Shuddha Desi Romance – The Sweetest, Realest Desi Love Story of the Year! Go Fall in Love With it!

My second job for the site ourvadodara.in. Click the following link to read my review of Maneesh Sharma‘s Shuddh Desi Romance, Starring Parineeti Chopra, Sushant Singh Rajput, Vaani Kapoor and Rishi Kapoor : http://ourvadodara.in/shuddha-desi-romance-review. Also, do visit the site for any updates about Vadodara life. I shall henceforth post the latest Bollywood movie reviews on ourvadodara.in. Here’s the link to the home page: http://ourvadodara.in/

Satyagraha Reviewed on ourvadodara.in: Super disappointing! Go start a dharna against the film!

My first job for the site ourvadodara.in. Click the following link to read my review of Prakash Jha’s Satyagraha : http://ourvadodara.in/satyagraha-super-disappointing-start-dharna-film.
Also, do visit the site for any updates about Vadodara life. I shall henceforth post the latest Bollywood movie reviews on ourvadodara.in. Here’s the link to the home page: http://ourvadodara.in/

filmlouvre

Review: Madras Café – John is the Indian Bourne! Boys, reserve your seats at this café!

 

Grade: BBB / 70%Madras Cafe Poster.jpg

Until LTTE chief Prabhakan’s execution in 2009, Sri Lanka was a battleground between LTTE insurgents who demanded the statehood of an independent Tamil Eelam, and the Sri Lankan military.

In a country that’s shaped somewhat like a hand grenade, army helicopters and tankers were as common a sight as cattle on Indian roads. Peace talks would be stifled by persistent bloodshed, mass murders and constant fear for life; one shot in the film shows a Theravada Buddhist monk walking calmly past rifle-carrying army, who seem to outnumber civilians in this troubled land. People who protested against the army were shot at irrespective of whether the protester was a man or a woman, an adult or a child. All that remains now as lurid reminders of those turbulent times are photographs, usually taken in bleak black and white. And memories that haunt forever.

Vikram Singh (a super-fit John Abraham) is a retired RAW intelligence officer who is haunted by the memories of his past. A recluse, he now drowns his sorrows in alcohol, which only manage to intensify his pain, his wounds. For three years, he has been visiting the church every morning yet the priest doesn’t know his name nor the cause behind his sorrow.Here I believe a church was chosen instead of a temple only because the latter would seem a tad melodramatic (and reserved for chest-beating saree-clad women who animatedly point their finger at God for not hearing their prayers), but never mind.

The film would come to a standstill if Vikram doesn’t open up, and hence on one fine day, he shares his secret with the priest. We then go to flashbacks for the rest of Madras Café, returning to the present only twice, once before interval and once at the end.

And thank God or rather dear-director Shoojit Sircar for not returning more often. John Abraham may be a dedicated actor, but he really can’t play a ‘depressed-defeated-reclusive-retired RAW agent’ convincingly. He himself acts like he wants to cut to the chase and get back to his usual hunky self, and when he does, he becomes our Indian Jason Bourne, not James Bond – Jason Bourne, the protagonist of Bourne Series, played by the dashing Matt Damon.

It seems our Indian Bourne was sent to Sri Lanka in the past, on a covert mission to disrupt LTF rebels after peace negotiations between the government and Anna Bhaskaran-led LTF rebels (i.e. the fictional representation of Prabhakaran-led LTTE with names altered to avoid controversy) failed. There he meets Jaya (Nargis Fakhri), an intrepid journalist who sympathises with the rebels, if not directly supports them, and is critical about the army brutality. She later provides him crucial information about covert dealings conspired between Anna’s representatives and foreign businessmen at Madras Café (an actual cafe), which would ultimately lead to a ‘former prime-minister’s assassination’ at Sriperumbudur. It’s obvious the prime-minister is Rajeev Gandhi, who was killed in 1991 in a suicide bombing by Thenmozhi Rajatman, who was a member of LTTE according to sources.

Vikram reports to senior Bala, who in fact is double-crossing RAW and covertly clearing the way for Anna, only for greed of money. He begins to suspect Bala and instructs someone to track his movements after a meeting held by Vikram goes awry and he is later kidnapped by LTF (only to be rescued promptly). It shouldn’t have taken so long to unravel both Vikram’s and Bala’s identities because they’re hardly covert about it. John’s super-serious I’m-here-for-a-purpose gaze, I-look-left-and-right-to-see-if-somebody’s-watching and Bala’s shifty I’m-up-to-no-good looks are easy give-aways.

And yet they do a good job in this deftly-written, fast-paced slick-flick that does away with the rapid cuts of Bourne series and instead relies on plot pacing and left-and-right-panning camerawork. The momentum itself takes your breath away and you hardly have time to get bored and start texting on your cell-phones for the entire duration of the film. It is certainly a cut above flicks like Ek Tha Tiger and Agent Vinod, but it’s not quite reached the caliber of movies like Kathryn Bigelow’s Osama Bin Laden-based Zero Dark Thirty. That in fact is a boon for the film because it makes it open to prospect of sequels.

