New ratings for kid-safe viewing

Posted on March 10, 2008 by amodini

I have decided to add a rating system for kids, to film reviews, from now on. My rating system, based on the MPAA rating system is described below. Obviously there are differences between Bollywood and Hollywood films, in the kind of violence/sexuality shown on screen. Thus while I may not anticipate nudity in a desi film, am just as averse to my kids being subjected to viewing sexual innuendoes/double entendres.

Please note that this is a rating system from one parent to another. I do not profess to being an expert on rating films, or professionally qualified to provide them. All ratings here are judged using common sense, and presented here so that you can decide for yourself which films are suitable for your children.

Reviews will also now be tagged by “kid-safeness”. Please look for the Labels on the left site of the browser window for my “kid-safe” labels : .

Rating “G” (for general audiences – suitable for all ages) :

A G-rated motion picture contains nothing in theme, language, nudity, sex, violence or other matters that, in my view, would offend parents whose younger children view the motion picture. The G rating is not a “certificate of approval,” nor does it signify a “children’s” motion picture. Some snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation but they are common everyday expressions. No stronger words are present in G-rated motion pictures. Depictions of violence are minimal. No nudity, sex scenes, suggestive bedroom scenes, or drug use are present in the motion picture.

In desi cinema, some hip-swinging, bosom-heaving and sexism is built-in. Also to be found in most films are allusions to “honor”, respectability, rules for “good” women and songs featuring some sexual molestation, i.e.; eve-teasing – good old desi patriarchy at work. A G-rated film will probably containg these built-in elements.

Example of a G-rated film : Laaga Chunari mein daag

Rating “PG” (Parental guidance suggested – some material may not be suitable for children)

A PG-rated motion picture should be investigated by parents before they let their younger children attend. The PG rating indicates, in my view, that parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, and parents should make that decision.

The more mature themes in some PG-rated motion pictures may call for parental guidance. There may be some profanity, some depictions of violence or skimpy attire. But these elements are not deemed so intense as to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion of parental guidance. These films will probably contain some sexual innuendo, double entendres.

Example of a PG-rated film : Partner

Rating “PG-13” (parents cautioned, some material inappropriate for kids under 13) :

A PG-13 rating is a sterner warning to parents to determine whether their children under age 13 should view the motion picture, as some material might not be suited for them. A PG-13 motion picture may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements, but does not reach the “A” category. There may be depictions of violence in a PG-13 movie, but generally not both realistic and extreme or persistent violence.

Note that for desi films, a PG-13 rating will also mean that the film contains excessive profanity, violence, sexual innuendo, or scenes depicting sexual objectification.

Example of a PG-13 film : Page 3

Rating “A” (unsuitable for children)

This rating means that I consider this film, patently too adult for children 17 and under. This kind of a film probably contains adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements.

Posted in 2008, bollywood, how-what-why, ratings | 1 Comment

Review : Superstar

Posted on March 1, 2008 by amodini

Rating : Above average (3.75/5)
Genre : Drama
Year : 2008
Director : Rohit Jugraj
Cast : Kunal Khemu, Tulip Joshi, Darshan Jariwalla, Aushima Sawhney, Sharat Saxena, Reema Lagoo, Vrajesh Hirjee, Anjan Srivastav, Zafar Karachiwala

SUPERSTAR : DOPPELGANGER DRAMA

I am not a fan of Kunal Khemu because I totally hated his first film “Kalyug” and thought the second “Traffic Signal” not worth much. However cast as the protagonist in “SuperStar” Khemu finally delivers. It’s not that I blame him for his previous disasters (he was a pretty decent actor even then), but there was something about his earlier ventures which just didn’t click. Happily for us, this one does.

Kunal Mehra (Khemu) is your average struggling actor, finding for now, only 3 second snatches of screen-time, lost amid other extras. His Dad (Sharat Saxena) wants him to get a “regular” job, egged on by the next-door nosy neighbor (Anjan Srivastav). Supported by his mom (Reema Lagoo) and friends, Kunal struggles on. It looks like his persistence has paid off, when one fine day his photograph makes the headlines in every newspaper, and he is touted as the next young superstar, to star in an upcoming film by producer Saxena. However Kunal doesn’t remember getting the photo taken, and has never met the producer!

The truth about the look-alike in the newspapers brings with it disappointment for Kunal, his dream of making it big in Bollywood smashed to smithereens. However fate has other plans . . .

This is a double-role plot (”Mithya” had one too), but isn’t formulaic. What adds to the film are it’s genuinely comic moments – the film pokes fun at Bollywoodian clichés, like the time Kunal’s character refers to his doppelganger as not a “Kumbh-ke-mele” types (for the uninitiated, the 80’s films often had identical twins separated in the Kumbh mela). It’s a breezy watch and it flows. Rohit Jugraj, who’s past projects include ”James”, manages to tell the story with minimum fuss. The film is well directed and nicely paced. The characters are developed believably, except for the half-baked angle of the investigating journalist (Karachiwala). Yes, there are some logical loopholes, if you want to be really nit-picky, but the film is such a pleasant watch, that really, it doesn’t matter.

