). I excluded these two principal characters for the prime reason that they do evoke some emotions 'intermittently'. The fault is not with the actors though. It is a directorial disaster forsuch a shabby handling of what could have been a truly great film. Based on what I have read, there are not many historical records or annals that document what exactly happened during the uprising byMangal Pandey against the British. Who he was, what his life was like,what kind of a person he was, his family or fiancee, or anything else.To make a three hour long movie based on such a character whose life is known to you just in form of one solitary incident (irrespective ofhow important that incident might have been) would have been a challenge for anyone. But the fact that a decision was made to do so was made automatically endowed the producers to 'weave' those remaining pieces of story around the core. And the script writers seem to have gone somewhat beserk while doing the same. They tried to patch several pieces of different jigsaw puzzles together to create one mosaic, and the effect is 'jarring'. For instance, the characters played by Rani Mukherjee (Heera) and Amisha Patel (Jwala) were completely irrelevant to the complete plot.
Cliches are aplenty in the film - gori chamdee and kali chamdee, the maang-bharo-sajna scene in jail, the horse riding and revenge seeking flashes of Heera (in a turban and punjabi dhoti), the Holi song, the dosti - trust - betrayal, the dance in the English parties, theuntouchability angle, and the list goes on.
The songs are another fiasco. Except for the 'Mangal Mangal' track, placement of the songs too. The kothe wala song (picturised on a somewhat over-exposed, yet beautiful looking Rani), the Holi song and worst of them all, the one picturised on some banjara women... The last of these songs deserve soem special mention - the two principal dancers in the song dance like an overtly gay couple with all touching and oomphing and slithering in an obnoxious manner, and one wonders how and when those women, clearly from Rajasthan, appeared in Bengal where the movie is set! Just atrocious. The 'Mangal Mangal' track alsok eeps popping up here and there without warning. The men on the elephant backs just strom into the scene without any rhyme or reason.Worst part is when they break into a seemingly happy song immediately in the scene next to Mangal Pandey's public hanging (from where hislove Heera is surprisingly missing, specially after she has \'got hermaang filled with sindoor from him in the jail). Aamir Khan does well in his role as the protagonist, but the script does no justice to his character. There is absulutely no depth in his chancaterisation - it is very sketchy and vague. You dont know Mangal Pandey better as a person more than how well you knew him before walking into the theater. A big let down. And Aamir Khan seriously hould have worked harder on getting the script into place rather than obsessing about his hair and moustache. Not sure how much value they added to the film. Aamir is a great actor, but he can deliver onlywhen there is some meat in the script. The other principal character Captain Gordon (played by Toby Stephens) is much more likeable and better written. And the actor does a very good job of it, and his dialogue delivery in Hindi is not bad at all. He comes up with a brave performance, although in some scenes he looks somewhat stilted. But Iwont blame himt oo much given that he is acting in a foreign medium." His angle with Amisha Patel was though totally uncalled for. Theinterplay of emotions between Gordon and Mangal Pandey is very poorlywritten and could have been the strongest point of the film.
Rani Mukherjee plays her part well, although she has too many prototypes to follow in playing her part. No novelty in what she did,and seriously, one could have done without that uncalled for exposure on her part. Seemed really forced and out of place, and in not very good taste either. She does look well and emotes well in her few scenes, but that does not justify her being there in the first place.
About Amisha Patel, the less said the better. She should seriously think about quitting films and making better of her talent in economics (not many know that she is a gold medalist in economy from Tufts University, USA). In one word, she was 'horrendous' - she just can not act. MP-TR does not need heavy emoting from her, yet she successfully shows that she can overact (again!). I wonder why at some point of time Aishwarya Rai had accepted such a ridiculous role in thefilm at all!
The sets are not impressive either. The 32 crores that have been spent (7 crores allegedly taken by Aaamir as his fee) are not 'visible' anywhere. It is claimed that the uniforms of all soldiers were specially stictched - a wasteful expense if the clains are true. Because it would have done equally well if they rented uniforms fromsome wedding bands. The podium where the generals stand and give orders seemed like was built yesterday - surely not something that avillage would ever have. The village, the villagers are still okay,but nothing what Lagaan could create. The authenticity does not transpire from the scenes. Special effects are not used wisely, andused very sparingly. Worst of all, the most important incident - the so called 'Rising' - is so inanely shown that I almost laughed. It looks so insignificant - really. It looks trivial, and something so uninspired that it is hard to accept that something like that inspired the whole India to struggle for independence.
Overall, as everyone would have guessed, I would not recommend this movie to people. There are a very few good things about the movie. ButI am being somewhat harsher than I usually am, given the fact that the expectations from the fil were really sky high!
You could watch it for being an Aamir Khan fan. I see no other reason to do so!