Shoojit Sircar.jpg

Director Shoojit Sircar

I seriously believe Shoojit should cash in for a sequel set in another location and make it just as thrillingly as he’s made Madras Café. The film has characters that recognize each other on the telephone even though they haven’t talked for months, and it gives more importance to the hero’s journey than the situation itself. All that Shoojit needs to do for his sequel is to place John in another place, say Kashmir, involve him in another political imbroglio and bring back some of the characters (anybody except Nargis Fakhri, who’s super-duper-serious and not a dollop of fun) from Madras Café.

It was especially interesting to watch the internal working of rebel forces. One scene shows how LTF men and women camouflage themselves under leaves to sneak attack at the opportune moment. Maybe they should recruit some theatre patrons from Fame Cinemas in Seven Seas Mall in Vadodara. As soon as the hall became dark, these patrons clandestinely sneaked up from the cheaper bottom-two rows to the pricey rows above!

 

Review of 2011 Anurag Kashyap Film That Girl in Yellow Boots, Starring Kalki Koechlin

GRADE: A / 80% That Girl in Yellow Boots.jpg

If I say Anurag Kashyap‘s ‘That Girl in Yellow Boots‘ is one of the most overlooked films of 2011, I’d probably hear a ‘Huh? Aisi film bani bhi thi? (Huh? Was a film like that even made?) from most guys. If it weren’t for the late film critic Roger Ebert, who in his review of this film gave it a 3.5/4, I too wouldn’t have known that such a movie was made by the ‘Gangs of Wasseypur‘ director, this being despite the fact that I’m an Indian living in India. The film, like its protagonist, was probably found its home at film festivals, but sadly remains an alien here, in its own country.

Ruth is a little girl lost in a big bad world. The world here is India, or Mumbai to be precise (widely known as the city of dreams, something like Hollywood), whose glittery surface belies the ugliness beneath. You can easily be taken for a ride and f*** up your life in this city, especially if you are an outsider, a foreigner. Ruth may be aadhi-angreez (half-British) but she’s no naivete.

Wise beyond her years, she knows how to deal with Indians using indigenous methods i.e. bribing, and where and how she can make easy money. She’ll fight back with any Indian who tries takes her for granted and thinks he can get away because she’s not ‘from here’, except with government employees at immigration offices, with whom its simply pointless to argue and wise to obey instead. She works at a all-female run massage parlour exclusively for male customers, and all the guys need to know is the meaning of the word ‘handshake’ (hope you know what it means. In case you don’t, please refrain from asking for one at any massage parlour; a bordello is the right location for that: hope you know what a bordello is!) to get one from Ruth at an additional rate of a thousand rupees.

Kalki Koechlin unveils 'The Year of the Tiger'...

Kalki Koechlin plays Ruth in A Girl in Yellow Boots (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Her personal life is dysfunctional, to say the least, eaten up by her cokehead parasite of a boyfriend whose only desire to make love with her remains unfulfilled each time he initiates (he gets her patented handshake instead). The only driving force is her quest to find her father, who leaves no clues for her except a letter stating that he’s in Mumbai, because she believes her father would love her unconditionally. So determined is Ruth in solving this puzzle that she doesn’t fully appreciate the fatherly affection shown by an elderly customer named Divakar, who’s the only person to come just to get a massage and is oblivious of her handshake add-on service. She looks for love at all the wrong places and eventually regrets it, her life falling bit by bit as the ugly truth surfaces. This, in a nutshell, is Ruth, an unhappy girl whose job ironically is give people a ‘happy time’.

Kalki Koechlin is wonderful as Ruth because she refrains from overstating her alienness. Filmed under natural lighting that avoids romanticizing her as a foreigner, giving her an ‘Hey, I’m one of you!’ look, she is believable in every shade of her character, whether its Ruth the ‘handshake girl’, Ruth the ‘suffering girlfriend’ or Ruth the ‘determined and fearless woman’. Her fate is heartbreaking and may disturb some audiences, and Koechlin is fully involved in the film’s emotional moments. Her performance, like the movie itself, has been overlooked at award ceremonies, which instead got their happy time watching Vidya Balan pant and feign orgasms in Dirty Picture.

This is a DVD worth buying. Throw away your old stock of action-romance films and treasure a copy of this film instead.

Review of BA Pass, A 2013 Ajay Bahl Film Starring Shilpa Shukla and Shadab Kamal

GRADE: CC / 40% Meaning full movie- 2013-08-04 20-15.jpg

Summary: The characters have unclear motives and poor, one-dimensional characterizations. The actors too play it safe and just go with it instead of redeeming the weakness of the script.

When characters in a film have unclear motives, there audience feels disconnected. Mukesh, the protagonist of B.A. Pass is a naïve middle-class college-going guy who shifts to his aunt’s house in Central Delhi along with his younger sisters after the death of both his parents. He is made to perform all the household chores such as sweeping the floor and serving drinks to guests. Basically, his life’s quite similar to Harry Potter’s at the Dursley’s home, albeit slightly better – at least he gets to sit on the dining table. He has a cousin who is just as big (although not in physique) a prick as Dudley Dursley was with Harry; not one day goes without his cousin browbeating him for not getting a job and contributing to the family income. Mukesh meets a Sarika, a mysterious lady in her thirties, at one of the kitty parties hosted by his aunt. The next morning, she calls him home for some work.