Khemu must essay two different characters – one strong and determined and struggling, and the other cocky, brash and arrogant. He does well on both, and even manages to squeeze in a little vulnerability in the characters, earning him extra brownie points. He shows a vast improvement from “Traffic Signal”, and exudes a new confidence and bonhomie in this film. Tulip Joshi as love interest Mausam does nicely, although she has fattened up since “Mere yaar ki shaadi”. And Aushima Sawhney as the hard-edged film actress suits her role. Darshan Jariwalla as crafty film producer Saxena is good too. Lagoo and Saxena as the parents manage some of the more poignant scenes in the film really, really well – had me tearing up !

This film has excellent music. From the catchy “Mann tu talbat” to the beautiful “Aankhon se khwab rooth kar” to the funky “Don’t I love or do I love you ?” they all just add to the film.

This is one of the better films, considering that it has no “big” star. And if you all want is an engrossing drama with some innovation and a “hatke” story, this is it.

Posted in 2008, bollywood, drama, family-friendly, rating-G, recommended | 1 Comment

Review : Jodhaa Akbar

Posted on February 18, 2008 by amodini

Note : The edited version of this review appears at Planet Bollywood, here.

Rating : Above average (3.85/5)
Genre : Drama
Year : 2008
Running time : 3 hours 35 minutes
Director : Ashutosh Gowariker
Cast : Hrithik Roshan, Aishwarya Rai, Kulbhushan Kharbanda, Sonu Singh, Poonam Sinha, Ila Arun, Suhasini Mulay

JODHAA AKBAR : ENTERTAINING !

Jodha Akbar made history of sorts, here in my city, in the US, by being the first ever Hindi film to be screened in a mainstream American theatre. Generally Hindi movies are shown in “desi” theatres, which are dollar theatres pretty much, with run-down sound systems. I guess the economics of desi cinema makes it unprofitable to be shown in mainstream theatres, but blockbusters like this one could now be setting a precedent. The morning show I went to wasn’t exactly a full house, but people packed more than half the seats by the intermission (which came 2 hours later).

Gowariker is known for his epic films, generally long-lengthed and sprawling (Swades , Lagaan), and this one is no different. “Jodhaa Akbar” comes in at under 4 hours, which is an awfully long time, even if beautifully picturised. At first glance, this can seem an overwhelming subject, but it is developed as a love-story, so Gowariker picks and chooses his scenes to fortify that aspect of the story. Essentially then, this film is a romance, with nods to historical perspective, and political climate.

Rajput princess Jodhaa, the daughter of Raja Bharmal, is married off to Mughal Emperor Akbar in a political alliance. A devout Hindu, Jodhaa, negotiates with Akbar to keep her religion and her beliefs, in her new Islamic home, but cannot be anything but aghast and outraged, at becoming the wife of the enemy (so to speak). Thus, she apprises her new husband of her state of mind, and he in turn refuses to consummate the marriage until he has won her heart.

Besides focusing on the romance, the film also develops Akbar’s character and details his formative years, from his tutelage under Bairam Khan to his coming of age, as a just and kind king. Make no mistake, this film is an epic. Its grandeur and scale make it a movie to be seen on the big screen.

The lead pair are not the most accomplished actors, but it is to a great extent because of them, that the film is what it is. In real life he could probably bore you senseless, but in JA, Hrithik is regal and aristocratic as Akbar, and handles intense and light-hearted scenes equally well. Aishwarya can only be described as luminous in this film. Swathed in yards of material and decorative jewelry by the ton, she uses her eyes to great effect. She doesn’t have many dialogues in the film, but manages to convey her feelings quite well. And is it just me, or did her face seem rounder (and fuller) in this film ?

This film could very well have been a boring historical, documentar-ish in style, had the director not chosen his scenes and imbued them with anecdotal references. Take for example the scene where Jodha’s mother mischievously informs her new son-in-law that he must find his wife among the many veiled women in the room – then only does he have conjugal rights ! We are also privy to household tensions within the Emperor’s harem and while these add interest and develop Akbar’s character, the director maintains a fine balance in not overdoing this, and turning it into a saas-bahu drama.

Gowariker is also fully aware of the striking couple the lead pair make – he virile and handsome and she, a glittering, delicate beauty ! He uses this to his advantage in certain scenes portraying Akbar’s valor, and his rippling muscles as Hrithik does a bare-chested sword routine (with the camera lovingly lingering on his muscular torso), while Aishwarya (and I) watch mesmerized. When I, fresh from the trauma of “Dhoom 2”, first heard of the film’s cast, I’d been pretty skeptical of Hrithik and Aishwarya as Akbar and Jodhaa respectively. However, the grace with which both of the actors have portrayed their characters, have dispelled any doubts on this.

JA also features a decent cast. Sonu Singh appeared impressive as Sujamal, and Kulbhushan Kharbanda quite dignified and ponderous as Raja Bharmal. Ila Arun portrayed the scheming Maham Anga effectively, while Poonam Sinha as Akbar’s mother appeared a little stilted. Jodhaa’s mother’s role is well done by accomplished actress Suhasini Mulay. Bairam Khan’s character was a parody (a penchant for lopping of heads), all popping eyes and bulging veins – and the only one that I felt was jarringly bad (where thou, O understated killer ?).

