It's one of those phases again - when most movies bomb and there's nothing good to watch. Most of the biggies of this quarter have bitten the dust, be it the over-hyped "Kites" or over-acted "Raavan". Along the way we have had films that fed upon the famine at the box-office like "Housefull" and the I-wrote-it-in-just-six-days dud, "Badmaash Company". Shahid's report card also received another red mark for "Paathshaala".
Now, I just cannot find enough enthusiasm to blow 300+ on tickets and popcorn to watch "I hate Luv Storys" - a movie which seems to say whatever it has to in the trailor itself. It literally screams 'predictable'. My friends recommended this movie saying that at least it would be a good-looking one but I have no soft corner for either Imran or Sonam. The one is just another chocolate-faced cutie with schoolboy talent and for the other, I think I'll wait for "Aisha". An adaptation of Jane Austen's 'Emma' starring Abhay Deol sounds much more promising.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Raajneeti - the review
"Raajneeti" has a theme that will always resonate with members of the world's largest democracy. It takes us into the corridors of power and looks at the business of politics and the politics of love. As a movie, it also scores because it has what the other big releases in recent times lack - namely, a story. This story is a mish-mash of The Mahabharata and The Godfather with a dash of the Gandhi family thrown in for added flavour. With all these reference points, the final product is bound to be an interesting one, which it is.
The problem perhaps is that the reliance on the reference points is too much. There is too much of a need to align certain aspects and characters with The Mahabharata or with The Godfather. Thus neglecting the chance for a more original or more detailed exposition of characters.
The story deals with the fortunes of a family of politicians. The power struggles for the 'gaddi' and the fight for 'satta' between cousins takes up the major part of the story. Each side keeps pulling out all stops to go one up on the other. While Prithvi (Arjun Rampal) is the heir apparent, Samar (Ranbir Kapoor) is the phoren-educated younger brother who becomes unwillingly embroiled in political intrigue after the assassination of their father. He soon reveals himself to be a natural in the murky ways of Raajneeti even while helping his hot-headed older brother gain the CM's seat.
The role of Duryodhan is essayed by Prithvi and Samar's cousin, Virendra (Manoj Bajpai) who does a good job of smouldering in jealousy, hatred and covetousness. He takes the help of Suraj (Ajay Devgan) who is the illegitimate son of Prithvi and Samar's mother - thus a modern day Karan.
Indu (Katrina) is the rich businessman's daughter who loves Samar but has to marry Prithvi since he is CM-in-waiting. In what is an outright negative streak, Samar pretends to love her because the party needs her father's money and later convinces her to marry his brother. The one Samar loves is American girl, Sara who comes to India to be with him when he takes too long to return. When she and Prithvi get killed in a bomb blast, it is time for Indu to take up the reins and lead the party to victory even as Samar guns down the evil-doers. Here again the director imposes a completely unnecessary shootout at abandoned factory sequence just to have a Mahabharata analogy.
The acting in the movie is almost uniformly good. Ranbir gets maximum scope to perform and he doesn't disappoint with understated emoting. He also conveys the negative overtones in a chilling fashion showing how he can be innocent or ruthless. I only have an issue with the characterisation where his leap from a PhD student to a conniving political kingpin happens almost overnight. There is no good exposition of the inner turmoil between his better self and his diabolical one. Arjun Rampal is a revelation. He is an actor who has taken his time but is going from strength to strength. A very commendable performance as a slightly hysterical, powerful man who wears his heart on his sleeve. Ajay Devgan is reminiscent of Yuva and Omkara and somewhat sidelined. Nana Patekar is in the complex role of Krishna, Sakuni Mama and the consigliere of The Godfather, combined. He is effective but has a limited role.
Katrina failed to impress, having being able to provide no added emotional layers to her character. When she begins to canvass for the CM's seat after her husband's death, she looked for all the world like had strolled out of the sets of Ajab Prem..and draped a sari around herself. Her role in the movie also does not warrant the place of pride she receives in the film's posters. The producers made it seem like this was a movie based on Sonia Gandhi with Katrina playing the pivotal role but this was just a clever marketing ruse. Ranbir has the bigger and more important role as do Ajay Devgan, Arjun Rampal and Manoj Bajpai.
Overall the movie is definitely worth a watch and serves as another milestone in tracking Ranbir Kapoor's career graph.