The two quickly jump into action. She trains him how to control, he learns obediently. And all along we wonder what’s running through Mukesh’s head but never get an answer. Is he doing it purely for sex? Does he love her? What happens after in between their love making – do they talk? Does he grow protective of her? Is he so stupid he doesn’t suspect even once that she might be using him? Or that she may be involved with other men like him? Our penetrating questions get no satisfactory response.

B A Pass isn’t a place to look for character study. The movie takes the maxim ‘Desperation drives the poor and deprived to commit dishonorable acts’ is literally taken without adding any layer of psychological complexity that makes us empathatize with those committing such acts. There’s a complacency, a ‘just go with it’ attitude we see in Mukesh that disturbs us quite a bit. Sarika drops too many hints along the way which clearly suggest that she intends to make him a gigolo, and yet he stays ignorant. He doesn’t seem to have blind or unconditional love for her either, so what is it he seeks from her? He can’t be such a tubelight to fall into her traps so quickly, so easily; he reads Kasparov and aces at chess (he plays chess with Johnny, a guy he befriends at the graveyard), and anybody who’s good at chess is expected to have minimal intelligence. And it doesn’t help that Shadab Kamal, the actor who plays him, dutifully plays his role without trying to redeem the poor characterization through his performace. When Mukesh is forced to turn to gay prostitution after getting into trouble and losing all his female clients, Shadab doesn’t convey the hesitation, the humiliation which any straight man would face in such a situation. He just goes with it, and I find that perplexing.

Mukesh’s partner-in-sex Sarita wears a different colored brassiere every time, but her character doesn’t reveal any colors to her personality except black. So it surprises me that the costume designer thought it would suit to change the color of her underclothes each time when using black throughout would’ve functioned better in defining the character she actually is. There is no good side to Sarita, no grey shade, only black. In an earlier scene, she mentions ‘she travelled a lot with her father and saw many things at a very young age’. We wish she had revealed what she had seen exactly, and what made her the kind such a woman. The director doesn’t explore this aspect, and chooses to keep it all implied. “Oh she must’ve seen bad stuff! Naughty stuff!” is what we’re supposed to understand by her remark and just go with it. Again, no help from Shilpa Shukla, who plays her rule dutifully yet blandly.

Whenever there’s a sex scene in the film, there’s a large object to hide the no-nos and in one case, the scene goes out of focus. The large objects strategically placed in front to cover the entire pelvic area makes the sex scenes look rehearsed because the movements are just too rhythmic. A smarter thing would’ve been to cut to close ups shots of the characters getting pleasure as Censors can’t object a face, can they?

The good thing about B. A. Pass is that it’s mercifully short, clocking in at 95 minutes. It could’ve ended one scene, one fade out early and made a better impact. There are funny parts in the film, like Sarita’s biji warning Mukesh about Sarita’s character, calling her a ‘nagan, a kanjari (derogatory word used for a lower caste associated with activities like prostitution)’ before Sarita can shut her in the bedroom, or the female client who narrates episodes of her favorite serials as she’s having sex with Mukesh. The part involving a client whose husband is in comma (a special appearance made by actress Deepti Naval) remains underutilized.

The biggest mistake B. A. Pass makes is that it highlights all the film festivals where it won awards or was screened, even before the movie begins. This elevates expectations, and you go in anticipating a film that doesn’t choose the easy route of ‘just going with it’. Unfortunately, it is into this very trap that B A Pass trips and is unable to escape.

Review of Nasha, a 2013 Bollywood Film Directed by Amit Saxena, Starring Poonam Pandey, Shivam Patil

GRADE: D / 20%  Nasha-Poster.jpg

 

Summary: The filmmakers don’t know what to focus on in Nasha, the sex or the story. And sadly, both get a bad name.

 

Cast

Poonam Pandey as Anita
Shivam Patil as Saahil
Mohit Chauhan as Saahil’s Uncle

 

Nasha gives teachers a bad name. Consider this. Anita is a newly appointed extra-curricular activities in-charge at an apparently urban high school (with probably the most dirty-minded students, whose behavior is supposed to be justified here only because they’re ‘coming-of-age’). She plans to conduct a romantic play during the academic year and wants her students to rehearse at her home (why? And she gets an enthusiastic approval from the headmistress, who’s totally lost it, it seems). Surprisingly, only the protagonist Saahil and his bunch of loafer friends turn up everytime, as if there are only ten students in the entire school. The boys are only there to ogle at her, and our ‘innocent’ Anita never notices their constant staring, like she’s got partial vision or what?