This film is further strengthened by Rahman’s music, the finest example of which is the qawwali based “Khwaja, mere khwaja”. Although all the songs are appropriate, melodious and beautifully picturised, I especially liked “In lamhon ke daaman mein” , a romantic number which seemed a fitting ode to sublime love.

Like most filmmakers it appears that Gowariker too is in love with his footage. Luckily for us, the footage is engrossing, for the most part. Still, it must be said that there is flab, and JA could have been edited to shorten the length by atleast half an hour. Another flaw in this film, and in many Hindi films, is that it fails to rouse passion in the fight/war scenes. Why must armies facing each other appear obligatory ? Why must hand-to-hand combats appear to be re-incarnations of the average dhishum-dhishum of yester-year ? Technology has advanced and it wouldn’t hurt to have a cutting-edge fight scene in a 40-crore epic (a la “Crouching Tiger”).

The subject of this film is a large and exhaustive one. However Gowariker keeps the film focused and stops it from meandering. Amitabh Bachhan’s voice provides intermittent narration, but the film is mostly held together by an adept screenplay and deft direction. Most of the dialogues are “simple” Urdu and Hindi, and are apt, although I did wince a couple of times at Jodhaa’s “Shahenshah-ji”.

Attention to detail and quality pays off in this stupendous period drama. This film was such a pleasing watch, that I wish such quality historicals had existed when I’d been gnashing my teeth in history class at school. Romances (concocted or not) featuring well-muscled, handsome Emperors might have been just the motivation to become a history “star” instead of just squeaking by !

Posted in 2008, bollywood, drama, family-friendly, historical, rating-G, recommended | 7 Comments

Review : Mithya

Posted on February 15, 2008 by amodini

Note : The edited version of this review appears at Planet Bollywood, here.

Rating : Very good (4/5)
Genre : Suspense /Comedy / Romance
Year : 2008
Running time : 1 hour 40 minutes
Director : Rajat Kapoor
Cast : Ranvir Shourey, Naseeruddin shah, Neha Dhupia, Saurabh Shukla, Vinay Pathak, Brijender Kala, Irawati Harshe, Harsh Chaya

MITHYA : ENGROSSING COMIC THRILLER !

It’s one of my wildest dreams come true. A dream that one day film directors would revolt against standard-issue masala, boy-meets-girl formulas, and decide to carve out their own niches. What gladdens my heart furthermore, is the fact, that not only are film-makers moving away from the ordinary, they are actually pushing the envelope to give us interesting, intelligent cinema. The fact that a film like “Mithya” is made and executed with finesse, and an outstanding cast is proof enough.

Rajat Kapoor returns to the Director’s chair after Mixed Doubles (2006) and Raghu Romeo (2003), with another “different” story. This time he ropes in the usual suspects Ranvir and Vinay, and other stalwarts like Naseeruddin shah and Saurabh Shukla. Mithya means “falsehood” – as in our hero Vinod Kumar (Shourie) being forced to live a falsehood. I hate to give away too much here, because the story is one to be relished – the less you know the better. Still, for all the folks who want at least the bare bones, let it be known that the film is about VK, as he is known , a small-time, struggling actor, who inadvertently gets caught between inter-gang rivalries, due to, shall we say , a quirk of nature.

Shukla and Kapoor have written this film. And, really, while I’m chuckling at the new twist they’ve given the “double role” formula, I’m all agog with curiosity as the film progresses. The story is quite, quite unpredictable, as it veers this way and that. Shourie has the meatiest role as our hero, VK, a good-hearted fella, practicing his dialogue and his expression, even when all his role calls out for is him playing dead. He does his 2-bit roles in films, kow-tows to directors and producers in the hope for bigger breaks, and nurses his whisky (with it’s free glass) on the beach. This is where trouble comes calling.

Naseer plays Gawde, a mobster who hopes to knock off the big Don – Rajendra Sahay. In cahoots with him is his rotund partner (Saurabh Shukla), a desi Danny DeVito of sorts ; appears harmless (is given to bouts of mirth) but is actually pretty lethal. Gawde’s girlfriend, starlet Sonam (Dhupia) is roped into Gawde’s plan, and Ram (Vinay Pathak) and Shyam (Brijendra Kala) are Gawde’s men who do the actual dirty work. Harsh Chhaya and Iravati Harshe, two names who’ve transitioned from the small-screen to the big rather well, round off this astounding cast.

This is a thriller, but does contain more than it’s fair share of comic moments. There is romance too, although subtle. It’s all pretty realistically done, of course, the helplessness and anguish of the protagonist there for all to see. “Mithya”’s characters appear to be real people; they live their sordid everyday lives, scheming to be better, have more , grasping at straws. Mithya subjects it’s hero to massive emotional upheaval; not only is he unceremoniously yanked out of his humdrum everyday life, at a mobster’s behest, but his world goes all topsy-turvy when he forms attachments which cannot ever come to fruition. Thus not only is VK, angry, scared and hateful, he is also adored, loved and loves in return. One genuinely feels for the guy.

