At last I got a chance to watch a hindi movie in the theatres after a while....
So there am I again with a movie review...This time it is HALLA BOL... the words didnt make sense to me when I first heard but will always ping my mind when somebody ever says that.....
Another Raj Kumar Santoshi movie...that motivates the so called "Aam Janata" . Do you remember NAYAK???? Something similar...but this is a message to all the rich, the poor and the common man....
Do you remember street plays......no wonder you will find street plays around in big cities these days......
The man to watch for in this movie is not Ajay Devgan, but it is the theatre guru " Pankaj kapoor " (remember Karamchand??). Playing the former dacoit ("Daku") of Chambal -- "Siddhu". he is the guru of a big super star -- Sameer Khan (Ajay Devgan). He is out of chambal and now into street plays enlighting people to fight against the corrupt government and politicians.
In a page 3 party two sons of hightly rated businessmen/politicians kill a girl and nobody testifies not to get into trouble and every celebrity fears to testify against the criminals. Ajay Devgan was also one of them.
But someday he happens to realise that he needs to fight and he single handedly tries to testify and fights against the hurdles.
I think the story lineup is great. Acting point of view I really like Pankaj Kapoor (especially the moment when he tries to save a girl and a scene similar to Sunny Deol in Gadar and Damini).
But the only thing I think is the flaw in this movie is the screenplay. I thought there could be a lot at the end instead of some things that are understood in the beginning. For example when the culprits are testified against their crime.
The story reminds me of the "Jessica Lal Murder Case". Hope this movie enlightens the general public and make people feel that if they remain united they could fight against the corrupt administration of the country.
Enjoy the movie....
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
India - Australia Racial Controversy
Dick Francis, once a jockey for the late Queen Mother’s horses, found a second career post retirement as a mystery writer whose stories explored the darker side of racing. The time is ripe for a former cricketer to do the same.
The year is barely a week old and we’re already headlong into a fresh cricketing scandal. This time around it’s a race row between India and Australia – with an Australian cricketer alleging he was racially abused by an Indian player. Ah, sports in the global village. You gotta love it.
It all started way back when (alright, two and a half months ago) when Australia were touring India. A bunch of spectators in Vadodara marked Andrew Symonds, an Australian player of West Indian and British descent who was born in England, as the “enemy” thanks to his on-field clashes with Indian hotheads Sreesanth and Harbhajan Singh - two players least likely to take it like proper Indians - and began baiting him in the presence of a South African journalist.
Said journalist was more than a little taken aback when the Indian spectators around him began imitating monkeys. He asked one guy close to him what he thought he was doing. “He looks like a monkey,” the man apparently said. There are two ways to take this comment: one, he was alluding to the fact that Symonds was “black” and that he thought black people are less than human; two, he thought Symonds, literally, looked like a monkey.
The first would clearly be an example of racism. The second would have been his opinion. We don’t know which it was. But either way, it wasn’t very nice. If it was a racist comment then it was despicable and I hope he felt it burn when Symonds went on smash the ball all over the place. If it was his idea of a clever bit of namecalling, I hope he’s sitting at home watching the current drama play out on TV and coming to the realization that wit is not his forte.
The South African journalist later asked a member of the Australian press contingent if Symonds had mentioned the incident to him. The Australian said no and asked Symonds about it. Symonds appeared to have forgotten all about it but when quizzed, replied yeah, he remembered something of the sort but didn’t make much of it.
Next up, Mumbai where a massive row broke out when a group of idiots were captured on camera, scratching their armpits and hollering and jumping about. If they were looking to make it onto TV screens, they got their wish and more. Symonds was reportedly very upset and charges of racism were made against the crowd. Everybody fell over themselves excusing / castigating those men in the crowd who were eventually arrested but then released.
The best explanation, without doubt, was the one offered by one BCCI official that the monkey was sacred in Hinduism and thus the crowd was praying to Hanuman. That’s right – the sight of Symonds on the field brought out intense religious fervor in Indian cricket fans. And they invariably pray by yelling “monkey” and scratching their armpits. Ladies and gentlemen, a pause for applause here for the Board of Control for Cricket in India. They never disappoint.
In the middle of all this, Indian bowler Harbhajan Singh apparently tried his hand at sledging and ended up calling Symonds a monkey. After the match was over, Symonds came over to the dressing room and gave Harbhajan a short lesson on racism. Calling someone a monkey, where Symonds came from, meant that person was sub-human, an inferior breed. A charge that Australians are especially sensitive to because this attitude informed (white) Australian attitudes towards the Aborigines for years. Harbhajan, much contrite, said he’d had no idea and would never do it again.