 

Poonam pandey housefull 2 screening.jpg

Poonam Pandey plays Anita

Our drama teacher is so liberal-minded she joins them as they all sing a song together on erection. On field i.e. during rehearsals at her lavish home, she wants them to get into character (drama teacher Stanislavski would be rolling and weeping in his grave) and demonstrates to Saahil’s girlfriend how a lady should flirt. The character Anita most probably chose to play was a dominatrix, as only that can explain the manner in which she corners Saahil and gets on top of him while his friends gawp open-mouthed (who wouldn’t?). Saahil is infatuated with her and masturbates every night in bed fantasizing about her. That’s until Anita’s beau Samuel turns up and the movie takes a different albeit equally predictable track. What’s disturbing, very disturbing here is Anita’s conduct as a teacher. She openly smooches and probably even french-kisses Samuel in front of the kids during rehearsals. In one scene, he lifts her in his arms and takes her home in front of the students (since when is that considered professional?). When Saahil flubs during one rehearsal, Samuel tells him “Tere se nahi hoga, chal (You can’t do it. Move!” and then waltzes his partner romantically; I’d probably have left that instant and never returned.

 

Now believe this. The two guys arm-wrestle and later race one another to prove who the better man is. Samuel pushes Saahil to the ground during the race and the kid starts bleeding. While Anita nurses Saahil’s wounds, Samuel whispers to him inappropriately that he’s finally got Anita’s attention. Samuel proceeds to dab whiskey on Saahil’s wounds, which irks Anita all the more. To make up, he takes Anita to one side (about two steps away from Saahil) and whispers something to her. They make up immediately and start smooching. Saahil gets up and leaves in a hurry. Once they’re done kissing, Anita notices Saahil’s absence and says ‘Arre, yeh kaha gaya?’ (Oh, where did he go?). Next time, why not get a room instead of making out in front of your student, that too one who totally digs you?

 

After a while, the play is completely forgotten. The major problem in this film is that Anita is not shown as a bad example of a teacher, even though she’s setting a very poor one. Those who’d seen Cameron Diaz in the average comedy Bad Teacher would remember how her character took a pleasure in acting obnoxiously with her students and colleagues. There’s nothing to hint that Anita’s behavior transgresses a teacher’s code of conduct; even the background score played for her is a sweet and positive one. What’s also surprising is that the headmistress had no reservations or objections regarding her wardrobe, which mostly included revealing tops and mini-skirts (am not being a prude, here. Any Indian middle-aged female headmistress would have outrightly objected).

If teachers are given a bad name, wait till you hear how male relatives are depicted in Nasha. Saahil lives with his dad and uncle; we also get to know that mom is dead and the two men make jams for a living. Now try listening to this without exclaiming “What!!”. As Saahil is masturbating one night, his uncle (or dad. It’s interchangeable, really) enters the room and tells him something like “Aur kitna karega?” (How much longer will you continue?). Saahil feels embarrassed and stops, of course. Now, why on earth will a person enter the room knowing that his son is masturbating inside? Even if he unknowingly does, wouldn’t he stop on realizing and hurry back outside? Why would he embarrass his nephew by telling him that he’s caught in the act? In another scene, Saahil’s father tells him “Porn dekhne ke bajaaye achi movie dekh” (Why don’t you watch some good films instead of porn?” (Saahil is jerking off to porn at that time). What!!!

 

Nasha is also plagued with three of the most ridiculous songs in memory. What’s worse is that we don’t get enough of what we had come for i.e. nudity and sex (anyone who says “No. I came for the direction and acting” is a fat liar). Poonam Pandey, known especially to cricket-lovers as the ‘girl who posed naked in a magazine after Kolkata Knight Riders won IPL’, will surely join the ‘Muses of Mahesh Bhatt’ brigade alongside Sunny Leone soon. Pandey has long and sexy legs, a bodacious bust, a beautiful back and a bootylicious butt, plus she’s certainly more expressive than Leone. She has a wide manly-looking lower jaw, but she looks very flattering nevertheless, especially with appropriate lighting. But Nasha doesn’t let her go all the way because of the Censor watchdogs. Whenever the focus is lifted from her body to her acting (not bad considering the ridiculous part she’s given to play), the result is a disappointing detumescene. The filmmakers don’t know what to focus on in Nasha, the sex or the story. And sadly, both get a bad name.

 

Review of ‘Sixteen’, a 2013 Bollywood film Directed by Raj Purohit, and Starring Izabelle Liete, Mehak Manwani, Highphill Mathew, Wamiqua Gabbi

Sixteen Official Poster, 2013.jpg

Sixteen (Wikipedia)

GRADE: BB / 60%

Summary: Sixteen is a simple story with a share of heavy-duty moments handed to actors who seem less capable of handling the same. The plot makes for an interesting though not compelling watch.

Cast

Wamiqa Gabbi – Tanisha

Izabelle Liete – Anu

Mehak Manwani – Nidhi

Highphill Mathew – Ashwin

Keith Sequeira

After hammering his boorish (although caring) dad dead with the same trophy used by his dad as a weapon to verbally denigrate him for declining results, Ashwin flees his home on foot. A few shots show him running hopelessly along the streets of Delhi, and the camera moves in and out during this scene. It’s just how this scene should be shot, except that actor Highphill Mathew does not know what he should emote in this short span of seconds. All he does is run- he could be a runner for a city-based marathon, or a guy who’s escaping a bunch of thugs or simply a jogger who wants to remain fit. But he’s none of that, and that’s where Mathew falters; he needs to convey a range of conflicting emotions while he is running, for the simple reason that he’s just killed his own dad, whom he loved for his caring nature and loathed for his violent temperament. Alas, all his sweat and his father’s blood go wasted.