Ranvir Shourie plays his role beautifully – I was moved to tears at the scene where he returns to Iravati, to implore her to take him back. Dhupia comes in strong as Sonam, and Naseer and Shukla do justice to their characters, as expected. Kala and Pathak have smaller roles but are very good.

The film’s USP is it’s story and screenplay, of course. The music (songs and background score) I don’t remember – so little impact did it have. Still, I have no complaints; in fact I am delighted with the film. This one is a definite must-see.

Posted in 2008, bollywood, drama, outstanding, recommended, thriller | 4 Comments

Review : Bhool Bhulaiya

Posted on February 11, 2008 by amodini

Rating : Average (3.0/5)
Genre : Comedy / Drama
Year : 2007
Running time : 2 hours 35 minutes
Director : Priyadarshan
Cast : Shiney Ahuja, Akshay Kumar, Vidya Balan, Amisha Patel, Rajpal Yadav, Paresh Rawal

BHOOL BHULAIYA : SUPERSTITION’S THE NAME OF THE GAME !

Do you like mumbo-jumbo ? Or films which deal with mumbo-jumbo ? Can you survive the occasional trip into the surreal, complete with tantrik, jhadoos and ghost-evicting ceremony without rolling your eyes too much ? I’m sort of sitting on the fence on this one, because it’s not a bad-bad film, although in parts it does make me want to roll my eyes, and lay down from lack of air, because I’m laughing so hard AT the film. (That’s almost poetry, you know ?)

Well, anyway, this film takes me back to the Himmatwala era. That, or the Southie films which deal with feudal lords in small villages. You know the kinds of villages which make technology and the WWW seem like a dream. Where people live cocooned in small, sheltered worlds, of hakims, and priests, and jadoo-tona, and religious rites and superstition. They have heard of America all right. In fact they even have a freshly America returned Raja of sorts (Ahuja) who comes with newly-wed wifey Avni (Vidya Balan). He comes to make his home here, in his haveli, which is rumored to be awash in spirits. And not the drinking kinds either.

His uncle, family etc. try to dissuade him, but modern-minded as he is, and pooh-poohing superstition, Raja Saheb plus clan move in. Apparently the ghostly residents don’t like this too much, because accidents start happening. And Rajaji has no recourse other than to summon trusted friend and Doctor (of spirituality ?) (Akshay) to solve problems. Can he ?

OK, now must say, that although this film has the “ghostly” theme, it being directed by Priyadarshan, can not avoid overt attempts at slap-stick. Thus Rajpal Yadav, in knee-high dhoti, red face and scampering gait, presents himself as object of ridicule. Also Akshay Kumar, and Paresh Rawal jar the comic nerve, adequately. However, the comic and the surreal do not mix very well (yes, desi comedy is surreal but that’s not what I meant), leaving one to sort of take the film not too seriously.

In the second half the film gets into the thick of it, mumbo-jumbo wise, ghungroos, dancing nymphettes and all. Lots of red herrings are thrown about, and what with the silly slapstick-ing, and the double entendres, and the dhoti-jokes, I wasn’t expecting the film to go all serious on us. But it does. Serious somber note, and tears etc. From Shiney. While Vidya and Amisha shriek it out. Patchy screenplay this one. And lots of logical holes. Acting wise, Balan stands out. Ms.Patel is allright. Rajpal, poor guy, is talent wasted.

Technically and direction-wise the film is decent enough, and that gets it an average rating. However trying to make every film a rollicking old comedy, ruins a film with potential. Thus, while the audience might want Akshay mouthing (absurdly) comic lines, masquerading as a crazy doctor, and singing item numbers (with what appear to be African women in short shorts, quite a far cry from Rajaji’s feudal fiefdom), the director should provide it only if the script warrants it. Which it does not in this case. I imagine if this were an out and out bhootiya film, with scary effects to the max, it might have been a better watch.

I used to think of Priyadarshan films as quality. However, with his descent into comedy, the standard seems to be dropping. “Hera pheri” was OK, BB is several sub-terrains lower.

Posted in 2007, bollywood, comedy | Comments Off on Review : Bhool Bhulaiya

Review : My name is Anthony Gonsalves

Posted on January 29, 2008 by amodini

Note : The edited version of this review appears at Planet Bollywood, here.

Rating : Poor (2.5/5)
Genre : All-in-one
Year : 2008
Director : E.Niwas
Cast : Nikhil Dwivedi, Amrita Rao, Mithun, Pawan Malhotra, Mukesh Tiwari, Jawed Sheikh, Anupam Kher, Dayashankar Pandey, Lillette Dubey, D. Santosh

MY NAME IS ANTHONY GONSALVES (MNIAG) : DAMP SQUIB !

I am an unabashed fan of E.Niwas’s work. Hence the impatience to see “MNIAG”. This time however, the director of films like “Shool” and “Love ki liye kuch be karega” doesn’t come through. If I am kind, (and I am in a kind mood today) I’d call it a C grade movie. Chiefly because of it’s lackluster screen-play, lackadaisical gait, and lame hero. The film suffers from predictability. There are no surprises here; the film toddles on, on it’s predictable path.

