Such untainted was Amol Gupta’s effort with the script that I was overwhelmed. Simplicity and sincerity were the key ingredients of Aamir Khan’s directorial debut “Tare Zameen Par”. And during the first 15 minutes of the movie I could draw parallels with my life of all the mundane commotions of our naïve protagonist Ishaan, which by the way gave a splendid performance.

The innate similitudes took me back in time when I use to toss gazillion innovative bahanas to bunk school just for one day, pull some crazy prank, add layers of mud over me by the time I am back from school, virtually box with kids next door, run for a kite, get pampered by mom when dad was designated villain, indulge in rowdy peer comparisons, lie precariously, unleash those captive imaginations in most dilapidated manner, fancy a virtual friend, get over protective about my baby sis, get thrown out from class for every single possible reason, get notes of excellence and not-so-excellence and even worse, of disapprobation.

I did it all and I relived those moments when Ishaan did it. Its not about whether it was appropriate or not or my guilt conscious was taking command or something; it just rejuvenated those careless, or should I say apathetic days of my life. It was about the time when I used to be wacky and reckless. Thinking of consequences was not my obligation; ma-pa did that for me. All I was supposed to do was to do, do whatever I please, however I please.

The childhood that’s eroding with every passing day, was gifted back to me in those 3 hours. The genuineness of the movie was because director himself was living each of the moment with Ishaan. There is a scene, where Ishaan was getting late for school and while running for the bus, he saw a mud-hole. He jumped and splashed it all over. Now to think of it, you need to be a kid. You and I are probably too self-conscious to do something like this now, even to think of it. The scene of flipbook exposed the vulnerability of a 9 year old. A thing like this requires getting into the script, feeling the mood of the movie and most importantly pouring your heart out. Aamir did that.

The second half of the movie was even better. It strikes a chord, leaves a itch somewhere. Parents do make their child live their dream, many a times forcefully. Imaginations are curbed as we grow older. Instincts are kept at bay and materialistic results become the benchmark of life. Dreamers, by default, are labelled as losers.

This movie dares to ask why!! And such innocent, yet mature is the approach that it makes you think. It compels introspection. The impact travels from heart to brain, from emotions to thoughts.

It raises even bigger issues like why in a country like India with such a diverse population; innovation is still an occasional hunch. Why do people here make run of a mill choice and not think beyond the horizon? Why kids like Ishaan have to struggle because they dare to be Howard Roark? The flaw is inherent in us and we all are responsible shelling million kids like Ishaan.

So after all this, do I think I’ll let my kid be so independent that it exempts me from his/her every action? The answer is NO. But then that’s the discussion of some other day. This day and this post is about the movie “Taare Zameen Par”. This movie made its way in coveted “Anshul’s Fav Movie” list and I’ll ask all the readers of this blog to do yourself a favour. You owe it to Ishaan in you.

p.s. I don’t feel like discussing the acting, animation and all those things. Trust me, they were all secondary. But before I forget to mention, lyrics and music were phenomenal.

Labels: From the other side of the Lens, I, Lord's review, Memoirs, Sentiments, Wandering Thoughts, WTF

In the film Fight Club, the real name of the protagonist (Ed Norton’s character) is never revealed. Many believe the reason behind this anonymity is to give "Jack" more of an everyman quality. Do not be deceived. "Jack" is really Calvin from the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes. It’s true. Norton portrays the grown-up version of Calvin, while Brad Pitt plays his imaginary pal, Hobbes, reincarnated as Tyler Durden.

Part I: The Hobbes-Tyler Connection

Picture this: a hyper, self-absorbed child initially concocts an imaginary friend as the ideal playmate, to whom more realistic qualities soon become attributed. This phantasm becomes a completely separate personality, with his own likes, dislikes, and temperament—and the imaginer and the imagined clash and argue constantly, though remaining fast friends. This pattern continues to the point where the child begins to perceive what was originally mere fantasy to be reality.

Just as Calvin has an imaginary jungle-animal friend named Hobbes, whom everyone else believes to be nothing but a stuffed toy, "Jack" in Fight Club has an imaginary cool-guy friend named Tyler, whom no one but Jack can see.