Australia won that series in India and two and half months later, the Indians showed up in Australia for a rematch. The first test ended in a defeat for the visitors but the second test proved to be a real fight and the visitors put on a good show in spite of what seem to be rather more frequent umpiring errors than usual. (Understatement: it’s an art.) Then came The Incident.
Sachin Tendulkar and Harbhajan were at bat. Brett Lee was bowling. Harbhajan hit a delivery and ran down wicket for a run and along the way hit/patted Lee’s backside with his bat. Maybe this is how people express their affection in Jalandar or perhaps he felt he hadn’t hit the ball hard enough and therefore needed to hit the bowler as well to show the strength of his arm – hell, maybe it was the cricketing version of what basketball players do with their hands. Who knows what he was thinking? Harbhajan hasn’t yet explained and Lee has been absolutely mum on the subject. But Symonds got an eyeful of this and, perhaps because he enjoyed needling Harbhajan, decided to stick up for his teammate. So he and Harbhajan exchanged a few words.
And according to Symonds, this is when Harbhajan called him a monkey. Again. And not just any monkey but a “big monkey”.
I’ve heard a lot of people, by which I mean Indians, talk about how “monkey” is not a term of racial abuse in India and so Harbhajan never meant it like that. And as far as that goes, while “monkey” is definitely not a term of endearment (well, okay it can be but I don’t think that’s how they’d use sledging or having an altercation), they’re right – Indians don’t use it in the sense that Westerners do. However, if Harbhajan did use the term in Sydney, he did so after being informed of the connotations that the term carries in Australia – and as such he deserves condemnation.
The key question though, is did he use the term?
Michael Clarke, Matthew Hayden and Andrew Symonds say he did. Sachin Tendulkar and Harbhajan Singh himself say he didn’t. The umpires didn’t hear anything and the stump mics didn’t pick anything up. So it basically comes down to whose word do you believe?
Mike Proctor, the South African match referee, decided the Australians had it right in this instance. He said as a South African, he recognized a racist attack when he saw it and it was quite clear to him that Harbhajan had not only said it but that he meant it as a racial slur. Since Proctor is so well versed in racism, then he might also understand the point that many Indian fans are making today: black man, known for sledging, accuses brown man, known for temper, of racism -> brown man denies it -> umpires don’t hear it, stump mics don’t pick it up -> another brown man says he was right there and he didn’t hear it -> two white men say they heard it loud and clear -> white man says he believes the white men.
The character of gentlemen should give everybody involved the benefit of the doubt in this instance. Just as we don’t want to believe that Tendulkar flat out lied to protect his teammate and that Harbhajan said that term/ meant it as a racial slur, we shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that this is some sort of orchestrated campaign by the Australians to bump an effective bowler off an opposing team. Given the lack of hard evidence, it could have been resolved on field as a matter between gentlemen. But it wasn’t (and some people would say it’s because the Aussies have proven themselves to be no gentlemen) and so here we are.
However, if Ricky Ponting actually believed such a incident had gone down, he was perfectly justified in doing what he did. A fact that nobody pointed out more strongly than Ponting himself. Racism isn’t acceptable just because the target is a white man (Symonds isn’t but there have been other examples in the past) and a white team has every right to report an incident if it feels justified.
But now that he’s taken this step, it’ll be interesting to see how things play out over the years given Australia’s propensity to sledge. Some people, like Peter Roebuck, have called for Ponting’s head (for his attitude as well as his actions) and indeed, Australia may well come to regret this incident, but in the years to come? I think Ponting did everybody a favor.
I suppose in the short time to come you’re going to see some amount of retaliatory action, just like some allege the Australians are doing right now, but now that race has come into the open as a factor in a sport as beloved as cricket, there is no way it can be swept under the carpet by fatcats like the BCCI.
And now that the top dog in international cricket has stepped forward to make use of race laws, it should open the floodgates for other teams. After all, if Australia the hardy world champions don’t think it’s whiny behavior to stand up against racial abuse, why should other teams feel shy? And now that words like “monkey” and “bastard” are deemed racially sensitive, look for sledging to subside because really, who knows what might be culturally sensitive? Thus we come full circle and decide that abuse is abuse, whatever we call it. If you want to call someone names, make sure it’s someone from your own team because that’s the only way to ensure that you’re not stepping over some invisible line.
