Sunday, January 20, 2008
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Same Same but Different
Like the tag line of the movie this movie is same same (Hyderabad Blues, Bollywood Calling) but different (Dor, Iqbal) from Nagesh's previous work. Nagesh is one of the film makers I really admire, because he is daring, he is not afraid of experimenting, he knows what he is doing and he is one thinking film maker. Who else than Nagesh can come up with something like "Jeevan Dhara ka Jwalamukhi". With this movie Nagesh is back to what he has started his career with.
The movie is about a cook Shankar Singh, who steals money from gangster JAM-K AKA Jamal Khan and lands in Bangkok with a group of doctors. On his first night in Bangkok he meets one Thai massage girl Jasmine and feels the attraction towards her. The same girl is working as a volunteer in the medical camp by day, where Shankar has landed by the turn of fate. They don't understand each other but are attracted to each other and over the course of events they fall in love. There is another story of Eminem worshiping wannabe rapper gangster JAM-K, who lands in the same medical camp following Shankar and meets Dr Rati, a psychiatric just to realize that she is the love of his life he has been searching for so long. There are many funny incidents in between the story and in the end there is a twist, which is a bit weak, but who cares.
Nagesh has yet again chosen a different topic and has been successful to certain extent. I was really impressed by the actor who played JAM-K, he made us laugh most of the time he was on screen. Shreyas is a good actor and should keep on doing such films. Lina (Thai actress) is good in her part. In the supporting cast I liked Rash, the guy who was interpretor for the two lead actors. The idea is brilliant but the story could have been better and a little bit fast paced. There are some scenes, which should have been shot differently. Like the one, when Shreyas dances singing gas thi bhai gas thi.
Overall the movie is a decent light comedy and deserves at least one viewing. I would recommend it to everyone who liked Hyderabad Blues. Would rate this one as 6 out of 10.
The movie is about a cook Shankar Singh, who steals money from gangster JAM-K AKA Jamal Khan and lands in Bangkok with a group of doctors. On his first night in Bangkok he meets one Thai massage girl Jasmine and feels the attraction towards her. The same girl is working as a volunteer in the medical camp by day, where Shankar has landed by the turn of fate. They don't understand each other but are attracted to each other and over the course of events they fall in love. There is another story of Eminem worshiping wannabe rapper gangster JAM-K, who lands in the same medical camp following Shankar and meets Dr Rati, a psychiatric just to realize that she is the love of his life he has been searching for so long. There are many funny incidents in between the story and in the end there is a twist, which is a bit weak, but who cares.
Nagesh has yet again chosen a different topic and has been successful to certain extent. I was really impressed by the actor who played JAM-K, he made us laugh most of the time he was on screen. Shreyas is a good actor and should keep on doing such films. Lina (Thai actress) is good in her part. In the supporting cast I liked Rash, the guy who was interpretor for the two lead actors. The idea is brilliant but the story could have been better and a little bit fast paced. There are some scenes, which should have been shot differently. Like the one, when Shreyas dances singing gas thi bhai gas thi.
Overall the movie is a decent light comedy and deserves at least one viewing. I would recommend it to everyone who liked Hyderabad Blues. Would rate this one as 6 out of 10.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
My Name is Anthony Gonsalves
I read in Bombay Times some time back that Nikhil Dwivedi (hero of MNAG) is asking close to one crore for every film and after watching the film I have realized, either he is highly overpaid or I am highly underpaid. I was very impressed with E Niwas' first film Shool, but something happened and he lost his touch. Love ke Liye Kuchh Bhi Karega was light comedy, decent one. Then he made Dum and Bardasht, two really bad films. Dum even managed to kill the rising star in Vivek Oberoi. So, frankly speaking, I did not have very high expectations from the film. The only thing I was looking forward to was watching Anupam Kher as a bad guy and Pavan Malhotra.