In both cases, the entity that began as the ideal companion soon took on a more realistic, three-dimensional quality. In other words, they became real. This is evident in that both Hobbes and Tyler also began to function as scapegoats for their creators. For instance, consider that Calvin often blames broken lamps and other assorted household mischief on Hobbes, and that Jack is inclined to believe that Fight Club and other various anti-society mischief is brought about by Tyler, not himself. Calvin claims Hobbes pounces on him every day after school; Jack believes Tyler beats him up next to 40 kilotons of nitroglycerin in a parking garage—the list goes on and on. The relationships between the two sets of friends are the exact same. Is this mere coincidence?

"There are eight rules of Fight Club."

Filling in the time-gap between Calvin and Jack, we can imagine the story as something like this: Once Calvin reaches the hostile environment known as the seventh grade, the constant teasing from the other students and the frustrated concern of his parents finally becomes too much, and a reluctant, disillusioned Calvin is finally forced to grow up, or at least begin to. This decision is sealed by one of the hardest things young Calvin will ever have to do in his life: un-imagine Hobbes, an act which to Calvin is essentially no different from murder. After being Calvin’s best friend for over a decade, Hobbes is packed away in a box, or tossed carelessly into a garbage bag, perhaps even stuffed under the same bed that once contained so many monsters. This is all, of course, very painful for Calvin, so much so that he represses it all in shame. Little does Calvin suspect that while he is busy growing up, deciding what "dinette set defines him as a person," Hobbes is also maturing in the recesses of his mind, waiting to be unleashed at an appropriate time.

It’s worth noting that during these twenty or so years, Hobbes never bears a grudge against Calvin nor wishes any ill upon him. Hobbes, remembering the depth of their past friendship, does not hate Calvin but rather hates the society that made Calvin put him away. Hobbes, residing in Calvin’s mind, sees and experiences all that Calvin does—and truly despises all of it. He witnesses a bright, superbly imaginative kid (with a genius-level vocabulary) reduced to nothing more than another nameless cog. Fighting off the tears wept for his conventionalized pal, Hobbes resolves to set Calvin free, paying special attention when Calvin idly looks up homemade-napalm recipes on the Internet.

Flash forward to the timeframe depicted in Fight Club. Calvin/Jack has reached an all-time low. He has done everything society has told him to do but is completely void of happiness. Hobbes, newly adjusted as "Tyler Durden" (after all, grown-up Calvin would no longer accept a jungle animal walking, talking, and eating canned tuna), re-enters Calvin/Jack’s life, determined to show Calvin everything he’s done wrong, whether he likes it or not.

Tyler to Jack: "I look like you wanna look, I fuck like you wanna fuck, I’m smart, capable, and most importantly, I’m free in all the ways you wish you could be."

Calvin has always idolized Hobbes. In Weirdos From Another Planet, he dresses up like a tiger and attempts to live in the woods. Like Hobbes, Tyler is cool, collected, and incredibly cerebral. Given this evidence, one can conclude that Tyler is Hobbes, reincarnated after being trapped inside Calvin/Jack’s brain for so many years. Just as Calvin is Jack, Hobbes is Tyler.

Part II: Marla Singer—Avatar of Susie Derkins?

Somewhere between the end of high school and beginning of college, uptight, grade-obsessed Susie Derkins lost her way. The pressure to get good grades, the pressure to succeed, simply became too much for her, and she snapped.

Marla remembers the girl she used to be.

Free from the protective bonds of her parents’ guidance and the bland safety of her suburban home, Susie loses her moral bearings entirely and sinks into a dark, seamy, grim world of sex, drugs, and eccentric Albert-Einstein-like hair. Her transformation is so complete that she no longer even remotely resembles the upright citizen that her parents and society wanted her to be: thus, she changes her name.

Like Calvin, Susie has become a misfit, one of society’s lost lambs. It is for this reason that she soon finds herself frequenting support groups such as "Remaining Men Together." Fate has brought her back to Calvin, whom she probably spurned back in junior high. But the two have changed so much that they no longer recognize each other!