Good for all of us. Hard luck for Harbhajan, though.
I was going through some blogs and found out that this was interesting and the author has written very nicely so I thought of including in my post.....well but I would really appreciate the authors comments on this....it was informative but funny...
Monday, January 7, 2008
The movie every American should watch.."Charlie Wilson's War"
Charlie's Wilson's War demonstrates how futile wars can be, especially to the very people who spend countless hours and finances to fund them. Well I would like to say that politics has never been so much fun.
Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) is a Texas congressman who is credited with almost single-handedly winning the Cold War. Hanging around plenty of drugs, women and drinks, he also takes an unexpected interest in the events in Afghanistan and the terrors of the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Enlisting the help of Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman) a renegade CIA covert mission expert and Joanne (Julia Roberts), a wealthy socialite, he raises money to provide Afghanistan with the rocket launchers and antitank weaponry they need to cause serious damage to Russian military. Eventually by the end of the 80s the Cold War would come to an end, and the funds would immediately be cut, thereby removing all help for the fledgling country to rebuild and recoup.
Defeating the Soviet Union was not an easy task, especially considering the many conflicting goals between the various political leaders. "Why is Congress saying one thing and doing nothing?" queries a disgruntled politician. "Tradition mostly", returns Wilson. Everyone appears to want the Cold War to end, yet a blind eye is being turned to the atrocities taking place in Afghanistan. It takes a trip to the war-torn refugee camps in Pakistan to motivate Wilson, as well as with his main financial source Doc Long (Ned Beatty). Wilson uses strategic ties with committees to raise funding of weaponry in Afghanistan from $5 million to $10 million with a simple command, but the president of Pakistan scoffs at the idea of winning a war for such a trivial amount. By the end of the Wilson campaign, $1 billion is sent to the Mujahedin to shoot down Russian helicopters - the first step toward victory, as Wilson predicted. Beyond the scope of the film, the unresolved turmoil in Afghanistan led to further, less ignorable problems, which Wilson presumably foresaw.
During the course of Charlie Wilson's War, the main characters travel from the United States to Pakistan to Afghanistan to Jerusalem to Egypt, but wherever they go, sarcasm always follows. There's a surprising amount of comedy in the film, considering the political undertones are generally serious. Hoffman provides jokes with almost every exchange of dialogue, as does Hanks, with his naturally witty woman-chasing ideals. A scene early on featuring Gust being continually ushered in out of Wilson's office as he tries to straighten out a legal issue with his posse of gorgeous gals ("you can teach 'em to type, but you can't teach 'em to grow tits")
I think the movie still needed some more material on what happened later.....the only thing they tell us at the end is " and then we f**ked up the end game. "
Well this may be the exact potrayal of the book but I would say if I were to make the movie then I would add a bunch of things.....
1. Show the results of what Charlie Wilson did.
2. The help/funds given to Afghanistan (due to the cold war) was a missile that turned towards America and hit the twin towers. (Logically this happened)
3. They gave high tech weapons to the Afghans and that gave rise to various terrorists....no wonder everybody knows now what happened....
4. This could be the rise of terrorism.....and US had to attack afghanistan spending lots of money......this is a good lesson to USA ....
Well these are just my thoughts.
Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) is a Texas congressman who is credited with almost single-handedly winning the Cold War. Hanging around plenty of drugs, women and drinks, he also takes an unexpected interest in the events in Afghanistan and the terrors of the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Enlisting the help of Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman) a renegade CIA covert mission expert and Joanne (Julia Roberts), a wealthy socialite, he raises money to provide Afghanistan with the rocket launchers and antitank weaponry they need to cause serious damage to Russian military. Eventually by the end of the 80s the Cold War would come to an end, and the funds would immediately be cut, thereby removing all help for the fledgling country to rebuild and recoup.