When Aamir Khan acts in a film, there are expectations! When Ketan Mehta dons the mantle of the director of a film, there are expectations (remember Kabhie Haan Kabhie Na - one of Shahrukh Khan'sbest films to date)! When A.R. Rehman scores music for a period film,there are expectations (remember Lagaan, inarguably Rahman's most soulful compositions)! When some film takes four years to complete,there are even more expectations. When someone spends Rs 32 crores ona film, there are expectations. And 'Mangal Pandey - The Rising' (will refer to the film as MP-TR for sake of convenience) lets you down on almost all fronts. However unpleasant this may sound to all us Aamir Khan fans, but this time around, his choice of project has been more or less a disaster.The movie is based on a historical character of gargantuan importance in India's freedom struggle. 1857 marks a very important year in Indian history. The fact that the struggle of Mangal Pandey against the East India Company ignited the first sparks of freedom movement all over India is awe-inspiring. And when you go to watch a movie based on characters and incidents of such importance, one thing that you would most definitely want to feel is a heavy rush of patriotism and inspiration. Yes, 'inspired' is something I wanted to feel when I total disappointment. The film totally misses the target, and by a huge margin. Not even once do I empathise with any character of the film, if you leave alone Mangal Pandey (Aamir Khan) and Captain Gordon (Toby Stephens). I excluded these two principal characters for the prime reason that they do evoke some emotions 'intermittently'. The fault is not with the actors though. It is a directorial disaster forsuch a shabby handling of what could have been a truly great film. Based on what I have read, there are not many historical records or annals that document what exactly happened during the uprising byMangal Pandey against the British. Who he was, what his life was like,what kind of a person he was, his family or fiancee, or anything else.To make a three hour long movie based on such a character whose life is known to you just in form of one solitary incident (irrespective ofhow important that incident might have been) would have been a challenge for anyone. But the fact that a decision was made to do so was made automatically endowed the producers to 'weave' those remaining pieces of story around the core. And the script writers seem to have gone somewhat beserk while doing the same. They tried to patch several pieces of different jigsaw puzzles together to create one mosaic, and the effect is 'jarring'. For instance, the characters played by Rani Mukherjee (Heera) and Amisha Patel (Jwala) were completely irrelevant to the complete plot.
Cliches are aplenty in the film - gori chamdee and kali chamdee, the maang-bharo-sajna scene in jail, the horse riding and revenge seeking flashes of Heera (in a turban and punjabi dhoti), the Holi song, the dosti - trust - betrayal, the dance in the English parties, theuntouchability angle, and the list goes on.
The songs are another fiasco. Except for the 'Mangal Mangal' track, placement of the songs too. The kothe wala song (picturised on a somewhat over-exposed, yet beautiful looking Rani), the Holi song and worst of them all, the one picturised on some banjara women... The last of these songs deserve soem special mention - the two principal dancers in the song dance like an overtly gay couple with all touching and oomphing and slithering in an obnoxious manner, and one wonders how and when those women, clearly from Rajasthan, appeared in Bengal where the movie is set! Just atrocious. The 'Mangal Mangal' track alsok eeps popping up here and there without warning. The men on the elephant backs just strom into the scene without any rhyme or reason.Worst part is when they break into a seemingly happy song immediately in the scene next to Mangal Pandey's public hanging (from where hislove Heera is surprisingly missing, specially after she has \'got hermaang filled with sindoor from him in the jail). Aamir Khan does well in his role as the protagonist, but the script does no justice to his character. There is absulutely no depth in his chancaterisation - it is very sketchy and vague. You dont know Mangal Pandey better as a person more than how well you knew him before walking into the theater. A big let down. And Aamir Khan seriously hould have worked harder on getting the script into place rather than obsessing about his hair and moustache. Not sure how much value they added to the film. Aamir is a great actor, but he can deliver onlywhen there is some meat in the script. The other principal character Captain Gordon (played by Toby Stephens) is much more likeable and better written. And the actor does a very good job of it, and his dialogue delivery in Hindi is not bad at all. He comes up with a brave performance, although in some scenes he looks somewhat stilted. But Iwont blame himt oo much given that he is acting in a foreign medium." His angle with Amisha Patel was though totally uncalled for. Theinterplay of emotions between Gordon and Mangal Pandey is very poorlywritten and could have been the strongest point of the film.
Rani Mukherjee plays her part well, although she has too many prototypes to follow in playing her part. No novelty in what she did,and seriously, one could have done without that uncalled for exposure on her part. Seemed really forced and out of place, and in not very good taste either. She does look well and emotes well in her few scenes, but that does not justify her being there in the first place.
About Amisha Patel, the less said the better. She should seriously think about quitting films and making better of her talent in economics (not many know that she is a gold medalist in economy from Tufts University, USA). In one word, she was 'horrendous' - she just can not act. MP-TR does not need heavy emoting from her, yet she successfully shows that she can overact (again!). I wonder why at some point of time Aishwarya Rai had accepted such a ridiculous role in thefilm at all!