7.5/10
Thursday, May 27, 2010
The truth about "The Ugly Truth"
Romantic comedies are my favourite movie genre. I am one of those people who always crave for a ‘happily ever after’ ending. I enjoy comedies - which are certain to end well and what girl doesn't like a a good romantic story.:)
Hence, the "rom-com" (as it is popularly known) - a movie that is not so sweet that it nauseates you and not so mindless that it doesn’t leave an impression.
These movies make you connect with the characters, their quirks and enjoy their witty banter and the string of incidents they get entwined in which make them fall for each other. This genre has been firmly established by movies like “When Harry met Sally”, “Sleepless in Seattle”, “French Kiss”, “You’ve got mail”…yes, all starring America’s sweetheart, Meg Ryan who, poor thing, painted herself into a corner and was not successful in other types of roles…but that’s another story. Hugh Grant has also been hugely successful at this with hits like my favourite, “Notting Hill” among others (think: “Nine Months”, “Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “Love actually”). In “Notting Hill” he stars with Julia Roberts who is also no stranger to the rom-com having starred in “Pretty Woman”, “My Best Friend’s Wedding” and “Runaway Bride”. Sandra Bullock has taken a shot at it also with “While you were Sleeping” (more romance than comedy) and more recently, “the Proposal” (very Bollywood-ish).
What set me thinking about rom-coms is a movie I saw recently, called “The Ugly Truth” starring Gerard Butler and Katherine Heigl. Hollywood has churned out a steady stream of romantic comedies and Katherine Heigl has been a favoured choice after her hit “27 Dresses”. If “27 Dresses” was unimpressive, “The Ugly Truth” is the ugliest thing to besmirch the name of romantic comedies.
Katherine Heigl again reprises the role of a slightly neurotic, work-obsessed TV producer with no personal life. Gerard Butler fits the role of a boorish, chauvinist who stars on a successful show called ‘The Ugly Truth’ where he attacks every particle of decency that exists in relations between the sexes.
The movie is sleazy and has no development beyond the premise of a Man and Woman who are at loggerheads but who eventually fall in love. The Woman is shown to be desperate – unable to make a success of her show, a failure at relationships with men, a panicky moron who goes for a blind date armed with lists of conversation topics. She is a TV producer but acts like a confused teenager at every given opportunity. Enter: the Man – obnoxiously over-confident, ill-mannered and crude. He makes a living out of being a chauvinist and thrives on shocking people – as such, unable to string together a sentence without a reference to sex. He decides to help poor Woman by giving her advice that will help her snag the cute doctor she’s been eyeing. He tells her to act like the kind of woman he would go after – the kind of woman all men would want – a mindless, beautiful bimbo. By the time things get serious with the doctor, Woman has decided that she actually prefers Man and vice-versa. That’s it.
The Woman remains uni-dimensional and pathetic, the Man remains a swaggering adolescent. There is no sense that both reach a middle ground from the opposite fields that they once occupied. It’s just the story of two really stupid people. If the romance is that bad, their idea of humour is worse. The high point of comedy in the movie involves a pair of vibrating underwear. I rest my case.
Frankly, I was appalled. How can Hollywood make such stupid movies? How do these movies do well at the box-office? If I don’t see a good movie soon I am really going to believe that the death knell has been sounded for rom-coms. Last heard, Gerard Butler (who, by the way, I once thought was cute) was starring in “The Bounty Hunter” with Jennifer Aniston. She’s his ex-wife who is on the run and he plays a bounty-hunter given the task of tracking her down… which he does with glee. Aargh! The caveman cometh.
Hence, the "rom-com" (as it is popularly known) - a movie that is not so sweet that it nauseates you and not so mindless that it doesn’t leave an impression.
These movies make you connect with the characters, their quirks and enjoy their witty banter and the string of incidents they get entwined in which make them fall for each other. This genre has been firmly established by movies like “When Harry met Sally”, “Sleepless in Seattle”, “French Kiss”, “You’ve got mail”…yes, all starring America’s sweetheart, Meg Ryan who, poor thing, painted herself into a corner and was not successful in other types of roles…but that’s another story. Hugh Grant has also been hugely successful at this with hits like my favourite, “Notting Hill” among others (think: “Nine Months”, “Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “Love actually”). In “Notting Hill” he stars with Julia Roberts who is also no stranger to the rom-com having starred in “Pretty Woman”, “My Best Friend’s Wedding” and “Runaway Bride”. Sandra Bullock has taken a shot at it also with “While you were Sleeping” (more romance than comedy) and more recently, “the Proposal” (very Bollywood-ish).