Sixteen is a simple story with a share of heavy-duty moments that are handed to actors who seem less capable of handling the same. The scene mentioned above isn’t the only time Highphill Mathew slips, in fact in another scene coming towards the end of the film, he again isn’t able to do much justice to his character. It’s a scene which has the actor break down out of compunction for his past misdeeds, and all poor Highphill is able to do is whimper weakly because he’s no Laurence Olivier.

And this is where the low production value of Sixteen acts against the film because it supplies a theatrical look to the indoor scenes. And the ‘stage’ needs actors who can bring the fullest of emotions to set the screen on fire, because there is no great locale or elaborate décor to draw attention away from the acting. Its sweet when things work, but when things don’t, our actors look like stationery lazy stools and chairs supplied with lazier voice-over. And director Raj Purohit has his own amateur moments; note that he’s responsible for most of the creative decisions, also writing, editing and penning lyrics apart from directing Sixteen.

a) Most of the film is captured in mid-shots (head to torso) of two characters occupying the screen. And mostly it’s the camera cutting back and forth from one person to the other.

b) There is a soundtrack with about six-seven songs that is completely unnecessary (who is going to buy the album anyway?). Unmemorable numbers with forgettable lyrics penned by Purohit extend the film to over two hours; a taut ninety minutes would’ve been enough for Sixteen.

c) Characters in this film are neither entirely good nor totally evil. The shades of grey make them interesting. However, Purohit unnecessarily misleads audiences by painting a crucial character as a villian, a sexual predator, a potential pedophile in one scene by adding ominous background music for him, when the guy is just like any other human, with shades of good and stains of bad.

d) We get a cheap little editing technique in one scene. One girl is shown asking many questions to her friend, and the camera cuts repeatedly after each question. After we hear the questions, we then get to know how the other girl has answered the questions. So the camera shows her next saying ‘Hmm…’ a couple of times. This kind of editing suits a short film, but it looks clumsy in a feature film like this and also confuses the viewer about the tone of the movie. Is the scene funny because the girl isn’t paying any attention, or should we sympathize with the girl, whose boyfriend has just dumped her? The latter requires the character to stay stationery so that we can know that she’s sad and that her friend is concerned about her. Instead, this is turned into one sloppy gag.

e) Purohit wants a feel-good ending for the film. But he’s the guy who wants his audience to smile so he can see their sixteen teeth on the upper jaw and sixteen on the lower. So there’s a prolonged happy ending that assures, then reassures, then emphasizes, then marks with a big arrow that the ending is indeed a happy one. I would’ve smiled showing all my thirty-two brown teeth (thirty-one real and one fake) had the film ended with the other happy ending I saw ten minutes before.

Now that I’ve scolded ‘Sixteen’ like a fussy parent for its little mistakes, I can calm down and encourage the movie like a forgiving parent for all its goodness. The plot makes for an interesting (although not compelling) watch and I’m happy this film is uninhibited in its portrayal of young Delhi. The most memorable storyline would be the ‘Lolita’ inspired love triangle between 16 year old Tanisha, her aunt and a dapper 32 year old writer who lives in their house as a tenant. The story of the two other girls Anu and Mehek also have interesting turns, especially the point where the promiscuous Anu realizes that her parents live an open marriage (my cousin, who saw the film with me, cried ‘What!’, never having heard the term ‘open marriage’). Ashwin’s story starts strong but dwindles after his escape, and both I and my cousin totally forgot his character until he came back after a long absence.

I asked my cousin, a regular visitor to Delhi, what she thought about the depiction of these teenagers. And then she began with stories of how absolutely crazy, stupid, looks-and-fame obsessed Delhiites were, just like Anu, Ashwin, Tanisha and Mehek. All at the age of sixteen.

Review of Bhaag Milkha Bhaag, a 2013 Bollywood Film Directed By Rakyesh Omprakash Mehra and Starring Farhan Akhtar

GRADE: BBB / 70% 

Summary: Each sublot in Bhaag Milkha Bhaag SoHaM.jpg Milkha Bhaag has been stretched four hundred metres when it could’ve ended in a hundred metre dash. That doesn’t stop Bhaag Milkha Bhaag from being a thoroughly entertaining biopic, Bollywood style.

Farhan Akhtar  – Milkha Singh

Sonam Kapoor  – Nirmal Kaur

Rebecca Breeds – Stella

Dalip Tahil – Jawahar Lal Nehru

Master Jabtej Singh as young Milkha

Yograj Singh as Indian Coach Ranveer Singh

Art Malik as Milkha Singh’s father

Divya Dutta as Isri Kaur, Milkha Singh’s elder sister

It has been a while since Bollywood has brought out a three hour epic, and therefore I was apprehensive about the audience response towards Bhaag Milkha Bhaag, which runs close to 189 minutes. Predictably, a couple of youngsters began texting on their cell-phones ten minutes after the movie began. This activity however stopped after a while, and the theatre hall became unusually silent and more responsive towards the film than the PJs (poor jokes) messaged by their buddies on WhatsApp. The girl besides me too paid attention (reacting stupidly with a ‘Eww!’ everytime Farhan bled or spat) as the movie paced towards its finisher. Just at the end, this same girl who spent the last two and three-fourth hours cackling at the most inappropriate moments (carrying all the symptoms of a ‘Dumb Blonde’, except she was brunette) said what can be the best way to summarise this film: Every subplot has been strectched too long. I too had the same thought running in my head, but to hear these words from her mouth made it easier for me to understand why this movie doesn’t work the way it should.