There is one small boy, who is spotted by a gangster and the gangster decides to take care of the boy and make him a good human being. The boy grows up learning lessons in order to become a good person. The same boy, now grown up crosses paths with the same gangster who gave him a new life. DejaVu, isn't this the same story we did watch in many films, when we were kids.
Anthony (Nikhil) is an orphan, who has been brought up by Sikandar Bhai (Pavan Malhotra) and has learned lessons of life by Father Braganza (Mithun). He dreams of becoming a film star and works in a pub. Anthony gets a lead role in a film and falls in love with the assistant director of the film Riya (Amrita Rao). One day Anthony sees something he should not have seen and then starts all the trouble in everyone's life. What will Anthony do now? Will he sacrifice the man who gave him life in order to do the right thing or he will keep quite about what he saw? What will Sikandar do? Will he go with Murtaja Bhai (Kher), the man who brought him up, or will he save the kid, who he brought up and decided to give him a good life? You can guess the answers by your experience from watching old Hindi films.
Just by copying the looks of SRK, no one can become him and just by copying the name from a hit song, film can not be hit. The only good things about the movie are Pavan Malhotra and Anupan Kher. No other actor has been able to impress with his acting. The story is age old and has been shown many times in many different versions. Music also is not very impressive. By the way I liked Hrishita Bhatt in the item song 'na baba'. Nikhil Dwivedi has to learn a lot many lessons in acting before he makes his second film. Waise soch raha hun main bhi hero ban hi jata hun.
Overall, if you have anything else to do, don't go for this movie. I would rate this one a 4 out of 10.
There is one small boy, who is spotted by a gangster and the gangster decides to take care of the boy and make him a good human being. The boy grows up learning lessons in order to become a good person. The same boy, now grown up crosses paths with the same gangster who gave him a new life. DejaVu, isn't this the same story we did watch in many films, when we were kids.
Anthony (Nikhil) is an orphan, who has been brought up by Sikandar Bhai (Pavan Malhotra) and has learned lessons of life by Father Braganza (Mithun). He dreams of becoming a film star and works in a pub. Anthony gets a lead role in a film and falls in love with the assistant director of the film Riya (Amrita Rao). One day Anthony sees something he should not have seen and then starts all the trouble in everyone's life. What will Anthony do now? Will he sacrifice the man who gave him life in order to do the right thing or he will keep quite about what he saw? What will Sikandar do? Will he go with Murtaja Bhai (Kher), the man who brought him up, or will he save the kid, who he brought up and decided to give him a good life? You can guess the answers by your experience from watching old Hindi films.
Just by copying the looks of SRK, no one can become him and just by copying the name from a hit song, film can not be hit. The only good things about the movie are Pavan Malhotra and Anupan Kher. No other actor has been able to impress with his acting. The story is age old and has been shown many times in many different versions. Music also is not very impressive. By the way I liked Hrishita Bhatt in the item song 'na baba'. Nikhil Dwivedi has to learn a lot many lessons in acting before he makes his second film. Waise soch raha hun main bhi hero ban hi jata hun.
Overall, if you have anything else to do, don't go for this movie. I would rate this one a 4 out of 10.
Halla Bol: He has got balls!
Although I am not a big fan of Rajkumar Santoshi (I liked Andaz Apna Apna), I was looking forward to this one. Pankaj Kapoor was reason enough and fortunately he didn't disappoint me, as usual. The movie is supposedly inspired by Jessica Lal murder case and life of Safdar Hashmi (who was killed during one of his street plays). The two events mixed together can really make a good script.
The movie starts with the launch of biography of super star Sameer Khan (Ajay Devgan) and we are told that he is the kind of person who can go to any extent to remain at the top. He is even ready to sacrifice his marriage for his acting career. Then in a party he witnesses the murder of Rashmi Sahani, by sons of two very influential persons, one a state minister and another a liquor baron. He decides to keep quite in order to stay out of any controversy. Sameer Khan's past is told to us, using flash back. We are told that he was Asfaque, who used to work in street plays on social issues by a retired (not sure about the choice of word) decoit Sidhu (Pankaj Kapoor).