What set me thinking about rom-coms is a movie I saw recently, called “The Ugly Truth” starring Gerard Butler and Katherine Heigl. Hollywood has churned out a steady stream of romantic comedies and Katherine Heigl has been a favoured choice after her hit “27 Dresses”. If “27 Dresses” was unimpressive, “The Ugly Truth” is the ugliest thing to besmirch the name of romantic comedies.
Katherine Heigl again reprises the role of a slightly neurotic, work-obsessed TV producer with no personal life. Gerard Butler fits the role of a boorish, chauvinist who stars on a successful show called ‘The Ugly Truth’ where he attacks every particle of decency that exists in relations between the sexes.
The movie is sleazy and has no development beyond the premise of a Man and Woman who are at loggerheads but who eventually fall in love. The Woman is shown to be desperate – unable to make a success of her show, a failure at relationships with men, a panicky moron who goes for a blind date armed with lists of conversation topics. She is a TV producer but acts like a confused teenager at every given opportunity. Enter: the Man – obnoxiously over-confident, ill-mannered and crude. He makes a living out of being a chauvinist and thrives on shocking people – as such, unable to string together a sentence without a reference to sex. He decides to help poor Woman by giving her advice that will help her snag the cute doctor she’s been eyeing. He tells her to act like the kind of woman he would go after – the kind of woman all men would want – a mindless, beautiful bimbo. By the time things get serious with the doctor, Woman has decided that she actually prefers Man and vice-versa. That’s it.
The Woman remains uni-dimensional and pathetic, the Man remains a swaggering adolescent. There is no sense that both reach a middle ground from the opposite fields that they once occupied. It’s just the story of two really stupid people. If the romance is that bad, their idea of humour is worse. The high point of comedy in the movie involves a pair of vibrating underwear. I rest my case.
Frankly, I was appalled. How can Hollywood make such stupid movies? How do these movies do well at the box-office? If I don’t see a good movie soon I am really going to believe that the death knell has been sounded for rom-coms. Last heard, Gerard Butler (who, by the way, I once thought was cute) was starring in “The Bounty Hunter” with Jennifer Aniston. She’s his ex-wife who is on the run and he plays a bounty-hunter given the task of tracking her down… which he does with glee. Aargh! The caveman cometh.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Bad Company
Everything works out so well in the movies. It’s like an alternate universe where custom, convention and even common sense can be flouted with impunity because one knows that there will always be a happy ending (else ‘picture abhi baki mere dost’). Such is also the case with ‘Badmaash Company’ which I saw yesterday. Movies like this make one wish that the IPL-induced Bollywood drought at the plexes had not ended.
‘Badmaash Company’ is in the same vein as other recent Yashraj releases – pretty faces and half baked plots. Its like the Chopras now believe they have too much moolah to worry about script or detailing. And so, they hand over the baton to first time writer-director, Parmeet Sethi - better known to loyal DDLJ fans as Kuljeet and to all others as Archana Puran Singh’s partner. He has said in interviews that he wrote the script for the movie in six days. I really don’t know why he would want to expose before the audience just how little thought has gone into this film. Either he thought the movie was so good that he should be lauded for coming up with it in such a short time or he knows how flawed it is and seeks mercy. Either ways, foolhardy.
The movie which begins in 1994, is about Karan (Shahid) who along with friends Chandu (standup comedian Vir Das) and Zing (Indian Idol contestant Meiyang Chang), indulges in small time smuggling, serving as a ‘carrier’ to Bangkok for some extra dough. On the way they team up with Bulbul (Anushka) and Karan’s con schemes get more ambitious and more WTF inducing. These include importing shoes from Bangkok with the right shoe sent to one city in India and the left to another therein rendering the value zero. The shoes are not claimed for this supposed reason by Karan & co but purchased discreetly later at a Customs auction for throwaway prices. The gang reassemble the shoes at their end and voila! Full value Reeboks plus evasion of 120% customs duty (hence the need to set it in an earlier time frame where import duty was high). The gang now moves to try their luck in the US pulling similar stunts with surprising ease. With more money comes more pride, which as we all know, goes before a fall. Karan’s arrogance becomes his hubris and the team falls apart. Karan finally sees the light of day and decides to live by honest means.