The film’s story is a throwback to the 80s. Remember the kindly character of Father Braganza, so plentiful in films of that decade? We have one in this film too. Played by Mithun, this kind priest not only listens to confessions, but is also well-versed in the martial arts, something we are privy to only towards the end of the film (else we might have actually been entertained).

As I said, the 80s rule. Thus we have more characters of Goan lineage; there is the hero himself of course, an orphan taken in by mobster Sikander (Malhotra), and Anthony’s friend Mike, a petty thief. Anthony works as a waiter, but dreams of becoming a hero. His big break comes when he auditions for, and gets the hero’s role in a film directed by an up-and-coming director (Dubey), and falls in love with the assistant director (Amrita). His career poised for take-off Anthony witnesses Sikander and his friends disposing off a corpse, and is plagued by guilt to do the right thing and report the murder. . .

MNIAG follows the well-worn path; this is a jaded, jaded story, and the sheen has worn off from overuse. Twenty years back I might have been satisfied with a film where the “good” and “bad” camps were well-defined and there weren’t any shades of grey. However, today, with directors pushing the envelope, borrowing from the past is a big no-no. Our sensibilities have changed, and subtlety, especially in the crime genre, is the name of the game.

And hard as it may be to believe, this is not the biggest flaw in the film. That, is it’s indecisiveness. The film starts off with our introduction to Anthony and the cast of characters around him, his guardian Sikander, Sikander’s pals (Tiwari, Pandey) and boss (Kher), Anthony’s friend Mike, his lady-love (Amrita), and the good priest Father Briganza, who’s taught Anthony everything he knows about morality. The introduction goes on mighty long, and just as I’m wondering if this is some one’s idea of a sob-story, the film changes tracks to traipse into romance-land.

Intermittently we also get a peek into Sikander’s world, with the undercurrents of jealousy and spite. I was beginning to get hopeful, because Kher’s character, Murtuza showed promise, and I was wondering if this might turn into a hard-hitting mafia-movie after all. Alas, it didn’t. Thus romance and venality take a back-seat and we are treated to a full-blown case of the “awakening of the conscience”. The director would have us believe that Anthony is a babe-in-the-woods type of guy. Unfortunately, knowing that Anthony is an orphan, a child of the streets, we don’t believe him. Thus, Anthony being all aghast-like at Sikander’s line of work, comes off as lot of hot air. His mouthing off about doing the right thing also serves to rob him off the one redeeming quality that we thought he had – loyalty.

If you’ve managed to stomach all that (yes, this is a L-O-N-G film) you get to the climax. An old-fashioned climax this one, the bad guy has the good guy all tied up, and is awaiting Anthony’s arrival to do the bloody deed. The director goes and spoils it all for us of course, by turning this into some king of jolly romp through the woods, because Anthony turns up with Mike and Father Braganza, and calls in reinforcements – loads of children. Non-violence (like the 80s) rules, because without guns, and without a drop of innocent blood being shed, the criminals are routed.

Need I say more? Well, I will. Not only does this film have a shaky script, it also has stilted dialogues, and bad characterization. The characters, such as they are, offer up no redeeming qualities. The hero is a flighty young man, who appears to have goals; however we never actually get to “see” or “feel” what he thinks; all we are left to surmise with are his superficial actions. The film fails to develop a sense of seriousness, and doesn’t come across as a full-time gag either. It totters between the two, to disastrous effect.

Apparently everyone who wants to, is getting a shot at stardom these days; much like in political circles, there is no minimum criteria. Thus we have Dwivedi, who doesn’t have the looks, and can’t act to save his life. My sympathies are with Amrita Rao, at being paired opposite Dwivedi. The girl deserves better. And for being given a role which has absolutely no impact (she might be used to that though). Jawed Sheikh who plays the policeman out to nail Sikander, comes across believably, but it’s a wasted effort, for his character has not much influence. Real actors like Kher and Malhotra are wasted in roles which play second fiddle to an unimaginative story-line. The music is ho-hum, save one song.

I think I see the director’s intention behind this film – to pour into this one film equally balanced elements of Bollywoodian entertainment. Unfortunately, none of these genres are handled well, or contribute to the film as a whole. MNIAG is very much like the first two houses that the Three Little Pigs built. All one has to do, is to huff and to puff, and it all falls down.

Posted in bollywood, rating-G | 2 Comments

Review : Welcome

Posted on January 21, 2008 by amodini

Rating : The worst (-25/5)
Genre : Comedy (??)
Year : 2007
Running time : 2 hours 30 minutes
Director : Anees Bazmee
Cast : Anil Kapoor, Akshay Kumar, Nana Patekar, Katrina Kaif, Feroz Khan, Mallika Sherawat, Paresh Rawal

WELCOME : DUMB, DOLTISH, DENSE !

This is a film to stir the senses. In a bad way. It has a basically funny premise. Two dons rule Bombay. They have a sister. They want to get the sister married into a respectable family. Trouble is which respectable family will marry into the mafia ?