By the time movie reaches towards interval our hero decides to fight for the girl and appears in front of police claiming that he can identify the killers. Suddenly his life changes. Fathers of two accused try everything in their power to stop him. Over the course of the film, his wife and friends join him in his fight and then Rajkumar Santoshi's Safdar Hashmi, organizes a street play 'Halla Bol'. No points for guessing what happens next.
Rajkumar Santishi has yet again tried his hands on socially relevant subject. The movie is being compared with RDB, but let me tell you. This one is different. RDB was a class, this one is not. RDB was targeted to awaken the masses, this movie does not do so. The movie has a very bad supporting cast. Except the brilliant lead cast, none of the supporting characters impress you. Pankaj Kapoor is brilliant as always. He has made 2 time national award winner Ajay look dwarf in acting department. I liked all the scenes involving Pankaj Kapoor. I have seen sword fights in many bollywood movies and none of them looked real, but give the same sword to Pankaj Kapoor and he makes it look real. Look forward to scenes where Sidhu is talking to media outside hospital and where Sidhu confronts with two truck drivers who are sent to kill Sameer. I am also not convinced with casting of Ajay Devgan as a superstar. I feel Santoshi is missing Amrish Puri badly. The movie lacked an impressive villain.
The story has many flaws in it and one of them is, it defies logic. Someone should tell Mr Santoshi, that there is a huge difference in Shayan Munshi and Sharukh Khan or Safdar Hashmi and Sharukh Khan for that matter. A Safdar Hashmi can be beaten to death in front of a crowd, but nobody would dare touch SRK in public, no matter how powerful he is. The story would have a been a bit more convincing if Sameer Khan was an struggling actor instead of a super star. I am also not very fond of watching villains who make weird gestures and speaks even more weird dialogs. Negative characters could have been written better and also Santoshi should have casted better actors to play those roles.
Overall, the movie is not a masterpiece but it deserves one viewing, if nothing, watch it for Pankaj Kapoor, one of the greatest actors we have in bollywood. I would rate this one as 6 out of 10.
The movie starts with the launch of biography of super star Sameer Khan (Ajay Devgan) and we are told that he is the kind of person who can go to any extent to remain at the top. He is even ready to sacrifice his marriage for his acting career. Then in a party he witnesses the murder of Rashmi Sahani, by sons of two very influential persons, one a state minister and another a liquor baron. He decides to keep quite in order to stay out of any controversy. Sameer Khan's past is told to us, using flash back. We are told that he was Asfaque, who used to work in street plays on social issues by a retired (not sure about the choice of word) decoit Sidhu (Pankaj Kapoor).
By the time movie reaches towards interval our hero decides to fight for the girl and appears in front of police claiming that he can identify the killers. Suddenly his life changes. Fathers of two accused try everything in their power to stop him. Over the course of the film, his wife and friends join him in his fight and then Rajkumar Santoshi's Safdar Hashmi, organizes a street play 'Halla Bol'. No points for guessing what happens next.
Rajkumar Santishi has yet again tried his hands on socially relevant subject. The movie is being compared with RDB, but let me tell you. This one is different. RDB was a class, this one is not. RDB was targeted to awaken the masses, this movie does not do so. The movie has a very bad supporting cast. Except the brilliant lead cast, none of the supporting characters impress you. Pankaj Kapoor is brilliant as always. He has made 2 time national award winner Ajay look dwarf in acting department. I liked all the scenes involving Pankaj Kapoor. I have seen sword fights in many bollywood movies and none of them looked real, but give the same sword to Pankaj Kapoor and he makes it look real. Look forward to scenes where Sidhu is talking to media outside hospital and where Sidhu confronts with two truck drivers who are sent to kill Sameer. I am also not convinced with casting of Ajay Devgan as a superstar. I feel Santoshi is missing Amrish Puri badly. The movie lacked an impressive villain.