The pink dress Marla wears in one scene slightly resembles something that "Binky Betsy," Susie’s favorite childhood doll, once wore: the doll that Calvin stole and attempted to ransom. While Calvin and Susie mostly teased and tortured each other, Hobbes was infatuated with the raven-haired beauty. Accordingly, Jack despises Marla, whereas Tyler takes an *ahem* sort of interest in her (definitely inappropriate for the Sunday Funnies).

When we are first introduced to Marla, she is but a tumor on Jack’s slowly deteriorating world. She is disenfranchised, morbid, socially apathetic—and Jack despises her because she is a mirror image of himself, his own female double. On the other hand, Calvin hates Susie because she is his exact opposite: Bright, obedient, demure—the unruly Calvin has every reason to hate her. However, certain strips definitely infer that Calvin has somewhat of a crush on Susie, and some even imply that Susie shares these latent feelings. But as a cootie-fearing grade-schooler, Calvin may only express these strange feelings through attention-getting antagonisms such as constant snowballs to the head, ransoming her dolls—and through his separate, conveniently more mature other personality—Hobbes.

Unlike Calvin, Hobbes has never been bashful about showing his affection for Susie. Calvin’s imaginary tiger-friend has called her a "cutie," worn swim jams to impress her ("Girls flip for guys in jams"), and even claimed he would betray their club’s secret code if she gave him a tummy rub (which is one of the key differences between Tyler and Hobbes). Naturally, all of this confuses and frustrates Calvin beyond words, even though Hobbes is really nothing more than a product of his own mind! And though Hobbes and Susie never consummated their love for each other (he’s a stuffed tiger and she’s a kid, you sicko!) this is, of course, the exact same deranged love-triangle that is shared between Jack, Tyler, and Marla, or at least a natural progression thereof. Perhaps Marla puts up with Jack/Tyler’s apparent nonsense for so long, because it’s the sort of thing she became used to as a child? And perhaps, in the end, Jack finds solace in Marla because it’s the exact same connection he should’ve made long ago, in his suburban youth. A connection that may have saved them both.

Part III: GROSS—Precursor of Fight Club

In a scene eerily reminiscent of Fight Club, Hobbes blithely informs a sulking Calvin that he decides his own level of involvement in G.R.O.S.S.

When you boil it down, the Fight Club that Jack and Tyler start is really just an odd sort of boys’ club—no ovaries allowed—where men can be men, and the so-called stronger of the sexes can take solace in the fact that, even in our politically correct times, some exclusivities of manhood still remain. (As a side note, imagine how much more controversy the movie would have generated if it involved scenes of men fighting women on equal ground!)

And clubs like this, of course, have their beginnings in backyards, tree houses, and garages all over America. Not surprisingly, Calvin started such a club when he was six years old. Little did anyone realize that he would construct another one much later in his life, again with the aid of an imaginary friend. For just as Calvin, Hobbes, and Susie have dark future versions in Jack, Tyler, and Marla respectively, G.R.O.S.S. (Get Rid Of Slimy girlS) has the same in Fight Club.

G.R.O.S.S. shares the following characteristics with Fight Club:

• Both have catchy names (although the "slimy" part of G.R.O.S.S. is redundant, otherwise it doesn’t spell anything).
• Both are co-run by a friendless male and his imaginary companion (Calvin is Tyrant and Dictator-for-Life; Hobbes is President and First Tiger).
• Both are exclusively male organizations, although Fight Club’s membership is considerably larger.
• Along with that, all members of both organizations are very loyal.
• The leaders of both organizations constantly engage in fisticuffs (but only in G.R.O.S.S. does a member receive a demerit for biting).
• And in said fights, in both organizations, there is only one fight at a time!
• Both are supposedly very secretive (though Jack never tells his mother about Fight Club).
• At least one leader of both organizations is fond of giving speeches (though Calvin never uses the term "space monkey").

G.R.O.S.S. and Fight Club both wreak havoc on their respective neighborhoods (G.R.O.S.S.’s target is considerably more focused, i.e., Susie). Clearly, the roots of Fight Club can be seen in G.R.O.S.S. Calvin shows his penchant for such male-oriented, destructive organizations. Also, just like cardboard-box-time-machines and water-gun-transmogrifiers, G.R.O.S.S. was likely created as an escape, a release—as, of course, was Fight Club.