The first half of the movie is much more watchable than the second. The first half sketches in Karan's frustration with his middle class life and his determination to get rich quick. The second half carries on with the boring variations of the con game with loopholes so big as to suggest the Americans and the audience are complete idiots. The movie drags on moving from one ludicrous scheme to another till one loses any interest to know what’s coming next. Characterisations are also flawed leaving the viewer wondering why Karan, a good student helped along by a rich uncle, at all needs to walk on the wrong side. An exploration of the characters rather than of their repetitive fraudulent activities might have been more interesting.
Shahid is competent but still unable to carry a movie on his own steam. There is only so far he’ll be able to go on the basis of just chocolatey looks especially if he always looks likes he’s trying too hard. Anushka sheds as much clothing as she can but still looks like she would be better off doing ads for fairness creams. Vir Das and Chang are both good considering its their first big movie.
The songs are catchy esp. “Chaska”, “Jingle Jingle” and the title track but too similar in mood and picturisation to really stand out.
For promising a fun-filled adventure and giving us a damp squib instead, ‘Badmaash Company’ gets a 5/10.
‘Badmaash Company’ is in the same vein as other recent Yashraj releases – pretty faces and half baked plots. Its like the Chopras now believe they have too much moolah to worry about script or detailing. And so, they hand over the baton to first time writer-director, Parmeet Sethi - better known to loyal DDLJ fans as Kuljeet and to all others as Archana Puran Singh’s partner. He has said in interviews that he wrote the script for the movie in six days. I really don’t know why he would want to expose before the audience just how little thought has gone into this film. Either he thought the movie was so good that he should be lauded for coming up with it in such a short time or he knows how flawed it is and seeks mercy. Either ways, foolhardy.The movie which begins in 1994, is about Karan (Shahid) who along with friends Chandu (standup comedian Vir Das) and Zing (Indian Idol contestant Meiyang Chang), indulges in small time smuggling, serving as a ‘carrier’ to Bangkok for some extra dough. On the way they team up with Bulbul (Anushka) and Karan’s con schemes get more ambitious and more WTF inducing. These include importing shoes from Bangkok with the right shoe sent to one city in India and the left to another therein rendering the value zero. The shoes are not claimed for this supposed reason by Karan & co but purchased discreetly later at a Customs auction for throwaway prices. The gang reassemble the shoes at their end and voila! Full value Reeboks plus evasion of 120% customs duty (hence the need to set it in an earlier time frame where import duty was high). The gang now moves to try their luck in the US pulling similar stunts with surprising ease. With more money comes more pride, which as we all know, goes before a fall. Karan’s arrogance becomes his hubris and the team falls apart. Karan finally sees the light of day and decides to live by honest means.
The first half of the movie is much more watchable than the second. The first half sketches in Karan's frustration with his middle class life and his determination to get rich quick. The second half carries on with the boring variations of the con game with loopholes so big as to suggest the Americans and the audience are complete idiots. The movie drags on moving from one ludicrous scheme to another till one loses any interest to know what’s coming next. Characterisations are also flawed leaving the viewer wondering why Karan, a good student helped along by a rich uncle, at all needs to walk on the wrong side. An exploration of the characters rather than of their repetitive fraudulent activities might have been more interesting.
Shahid is competent but still unable to carry a movie on his own steam. There is only so far he’ll be able to go on the basis of just chocolatey looks especially if he always looks likes he’s trying too hard. Anushka sheds as much clothing as she can but still looks like she would be better off doing ads for fairness creams. Vir Das and Chang are both good considering its their first big movie.
The songs are catchy esp. “Chaska”, “Jingle Jingle” and the title track but too similar in mood and picturisation to really stand out.
For promising a fun-filled adventure and giving us a damp squib instead, ‘Badmaash Company’ gets a 5/10.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
21
Saw "21" yesterday. Had heard about it before as the basis of the recent Bollywood release "Teen Patti". Don't know how far that was true but "21" was a decent watch.
It is a based-on-real-life story about a group of MIT students who under the tutelage of their professor become experts in card counting and subsequently whip Vegas casinos for millions in winnings at blackjack. The movie is based on a book about the episode and released in the US in 2008.
It stars Kevin Spacey as the wily professor who uses his students to milk the system. Jim Sturgess stars in the lead role as Ben Campbell, the brilliant new inductee into the club who needs money to go to Harvard Medical School. Laurence Fishburne has a small role as the security-in-charge at the casinos who is being made obsolete by the new face recognition software that casinos are using. Kate Bosworth forms Jim's love interest and is a member of the MIT Blackjack team.