The sets are not impressive either. The 32 crores that have been spent (7 crores allegedly taken by Aaamir as his fee) are not 'visible' anywhere. It is claimed that the uniforms of all soldiers were specially stictched - a wasteful expense if the clains are true. Because it would have done equally well if they rented uniforms fromsome wedding bands. The podium where the generals stand and give orders seemed like was built yesterday - surely not something that avillage would ever have. The village, the villagers are still okay,but nothing what Lagaan could create. The authenticity does not transpire from the scenes. Special effects are not used wisely, andused very sparingly. Worst of all, the most important incident - the so called 'Rising' - is so inanely shown that I almost laughed. It looks so insignificant - really. It looks trivial, and something so uninspired that it is hard to accept that something like that inspired the whole India to struggle for independence.
Overall, as everyone would have guessed, I would not recommend this movie to people. There are a very few good things about the movie. ButI am being somewhat harsher than I usually am, given the fact that the expectations from the fil were really sky high!
You could watch it for being an Aamir Khan fan. I see no other reason to do so!
March 11, 2006
Iqbal: Movie Review
Rating: ****1/2
Nagesg Kukkunoor - the name deserves a mention before I start with my review of his new movie Iqbal. An ex-engineer and a terrific filmmaker. He has made five films so far - Hyderbad Blues, Rockford, Bolllywood Calling, Teen Deewarein and Hyderabad Blues II. Iqbal is his sixtn directorial venture. Worth mentioning is the fact that he usually writes the story of almost all of his films himself besides directing it. And I think thats the reason why his characterization and direction is so much more effective. And without doubt, I have seen all his films (with the exception of HB II), and loved them all. Interestingly, except for the HBI and HB II series, he has not repeated any story ideas. All his films have a unique theme, some distint identity of their own, not only amongst themselves, but wven when you compare these across all the films that are made in Bollywood.
Iqbal is a story about a simple village boy called Iqbal, played by the newcomer Shreyas Talpade. He is a deaf and mute guy whose life begins and ends on cricket. And his dream is to play for the Indian team one day. An excellent bowler and a dedicated individual, this film narrates for us his journey towards his dreams. As aptly stated in the film's publicity slogans, it is a film 'beyond cricket'. And I could not agree more. It really is. It is a film about human spirit, about dreams and about making them come true. Now something like that could get really melodramatic or prophetic. But Nagesh has managed to completely steer clear of either. His direction is so very sophisticated and yet so simple that you never feel that yu are watching actors playing parts of some characters. rather you feel that you are watching real people and almost as if you are in the village with them. Nagesh's last film Teen Deewarein has already proven beyond doubt how an amazing storyteller he is. Iqbal does nothing but reaffirm my faith in him. The director, and more so the writer in him is in stupendous form this time as well. Kudos to him for writing such a wonderfully simple but beautiful story. I wish there were more like him in the Indian film industry.
Shreyas who plays the protagonist Iqbal, is a very good actor. Mostly underplaying his emotions, emoting a lot through his eyes and face, he is a pure delight to watch. Rani Mukherjee played a deaf and dumb character in Black recently and got all the media attention for her portrayal. Well, although I admired her performance, having watched Shreyas in a similar role, I would say that this actor has clearly outdone Rani. While the actress looked too theatrical and overdoing her bits of sign language, Shreyas puts in such a performance that made me wonder if he really was deaf and mute. Simply amazing. Not only that, his body language, his demeanour, his whole personna seems so very believable. Not even once did I feel that he was acting. And thats what actual talent is about. I sincerely hope that he gets the right roles henceforth, and does great cinema for years to come. Contrast him with the new breed of 'actors' ranging from Mohit Ahlawat (Ram Gopal Verma's find in James), Emran Hasmi (the eternal sex maniac), Zayed Khan (the so called hot rising khan) and a whole bevy of them - and you will see the difference.
Its not only Shreyas who is wonderful, but Nasseruddin Shah is just fabulous in his portrayal of a drunkard. Without disclosing what role he plays in Iqbal reaching his goal, I must say that this is one actor who never ceases to amaze me. He is so believable and so authentic in hos he walks and talks and sleeps and laughs and smiles or shouts that you instantly connect to him onscreen. Simply awesome. And the role does full justice to him as well. Its not a half baked script that he has to abide by. The director has done his homework, and so the actors have a gala time enacting the script out, and the results cleary show for everyone to behold.
Although the film has these two principal characters, the role played by Shweta Prasad (who played a role in Vishal Bharadwaj's 'Makdee' a couple of years back), Iqbal's sister, is not less important or impressive. In some sense, she is the voice of Iqbal. Her unselfish and pure love for his elder brother, her deep concern for him attaining his gaols, her undying faith in her brother and her total understanding for him without ever exchanging a single word with her is just brilliant. She is so infectious and likeable that I doubt anyone who watches the movie would stay unaffected by her charm. She plays a 14-15 year old girl, does so perfectly and arouses such emotions that I would not thin for most 'child-artists' to bring out. I am so glad that her role is written logically, unlike most films where children are either shown be to so dumb (that you wonder 'are there children like that?') or so extra smart for their age (that makes you shudder at the thought of ever having such kids of your own). Amongst other characters, all the rest of the supporting cast has also put in very natural performances.