Part IV: Moe Develops Karmic Bitch-Tits

Moe secretly seeks atonement for past sins.

Robert "Moe" Paulson, Calvin’s grade-school bully, becomes a six-time weight-lifting champion, and somewhere along the line develops large man-boobs as a result of testicular cancer. This of course leads him to his support group, where he is shocked to find Calvin.

Moe greatly regrets his bullying days, but, too ashamed to reveal his true identity to Calvin, he instead offers his ample bosom for him to cry on, as a measure of retribution.

Part V: The Root of Evil

Although we’ve already learned of the fates of Hobbes, Susie, and Moe, there are a couple of other people important to Calvin that are missing. People that are even more integral to his development than (arguably) Hobbes: his parents. Mr . . . uhm . . . , and Mrs . . . uh. . . . Okay, so they don’t have names. But then again, there is no need to know them. Because in the comic strip, they’re not supposed to be important characters in their own right. They only matter in regards to how Calvin is directly effected by them; an effect which, by the time of the film, doesn’t seem to have been very positive. From what "Jack" mentions, he’s not exactly close to his parents, particularly his dad, on whom he seems to pin many of his problems. And this matches perfectly with the relationship depicted in the comic, as well as with what happened afterwards (in Part I).

Calvin’s dad seems to have done quite a number on his son. As stated, it was probably at his urging that Calvin "grew up," that is, finally started to conform to society’s rules, which was the death of Hobbes. Of course, his father wasn’t without his playful side—good-naturedly teasing Calvin at every opportunity—but perhaps this is why "Jack" resents him so much. Maybe after Jack reached the end of his dutiful journey, only to find emptiness, he thought back to the day his father told him that the sun sets down somewhere in Arizona every night. "Maybe," thought Calvin, "maybe ALL of it’s been just another one of Dad’s cruel jokes."

In the "bathtub" scene of Fight Club, "Jack" and Tyler discuss their woeful parents. In this scene, crucial information is revealed, as well as some inconsistencies. "Jack" claims his father left when he was six, an age when Calvin’s dad was obviously still around, but this statement is contradicted soon after, when Tyler mentions his own dad telling him to get married when he was thirty, to which "Jack" responds, "mine said that too." The self-pitying "Jack" is most likely seeking to garner additional sympathy from his newfound friend by making his childhood sound worse than it actually was.

But even more interesting is Tyler’s hostility towards his father: when "Jack" asks him who he would fight, if he could fight anyone, he answers, "I’d fight my father." But, since Tyler is only a figment of Jack’s imagination, we can only assume he’s referring to Jack’s father. And while this hatred would only make sense given that the two are sharing the same brain, why is it that Tyler seems to hate Jack’s father even more vividly than "Jack" himself does? Maybe it’s because Tyler hasn’t forgotten who’s ultimately responsible for the un-imagining that took place years before . . . maybe he’s still not too happy about it . . . and maybe he’s got some pretty good ideas for revenge.

The role of Calvin’s father in all of this is no small one. Other than to "save" Calvin, it’s entirely possible that Tyler’s real motivation for taking down civilization is simply to get back at Calvin’s father. For by destroying the society that forced Calvin into repressing Hobbes, he’s also destroying the society that Calvin’s father, after all, epitomizes. And this of course allows Hobbes an indirect measure of revenge.

Part VI: Calvin—"I Am Jack’s Lost Youth"

Although the personality differences between Calvin in the comic strip and Calvin in the movie are pretty large, it can be explained as easily as taking Id and introducing him to Superego ("Jack" actually seems to have sort of a Super-Superego). Nearly all people go through the same thing when first confronted with the crushing grind of reality. But, as they say, the bigger they are, the harder they fall—and in terms of imagination and dreams, Calvin was a giant.

Still, it’s not as though common traits between Calvin-Calvin and Jack-Calvin can’t be identified at all. Besides a preference for imaginary friends over real ones, and an inability to express affection for girls, Calvin has never done well when forced to play by any sort of rules. Take, for instance, his utter inability in any sort of organized sport, compared to his unbridled joy while playing the make-it-up-as-you-go-along "Calvinball." Furthermore, even at age 6 Calvin never exactly thrived in stifling, authoritarian establishments (i.e., school), and he’s always had clashes with authority figures since the strip began (his parents, the doctor, his teacher, Rosalyn)—which actually may have initially planted the seeds for Tyler. Beyond that, his excellent vocabulary and way with words are still with him in the voice-over narration of Fight Club, and his rampant materialism that started with mail-order propeller-beanies ends with yin-yang shaped tables. As for the differences, they can be credited to the demoralizing effect of reality.

