no gossip, no scandals.
movie reviews ... and more
movie reviews ... and more
Krazzy for a decent movie
Krazzy for a decent movie has rated 0 movies, and has posted 16 comments.
Also check out the list of wogma's top readers.
Krazzy for a decent movie has rated 0 movies, and has posted 16 comments.
Also check out the list of wogma's top readers.
With all due respects for this correspondent, I think there are some important points to be made here.
IFFI is not Cannes and will never be, for various reasons, namely that it does not attract the best films. And it is not the most prestigious festival in this country, neither is it the best in terms of quality and audience. That honour goes to the Trivandrum film festival which in a very short span of time has become an international class festival in terms of quality and a discerning audience. No film festival can be succesful without a horde of eager cinephiles and with all due respects to the Calcutta crowd, the Trivandrum mallus have taken over.
They understand cinema and auteurs and the intensity and quality of discussion is outstanding. That festival has done very well without any Bollywood stars, and it shows that their presence is not required.
By the way, does anyone remember two films that John Landis directed last?
I loved his Blues Brothers but that was way back in the 80's.
What is also needed is a committed team who Love cinema in all its aspects and Trivandrum is lucky to have it. You could also look at the Osian festival to understand why these so called small festivals have done well over the years.
IFFI is going nowhere, and Goa is definitely not the place as it does not have a film culture worth the name. The only thing common to Cannes and Goa are the beaches the quality of which vary widely.
Just shifting the festival to an exotic venue is never going to help. As if that can compensate for Cinema.
And yes, I completely forgot, the film harps so much on democracy, ha ha through another stereotype, the army subedar! We even have one song thrown in for that!
I liked Munnibhai's song the best.
Hey, read your review and your review seems to be predominantly negative, but still you have given the film a good rating overall.
I found the film tedious, a cross between a DD social serial and a Films Division documentary.
So yes, Mr. Benegal is a known nationalist at least from his filmography and here is yet another attempt to make a rural film which would appeal to the multiplex audience.
But does it work?
What you get is a squeaky clean village, ostensibly Ramoji Rao film city, which exists in never never land, and is not real. And the characters are stereotypes, the goon turned politician, the letter writer with a heart of gold, the romantic compounder, the feisty independent girl who wants to work, and the wife in waiting for her absent husband. That is it, one line summarizes the characters in the script. What else is there about them; in a village for eg there would be caste as the most important factor. What makes them what they are, we come to know nothing. They are props that is it for the story to move, and what is the story, a romance that is fated to remain half baked?
The only "real" character is that of the transgender Munnibhai, but even there we see just a very limited side of her. Nothing else is explored.
The director has thrown in everything from power cuts to sms's and the scenes seem to be written for the lines and the message rather than the other way around which results in a script which just plods around, with a few songs thrown in for good measure!
Yes, the film does have its moments, the dialogues are for the most crisp, and Amrita Rao has done a good job and so has the actor playing the Transgender(Ravi Jhankal I think). Shreyas Talpade needs to move away from the cute, chocolate, ever smiling boy roles and do something serious for a change, his sweet boy acting gets terribly irritating.
The best of Benegal's films have been intense / satirical. This film has neither the intensity nor the satirical punch.
I mean if you want to laud it just because it has a rural theme, go ahead, but otherwise it disappoints.
Yes, Rock On did have its moments, but they were too far and few inbetween. The track of Arjun Rampal's character and his wife Debbie was the best of the lot. The rest, well...
Pauline Kael was not technically trained in cinema is what I meant.
No I do not visit single screen theatres anymore though I occasionally go to Alaka or to Neelayam, but that is very , very rare.
And sorry, one of the films that I enjoyed the most was Aankhen starring Govinda and Chunky Pandey!
And yes, I too have to eat and lead a life but then let me be clear that my writing comes from there. Because you cannot compromise you see!
The best critics who eat, drink, and breathe the respective subject,because for them it is what gives them life!
Eg Pauline Kael who was in that sense completely "illiterate" about film.
I do not doubt that film like all
art is subjective; but definitely if we look around I am sure we can arrive at a common understanding!
I am totally against the concept of enjoyment; enjoying a film is different from enjoyment! I enjoy films which give insight into the human condition primarily and all good art does that, I do not think there would be too many divergences from this point of view.
But these films can be dark and depressing, or light and funny, whatever!
As for the films you mentioned in the multiplex, I have watched none of them.