In terms of art direction, sets and costumes, there is not much to talk about. the film does not boast of grand sets like Devdas or special effects like Dus or weird camera work like most TV soap operas and films these days. It is a simple story, told in a simple manner. The fim is shot in an actual village and stays true to the spirit of the story. Not glamourization and no item songs either. The music of the film is so very appropriate that one has to say - "hats-off". The music will charge you up, and is so in keeping with the theme of the film. Very apt. All ths songs are relegated to the background, and thats a welcome break. Thank god Iqbal does not have a crush on some village belle that he thinks about serenading in Swiss Alps croning a Sonu nigam number!
One would think that a movie on a subject like this would be slow paced and dull, almost gloomy (like Black, Khamoshi, etc). But wonderfully enough, it is just the opposite. It is a joy ride from the start till the very end. The gamut of emotions that you go through do involve some amount of grief for Iqbal, especially when he fails or falters somewhere. But the experience does not end there. It is a very positive, very optimistic and a very jubiliant mood that you leave the theater with. Its the story of victory of the human spirit over fate or destiny which people decide for themselves in most cases. Its the story about not conforming to stereotypes. Its a story about not taking things lying down, not bending your back for the destiny to ride on, but about standing upright and taking all challenges in your won stride. As Paulo Coehlo aptly stated in his book 'The Alchemist' (also quoted in the film'), "If you decide to follow your dreams, the whole world conspires to help to make them come true".
Needless to say, Iqbal was the best film I have seen in a long time. Its a must watch for everyone. Your love for cricket has nothing to do with it. You love cricket or hate cricket - love Hindi movies or hate them - this is one you MUST NOT MISS.
Nagesg Kukkunoor - the name deserves a mention before I start with my review of his new movie Iqbal. An ex-engineer and a terrific filmmaker. He has made five films so far - Hyderbad Blues, Rockford, Bolllywood Calling, Teen Deewarein and Hyderabad Blues II. Iqbal is his sixtn directorial venture. Worth mentioning is the fact that he usually writes the story of almost all of his films himself besides directing it. And I think thats the reason why his characterization and direction is so much more effective. And without doubt, I have seen all his films (with the exception of HB II), and loved them all. Interestingly, except for the HBI and HB II series, he has not repeated any story ideas. All his films have a unique theme, some distint identity of their own, not only amongst themselves, but wven when you compare these across all the films that are made in Bollywood.
Iqbal is a story about a simple village boy called Iqbal, played by the newcomer Shreyas Talpade. He is a deaf and mute guy whose life begins and ends on cricket. And his dream is to play for the Indian team one day. An excellent bowler and a dedicated individual, this film narrates for us his journey towards his dreams. As aptly stated in the film's publicity slogans, it is a film 'beyond cricket'. And I could not agree more. It really is. It is a film about human spirit, about dreams and about making them come true. Now something like that could get really melodramatic or prophetic. But Nagesh has managed to completely steer clear of either. His direction is so very sophisticated and yet so simple that you never feel that yu are watching actors playing parts of some characters. rather you feel that you are watching real people and almost as if you are in the village with them. Nagesh's last film Teen Deewarein has already proven beyond doubt how an amazing storyteller he is. Iqbal does nothing but reaffirm my faith in him. The director, and more so the writer in him is in stupendous form this time as well. Kudos to him for writing such a wonderfully simple but beautiful story. I wish there were more like him in the Indian film industry.
Shreyas who plays the protagonist Iqbal, is a very good actor. Mostly underplaying his emotions, emoting a lot through his eyes and face, he is a pure delight to watch. Rani Mukherjee played a deaf and dumb character in Black recently and got all the media attention for her portrayal. Well, although I admired her performance, having watched Shreyas in a similar role, I would say that this actor has clearly outdone Rani. While the actress looked too theatrical and overdoing her bits of sign language, Shreyas puts in such a performance that made me wonder if he really was deaf and mute. Simply amazing. Not only that, his body language, his demeanour, his whole personna seems so very believable. Not even once did I feel that he was acting. And thats what actual talent is about. I sincerely hope that he gets the right roles henceforth, and does great cinema for years to come. Contrast him with the new breed of 'actors' ranging from Mohit Ahlawat (Ram Gopal Verma's find in James), Emran Hasmi (the eternal sex maniac), Zayed Khan (the so called hot rising khan) and a whole bevy of them - and you will see the difference.