In the end, Calvin’s involvement with Fight Club and return of Hobbes can be boiled down to two words: "Personal Responsibility." For although Fight Club and Project Mayhem were both mostly Tyler’s doing, by the end of the movie, Jack readily accepts his own part of the blame, as Tyler is his creation. And by doing so, he also accepts responsibility for the undesirable condition of his own life—his father may have pushed him, but Calvin himself was the one who chose to obey. It is through this newfound self-accountability that Calvin/Jack is able to take control of his own life at last. As skyscrapers flash and crumble in the background, and blood oozes from the bullet hole in his head, Calvin says that he is "okay." And we are apt to believe him.

Part VII: Conclusion

Calvin’s world in the comic strip is pure, romanticized idealism, whereas in the movie, he lives in gray, bleak reality. Within the safety of the panel, Calvin is perpetually six years old, terrible things can never happen, and no matter how crazy a stunt he pulls, everything always returns to status quo. Because of this, our hero is free to do as he wishes, free to chase his dreams as wildly as he desires, never having to worry about tomorrow because there essentially will never be one—unless it’s part of a continuing storyline. This makes the reality of Fight Club all the bleaker, because it depicts what happens when you take someone weaned on dreams and limitless possibilities and jam him into a cramped cage confined by rules and regulations. It probably only took poor Calvin a few years in the adult world (or growing-up world) to fully make the sad change.

This transition from gleeful Calvin to dull "Jack" is not uncommon. Little Nemo became a banker, Peter Pan became a lawyer, and Garfield was caught and butchered by the chef of a Chinese restaurant. (One exception is Charlie Brown, who from all indications was mentally middle-aged at the time of his birth.)

The moral of the story is that reality bites, kiddies. Calvin and Hobbes in Fight Club are proof of this sad, sad truth.

p.s. i copied this article from this link. an amazing read.

Labels: Bitching, From the other side of the Lens, Laff Riot

c Again, sakshi tagged me for it. Most rewatched movie. whoa !! a kind of tag i'd luv to do. its a known fact that i m a movie buff..and thr are millions of movie i have watched millions of times. but top five wud be.

1) Pulp Fiction : my fav movie. thr was a time i used to watch it daily. this movie is a religion to me. i keep on reading about it on net, in books and everytime i read about it i need to watch it again. and everytime i feel oh my god !! how can i have not seen this last time. this is a complete movie. everything is perfect about it. Hail QT !!

2) Braveheart : my second year of college was spent watching this movie. Me and G used to sit and watch it and watch it again. we have memorised it "by heart". craziness went to extent that even when i was reading a book i'll play this movie in the bckground insted of music.

3) LOTR : i've lost the count of how many times i have sene this movie. i remember 12 times all 3 parts at a stretch and individually each part, countlessly.

4) Kabhi haa Kabhi naa : i feeel this is the best movie if SRK. just love it. :)

5) Sholay : the mega movie. period.

and yeah, everyone is tagged !!


********************** EDIT **************************

i'm feeling that i'm doing injustice to alot of films..so here are a few more

6) The Matrix : it was like a dialy thing in my first year. have mugged up all the dialogues and all. though i like matrix 2 the most, but i have seen 1 a lot more.

7) Fight Club : this list have to have atleast one movie of ed norton. so here it is. not his best work though. watching this movie first time was killer. but i liked the attitude and concept so much that it is one of the most seen movie and most read book as well. i recommend the book as well. profound !!

8) Jo Jeeta Wohi Sikandar : best aamir khan movie. you are low and want to get in fifth gear. watch dis movie.

9) Remember The Titans : same as jo jeeta wohi sikandar, just that its best denzle washington movie. just wtch it before any game you're out to play.