I have watched each and every film of Manmohan Desai, Prakash Mehra et al and would like to see them again, but unfortunately because of multiplexes will never be screened. In the good old days you had single screens which showed old hindi films repeatedly. That phenomena is gone now.
I cursed the multiplex audience because they have no discipline, they are too busy answering calls, eating popcorn, chitchatting etc! Multiplexes have also changed the nature of cinema viewing by their very structure; earlier one went to see the film, one concentrated all of one's energies on it, to day of course watching a film is one of the things you do at a multiplex.
90 percent of the time I am highly irritated with the multiplex crowd, talking, smsing, chatting etc.
Contrast that with a chap who goes to watch Shivaji; he has probably waited long hours, and watches the film with rapt attention not wanting to miss anything, in fact the film is the most important thing for him.
The multiplex crowd wants something new, something cool, which is why if you look at the list of the above films they are all ultimately cheap copies of foreign language films and not just with respect to stories.
Khuda ke liye was the only noteworthy film and it was not meant for the multiplex crowd, that sophisticated crowd at all.
As for the multiplexes, because of them so many good movies do not get space, for eg December boys which ran for three days, and our very own Hazaron Khwaishen Aisi which just about managed to run for four days. It was a horrible experience watching this particular film in E square; the audience had come in only because they had failed to get tickets for other movies and because it was hindi they thought they would be able to sit through it and of course found the film difficult.
I had to later watch the film on dvd because I had missed out on most of the dialogues thanks to the multiplex audience.
As for writing reviews, are'nt there enough reviewers around?
The audience, wonder why this aspect has never been explored in this country?
The audience especially the multiplex audience is the worst in my opinion!
They have no understanding of cinema and I do not mean in the technical sense, but they just have not watched films, good, bad or indifferent!
They have just gone by ratings on websites or newspapers and watched the four star ones, and conceded to the popular opinion that the film was either good or bad.
They have not read about cinema, they have not in the famous dialogue "eat cinema, drink cinema, and sleep cinema"!
And I do not mean english vs hindi either; how many of the multiplex audience has followed hindi cinema or mainstream cinema either?
When sometimes I talk about Mujhe Jeene Do, most people have not seen it.
When I talk about Mithun's Gunmaster G9 films a most interesting example of popular schlock, people have not watched that either.
So what is it that they have seen? Am not talking about Ghatak or Ray or Kasaravalli either.
And today is paradoxically the era of the DVD where almost any film is available.
I would have loved to hear somebody talk about Mithun da's films; as a legacy of popular culture and what it could mean for us.
Will stop now, get too depressed thinking about this. Ha, ha.
@meetu, yes, I want the makers to think more and to work harder!
Too often we as lazy audiences justify a film by saying that it is the first time that such a topic is being dealt with etc. That is not an excuse from a film maker's point of view. He or she has a responsibility to put in his best and not just superficially package the film and rip it off from other language or other country cinema.
Unless audiences are demanding, where will the films come about?
Every director worth his or her salt has been held responsible for his or her successes/debacles by both critics and audiences. Regional cinema is in that sense far more rigourous, just look at malayalam or bengali cinema where directors are expected to put in their all and have a point of view, and not just pass of anything to the audience.
To me the irony of Rock on is that the message is about not compromising, but the film is exactly the opposite!
There is nothing wrong with wanting to make money by targetting a certain section of the audience; but then be honest enought to admit to it.
And let us not then talk about "great cinema" though of course one can combine the two aims!
And just cannot resist since you brought up Amadeus,the screenplay was written by Peter Schaffer.
Peter Schaffer is a writer's writer and a playwright. You must watch his film adaptation of Equus with Richard Burton which premieried first as a play on Broadway.
No comparison at all.
and amadeus was in a completely different league, the script, the acting and the direction and it used music wonderfully to enhance the mood and story.
Look at Amadeus as played by Tom Hulce, Salieri as played F Murray Abraham, my God, there is absolutely no way one can make any comparisons. The film is richly detailed as it is a period film but more than that the film is so evocative.
No comparisons at all between Milos Forman who gave us One flew over a Cuckoo's nest and Abhishek Kapoor, Ha ha.
@meetu, so what exactly does the movie show about relationships, in any depth?
the first half establishes how all of them are in some way frustrated, and then the second half has them coming back together.
so what is it about their relationship, were they rich kids having a good time, or they were there for the music?
What makes them tick? What hidden issues, agendas lurk beneath the surface?
It is all so cloyingly sweet and superficial as shown.
To plumb the depths of relationships you need a script with some insight, and understanding where characters are reasonably well delineated. Not gloss and floss.