Defeating the Soviet Union was not an easy task, especially considering the many conflicting goals between the various political leaders. "Why is Congress saying one thing and doing nothing?" queries a disgruntled politician. "Tradition mostly", returns Wilson. Everyone appears to want the Cold War to end, yet a blind eye is being turned to the atrocities taking place in Afghanistan. It takes a trip to the war-torn refugee camps in Pakistan to motivate Wilson, as well as with his main financial source Doc Long (Ned Beatty). Wilson uses strategic ties with committees to raise funding of weaponry in Afghanistan from $5 million to $10 million with a simple command, but the president of Pakistan scoffs at the idea of winning a war for such a trivial amount. By the end of the Wilson campaign, $1 billion is sent to the Mujahedin to shoot down Russian helicopters - the first step toward victory, as Wilson predicted. Beyond the scope of the film, the unresolved turmoil in Afghanistan led to further, less ignorable problems, which Wilson presumably foresaw.
During the course of Charlie Wilson's War, the main characters travel from the United States to Pakistan to Afghanistan to Jerusalem to Egypt, but wherever they go, sarcasm always follows. There's a surprising amount of comedy in the film, considering the political undertones are generally serious. Hoffman provides jokes with almost every exchange of dialogue, as does Hanks, with his naturally witty woman-chasing ideals. A scene early on featuring Gust being continually ushered in out of Wilson's office as he tries to straighten out a legal issue with his posse of gorgeous gals ("you can teach 'em to type, but you can't teach 'em to grow tits")
I think the movie still needed some more material on what happened later.....the only thing they tell us at the end is " and then we f**ked up the end game. "
Well this may be the exact potrayal of the book but I would say if I were to make the movie then I would add a bunch of things.....
1. Show the results of what Charlie Wilson did.
2. The help/funds given to Afghanistan (due to the cold war) was a missile that turned towards America and hit the twin towers. (Logically this happened)
3. They gave high tech weapons to the Afghans and that gave rise to various terrorists....no wonder everybody knows now what happened....
4. This could be the rise of terrorism.....and US had to attack afghanistan spending lots of money......this is a good lesson to USA ....
Well these are just my thoughts.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Taare Zameen Par.....Worth reading this
Some1's well put opinion....
If you want to know how good Taare Zameen Par is, just go to your nearest theater and watch the people coming out after the show. The cacophony that surrounds a crowd exiting a theater will be missing. Some would be walking in slow motion. Some would look petrified. At least that's what happened in the theater I went to. Not a single soul was talking after the movie, probably because what everyone saw on screen was not fiction, but a semi-biography of his/her own life. In fact, the normally rowdiest gang in a theatre (ie my friends and I) that is uber vocal at the end of a film left the theater in pin drop silence. The first thing we said to each other - 'Aamir Bhai has done it again.'
Indeed, Aamir Khan had done it again. I have a gut feeling that Taare would change people like no other movie has previously done.
I know only Aamir can make a film like Taare. But let us assume he did not make it (dream on!). What would the film have been like?
If Karan Johar made Taare
· Obvious starcast:
· Shah Rukh Khan as the arts teacher (duh duh duh!!).
· Aryan Khan as the dyslexic child (even if he could not act for nuts).
· Rani Mukerjee as the kid's mom (assuming Kajol is unavailable).
· Abhishek Bachchan as the kid's dad.
· Amitabh Bachchan as the school principal (who cares if the role is ultra minute, he can afford it).
· It would be shot in New York to appeal to the NRI audience.
· The story line would obviously be different. SRK would fall for the dyslexic kid's mom. The last scene would have the mom running to the teacher rather than the kid. And again, like in so many other movies, SRK would get someone else's girl.
· It would have one dance number.
· The film would be titled 'Kuch Taare Zameen Par.'
If Sanjay Leela Bhansali made Taare
· Obvious starcast:
· Salman as the teacher.
· Rani as the mother.
· Of course the whole film would be shot on elaborate sets. The school would be nothing short of Harvard university.
· An orchestra would play every time anyone cried.
· Slow motion, different camera angles for every scene.
· The school uniforms would match the classroom walls even though that does not make a f***ing difference.
· The film would cost 60 crores.
If Farah Khan made Taare
· Obvious starcast:
· SRK as the teacher (yawn).
· In the original Taare, Aamir makes an entry at the interval point. In Farah's version, SRK would be on screen on for 2.30 hrs out of the 2.45 hrs and would be introduced in the first scene itself.
· The story would be changed to make sure the above happened. The focus of the film would be a teacher who helps a kid fight dyslexia.
· To make it a complete entertainer, there would be a romantic angle, comedy, and action thrown in. Oh idea!! Nikumbh's character likes another teacher and the kiddo helps him.. throw in some comedy moments there and you have romance and comedy settled. For action.. hmm.. lemme see.. oh yah, the kid gets kidnapped and the teacher fights the baddies to save him. Wow!! I'm quite an imaginative writer. I can see how Farah can write a film from scratch in two weeks straight.