Kevin Spacey is, as always, interesting to watch while Jim Sturgess puts in a slightly uneven performance.
The movie though interesting, is not as gripping as it could have been. There are no major shocks or edge-of-the-seat moments. The dialogues are banal. Also many characters are under-utilised or not fully developed. For instance, there is a lot of focus on Jim Sturgess but his evolution from shy student to arrogant gamester is not brought out very well. Kevin Spacey's motives are also not very well developed and his chracter is uni-dimensional. The other members are also all conveniently sidelined. Laurence Fishburne is wasted in his bit role.
Basically threre is very little layering to the movie, very little subtext. Also not much style or snappy dialogues. Despite being a subject which could have been handled on so many levels it almost gets reduced to another typical teenager movie. It is the basic premise which is interesting and curiosity about the end keeps you going.
Give it a 6.5/10.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Fracture
...is the name of the movie I saw today. It released in 2007 and starred Ryan Gosling and Anthony Hopkins. It was a crime thriller about a crafty businessman Crawford (Hopkins) who murders his wife because she is having an affair. He then tries to get away scot free since the public prosecutor Beachum (Gosling) is intent on climbing up the corporate ladder and unable to put up a convincing case. The movie's title derives from Crawford's pet theory that everyone has a weakness, a fracture that needs to be found. In case of Beachum, it is his drive to always win.
Beachum takes the case thinking that it will be another win as public prosector before he moves into his new career as corporate lawyer. However very soon things begin to go wrong for Beachum and he realises that the deceptive Hopkins is not a bumbling old man but a worthy adversary.
The movie was interesting enough though I felt it could have delivered much more. So many movies are often built just on a good premise. Almost the entire suspense centred around the discovery of the murder weapon which was just too unidimensional for a good thriller. I felt the plot could have been more gripping. The construct is weak and leaves room for many questions like why doesn't Crawford kill his wife in a way that would attach no suspicion to himself rather than turning the whole episode into a media circus, choosing to fight against a lawyer he knows is sharp and loves winning. Really the movie had the flavour of other similar thrillers one has seen. The interactions between Hopkins and Gosling could have been sharper and the key hooks of the story. But they lack the intended bite.
What keeps one's attention are the two key performers. Hopkins was of course very convincing as the chillingly evil murderer, the blue of his eyes only recalling his days as Hannibal Lecter. It is something that he has become too used to doing I think, the polished, cold blooded manipulator whose very suavity inspires dread. I had not watched much of Gosling before and was impressed with his screen presence. He played the role of a cocky young lawyer almost too well. Too over-confident as though he could get by on the strength of his attitude alone.
That was pretty much what the movie was about - Gosling's almost annoying self assurance with a dash of Hopkins' typical style of chills.
In any case, it was a good way to spend an evening at home and its been a long time since I saw a thriller so I won't complain too much. Besides, Ryan Gosling made me feel like I wanted to see some of his other performances. And yes, he's kinda cute in formal wear. :)
6.5/10.
Beachum takes the case thinking that it will be another win as public prosector before he moves into his new career as corporate lawyer. However very soon things begin to go wrong for Beachum and he realises that the deceptive Hopkins is not a bumbling old man but a worthy adversary.
The movie was interesting enough though I felt it could have delivered much more. So many movies are often built just on a good premise. Almost the entire suspense centred around the discovery of the murder weapon which was just too unidimensional for a good thriller. I felt the plot could have been more gripping. The construct is weak and leaves room for many questions like why doesn't Crawford kill his wife in a way that would attach no suspicion to himself rather than turning the whole episode into a media circus, choosing to fight against a lawyer he knows is sharp and loves winning. Really the movie had the flavour of other similar thrillers one has seen. The interactions between Hopkins and Gosling could have been sharper and the key hooks of the story. But they lack the intended bite.
What keeps one's attention are the two key performers. Hopkins was of course very convincing as the chillingly evil murderer, the blue of his eyes only recalling his days as Hannibal Lecter. It is something that he has become too used to doing I think, the polished, cold blooded manipulator whose very suavity inspires dread. I had not watched much of Gosling before and was impressed with his screen presence. He played the role of a cocky young lawyer almost too well. Too over-confident as though he could get by on the strength of his attitude alone.
That was pretty much what the movie was about - Gosling's almost annoying self assurance with a dash of Hopkins' typical style of chills.