Reading this, you probably have an unfamiliar feeling clogging your chest, yeah ? It’s called hope. But, all to no avail, my friend. Consider that this film has been made by Anees Bazmee (No Entry). Thus the funny premise which I talked about in the previous paragaraph is shaken and stirred with all the elements of mindless masala, turning what could have been a perfectly decent comedy into, how do I say this politely, hmm… A PIECE OF UNADULTERATED CRAP !

Nana Patekar is Don Uday Shetty, Sanjana’s brother. Anil Kapoor is Majnoo, Uday’s second-in-command and almost brother (muh-bola-bhai-you-get-my-drift ?) Katrina is Sanjana, the don’s smiling, gorgeous, fairly innocent sister. Akshay Kumar is the moron who’s in love with Sanjana, trying to get his respectable family (Paresh Rawal is Dad) to accept the don’s sis as the dutiful bahu.

There’s no direction and no editing. The movie veers away from the original premise into several non-sensical detours. Since stupidity is unpredictable, I couldn’t actually tell where the film was going, if anywhere. I deride films like Partner, but in comparison to Welcome, Partner appears to be an art film. It’s a pity that this is the terrible film that it is because it features Anil Kapoor, Akshaye Kumar and Paresh Rawal, all three of whom have got the comic timing down pat. Mallika Sherawat has a decent role too, and does well in it. Katrina Kaif – gorgeous-yes, acting-no. There is a silver lining to this cloud, however, and that is the music.

However, I will end here, because really, how many different ways can you say stupid ?

Posted in 2007, bollywood, comedy, ecstatically stupid | 2 Comments

Review : Halla bol

Posted on January 15, 2008 by amodini

Note : The edited version of this review appears at Planet Bollywood, here.

hb

Rating : Above average (3.8/5)
Genre : Drama
Year : 2008
Running time : 3 hours
Director : Raj Kumar Santoshi
Cast : Ajay Devgan, Vidya Balan, Pankaj Kapoor, Darshan Jariwalla

HALLA BOL : GOOD, BUT COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER !

Raj Kumar Santoshi is best known for his message based films. I remember him for his Damini, for his Ghayal; hard-hitting, impactful cinema, generally socially relevant. So “Halla bol” doesn’t really come as a surprise, based as it is on the hot-button topic of modern day India – the apathy to everyday crime. Specifically Halla Bol appears to be based on the Jessica Lall murder, but where in real life there was no “hero” who spoke up (unless you consider the media one), here Ajay Devgun dons the savior’s mantle.

Devgan as Ashfaq, a Bollywood star, is an unlikely hero. Once a conscientious young man, his ambition and dreams have made him thick-skinned and selfish. Ashfaq, also known as Sameer Khan, does what sells, be it making up childhood, poverty-ridden sob stories to gain sympathy from the public, or shutting his eyes to unsavory facts of life. One such fact stares him in the face when he witnesses a murder, at a crowded, celebrity filled party. Like the others at the party, he also feigns ignorance when questioned by the police about the killers (2 young men who kill in cold blood and in full view of people).

Uncomfortably for our hero, his dormant conscience awakens, and he goes ahead and confesses to having witnessed the murder, and even identifies the killers. They are spoilt sons of influential fathers, one a minister’s son, and the other the son of a liquor baron. As expected Ashfaq is threatened, cajoled and bribed to take back his statement but he stands his ground. The criminals then resort to doing good on their threats, first setting fire to Ashfaq’s young son’s room, and then trying to run him (Ashfaq) over. However just when he is going under, comes help from a most unexpected quarter . . .

The story of “Halla bol” is a well-known one. It has played out on our television screens, numerous times; the unspeakable crime, the temerity of the killers, and the utter ineffectiveness of the justice system. It is an engrossing, gripping story with much emotional appeal. Santoshi does make use of this, but sparingly, thus reducing the emotional thrust of the film.

Santoshi keeps the film on track. However the film does suffer from some long drawn out sequences (it could have been edited better), and some flaws in the screenplay. Santoshi also takes a while to describe his characters to us, which is a double-edged sword, because although it does help us get to know the protagonist’s better, and thus feel for them, it also takes too long to get the story off the ground.

Santoshi’s films have a very earthy feel to them. They aren’t sophisticated, elegant dramas, but in-your-face, brashy, movies, where shots of heroes soiling Persian carpets in corrupt minister’s homes, do not look amiss. Nor do the dated sword-fights. Santoshi uses every trick in the book to make his point, and this can in places lead to unrealistically contrived scenarios, and extremely filmi dialogues – lots of metaphors, loaded punch-lines and emphatic walk-offs. The background score and the songs were not very impressive; they didn’t add to this kind of film as they could have.

I consider Devgan one of the more versatile actors in the industry, but he seemed ill-at-ease in the light-hearted or romantic scenes. Even in the intense scenes, he was not at par – he did a much better job in films like Company and Gangajal. Vidya Balan as his wife does good, and is very effective in her limited screen-time. Darshan Jariwalla essaying a corrupt minister’s role, appears vile and odious, and plays the part perfectly. The supporting actors (Ashfaaq’s parent’s roles) do an adequate job.