· The film posters would have a big SRK with the tiny image of the kid in the background.
If Rakesh Roshan made Taare Zameen Par
· Obvious starcast:
· Hrithik Roshan as the teacher.
· Since Rakesh Roshan cannot think beyond science fiction these days, this film would have that too. Instead of dyslexia, the kid would have alienositis or something, a condition induced due to him witnessing an alien abduction.
· Instead of Nikumbh being an arts teacher, he would be a physics teacher, and instead of asking kids to be creative, he would ask them to challenge the science we know.
· In the scene where Nikumbh asks the kids to open their minds and make whatever they want outdoors, the kid Ishaan, instead of making a boat, would end up making a working spaceship prototype.
· Nikumbh would cure the kids problem by making a full fledged version of the kid's prototype, traveling to the alien planet, and asking them to give the kid his powers back.
· The film would have music by Rajesh Roshan ripped off from some world music.
· The film's name would again start with a K.. probably 'Kuch Aliens Taaron se Zameen Par'.
· The director would make sure Hrithik gets to show all his abilities. This would mean a scene with Roshan jr flexing his muscles, and a dance competition in the end, instead of an arts competition.
If Priyadarshan made Taare:
· Obvious starcast:
o Akshay Kumar as the teacher.
o Paresh Rawal as the kid's dad.
· It would be a brainless comedy. The kid's dyslexia would be made fun of. Half the times the parents will be running after the kid from one room to the other and that, in the director's opinion, would be funny.
· The film will be full of sex jokes. So for example, when Akshay would come to the parents telling them that their son has dyslexia, the ignorant father would say something inappropriate like 'iss umar mein? par kaise, woh to hamesha boys school mein padha hai!'. And yes, the director would think it is funny.
· In the climax of the film all the characters in the film would run around in the amphitheater for no reason, spilling colors on each other. That's where the film will end, without any logical conclusion.
· And of course, Paresh Rawal would emote like an epileptic himself making us question the boy's mental abilities anyway.
I know there are a lot of other directors, but I choose these guys because I feel they are the most gutless or overrated directors we have today. They keep doing the same shit again and again and more often than not depend on the stars to carry a shitty film forward. They have no courage to try something non-nonsense, something that can use the medium of cinema for a little more than just entertainment, in spite of being the most sought after directors in the country
The reason I am making this comparison at all is to show how Aamir (and Amol Gupte) has made a pure film, without giving into the temptation of masala or 'what would the audience like to see' philosophy; for giving chance to fantastic yet unknown actors like Vipin Sharma and Tisca Chopra (I love Tisca); for riding against the tide; for not trying to hog the limelight in the film by happily playing second fiddle to the boy (even Aamir Khan's name comes after Darsheel Sarfi, the boy, in the credits); for giving the audience something different once again as an entertainer; and for truly caring about the society and using the medium to bring a change.
I remember earlier this year SRK made a statement: 'films are for entertainment; messages are for post offices.' Well Aamir Khan has proved that cinema is probably the best medium for giving a message and I can say that looking at the face of every person in the cinema hall. Not only that, he has proved (yet again!) that a message can be entertaining.
Behold bollywood bigshots, Aamir the director has arrived. With just one film, he has set the bar higher than most of you can only dream of reaching.
If you want to know how good Taare Zameen Par is, just go to your nearest theater and watch the people coming out after the show. The cacophony that surrounds a crowd exiting a theater will be missing. Some would be walking in slow motion. Some would look petrified. At least that's what happened in the theater I went to. Not a single soul was talking after the movie, probably because what everyone saw on screen was not fiction, but a semi-biography of his/her own life. In fact, the normally rowdiest gang in a theatre (ie my friends and I) that is uber vocal at the end of a film left the theater in pin drop silence. The first thing we said to each other - 'Aamir Bhai has done it again.'
Indeed, Aamir Khan had done it again. I have a gut feeling that Taare would change people like no other movie has previously done.
I know only Aamir can make a film like Taare. But let us assume he did not make it (dream on!). What would the film have been like?
If Karan Johar made Taare
· Obvious starcast:
· Shah Rukh Khan as the arts teacher (duh duh duh!!).
· Aryan Khan as the dyslexic child (even if he could not act for nuts).