Rakeysh omprakash mehra.jpg

BAFTA award nominated director Rakyesh Omprakash Mehra

Director Rakyesh Om Prakash Mehra has indeed stretched each sublot to a four hundred metre stretch when he could’ve ended it all in a hundred metre dash; this wasn’t unexpected really, as his first and probably the best effort to date Rang De Basanti itself lumbered as it came to a tragic close. This is a thoroughly entertaining biopic Bollywood style, which looks back at itself, frets that it hasn’t done enough to honor Milkha’s glory (and enough to become commercial), and so adds more and more till it exacerbates its weaknesses and exhausts us patience. It’s like watching a Life Time achievement honoree who just doesn’t know when to end his speech; you either need a Professor Umbridge to ‘Hem Hem’ him or a Meira Kumar to cry ‘Baith Jaiye!’.

Milkha Singh has a dark past that haunts him, most crucially during the 1960 Rome Olympics, where he looks back just as he is about to win the race. This costs him the gold medal and the reigning World record champion racer shrinks back to his home, not answering his coach’s urgent phone calls. There is an upcoming friendly race in Pakistan and everybody, including Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, rests their hopes on Milkha Singh. However, Milkha has a personal reason that hinders him from participating in the land of Pakistan. The Indian coach Ranveer Singh, Milkha’s coach Gurudev Singh and a committee member travel to his home to convince Milkha to participate; it is on their train journey when we hear about Milkha’s entire life story from Gurudev Singh.

It starts from his days at the army camp, where Milkha wins a race chanting ‘doodh, doodh!’ (the top ten winners were to get a glass of doodh or milk, and eggs), dreams of wearing the Indian Team blazer (leading to a rivalry with the leading racer, who confronts Milkha after the latter tries on his blazer without taking his permission), breaks the National record despite an injury, romances village girl Biro until she gets married to somebody (no further mention of her), flies to Australia to flirt with the granddaughter of the Australian technical coach (who weirdly addresses her granddad as ‘granddad’. I don’t know but it sounded awkward to my ears) and loses the race (no correlation between the two events though), works like Rocky to beat the existing world record (that includes training at some unknown location surrounded by hills) and eventually basks in jubilant glory. Interspersed throughout the film are flashes of his childhood, where we eventually learn what horrors he had witnessed as a young, impressionable boy.

Anyone who has seen Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane will remember how Kane’s life was seen through the eyes of different narrators, each giving an insight of his or her experience with the publishing tycoon. Noone says anything he or she cannot know, and that’s what makes their stories fascinating and believable. Now what would be the chances of Milkha Singh telling his coach Gurudev that he had slept with the Australian girl on their Melbourne tour? Or that he had snubbed the reigning Indian female swimmer’s advances? Writer Prasoon Joshi thinks nobody would notice this implausibility but it ain’t that hard to figure out; the story’s framing device could’ve had two narrators – Gurudev, who would narrate about Milkha’s training, and Milkha himself, who would take us to more personal memories using flashbacks. We shouldn’t be blamed for going ‘Huh?! But how does he know that?’ often during the film.

There is a ‘havan’ song in the film which has stirred Hindu organizations, who demand that the part be removed. Yes, the song should be removed but not for the reason they’re giving; the real reason is that it’s an unnecessary number beginning abruptly and making little impact on the film’s continuity. The romance between Milkha and Biro (played by Sonam Kapoor, who seems out of place in every film she has starred in, especially here where she sounds like a ‘Mehemsaab’ in a little village) is given too much screen time; far more interesting is the romance between Milkha and Australian Stella, which is dominated by music when words could’ve made their moments sweeter.

FarhanAkhtar.jpg

Farhan Akhtar – Our Milkha

Scenes which could’ve been inspiring are made insipid with unrequired gags, and many points could’ve been subtler and more incisive. A cutting remark by a Pakistani coach, for example, didn’t require to be highlighted with such emphasis (close up shot of Milkha’s face losing color followed by another close up of the haughty Pakistani coach) and could’ve been replaced with subtle digs usually heard among rivals. The felicitation at the end takes too long to end, and I personally felt the film could’ve ended right after Milkha’s personal journey reached its resolution.

Yet, Bhaag Milkha Bhaag is an enormously entertaining and sometimes engrossing biopic (Mehra’s especially strong when it comes to transitions; the occasional shifts to Milkha’s childhood is especially worth a watch); its lead Farhan Akhtar is a strong presence who is consistently watchable, faltering only towards the end when the emotions he needs to bring are too overwhelming for him. It’s funny how whenever I heard ‘Bhaag Milkha Bhaag!’ I could also hear ‘Run Forrest Run!’ in my mind. That’s a line from the Tom Hanks film ‘Forrest Gump, an emotionally richer (much richer) movie. Try watching that film after Bhaag Milkha Bhaag and you’ll see the difference.