Its not only Shreyas who is wonderful, but Nasseruddin Shah is just fabulous in his portrayal of a drunkard. Without disclosing what role he plays in Iqbal reaching his goal, I must say that this is one actor who never ceases to amaze me. He is so believable and so authentic in hos he walks and talks and sleeps and laughs and smiles or shouts that you instantly connect to him onscreen. Simply awesome. And the role does full justice to him as well. Its not a half baked script that he has to abide by. The director has done his homework, and so the actors have a gala time enacting the script out, and the results cleary show for everyone to behold.
Although the film has these two principal characters, the role played by Shweta Prasad (who played a role in Vishal Bharadwaj's 'Makdee' a couple of years back), Iqbal's sister, is not less important or impressive. In some sense, she is the voice of Iqbal. Her unselfish and pure love for his elder brother, her deep concern for him attaining his gaols, her undying faith in her brother and her total understanding for him without ever exchanging a single word with her is just brilliant. She is so infectious and likeable that I doubt anyone who watches the movie would stay unaffected by her charm. She plays a 14-15 year old girl, does so perfectly and arouses such emotions that I would not thin for most 'child-artists' to bring out. I am so glad that her role is written logically, unlike most films where children are either shown be to so dumb (that you wonder 'are there children like that?') or so extra smart for their age (that makes you shudder at the thought of ever having such kids of your own). Amongst other characters, all the rest of the supporting cast has also put in very natural performances.
In terms of art direction, sets and costumes, there is not much to talk about. the film does not boast of grand sets like Devdas or special effects like Dus or weird camera work like most TV soap operas and films these days. It is a simple story, told in a simple manner. The fim is shot in an actual village and stays true to the spirit of the story. Not glamourization and no item songs either. The music of the film is so very appropriate that one has to say - "hats-off". The music will charge you up, and is so in keeping with the theme of the film. Very apt. All ths songs are relegated to the background, and thats a welcome break. Thank god Iqbal does not have a crush on some village belle that he thinks about serenading in Swiss Alps croning a Sonu nigam number!
One would think that a movie on a subject like this would be slow paced and dull, almost gloomy (like Black, Khamoshi, etc). But wonderfully enough, it is just the opposite. It is a joy ride from the start till the very end. The gamut of emotions that you go through do involve some amount of grief for Iqbal, especially when he fails or falters somewhere. But the experience does not end there. It is a very positive, very optimistic and a very jubiliant mood that you leave the theater with. Its the story of victory of the human spirit over fate or destiny which people decide for themselves in most cases. Its the story about not conforming to stereotypes. Its a story about not taking things lying down, not bending your back for the destiny to ride on, but about standing upright and taking all challenges in your won stride. As Paulo Coehlo aptly stated in his book 'The Alchemist' (also quoted in the film'), "If you decide to follow your dreams, the whole world conspires to help to make them come true".
Needless to say, Iqbal was the best film I have seen in a long time. Its a must watch for everyone. Your love for cricket has nothing to do with it. You love cricket or hate cricket - love Hindi movies or hate them - this is one you MUST NOT MISS.
February 21, 2006
Sarkar: Movie Review
Rating: ***
A lot has been written about Sarkar, Ram Gopal Verma's dream project. About connections of the film with Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackerey, and about how the father son duo of AB Senior and AB junior are working together. And of course about the adaptation of Mario Puzo's acclaimed bestselling novel The Godfather. Well, I think that there has been too much of talking without anyone actually fairly reviewing this movie as a movie - not as a dream or an adaptation. And I hope to do so now.
To be honest, I liked the movie. Yes, I did. But I didnt love it. It definitely has the RGV stamp and grooming, and I would say it is much better than some of RGV's latest projects like Naach. Technically, the film is awesome, and the shots have been called in a manner that is not very typical. Innovative camera angles and amazing sense of lighting and shadows is superb. The background music and chanting of "Govinda Govinda" is used very effectively. Although, at points the use of sitar in the background somehow doesnt gel too well with whats happening in the frame. The setting of the movie is well chosen, and the haveli that RGV has used looks very authentic and well chosen. Costumes and make up suit the setting and ambience. RGV has used mostly black, grey, white and rather earthy shaed in most of the movie, and that sets the mood for this film very aptly. There are no songs and the editing is very crisp. The fact that the movie is less than 2.5 hrs is also a welcome change. All in all, I would say that the movie is technically near its best.