The highlight of the film was watching Pankaj Kapoor as Siddhu, an ex-dacoit turned automobile repairman cum social crusader, with a flair for the dramatic arts. It is with Sidhu that Ashfaque enters the realm of acting, surviving on street theatre, until he decides to go to Bombay to pursue bigger dreams. Kapoor plays Sidhu with panache, even making the most filmi line (and there are many) seem natural.

In recent years, there have been a spate of films which deal with the role of the citizenry in maintaining law and order in the state. There was Rang de basanti, Gangajal, and Shool, all buring up with the fire of retribution. “Halla bol” falls into the dark, brooding cinema category, and differs from RDB and Shool, in that it actually ends on a high note.

“Halla bol” is a worthwhile film, although it does fail to come together as a finished product; a puzzle with some of it’s pieces missing. Thus, one does not, after wending one’s way home, get the satisfaction of seeing an “excellent” film. It is an honest effort however. And although not quite as effective as masterpieces like Shool, “Halla bol” does what it set out to do – it raises questions and effectively brings issues to the fore-front, and that garners it that above average rating.

Posted in 2008, bollywood, drama, watchable | 2 Comments

Review : Dus kahaniyan

Posted on January 7, 2008 by amodini

Rating : Below average (2.5/5)
Genre : Drama
Year : 2007
Running time : 2 hours
Director : Sanjay Gupta, Meghna Gulzar, Jasmeet Dhodi, Hansal Mehta, Apoorva Lakhia, Rohit Roy
Cast : Shabana Azmi, Naseeruddin Shah, Amrita Singh, Manoj Bajpai, Diya Mirza, Minissha Lamba, Nana Patekar, Neha Dhupia, Mahesh Manjrekar, Arbaaz Khan, Mandira Bedi, Aftab Shivdasani, Dino Morea, Sanjay Dutt, Suniel Shetty, Tareena Patel, Jimmy Shergill, Masumeh Makhija, Neha Uberoi, Parmeet Sethi

DUS KAHANIYAN : INEPT !

You can’t get more upfront than this. “Dus Kahaniyan” really is just 10 stories stitched up together. No reading deeper meanings into it. Infact no reading any meaning into it. Ten stories, without a theme to tag them together. Pretty patchy, if you ask me. Why wouldn’t I just watch 10 disjointed TV soaps instead ?

The 10 stories showcased, range from the romantic, to the clichéd, to the bizarre and the paranormal. They were each of about 10-12 minutes, were given separate names, and directed by a handful of directors, Sanjay Gupta doing the meat of the work. Since I’m an optimist, let’s talk about the good ones first – there were three :

– “Matrimony” directed by Sanjay Gupta, starred Mandira Bedi and Arbaaz Khan as a married couple, and was about faith and fidelity in marriage. Nicely done, this came complete with the Gotcha! ending.

– “Zahir”, also directed by Gupta, starred Manoj Bajpai and Dia Mirza, and was about a writer and the girl he falls for. Another surprise ending, although not as believable as “Matrimony”.

– Thirdly there was “Poornamashi”, directed by Meghna Gulzar. It starred Amrita Singh and Minisha Lamba as the mother-daughter pair on the horns of a dilemma. This one was the best of the lot, and displayed, what I thought was genuine emotion mixed in with life’s reality.

I’m sitting on the fence on the next one – it starred Shabana Azmi and Naseeruddin Shah, and even they couldn’t save it. “Rice plate” was about a bigoted Tamilian aunty, who sheds her religious prejudices. This one was strictly OK, and just because of the excellent acting.

Now the remaining six didn’t work for me, and they are :

– Hansal Mehta directed “High on the Highway” starring Jimmy Shergill and Masumeh Makhija. Two stoned out lovers on the highway, doing I’m not sure what. Bizarre.

– “Lovedale” – Jasmeet Dhosi’s story of love by super-natural intervention. Silly, silly, silly !

– “Sex on the beach” – Have you met death in a swimsuit, yet ? If not, here’s your chance. A little black humor, lot’s of skin do not a very engrossing story make. This one’s by Apoorva Lakhia.

– “Strangers in the night” stars Neha Dhupia and Mahesh Manjrekar. This awkwardly contrived story, comes off looking cheap. Or was that just Manjrekar on screen ?

– “Rise and Fall” is Gupta’s tribute to the “Gangsta” genre, with the desi mafia represented by Sanjay Dutt and Suniel Shetty. The basic story was about power-play between two “bhais”, but the rest of it was obscured by dramatization, music and a whole lot of gunfire. This one frankly, made little sense to me.

– Gubbare, also by Sanjay Gupta, is a lesson on being thankful for what you have. It tries a little too hard, and comes off preachy.

We’ve had desi multiple-story based films before, remember “Darna mana hai?” . So I do believe that the concept can work, although it must have a common thread binding it. If not, each story had better be strong. Out of all the 10, the only one that stood strong, the only one that I cared about a smidgen, was “Poornamashi”. I could have done with more of Meghna Gulzar’s work and less of Gupta’s, since his was erratic at best.