The story has many flaws in it and one of them is, it defies logic. Someone should tell Mr Santoshi, that there is a huge difference in Shayan Munshi and Sharukh Khan or Safdar Hashmi and Sharukh Khan for that matter. A Safdar Hashmi can be beaten to death in front of a crowd, but nobody would dare touch SRK in public, no matter how powerful he is. The story would have a been a bit more convincing if Sameer Khan was an struggling actor instead of a super star. I am also not very fond of watching villains who make weird gestures and speaks even more weird dialogs. Negative characters could have been written better and also Santoshi should have casted better actors to play those roles.
Overall, the movie is not a masterpiece but it deserves one viewing, if nothing, watch it for Pankaj Kapoor, one of the greatest actors we have in bollywood. I would rate this one as 6 out of 10.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Steve Bucknor: Umpire of the Year
I am amazed to hear that 96% of the decisions taken by Mr Steve Bucknor is last 2 years were correct, which is very impressive while the average for the elite panel of ICC umpires is 94%. Bucknor should very well keep on officiating during important matches, if we go only by this statistics.
But, should this be the only criteria to judge an Umpire's performance. If an umpire is giving 96% correct decisions, it means he is physically fit and able to see and hear the ball clearly. Have ICC ever looked into the fact that most of the wrong decisions by Bucknor have come against team India. Doesn't that show a clear bias on Bucknor's part. I would prefer to have an umpire who is less accurate, but unbiased rather that taking someone who is biased against any particular team or country. The only purpose of having umpires in the game is to have an unbiased decision. Having umpires like Bucknor defeats the purpose of umpiring.
But, should this be the only criteria to judge an Umpire's performance. If an umpire is giving 96% correct decisions, it means he is physically fit and able to see and hear the ball clearly. Have ICC ever looked into the fact that most of the wrong decisions by Bucknor have come against team India. Doesn't that show a clear bias on Bucknor's part. I would prefer to have an umpire who is less accurate, but unbiased rather that taking someone who is biased against any particular team or country. The only purpose of having umpires in the game is to have an unbiased decision. Having umpires like Bucknor defeats the purpose of umpiring.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Cricket Australia at it's peak
Yesterday Australian cricket reached it's peak and this is one achievement no country should be proud of, but Australian cricketers seem to be enjoying that. They looked really happy in achieving what they achieved. Ricky Ponting and his team looked so hungry for putting their names in record books for one more time that they didn't even feel bad about whatever happened on the field.
Steve Waugh justified the behavior of team Australia by saying, "Teams playing against Australia fail to understand that banter, gamesmanship, sledging or whatever anyone would like to call. It is just the way Australian kids joust and play on the schoolyard and backyards." So Mr. Waugh is saying gali dena while playing is a part of Australian culture. well then Mr. Waugh please note that gali khana is not a part of our culture and the same stands good for any other cricket playing nation for that matter. If gali dena is a part of your culture, then don't run around complaining when someone replies to your galis.
I also fail to understand, since when monkey has become a racist comment. Let's assume Bhajji called Symonds Big Monkey as claimed by him and his team mates Hayden and Clark and Symonds thought it was racial. In these matters feeling of the person who said this should be taken into consideration and not of the person to whom the things have been said. In this case it's what Bhajji's intention/motive was after calling Symonds a Big Monkey is more important than what Symonds felt about the same.
Since I have mentioned motive here, what motive Bhajji could possibly have after calling names to Symonds, when he was batting and Symonds was fielding (not even bowling). I have never ever seen something like that in my entire life. If Bhajji said something to Symonds (by the way, TV clippings clearly show that Symonds started it all, as this is a part of his culture according to Steve Waugh) and he took it into the wrong spirit then Symonds should be banned not Bhajji.
Well, if we look back, Bhajji has never been accused of racial slur or any other kind of sledging before, while Symonds has complained against players and spectators around the world regarding being targeted to racial slur. This shows there is some problem with Symonds and his attitude and not with Bhajji.