Let us now talk about the characters. They are very well defined and casting is very convincing. Amitabh Bachchan has once again, given a restrained performance after his recent role in Black. And he does a very good job at playing this role. The camera mostly focusses on the faces and eyes of most characters in the movie, and that makes it very very important that everyone delivers a good performance. And indeed, everyone does. To my surprise, even Katrina Kaif does a pretty decent job of her small role (not to mention the loud whistles every time she came on the screen). Tanisha seems okay and quite likable in her role, though the way her dialogues were written didnt impress me. Supriya Pathak looks every bit a marathi housewife, with serene and uncomplaining eyes. A typical mother (NO, not a typical Bollywood mother, but a real life mother). Rukhsaar, playing Kay Kay's wife doesnt get any scope to act at all. Abhishek Bachchan delivers in yet another good role, although he isnt quite as impressive as he was in Yuva. But his fan following is definitely going to increase after this role. And last but not the least, Kay Kay is the scene stealer in the movie. Playing the elder son of Sarkar, he imbues his role with such emotion that it almost pours out of the screen. And in the real close ups with just his face or eyes in the entire frame, you can see what a marvellous actor he is.
So far so good! But it is not that rosy a picture after all... Although Sarkar has everything going for it, I think there are some things that go to make it less than phenomenal. Some of them are probably to subtle to explain in words. But it feels that RGV has used some sterotypes in his film that he has used in most of his gangster or underworld movies. The dilemma of Abhishek Bacchan when he decides between going back to America and helping out his father could have been focussed more on. Amitabh's character, Sarkar, is unnecessarily shown to be too-white - meaning that he is shown as a do gooder to people and not doing any evil deals against the people or the country... though there is a mention of his illegal activities, but not even one instance of that is shown. I would have preferred a picture that was more grey than Colgate white. Besides, the revenge of Abhishek Bacchan on his father's enemies is shown so fast and rapid that the impact doesnt register. Particularly, how Abhishek manmages to know who the kingpin in the whole enemy gang is beyond me! RGV has certainly tried to make a quality product, and I would also say that he succeeds to a certain extent. But to call this another Godfather would be a mistake. The characters are not as strong and the whole movie does not have the kind of impact The Godfather had. Actually, the two are so different, that we must actually not even try to compare the two. And yes, there is no resemblamce between Sarkar and Bal Thackerey except for the rosary beads that Sarkar carries all the time.
A good film and well directed venture. Worth a see!
A lot has been written about Sarkar, Ram Gopal Verma's dream project. About connections of the film with Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackerey, and about how the father son duo of AB Senior and AB junior are working together. And of course about the adaptation of Mario Puzo's acclaimed bestselling novel The Godfather. Well, I think that there has been too much of talking without anyone actually fairly reviewing this movie as a movie - not as a dream or an adaptation. And I hope to do so now.
To be honest, I liked the movie. Yes, I did. But I didnt love it. It definitely has the RGV stamp and grooming, and I would say it is much better than some of RGV's latest projects like Naach. Technically, the film is awesome, and the shots have been called in a manner that is not very typical. Innovative camera angles and amazing sense of lighting and shadows is superb. The background music and chanting of "Govinda Govinda" is used very effectively. Although, at points the use of sitar in the background somehow doesnt gel too well with whats happening in the frame. The setting of the movie is well chosen, and the haveli that RGV has used looks very authentic and well chosen. Costumes and make up suit the setting and ambience. RGV has used mostly black, grey, white and rather earthy shaed in most of the movie, and that sets the mood for this film very aptly. There are no songs and the editing is very crisp. The fact that the movie is less than 2.5 hrs is also a welcome change. All in all, I would say that the movie is technically near its best.
Let us now talk about the characters. They are very well defined and casting is very convincing. Amitabh Bachchan has once again, given a restrained performance after his recent role in Black. And he does a very good job at playing this role. The camera mostly focusses on the faces and eyes of most characters in the movie, and that makes it very very important that everyone delivers a good performance. And indeed, everyone does. To my surprise, even Katrina Kaif does a pretty decent job of her small role (not to mention the loud whistles every time she came on the screen). Tanisha seems okay and quite likable in her role, though the way her dialogues were written didnt impress me. Supriya Pathak looks every bit a marathi housewife, with serene and uncomplaining eyes. A typical mother (NO, not a typical Bollywood mother, but a real life mother). Rukhsaar, playing Kay Kay's wife doesnt get any scope to act at all. Abhishek Bachchan delivers in yet another good role, although he isnt quite as impressive as he was in Yuva. But his fan following is definitely going to increase after this role. And last but not the least, Kay Kay is the scene stealer in the movie. Playing the elder son of Sarkar, he imbues his role with such emotion that it almost pours out of the screen. And in the real close ups with just his face or eyes in the entire frame, you can see what a marvellous actor he is.