@Meetu, that is exactly the point, the first half of the script tries desperately to establish linkages which do not exist!
And about Farhan's voice, technology has produced it, it is not worth discussing!
Am not a wife so would not know, though am a person who understands music to some extent and have tried my hand at bands and singing, so would say that if Farhan was passionate about music, he would have stuck to it rather than run away as he did. So found the motivations rather confusing! Ten years is a long time you know, and you get all sorts of opportunities, especially if you have the money, unless of course, the rest of your band were John Paul Jones, Jimmy Page and John Bonham,(ordinary Brit boys otherwise), in short Led Zeppelin who refused to play after Bonham's death in 1980 till this year for a very special reunion concert, where 20 million fans applied for 20 000 tickets! Ha.
Of course, one can argue that it could be possible, I agree no doubt, it is possible, though highly improbable!
And in "Almost Famous" the band the lead character tours with is ostensibly Led Zeppelin.
All that aside, the script really lets the film down. It could have been shortened by 30 minutes or so, and could have tackled the themes of their daily lives in the present and how that affects their coming together even though they have fond memories and of course hurts. That would have been very very interesting.
After all as someone said in the film I think it was Debbie "are you going to be a rock star at this age?"
As Tull sang, Too young to die and too old to rock and roll!
I have friends who are 35 plus and who play concerts of rock music too with young 20 year old band members, and you should check the reaction of the crowd when they see that one "old" man- in one instance some of them said that he must be the music teacher for the band! Ha, ha.
what a pretentious film! the first half is really bad, the second slightly better, maybe because everybody is happy including the audience!
Farhan cannot sing at all, with a voice that sounds like a cross between a hoarse saw and a smooth sandpaper, his dialogue delivery is the funniest ever! Yes, many rock singers have been besur, but farhan is beyond that he just does not have a voice! The miracles of technology are limitless!
The music well, the composers seem to have put together a mix of all the stray licks from the 70' and the 80's that were discarded by the original bands and used them here, ha ha. The riffs are so funny that you just wonder, oh my god, he is used that! that!
college bands in this country are not that bad, come on!
Dominique Cerejo's singing is the saving grace, do not know the name of the song, but that song which plays in the back ground as Sakshi lovingly watches her husband and pals jam up.
The script well, am a bleeding heart and I love a feel good film as much as anyone else, but the conflicts set up in the first half are so pretentious and contrived!
Come on just because you are bad musicians, does not mean you would be bad salesmen of jewellery or would not help your wife in the fish business!
Look at Farhan's character for a change! He is doing so well, but his wife walks out because he would not tell her about his college mates and the band, any sensible wife would stick to what he was doing right, the money, the apartment and the other goodies, ha ha.
Arjun Ramphal is the surprise so is Purab Kohli, they have done a good job. so has the actress who plays debbie.
so was this a dig at anu malik, or the "hindi music industry" or was it just an expensive way to indulge one's buddies?
am still trying to decide with lots of aspirin to help me.
Cool dudes, ritzy hairstyles and deodorised extras, and that music will get you the good life, that is what the film seems to be about, and of course about not compromising, repeated at least four times in case we forget!
Do see "Almost Famous" sometime.
What a horrible movie! It starts off well but the script then degenerates into every known cliche in the book and beyond!
Soha Ali Khan cannot act, Kay Kay and Irfan at least salvage their badly written roles.
Paresh does a good job with what material he has.
The movie amplifies and plays out every stupid middle class fantasy and anxiety in very simplistic terms. The director whose Dombivili Fast was a bad copy of Falling Down has just done the same here, made a bad copy of Crash and Babel, but he is no Innaritu!
terrific movie, too good, great punjabi jokes, smooth as butter chicken, katrina is too good, her dialogue delivery and her body language is fantastic...akshay is just too good, good chest hair and great beard...
good costumes, and great plot, javed jaffri is oh my god, so funny...
ha, ha, this movie is the funniest one so far, rakhee sawant has done the most wonderful item number...she shakes her chest so hard in front of the camera, that wonders why it does not fall off!
And the jokes are too good, about our country, about the state of the nation, and of course about the idiots who go to watch such a movie, and what was all that hoo haa about plagiarism, the songs were sooooo bad!
Browse
Reviews
Articles
Ads
Recent Comments
Home
Reviews
...and more
About
Subscribe
Contact
Credits: wogma logo by Ain Digytal Inc. wogma audio review signature tune by Shreyas Beltangdy. Icons taken from Silk icons and iconspedia.com.