10) Mughal-E-Azam : its like one of the fav family film (ok, except for my sis. she wont understand a word of it). i love the dialogues of the movie. hindi can never compare urdu. it can never have that smooth velvet touch, that formal yet binding tone.

Labels: From the other side of the Lens, Tags

Last Night, I was watching Pulp Fiction again and suddenly this thought of plagiarism crept into my head. Some call it “influence”, which is an overused politically correct synonym for it.

I was thinking about what Jules say before killing a person. He recites a line from bible, Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee." And quite similar to this is what Joker says in the movie Batman, before killing anyone. "Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?”


Is this an influence? May be it is. By any rationale, I won’t go too far to say it is a theft.

What about the un-avoidable similarities in Reservoir Dogs and City on Fire? Quentin Tarantino has told in a million interviews that he was heavily inspired by the Hong Kong film and he has almost copied shot-by-shot the end of Reservoir Dogs, i.e. the Mexican standoff. But then he is probably the only director/writer to admit such a thing blatantly. He scores for accepting truth gracefully

I really don’t know where the thin line between “homage” and a nonchalant “copy-paste” lies?

Labels: From the other side of the Lens, Sentiments, Wandering Thoughts

a technical masterpiece !!!! another chilling crime drama by anurag kashyap after satya. and trust me this guy knows the spirit of mumbai underworld, and not only just of small scale"paploos" but also of the "biggies".

this is one of those few indian dramas, which can compete with any international standard. it scores high on all the fronts. a gripping story and a beautiful screenplay that did full justice to the book. direction is spot-on and the best thing about it is the clarity of thoughts of the director. he knew exactly what to present and how to do so. editing and camera work is state of an art.

as usual kay kay menon is outstanding, but for me the pick of the movie is pavan malhotra. the ease with which he executed the role was simply mind numbing. his eyes always had that passion which u will see in a man, with a mission. he is supposed to be ruthless, extremly ruthless and he delivered it.

this movie is an ace in storytelling. based on a real story, director got a great help with that fabulous script. but to execute it to such perfection needs caliber and passion. the ease with which he captures the spirit of the script was really commendable. and not to forget he got the help with entire crew.

right from the beginning i was feeling that the director is heavily inspired by quentin tarantino. by the end of the movie was damn sure of it. that chapter-wise presentation, those close-ups, excessive blood shed, lots of red colour, use of explecitives and most importantly non-chronological event based story telling was like watching a tarantino movie. and i am really impressed. he picks up a lof of small things with such an ease, it reminded me of gulzaar. small things like cracking knucles, empty drawer in tiger memon's home, ruthless 3rd degrees and a lot more. i'm impressed again.one good example was the traces of humour in first half. he portrayed character of kay kay with a perfection. he displayed the lighter part of his personality to show, how cool he is even in such a tragic and tense situation.

besides all this, i am very much impressed by two more things. firstly, that high-pitch piercing whistle sort of sound in background at the time of bomb blast. and use of hue(red) while capturing the frames for interrogations.this was very very thoughtful of director.both of them created some sort of nausea and discomfort in sub-concious and rightly so. this director knows how to go beyond just that standard "light-camera-action-cut".

it has some flaws as well. before interval movie seems to loose it pace and director, his grip. that chase scene of imtitaz was one fucked up scene. and at times movie seems to be stretched. director should have made it smaller by 20 odd mins. but u r forgiven mr.kashyap !!

and yeah, beautiful soundtrack by indian ocean.esp that song bande. brilliant!!

i'm not going to write anything about the story of the movie.it has to be seen. MUST WATCH for anyone. i'm sure indians are gong to make it big on internation scenario pretty soon.
just watch this movie !! if u dont like it, i'll refund ur money. most definately one of the best movie ever. one movie they should seriously think sending to oscars.

Labels: From the other side of the Lens, Lord's review

We talk about bad writers, we talk about good writers, we talk about
mind-blowing writers and then we talk about "Shakespeare". this genius
is a master of tragedies, and so he proved again in "Othello". mind
blowing script it was, and all credit should be given to vishal
bhardwaj to do all justice with the masterpiece. the movie is an
indianised version of Othello, set in rural backgrounds of eastern UP.

i wont disclose the story, though a lot of people might already know
it. but there is a minor change in the end, which according to the
director, how he wanted Shakespeare to write it.it has been taken care that
names of all the characters in actual play and in movie start with the same
syllable.