Review of Raanjhanaa, a 2013 Bollywood film Directed by Aanand Rai and Starring Dhanush, Sonam’s Kapoor, Abhay Deol

GRADE: JUST SAD / 10%Raanjhanaafilmposter.jpg

Summary: Raanjhanaa is a ki

nd of film that makes you want to thump your forehead with a sledgehammer. It’s less painful to gouge out your eyes than to watch Dhanush and Sonam attempting to romance in this movie.

Cast

Dhanush –Kundan
Sonam Kapoor – Zoya
Abhor Deol -Akram

Sonam Kapoor is box-office poison, and it’s entirely her own bloody fault for poisoning her films with her forgettable performances. In Raanjhanaa, she plays Zoya, a rebellious Muslim girl who participates in anti-government rallies, dharnas and satyagrahas along with her boyfriend Akram, a student leader. Both study at Jawaharlal Nehru University, a prestigious college in Delhi which may get a bad name now because the film suggests that all the agitations and fierce political and philosophical debates held by it’s students fall useless to a common man’s smooth-talk and makhan-maroing (buttering).

I digress here but I cannot help it; my mind is boiling with such an intense agitation, I can’t stop complaining (read: spewing venom) about each and every frame of this ‘ch*du’ film. Raanjhanaa has little to do with politics, and its basically about a loafer named Kundan being besotted by Zoya since childhood but losing her after her parents find out she’s in love with a Hindu. The political angle is basically to add some complexity to their love story, and Sonam’s part involves falling in love with Kundan, losing him, falling for the JNU guy and later losing him forever after his death, and then the gradual reconciliation with Kundan  but with a twist.

Sonam seems like an actress who must’ve slept through all her acting classes and needn’t have to sleep with anyone to enter the industry, being the daughter of actor Anil Kapoor. She does not know how to pause, how to intonate and how to feel her lines; she has a few stock expressions (adding a few with each film. In a previous debacle called ‘I Hate Luv Stories’, I remember she just had two) to fall back upon and enough of glycerine to help her cry. But she has next to nil screen talent.

Complementing her in ineptitude is Dhanush, a National Award winning Tamil superstar who may have some screen talent (didn’t see much here through) but has zero screen presence as lovestruck Kundan. Even an apparition would’ve had more screen presence than what Dhanush had in this film.

Let me prove this. He has a stick figure for a body but so does Nawazzudin Siddique, so this point isn’t valid. He moves as though there are strings attached to his hands and feet, especially when he dances. When he acts it seems as though he’s thinking how he shall speak the next sentence in Hindi convincingly. It end up looking like he is practicing how to act on screen than actually acting.

His diction is poor, and his narration is very flat because he is afraid he might screw up if he takes any intonations. Bollywood actress Sridevi, a South Indian herself, fumbled at times while playing the Marathi housewife who’s takes up English classes while on a trip to America, but had remarkable screen presence and great confidence at showing lack of the same (as her character is supposed to lack confidence). Dhanush has zero charisma and little confidence here; it’s better he literally glue himself to the South and never ever look North towards Bollywood – the pole star doesn’t shine on him.

His character Kundan has a dreadfully ill-defined characterisation; he spends the first forty (agonizing) minutes of Raanjhanaa hitting on Sonam’s Kappor’ character Zoya, first as a teenager, then an as adult. He saves her from getting married to a suitor chosen by her parents, and later convinces her father to allow her to marry the man she loves, all while loving her unconditionally himself.

After her boyfriend is discovered to be a Hindu and is beaten up by the Muslim community (throw in caste issue just to make the film more controversial), Kundan accompanies Zoya to her boyfriend, who has been shifted to Delhi.

On reaching his home, Kundan releases that he is dead; the man is so shattered he runs out crying and vomits (buttermilk most probably, judging from the colour) in the garden as though HE was the guy’s lover. Later he becomes a chai-walla at JNU and joins Zoya and her fellow student protestors in rallies.

It doesn’t take much time before he replaces Sonam as the leader in their youth party, and then Raanjhanaa’s director Aanand Rai decides a further twist of betrayal is required, along with an obligatory ‘American Beauty’-like monologue at the end, where Kundan narrates the fate of each of the film’s major characters. Of course, as nothing in the film can be taken seriously, the monologue sounds just as cheap as everything else.

‘Chutiya’ (stupid) is used a couple of times in the film and some people in the audience sniggered like ten-year olds only because Dhanush was mouthing them. They really should’ve sat next to me because the words that flowed from my mouth while watching Raanjhanaa were way worse than chutiya.

This is a movie that seriously lacks in all aspects of good film-making; along with weak and inept performances, it has horrid writing, weak cinematography and wasted music. The movie doesn’t give the feeling of Benaras, where much of the film is set and many of the scenes have an artificial look look like they were shot on readymade sets. The writing keeps adding new elements recklessly, like it mixes politics into the film in the second half just to tick the f*ck out us. Nobody in the cast or crew knows how to ‘capture a moment’ and that is what good film-making is about. And its funny how composer AR Rehman’s name roars out firsts in the closing credits, because the music is forgettable and functions only to fill the runtime, which should’ve been filled with good writing instead.