Ban Symonds for at least 6 matches for spoiling the spirit of the so called gentleman's game. Also, Ricky Ponting should be punished appropriately for supporting Symonds in this wrong deed. And yes Mr Ponting, I am questioning your game spirit.
Edit1: I have just heard that after facing the 3 match ban for calling Symonds a monkey, Bhajji falls more into trouble as monkeys all around the world along with Peta and other lesser known animal rights organizations have decided to protest against Bhajji for insulting their race by calling Symonds a monkey. Bhajji what have you done, you should not have hurt monkey feelings, by referring to Symonds by same name.
Edit2: I am amazed by the fact that Mike Procter believed Symonds and Clark over Bhajji and Sachin. Symonds is the same person who did not walk out of the crease even though he knew he was out and admitted the same in press conference after day 1 of the match. Clark is same person who claimed a catch that he picked from ground and then grassed the ball. Dear Mr Procter has chosen to believe their word over Sachin's.
Edit3: There is another theory, which says Bhajji did not call Symonds a monkey, he actually said Teri Ma Ki and Symonds thought it's monkey (ma ki). But I think even if this is proved, Bhajji will still be called a racist, because he did not think Symonds was worthy for the complete gali because of his race.
Steve Waugh justified the behavior of team Australia by saying, "Teams playing against Australia fail to understand that banter, gamesmanship, sledging or whatever anyone would like to call. It is just the way Australian kids joust and play on the schoolyard and backyards." So Mr. Waugh is saying gali dena while playing is a part of Australian culture. well then Mr. Waugh please note that gali khana is not a part of our culture and the same stands good for any other cricket playing nation for that matter. If gali dena is a part of your culture, then don't run around complaining when someone replies to your galis.
I also fail to understand, since when monkey has become a racist comment. Let's assume Bhajji called Symonds Big Monkey as claimed by him and his team mates Hayden and Clark and Symonds thought it was racial. In these matters feeling of the person who said this should be taken into consideration and not of the person to whom the things have been said. In this case it's what Bhajji's intention/motive was after calling Symonds a Big Monkey is more important than what Symonds felt about the same.
Since I have mentioned motive here, what motive Bhajji could possibly have after calling names to Symonds, when he was batting and Symonds was fielding (not even bowling). I have never ever seen something like that in my entire life. If Bhajji said something to Symonds (by the way, TV clippings clearly show that Symonds started it all, as this is a part of his culture according to Steve Waugh) and he took it into the wrong spirit then Symonds should be banned not Bhajji.
Well, if we look back, Bhajji has never been accused of racial slur or any other kind of sledging before, while Symonds has complained against players and spectators around the world regarding being targeted to racial slur. This shows there is some problem with Symonds and his attitude and not with Bhajji.
Ban Symonds for at least 6 matches for spoiling the spirit of the so called gentleman's game. Also, Ricky Ponting should be punished appropriately for supporting Symonds in this wrong deed. And yes Mr Ponting, I am questioning your game spirit.
Edit1: I have just heard that after facing the 3 match ban for calling Symonds a monkey, Bhajji falls more into trouble as monkeys all around the world along with Peta and other lesser known animal rights organizations have decided to protest against Bhajji for insulting their race by calling Symonds a monkey. Bhajji what have you done, you should not have hurt monkey feelings, by referring to Symonds by same name.
Edit2: I am amazed by the fact that Mike Procter believed Symonds and Clark over Bhajji and Sachin. Symonds is the same person who did not walk out of the crease even though he knew he was out and admitted the same in press conference after day 1 of the match. Clark is same person who claimed a catch that he picked from ground and then grassed the ball. Dear Mr Procter has chosen to believe their word over Sachin's.
Edit3: There is another theory, which says Bhajji did not call Symonds a monkey, he actually said Teri Ma Ki and Symonds thought it's monkey (ma ki). But I think even if this is proved, Bhajji will still be called a racist, because he did not think Symonds was worthy for the complete gali because of his race.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)