Omkara (Othello) : Ajay Devgan has outdone himself in this movie. He is
a leader of few vagrant young men, and is a terror in local neighbor. A
man of principles, he enjoys a uncompromising respect by the fellow
gang. and what Ajay did, was just perfect. he doesn't has to say much
with his mouth but his eyes did that . his body language in the movie is outstanding. In true sense he was able to bring out the dark authority
and the sense of possession and jealousy as expected by Othello. his stance
will give you an idea that he owns whatever surrounds him and everything
is in his control. even when he is weak and low, he displays that authority.

Dolly (Desdemona) : Kareena after a long long time, has shown some
excerpts of her talent, which seem to be lost in recent times. her
beauty is looking fresh and modest at the same time. she has delivered
much more than what i expected. her undying trust and respect for
omkara was captured beautifully by kareena.

Langra Tyagi (Lago) : Arguably Saif's best performance so far. This guy
has shown his competence is displaying 5 out of 7 deadly sins(gluttony,
greed, envy, pride, wrath and other two he didn't have to) with extreme
passion. his dialog delivery and body language was above par.as right
hand of "omi", he rightly is very confident and carefree. but what
struk me most was how swiftly and casually he is able to switch
between loyal langra to jealous langra and vice versa. i should admit,
i never thought that saif can deliver such a mind-numbing performance.
he is the revelation of the movie. hats off Indu (Emilia) : Konkana
steals the show among the fairer sex. she is vibrant and chirpy at
times and is able to exhibit her mental strength and toughness whenever
needed. she let her body flow with the theme of the movie with an ease
thats rare to find these days. though her character has to undergo few
changes from the original, but she is the one to be looked upon in the
movie. she anyways was expected to perform, and she did justice to the
role.

Kesu Firangi (Cassio) : Vivek did what he was supposed to do. he is a
relatively young lad in the gang and has to be the face of young
generation. he has given one of his best performance even,but it seems
simply average with likes of Ajay, saif and konkana along-with him.
girls are his weakness but his loyalty towards omi is countable. the
innocence on his face was good to see. but its his innocence that takes
him into pits.

Billo Chamanbahar (Bianca) : Bipasha is a slut, she looked like one.
her appealing sensuality along with her skills in bed makes her
irresistible to men. she was probably the weakest link in the movie,
and i feel should have been replaced by may be sushmita.

Bhaisaab (duke of Venice) : Naseeruddin Shah is one of those benchmark
actors with whom other actors are compared to. And as a role of
bhaisaab who plays brahmin politics in that region, naseer is flawless.
he is a political mentor and father-figure to omkara. perfectly blended
with his character, naseer bhai is on a roll.

But most creditable piece of work came from Vishal Bhardwaj, who made
his presence felt throughout, even though he was behind the scenes.
Direction and screenplay of movie is above par, by all standards. the
movie never lost the track in 3 hrs. brilliance and attitude was in
every scene, and every shot was done with flawless precision. this was
vishal's third movie on a lit classic and each time he seems to get
better.

i think this is the first Indian movie to have all sort of swear words
and abuses freely, but then thats how people in that part of country
talk. you will find it offensive only if u cant take reality. it adds
more to the mood of the movie. and so did the music. vishal was
uncompromising on this front as well. music emphasizes the dark and
bloody ambiance of the movie. only with scenes with dolly, tone of
music becomes a bit lighter and soothing. cinematography was spot on,
and lights are used pretty judiciously esp the scene in which omi
murders in front of train. camera work is good, but could have been
better.

all in all, one of the best movie to hit cinemas in recent times and
not just in Hindi. vishal bhardwaj, you made me your fan. i highly
recommend this movie to each and everyone who cherish cinema as an art
not mere entertainment. and please don't insult it by watching it on a
DVD.

Labels: From the other side of the Lens, Lord's review

i know the title is catchy, but this post is about the reviews of the movies i saw two weeks back. ;)


RDB : paint it yellow

Tagline : a generation awakens

This movie is recieving vast acclaims not only by media, but also by public. And i fail to understand why !!. For me it was strictly OK.