Raanjhanaa is a kind of film that makes you want to thump your forehead… with a sledgehammer. It’s less painful to gouge out your eyes than to watch Dhanush and Sonam attempting to romance in this movie. It’s Benaras is ‘bina ras’ (without essence), there’s only ‘vish’ (poison) here. But it was kind of expected when the film’s lead is the one and only Ms. Box office poison herself.

Review of ‘Fukrey’ a 2013 Bollywood Film By Mrigdeep Singh Lamba Starring Pulkit Sharma, Richa Chadda, Manjot Singh, Ali Fazal, Varuna Sharma

GRADE: CC / 40%

Summary: Fukrey is an overwrought, overindulgent effort that’s got little of the subtlety it requires. Characters are quirky for the sake of being quirky, and every scene is laboured down by excess of dialogues, mostly corny and pakau. This Fukrey is ‘phuski’ for me.

When characters in a movie are quirky just for the sake of being quirky, we begin wondering why they are acting weirdly. Fukrey has a minor character who steals cylinders and petrol tank of vehicles, maybe because he is addicted to the smell of petrol or he is an arsonist; we’ll never know the reason why he does so, nor shall we ever know why he’s dressed like a beggar when he reveals to everybody’s surprise that he is very rich and owns a couple of rental establishments.

His oddity has no justification, and that annoys us; the problem here is that Fukrey is set in a ‘real’ world inside the film and that’s different from say Quentin Tarantino‘s movies, which feel as though they’re set in another world, Tarantino’s world. That stamp is missing in Fukrey, and if this is a true representation of Delhi, then I’d seriously think twice before booking a ticket because Fukrey is ‘pakau’.

It is pakau to an extent that I found myself wondering “Where the heck are these guys going?” about three or four times during the film. I sighed loudly a couple of times. I threw my hands in the air out of despair once. In the second half, when one character was rambling endlessly, my mind screamed “Stop!” in exasperation. 

The problem with Fukrey is that dialogue writer (and director) Mrigdeep Singh Lamba makes it very obvious that it’s his debut effort; the film is overindulgent, and it does not have a clue when it should stop and that’s why all the subtlety is lost.

It seems as though Lamba was thinking this while shooting the film: ‘Just look at all these Bollywood directors, making films that barely have stuff. I’ll make a film that has lots of stuff: a crackling narrative with loads of dialogues, totally eccentric characters and the daring-and-dhamaal Delhi attitude. Those choo-chi-yaas ki maa ki chooch!’. And so his film includes characters with nicknames like ‘Choocha’ (and its variations used as euphemisms for Hindi gaalis/swearwords) and ‘Bholi Punjaban’, and attitude-wale dialogues like ‘Agar paise nahin mile to tere pichwade  ko khol ke nikaaloongi (If I don’t get my money back, I’ll rip your a** apart to get it!).

Everyone tries so hard to entertain us, to be different  that the final product ends up feeling stodgy and overcooked; the film’s pace derails so often I felt like the movie was an hour too long. The word ‘derail’ reminds me of the couple of shots of a passing train I saw during the film; I kept thinking that the train would be used for a scene at some point because its seen quite often, but it never is. Fukrey takes up too many things, and hardly does justice to an of them.

I come to the plot first. Four guys – Lali, a Sardar ka puttar working at his daddy’s dhaba, Dilip aka Hunny and Vikas aka Choocha, two slackers who want to enter college only cos the chicks are hot, and Zafar, a guitarist who dreams of recording an album but falters every time opportunity knocks his door – agree to do a ‘jugaad’ (gamble) by striking a deal with a local female don Bholi Punjaban (she has ‘Sin-drella’ tattooed on her back. ‘She’s the baddest b*tch!’… At least the film wants us to think so). 

The deal involves something to do with lottery that I don’t remember clearly because of so many ridiculous dialogues hammered at me, but I remember it having to do with Choocha’s symbolic dreams which Hunny believes can help predict the winning lottery number. When the four fukreys (the word used by Bholi for addressing the four) fail to pay back her money, she makes their lives difficult. She asks them to sell drugs at a rave party, then informs maliciously the police to raid the party and frame the four. She threatens to seize Lali’s father’s dhaba with the property papers pawned by Lali. She has tough African henchmen waiting to break their bones in case they falter. 

The movie also has to do with Choocha and Hunny leaking exam papers but I don’t know what ultimately happened to that. Many other insignificant things take place during the film but I don’t recall them. At points, Fukrey seems like a couple of sketches featuring recurring characters glues together to give a feel of continuity. You often forget where the film was heading in the previous scenes, and you also fail to understand the characters’ intentions at times. 

Fukrey is unnecessarily dense, and should be condensed quite a bit to make sense as a film. I see effort, but little wit. This film would work better when it follows ‘Less is more’. Fukrey is a bit ‘phuski’ for me.