In any case, it was a good way to spend an evening at home and its been a long time since I saw a thriller so I won't complain too much. Besides, Ryan Gosling made me feel like I wanted to see some of his other performances. And yes, he's kinda cute in formal wear. :)
6.5/10.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
The Aal is Well phenomenon
I had not been able to write a review for '3 Idiots' one of the biggest movies to release in recent times. It's just that so much has been written, tweeted, blogged, discussed about it already, that I had kind of lost the enthusiasm. Ah well, just call it an "idiosyncrasy" of mine. ;)
But I figure, if I have to do justice to this blog, I should talk about it. So rather than a review at this late stage, let me just write down my thoughts about '3 Idiots':
1. Aamir is a super actor who has the uncanny ability to put on a character as if it were a coat. Yes, he often looks too old to play an engg. student but he pulls it off.
2. Madhavan cannot pull it off. He sticks out like a sore thumb and looks too old and overweight to be doing this.
3. Sharman Joshi is a natural. Somebody give this guy more roles. And good roles. Because he can strike a chord and he can act.
4. I did not like the glorification of Aamir's character, Rancho/Phunsuk. He could do no wrong, he had the best lines, everybody loved him. It's time Bollywood grew out of crap characterizations like this. Especially with a talented ensemble cast. Look at Dil Chahta Hai, learn from it.
5. I did not agree with the total vilification and rejection of the education system. The mantra for success is not to bypass hard work. Do what you want to do, but work hard at it also. Passing the buck for failures on the system is taking the easy way out. Root out the inefficiencies in the system but recognize its merits also. Everyone cannot be a maverick.
6. I liked the funny scenes in the movie - from the Chatur speech to Aamir's smartass dialogues. The taut screenplay kept the pace going.
7. The songs though not great by themselves, work when seen in the context of the movie. "Zoobi doobi" has been conceptualised really well.
8. The climax with Aamir assists Mona Singh's delivery was unnecessary and over-the-top. Ya, we get it - the guy's a genius and a hero.
9. Some scenes were refreshing in their irreverence. Like the one where Raju's plight at home with his suffering mother, his paralysed father and his unwed sister is shown in black and white with sitar strains, to underscore the melodrama that was earlier attached to such scenes.
10. I liked 3 Idiots for its performances, its message of following your heart and not giving up, for its humour. I agree that its a feel-good movie though some messages did cause me some alarm. Overall an 8.5/10.
P.S. I also think the movie is quite different from the book. Be true to yourself Chetan.
But I figure, if I have to do justice to this blog, I should talk about it. So rather than a review at this late stage, let me just write down my thoughts about '3 Idiots':
1. Aamir is a super actor who has the uncanny ability to put on a character as if it were a coat. Yes, he often looks too old to play an engg. student but he pulls it off.
2. Madhavan cannot pull it off. He sticks out like a sore thumb and looks too old and overweight to be doing this.
3. Sharman Joshi is a natural. Somebody give this guy more roles. And good roles. Because he can strike a chord and he can act.
4. I did not like the glorification of Aamir's character, Rancho/Phunsuk. He could do no wrong, he had the best lines, everybody loved him. It's time Bollywood grew out of crap characterizations like this. Especially with a talented ensemble cast. Look at Dil Chahta Hai, learn from it.
5. I did not agree with the total vilification and rejection of the education system. The mantra for success is not to bypass hard work. Do what you want to do, but work hard at it also. Passing the buck for failures on the system is taking the easy way out. Root out the inefficiencies in the system but recognize its merits also. Everyone cannot be a maverick.
6. I liked the funny scenes in the movie - from the Chatur speech to Aamir's smartass dialogues. The taut screenplay kept the pace going.
7. The songs though not great by themselves, work when seen in the context of the movie. "Zoobi doobi" has been conceptualised really well.
8. The climax with Aamir assists Mona Singh's delivery was unnecessary and over-the-top. Ya, we get it - the guy's a genius and a hero.
9. Some scenes were refreshing in their irreverence. Like the one where Raju's plight at home with his suffering mother, his paralysed father and his unwed sister is shown in black and white with sitar strains, to underscore the melodrama that was earlier attached to such scenes.
10. I liked 3 Idiots for its performances, its message of following your heart and not giving up, for its humour. I agree that its a feel-good movie though some messages did cause me some alarm. Overall an 8.5/10.
P.S. I also think the movie is quite different from the book. Be true to yourself Chetan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)