Aamir khan, should not have tried to act for a character in his early 20s. Even the best makeup artist cant make you look half of ur age. Soha was looking gorgeous, as always, very fresh, veru petite, very girly ! :)But i was particularly impressed by the outputs of "karan" and "aslam". They both have brilliant screen presence, and both were amazingly confident. Both characters were rock solid, and kudos to siddharth and kunal, to did justice with them.

Though i should acknowledge, the camera work was brilliant throughout the movie, but the thing that kept me ticking for all that time, was the magical spell woven my AR Rehman. This guy just keeps on improving, despite of being on top, for more than a decade now. He certainly is the best stuff that happened to contemporary indian music industry.

What irritated me most, is to see the awakening of half an hour,i have to literally "jhelofy" the movie for 2 hrs. First half of the movie was, monotonusly boring, and utterly disappointing.The flaws of zero story they tried to cover-up using some vague jokes, but my friend this trick dont work always. Few fillups are ok, but using same jokes for about 2 hrs, way too difficult to appreciate.

Second half, they started with making matter worse, but again "rahman ka jadoo" was keeping me to my chair. But during the end, the anology of bhagat singh, was a soothing idea to have.And they executed it brilliantly, but killing defense minister and escaping without being notified, is an impossible task to performed, even by pro, let alone these noobs. But whatever, i liked this part of the movie.

End was made pretty thought provoking, but i m not so strong to have these filmi man as my idols and try to imitate even 10 % of what they have done. i'd be rather sitting in my cozy room, and write such blogs.However i do appreciate the bold measures they have taken, but giving thr lives in such an unacceptable fashion will tag them as terrorists, if not in ppl's mind, but sure in police records.

All in all, a watchable movie. I'll recommended, though, you wont regret either if u miss it.


ZINDA
Tagline: One good act of vengeance.... deserves another.

I guess, it is the movie with highest GQ (gore quotient) ever in the ths history of bollywood. though it is more or less a remake of korean phenomenal revenge flick oldboy, the end is very different, and it has to be or else censor board would have banned Mr. gupta from making a film, forever.

Movie had brilliant performances by all of them, sanjay dutt was brilliant. lara dutta was graceful and had a great presence on screen. I adore her so much, but i think she wasnt the best person for this role, but cant think of a young lassy, who is sensual and can act.may be vidya balan, but she would nat have done a sex scene (ok, so called sex scene with sanjay dutt).And john abraham, for a change did act in the movie.But, i so desperatly wish, it was ajay devgan at his place. Celina Jaitley, i dont think even deserves a mention.

Mvie runs at a brilliant pace, and was one of the best cold blooded revenge story. Master of revenge movies Quentin Tarantino, himself is a huge fan of "Oldboy". The plot was outstanding, and was brilliantly executed. Ofcourse end was a big change and a huge letdown. Backgroud music was too good, and complimented the theme and mood of the movie. Movie lack colors most of the times, and red (suits for both blood and oriental background of the movie) was the only color visible, in between thousands of shades of black and white. This made mood of movie look even darker.

But they somehow manage to make a bollywood hero a superman.Here sunjay dutt, alone manage to kick ass of more thn 20 pro fighters. And that too when he was brutally stabbed at the back, and ofcourse his mental stability as at stake. Will power is one thing, but this didnt seem natural.

I liked sunjay dutt throughout, but in the sex scene.He was very uncomfortable. But on the other hand lara was too mature, and extremly proffesional.I anyways cant understand the importance of the scene. God i want to say a lot more, but it will be a spoiler.

I wanted to dedicate it to a healthy comparison between oldboy and zinda, but i fear, it will be a big spoiler and at this point of time, i dont want to have some malice for me, in the heart of ppl reading this blog.

SO i end up here, and do recoommend this movie. A real nice stuff to watch and deserve to be seen. You sure gonna miss something if you dont. But if you cant accept gore, dont even bother, and in that case, you probabbly need not know, there is a movie called old boy.

p.s. i have been planning to write this post since long, but was heavily stuck wid work. not now i m free, but somehow manage to finish it. :)

Labels: From the other side of the Lens, Lord's review