· Rani Mukerjee as the kid's mom (assuming Kajol is unavailable).
· Abhishek Bachchan as the kid's dad.
· Amitabh Bachchan as the school principal (who cares if the role is ultra minute, he can afford it).
· It would be shot in New York to appeal to the NRI audience.
· The story line would obviously be different. SRK would fall for the dyslexic kid's mom. The last scene would have the mom running to the teacher rather than the kid. And again, like in so many other movies, SRK would get someone else's girl.
· It would have one dance number.
· The film would be titled 'Kuch Taare Zameen Par.'
If Sanjay Leela Bhansali made Taare
· Obvious starcast:
· Salman as the teacher.
· Rani as the mother.
· Of course the whole film would be shot on elaborate sets. The school would be nothing short of Harvard university.
· An orchestra would play every time anyone cried.
· Slow motion, different camera angles for every scene.
· The school uniforms would match the classroom walls even though that does not make a f***ing difference.
· The film would cost 60 crores.
If Farah Khan made Taare
· Obvious starcast:
· SRK as the teacher (yawn).
· In the original Taare, Aamir makes an entry at the interval point. In Farah's version, SRK would be on screen on for 2.30 hrs out of the 2.45 hrs and would be introduced in the first scene itself.
· The story would be changed to make sure the above happened. The focus of the film would be a teacher who helps a kid fight dyslexia.
· To make it a complete entertainer, there would be a romantic angle, comedy, and action thrown in. Oh idea!! Nikumbh's character likes another teacher and the kiddo helps him.. throw in some comedy moments there and you have romance and comedy settled. For action.. hmm.. lemme see.. oh yah, the kid gets kidnapped and the teacher fights the baddies to save him. Wow!! I'm quite an imaginative writer. I can see how Farah can write a film from scratch in two weeks straight.
· The film posters would have a big SRK with the tiny image of the kid in the background.
If Rakesh Roshan made Taare Zameen Par
· Obvious starcast:
· Hrithik Roshan as the teacher.
· Since Rakesh Roshan cannot think beyond science fiction these days, this film would have that too. Instead of dyslexia, the kid would have alienositis or something, a condition induced due to him witnessing an alien abduction.
· Instead of Nikumbh being an arts teacher, he would be a physics teacher, and instead of asking kids to be creative, he would ask them to challenge the science we know.
· In the scene where Nikumbh asks the kids to open their minds and make whatever they want outdoors, the kid Ishaan, instead of making a boat, would end up making a working spaceship prototype.
· Nikumbh would cure the kids problem by making a full fledged version of the kid's prototype, traveling to the alien planet, and asking them to give the kid his powers back.
· The film would have music by Rajesh Roshan ripped off from some world music.
· The film's name would again start with a K.. probably 'Kuch Aliens Taaron se Zameen Par'.
· The director would make sure Hrithik gets to show all his abilities. This would mean a scene with Roshan jr flexing his muscles, and a dance competition in the end, instead of an arts competition.
If Priyadarshan made Taare:
· Obvious starcast:
o Akshay Kumar as the teacher.
o Paresh Rawal as the kid's dad.
· It would be a brainless comedy. The kid's dyslexia would be made fun of. Half the times the parents will be running after the kid from one room to the other and that, in the director's opinion, would be funny.
· The film will be full of sex jokes. So for example, when Akshay would come to the parents telling them that their son has dyslexia, the ignorant father would say something inappropriate like 'iss umar mein? par kaise, woh to hamesha boys school mein padha hai!'. And yes, the director would think it is funny.
· In the climax of the film all the characters in the film would run around in the amphitheater for no reason, spilling colors on each other. That's where the film will end, without any logical conclusion.
· And of course, Paresh Rawal would emote like an epileptic himself making us question the boy's mental abilities anyway.
I know there are a lot of other directors, but I choose these guys because I feel they are the most gutless or overrated directors we have today. They keep doing the same shit again and again and more often than not depend on the stars to carry a shitty film forward. They have no courage to try something non-nonsense, something that can use the medium of cinema for a little more than just entertainment, in spite of being the most sought after directors in the country
The reason I am making this comparison at all is to show how Aamir (and Amol Gupte) has made a pure film, without giving into the temptation of masala or 'what would the audience like to see' philosophy; for giving chance to fantastic yet unknown actors like Vipin Sharma and Tisca Chopra (I love Tisca); for riding against the tide; for not trying to hog the limelight in the film by happily playing second fiddle to the boy (even Aamir Khan's name comes after Darsheel Sarfi, the boy, in the credits); for giving the audience something different once again as an entertainer; and for truly caring about the society and using the medium to bring a change.