So far so good! But it is not that rosy a picture after all... Although Sarkar has everything going for it, I think there are some things that go to make it less than phenomenal. Some of them are probably to subtle to explain in words. But it feels that RGV has used some sterotypes in his film that he has used in most of his gangster or underworld movies. The dilemma of Abhishek Bacchan when he decides between going back to America and helping out his father could have been focussed more on. Amitabh's character, Sarkar, is unnecessarily shown to be too-white - meaning that he is shown as a do gooder to people and not doing any evil deals against the people or the country... though there is a mention of his illegal activities, but not even one instance of that is shown. I would have preferred a picture that was more grey than Colgate white. Besides, the revenge of Abhishek Bacchan on his father's enemies is shown so fast and rapid that the impact doesnt register. Particularly, how Abhishek manmages to know who the kingpin in the whole enemy gang is beyond me! RGV has certainly tried to make a quality product, and I would also say that he succeeds to a certain extent. But to call this another Godfather would be a mistake. The characters are not as strong and the whole movie does not have the kind of impact The Godfather had. Actually, the two are so different, that we must actually not even try to compare the two. And yes, there is no resemblamce between Sarkar and Bal Thackerey except for the rosary beads that Sarkar carries all the time.
A good film and well directed venture. Worth a see!
February 08, 2006
Paheli: Movie Review
Rating: *
Although not exactly the Webster's definition for the word, Paheli literally translates to 'riddle'. And it stands true to its name. The million dollar question is 'How?'. And I would earnetsly try to answer the quesion here in this review.
This is a story about love - I know that you have heard this one before, but please be a bit more patient before you jump to any conclusions. Based on a famous Rajasthani folk tale 'Duvidha', this movie's story looked very promising at the very onset - not the usual la-la-hoo love story, but a more sensible and interesting one. After the previews, I expected nothing but an awesome movie. My hopes were however, completely quashed.
The film boasts of a mammoth star cast - Shahrukh 'The King' Khan and Bollywood's erstwhile numero uno Rani Mukherjee, not to mention the cameos by Amitabh Bachchan, Juhi Chawla and Sunil Shetty, and the narrators Naseeruddin Shah and Ratna Pathak Shah. This film is the story of Lachi (Rani) and Kishna (Shah Rukh), the latter leaves her the night after wedding without having so much as touched her, Lachi is distressed, a ghost who in love with Lachi arrives to her in-laws' home in the guise of her husband, and expresses his love. So far so good!
Just about then, he reveals to her the truth. And just about then, the film also starts faltering, and there is no redemption till the very end of the film. Amol Palekar, a very experienced and critically acclaimed director is holding the directorial baton. But this time, he fails, and fails by a long margin. I would not say that the idea of a ghost and his muse in love is not interesting enough. No. But the director totally and utterly has missed the point! What could have been an engrossing story about love and relationships, about the moral dilemma of right and wrong, about individuality and society turns out to be a sheer disappointing potboiler.
The setting is supposed to be in Rajasthan - yet there is not even a single actor in the film who can speak Rajasthani without making a mockery of it. Just like adding an 'o' to all words does not turn Hindi into Bengali; Rajsthani is not just about making the 'n's in all words more nasal and glottal. I was not expecting a perfection la Meryl Streep - her near perfect adoption of Australian, British and Texan accents in her films - but the dialogue delivery in Paheli is just pathetic! Absolutely no homework has been put into training the actors how to look or feel the part.
Sharukh Khan proves yet again that King Kong can act better than King Khan. He is truly a revelation - a shocking one! Abyssmal would be my description of his entire presentation - he is evidently uncomfortable in the dhoti, has no body language to convey his emotions, has butchered the Rajasthani language to shreds and exhibits complete lack of sensitivity in his performance. Right from the first frame till the very end of the film, you see Shahrukh Khan and not Kishna - the husband or Kishna - the ghost. So different from his Mohan Bhargav act in Swades.
Rani Mukherjee, as always, looks very beautiful and lends some credibility to her part. But given the plot, a better characterization and control over the subtle nuances of the situation would have made all the difference. Here again, the director is entirely to blame.
One wonders why Amitabh Bachchan was added to play the role of the old shepherd. Not only was his presence unnecessary, but the part was too insignificant and inconsequential that it would hev been played by just anyone. Moreover, the character just seems too unwordly to make any sense in the already trouble enterprise that Paheli is. Likewise, Juhi Chawla and Suniel Shetty are completely out of place and have no significance in the entire movie whatsoever. Even if all their frames are edited out of the movie, the movie would remain just the same. Coming from the man who has given us amazing films in the past, not to fogret the recent Marathi film Anahat, this one is a huge disappointment. To the extent that great orators like Naseeruddin Shan and Ratna Pathak Shah sound jaded and fail to arouse either humor or emotion in the viewer.
The single * that I have given the movie is surely because of the visual treat that it was to see the colors of Rajsathan in their full glory. The costumes are vibrant and the art direction is surely a treat for the eyes. The songs are like a huge canvas of paintings that has been very aesthetically crafted. But the songs, though superbly shot, are far too many and appear everywhere in the movie out of nowhere. Although this time, they do bring relief from the other atrocities that the film inflicts on its viewers.