I can’t fault the actors, although some of them were terrible too. I mean, how genius-y do you have to be to see “Lovedale” and not be knocked senseless by it’s gobsmacking stupidity ? I approach Sanjay Gupta’s (and White Feather Films) with some trepidation, because he (and they) think they are the bacchas of Francis Ford Coppola, and really, it’s not happening.

The title number comes with the end credits. Apparently the music of this film comes in 2 flavors, so they have like 2 versions of the same songs. Me thinks if they’d paid as much attention to the film, as they did to the music, this movie would have had some potential. As it is, it isn’t worth your time.

Posted in 2007, bollywood, rating-PG13 | 5 Comments

Review : Khoya khoya chand

Posted on January 2, 2008 by amodini

Note : The edited version of this review appears at Planet Bollywood, here

kkc

Rating : Above average (3.8/5)
Genre : Drama
Year : 2007
Running time : 2 hrs and 11 minutes
Director : Sudhir Mishra
Cast : Soha Ali Khan, Rajat Kapur, Shiney Ahuja, Vinay Pathak, Sushmita Mukherjee, Dipannita Sharma, Sonya Jehaan, Saurabh Shukla

KHOYA KHOYA CHAND (KKC) : A TUMULTOUS LOVE-STORY

You know you look at 50s cinema, and it seems so clean. The men, they seemd to be all gentlemen; they spoke courtesly, seated women before themselves, asked questions politely. The women, they were all dainty ladies, tender, sniffing into their hankies, and suitably accompanying their men. Even the item numbers were so decent. The whole aura was one of gentility.

Thus one is taken aback to see a film like “Khoya khoya chand” which shows up the industry then, as it really was on the inside. Quite different apparently than what was portrayed on-screen. They were schemers, wheeler-dealers, the producers ranted about profits, and the casting couch was apparently over-used. It’s a grimy place, where unsuspecting men and women fall prey to the vagaries of this world.

Khoya Khoya Chand is set amid the film industry of the 50s, and is a complicated love story. True, all love stories are, but one is rather used to seeing them on-screen simply told. And it’s tragic. There’s nascent love, and there are willing lovers, but uff, these circumstances, this world and it’s wants and expectations just won’t let them be.

Nikhat (Soha) is a starlet, a dancer, who desires “acting” roles now. She is spotted by mega-star Prem Kumar (Rajat Kapoor) and he casts her as his leading lady, much to the chagrin of his current leading lady Ratanbala (Soniya Jehan). As clout dictates he also expects other favors from Nikhat which she accedes to.

However Prem marries another (Dipannita Sharma) in keeping with his parents’ wishes, and explains it as such to Nikhat. Nikhat is angered but must swallow her pride to remain in Prem’s (a powerful man in the industry) good books. Even though Prem is now married he expects Nikhat’s company on the side, while she in turn is forming an attachment with tell-it-like-it-is budding writen Zafar (Ahuja). . .

It’s a vile world out there. In KKC it appears stark, and unvarnished, the apparent attempts at recreating the 50s leaving grim reality unsoftened. In the midst of all this is gentle-souled Nikhat. Pimped out at 14, by her single mother, Nikhat has endured numerous casting couches to get where she is today, and is no innocent. Presenting a smiling hard shell to the world, she remembers each indignity. Soha does well as Nikhat, merging the soft and the edgy parts of her personality beautifully. She appears brittle, eyes glittering, hinting at a very thin veneer of sophistication before all that pent-up hurt comes pouring out.

Prem Kumar’s character reminded me of Raj Kumar. Rajat Kapur who plays the part, appears to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, with the calm assurance of a man who thinks the world will kow-tow to him. And it does. Shiney plays Zaffar, son of a father with 4 wives. Unable to see his mother’s condition due to his father’s excesses, he moves to Bombay. Shiney presents a fine performances playing idealistic Zafar.

Vinay Pathak is Zafar’s good friend Shyamal. and he is as expected, superb. The inconsistencies in his character I attribute to a flaw in the screenplay. The other actor worth mentioning is Soniya Jehan who plays Ratanbala. Quite a beauty, Ms. Jehaan appears a suitably delicate damsel with claws, and fits the era. Sushmita Mukherjee appears as yesteryear actress Sharda, and Nikhat’s mentor. Saurabh Shukla is effective as a loud-mouth, opportunistic producer.

It is hard, I think, to tell a story like this and still keep the viewer engrossed. Firstly because of all the details, the twists and turns in the story; they may not be major but influence the story nevertheless. Secondly, since such a film is based upon the mind machinations, it is important that each character be well-fleshed out, else sympathies could be wrongly swayed.

Sudhir Mishra does an outstanding job, because he takes this gut-wrenching story of lovers who can never seem to meet, and imbues it with passion, drama, and emotion to the point where we feel for all the characters, and especially Nikhat. Times may change, but people remain the same – really quite good, but essentially selfish. And therein lies the rub.

For all it’s quality and worthiness, KKC might be a hard commercial sell, for who has time for the subtleties of love, when modern-day love stories have appreciative audiences dancing to a Love Guru’s tunes ?

Posted in 2007, bollywood, drama, recommended | 2 Comments