I remember earlier this year SRK made a statement: 'films are for entertainment; messages are for post offices.' Well Aamir Khan has proved that cinema is probably the best medium for giving a message and I can say that looking at the face of every person in the cinema hall. Not only that, he has proved (yet again!) that a message can be entertaining.
Behold bollywood bigshots, Aamir the director has arrived. With just one film, he has set the bar higher than most of you can only dream of reaching.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
I am legend -- Movie Review
I am again with a movie review which I watch a couple of days ago..
This was the most talked about movie in the town I AM LEGEND ....(what do you mean by was....it is...ohh I am sorry) Let me correct it.......It is the most talked about movie in the recent times.....starring Will Smith.....and a few characters....
Frankly speaking there are vey few characters casted in the movie probably because of the needs of the script......The tag line... tells that I am the only person left on the earth.....
Well it is a sci fiction movie...or I might call it a super natural one at this point of time...but I do not deny that such a kind of thing can happen in future.....
It is about a doctor who is left alive in the city of new york after a virus infected everybody but him....He is left with his dog and everybody else is infected with the virus which supposedly was a cure for a typical cancer......
It is about how he survives and tries to get into contact with people like him who are not infected and needed help.
I dont want to disclose everything so better watch the movie.....I would rate this as 7/10.
This was the most talked about movie in the town I AM LEGEND ....(what do you mean by was....it is...ohh I am sorry) Let me correct it.......It is the most talked about movie in the recent times.....starring Will Smith.....and a few characters....
Frankly speaking there are vey few characters casted in the movie probably because of the needs of the script......The tag line... tells that I am the only person left on the earth.....
Well it is a sci fiction movie...or I might call it a super natural one at this point of time...but I do not deny that such a kind of thing can happen in future.....
It is about a doctor who is left alive in the city of new york after a virus infected everybody but him....He is left with his dog and everybody else is infected with the virus which supposedly was a cure for a typical cancer......
It is about how he survives and tries to get into contact with people like him who are not infected and needed help.
I dont want to disclose everything so better watch the movie.....I would rate this as 7/10.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
" A Mighty Heart" -- Movie Review
I am again with a review to the movie that I just watched. It is one of my favorite genres.....TRUE STORY.....
Telling the truth is generally considered to be the first step on the path to righteousness. Many people have a hard time accepting the truth when faced with it. That difficulty in dealing is perhaps the main reason some run far away from the truth altogether. Given how troubling facing the truth can be in everyday reality, being subjected to it in celluloid on the big screen is a very hard sell.
It is a story about Daniel Pearl, a jewish journalist for THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, a stanford graduate who joined THE WALL STREET JOURNAL in 1990.
Surprisingly enough, the movie is almost politics free. The basic story we all know. Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl disappears while trying to tie up one last interview about terrorism while on assignment in Pakistan. From there, his pregnant wife Mariane, their close friends, and various branches of various governments pull out all the stops to find him, but don't get there in time. Pearl is beheaded by his terrorist captors.
Actually the story is of Mariane Pearl and how she holds up as she takes a very active role in the search for her husband, but must take it from her home, because she is pregnant with their first child and can't go out and kick in doors herself.
Do comment if you like my post
Telling the truth is generally considered to be the first step on the path to righteousness. Many people have a hard time accepting the truth when faced with it. That difficulty in dealing is perhaps the main reason some run far away from the truth altogether. Given how troubling facing the truth can be in everyday reality, being subjected to it in celluloid on the big screen is a very hard sell.
It is a story about Daniel Pearl, a jewish journalist for THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, a stanford graduate who joined THE WALL STREET JOURNAL in 1990.
Surprisingly enough, the movie is almost politics free. The basic story we all know. Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl disappears while trying to tie up one last interview about terrorism while on assignment in Pakistan. From there, his pregnant wife Mariane, their close friends, and various branches of various governments pull out all the stops to find him, but don't get there in time. Pearl is beheaded by his terrorist captors.
Actually the story is of Mariane Pearl and how she holds up as she takes a very active role in the search for her husband, but must take it from her home, because she is pregnant with their first child and can't go out and kick in doors herself.
Do comment if you like my post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)