To conclude it all, Paheli is a great film to promote Rajasthan tourism. But why the director felt so strongly about the story to make it into a film remains a paheli to me. The whole controversy about Paheli being sent as India's entry for academy awards seems moot. The judgement is clear - Paheli doesnt have anything that would qualify it even for the roadside cine-awards in Matunga or Church Street, let alone the Academy Awards. The choices that our jury makes for official entries to Oscars are surely getting worse with each passing year. While an entry like Iqbal could have given us a respectable representation, Paheli makes sure that we definitely miss the bus this time, and make it difficult to catch it in the near future either!
Although not exactly the Webster's definition for the word, Paheli literally translates to 'riddle'. And it stands true to its name. The million dollar question is 'How?'. And I would earnetsly try to answer the quesion here in this review.
This is a story about love - I know that you have heard this one before, but please be a bit more patient before you jump to any conclusions. Based on a famous Rajasthani folk tale 'Duvidha', this movie's story looked very promising at the very onset - not the usual la-la-hoo love story, but a more sensible and interesting one. After the previews, I expected nothing but an awesome movie. My hopes were however, completely quashed.
The film boasts of a mammoth star cast - Shahrukh 'The King' Khan and Bollywood's erstwhile numero uno Rani Mukherjee, not to mention the cameos by Amitabh Bachchan, Juhi Chawla and Sunil Shetty, and the narrators Naseeruddin Shah and Ratna Pathak Shah. This film is the story of Lachi (Rani) and Kishna (Shah Rukh), the latter leaves her the night after wedding without having so much as touched her, Lachi is distressed, a ghost who in love with Lachi arrives to her in-laws' home in the guise of her husband, and expresses his love. So far so good!
Just about then, he reveals to her the truth. And just about then, the film also starts faltering, and there is no redemption till the very end of the film. Amol Palekar, a very experienced and critically acclaimed director is holding the directorial baton. But this time, he fails, and fails by a long margin. I would not say that the idea of a ghost and his muse in love is not interesting enough. No. But the director totally and utterly has missed the point! What could have been an engrossing story about love and relationships, about the moral dilemma of right and wrong, about individuality and society turns out to be a sheer disappointing potboiler.
The setting is supposed to be in Rajasthan - yet there is not even a single actor in the film who can speak Rajasthani without making a mockery of it. Just like adding an 'o' to all words does not turn Hindi into Bengali; Rajsthani is not just about making the 'n's in all words more nasal and glottal. I was not expecting a perfection la Meryl Streep - her near perfect adoption of Australian, British and Texan accents in her films - but the dialogue delivery in Paheli is just pathetic! Absolutely no homework has been put into training the actors how to look or feel the part.
Sharukh Khan proves yet again that King Kong can act better than King Khan. He is truly a revelation - a shocking one! Abyssmal would be my description of his entire presentation - he is evidently uncomfortable in the dhoti, has no body language to convey his emotions, has butchered the Rajasthani language to shreds and exhibits complete lack of sensitivity in his performance. Right from the first frame till the very end of the film, you see Shahrukh Khan and not Kishna - the husband or Kishna - the ghost. So different from his Mohan Bhargav act in Swades.
Rani Mukherjee, as always, looks very beautiful and lends some credibility to her part. But given the plot, a better characterization and control over the subtle nuances of the situation would have made all the difference. Here again, the director is entirely to blame.
One wonders why Amitabh Bachchan was added to play the role of the old shepherd. Not only was his presence unnecessary, but the part was too insignificant and inconsequential that it would hev been played by just anyone. Moreover, the character just seems too unwordly to make any sense in the already trouble enterprise that Paheli is. Likewise, Juhi Chawla and Suniel Shetty are completely out of place and have no significance in the entire movie whatsoever. Even if all their frames are edited out of the movie, the movie would remain just the same. Coming from the man who has given us amazing films in the past, not to fogret the recent Marathi film Anahat, this one is a huge disappointment. To the extent that great orators like Naseeruddin Shan and Ratna Pathak Shah sound jaded and fail to arouse either humor or emotion in the viewer.
The single * that I have given the movie is surely because of the visual treat that it was to see the colors of Rajsathan in their full glory. The costumes are vibrant and the art direction is surely a treat for the eyes. The songs are like a huge canvas of paintings that has been very aesthetically crafted. But the songs, though superbly shot, are far too many and appear everywhere in the movie out of nowhere. Although this time, they do bring relief from the other atrocities that the film inflicts on its viewers.
To conclude it all, Paheli is a great film to promote Rajasthan tourism. But why the director felt so strongly about the story to make it into a film remains a paheli to me. The whole controversy about Paheli being sent as India's entry for academy awards seems moot. The judgement is clear - Paheli doesnt have anything that would qualify it even for the roadside cine-awards in Matunga or Church Street, let alone the Academy Awards. The choices that our jury makes for official entries to Oscars are surely getting worse with each passing year. While an entry like Iqbal could have given us a respectable representation, Paheli makes sure that we definitely miss the bus this time, and make it difficult to catch it in the near future either!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)