Aam_Aadmi

The subject this latest adman-turned-movieman tries to tackle in his debut (ad)venture is quite an age-old topic of discussion by almost any cultural standard -- timeless romance (pun intended).

However, the exploration (and exploitation for Desi auds) falls woefully short as the usual inclinations to 'pepper, spice and sugar' up the usual masala mix of b/g score, dialog, dance, drama, etc creates a nice-looking package with not much inside.

In the first 40 minutes of the movie, the kitchen scene has been repeated at least 8-9 times. Further repeats follow thru-out the movie (after all the lead character's a cook). But therein lies les problemos -- no story! Hah, no wonder. Someone forgot to write a script.

Amitabh puts in a Cheeni Jyada (more) amount of over-acting. Really when is this guy ever gonna stop?? How many 60-somethings prance around like that even when teased by a nubile 30-something??? Timeless mind yes, but surely what about the not-so-ageless bod? And sole? Sorry, soul?! Reasonably good acting by Paresh Rawal who has the only sensible role in the film. The director lacks any sense of realism getting all caught up in his new-fangled discovery of a hot new idea. Nowhere are we presented with any real-life problems or issues such a pair might face, other than actually getting married which is only the initial obstacle. The sub-plot of a little kid with cancer (the bachelor boy's first love) goes nowhere and whatever little bit of poignancy this otherwise insipid presentation would have evoked is quickly killed off along with the girl's character.

Anyway, nice try but not quite there yet.

This movie is one of the earliest blockbusters of the 1970s that firmly launched Amitabh Bachchan in the superstar orbit.

In an oft-repeated cop-robber plot, director Chandra Barot makes a film about a gangster don (no particular reference to any Mumbai underworld figure nor any sneaky take on a Hollywood film) who has eluded cops for a long time. "Don ko pakadna itna aasan nahin", says DCP D'Silva in an ominous tone that still resonates among the current duels between crime bosses and superstar cops like Daya Nayak.

The essence of Don's charisma goes beyond the methodical framing of its central characters in what is a rather straightforward plot. Cleverly written dialogs that inspired an entire generation of moviegoers, shots and scenes that (at the time) defied the boundaries of all conventional wisdom, fabulous acting by the main and supporting cast, and a musical score by Kalyanji Anandji that is evergreen to this day -- those are of course what made Don such a memorable movie in the minds of many.

Best thing is to go see it even if its your first or fifth time. Great movies such as this are way beyond Bollywood now, and it is doubtful if the current crap -- oops sorry, crop! of directors can ever concoct a compelling story such as this one.

Using the small canvas of a not-so-well-educated, twice-married and financially insecure Pakistani immigrant as its protagonist, this film, set in 70s era Britain, tries to highlight inter-generational conflict in an inter-racial family of six sons and one daughter.

Khan's character is real sloppy. After 7 kids he displays no maturity, no assimilation, no respect for his family or adopted homeland, nor is there any sense of belonging (achievement) or alienation (resentment). Maybe the superficial treatment was deliberate. Whatever.

Do working-class folks in suburban or rural England routinely use such mouthfuls of slang when speaking with family members?? Well, maybe, but the only impression it leaves is of poor dialog, not deep empathy. The circumcision issue has also been handled clumsily, as if to convey what a big deal it is to Muslims. It is! But so is it to Jews, Christians, and others!!

Its extremely hard to understand the rural British accent. And save the barrage of foul language and unnecessary diversions, East is East could have been a much better movie as compared to Monsoon Wedding, Bride and Prejudice, etc.

This film attempts to visually depict what is normally spoken in hushed tones or whispered behind closed doors. In doing so, it uses expletives to the hilt and shoves the R-word down your throat until you choke.

Is that just bad screenplay or poor direction? Perhaps a bit of both as we try to connect all the dots in this puzzling piece. The events in a day on the streets of LA, where a corrupt cop deliberately pulls over and 'whisks' the wrong party, a couple of carjackers steal a Navigator and bump a Chinese pedestrian (but are not caught or pulled over) and a locksmith finishes a couple of door jobs but is unable to fix the real problems behind them, try to build a complex mosaic of activity in this beehive of Corrupt Angels (as per the film-makers).

But the film lacks a uniform voice not so much because the backgrounds or beliefs of the individual characters are radically different. Rather it does not convincingly portray why all these elements happen to be in a particular 'crash scene' at a given moment in time. Mere coincidence? Well, thats left to subjective interpretation. What good is complexity for the sake of complexity? To win awards maybe but not much else.

Nonetheless, its good for one sitting if one can patiently put together all the footprints and tracks into a cohesive whole.

Goodness gracious, Follywood's ripoff dodos are at it again! Will they ever stop?!

Just as if stealing the title from a Hollywood original is not enough, do they have to conform to their own stale formula-fares each and every time?? The story isn't much to write about -- four buddies that decide to settle scores the old-fashioned way, by whacking anyone that gets in their way. Hilarious, except its not funny.

The only good thing about this movie is that they spent tons of cash on promos (thereby making at least their vendors rich). Of course, its the latest Follywood "thinking" (?!) -- promote a film to death, recovering all the costs before the audience realizes what hit them. Fortunately, multiplex audiences in India nowadays are too smart for that.

And in NJ/NY, the movie tried hard to package itself as a new "Phormula For An Instant Headache". But the renowned pharma companies like Pfizer, Merck and Eli Lilly instantly rejected that idea as old 'mad'-icine in a new tedium. Tough luck.

This 1970s classic starring Robert De Niro as Travis Bickle, a New York city cabbie, cuts a small snippet of his daily life and takes viewers on a bumpy ride along the back streets and dark alleys of the human mind.

Returning home from Vietnam, a young Bickle confronts the prospects of finding a civilian job, settling down in an unsettling and crime-ridden city, the longing to meet someone special, and a deep-seated desire to put the violence behind him and get on with a 'regular life'. It builds the tension like a coiled spring until final climax. De Niro delivers a brilliant performance, along with credible roles by Cybill Shepherd as the love interest, and Jodie Foster as a young hooker.

Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver deals with a whole plethora of issues of great significance in a post-industrial world. The broken relationships of many millions, lost connections between friends and lovers, identity and self-expression, kinship and brotherhood -- all the fine sub-texts from just under the surface are brought to the fore-front, for everyone to take a look at, and perhaps examine.

This movie along with Mean Streets and Raging Bull marks the character arc of Scorsese as a director. Using a common template to paint in bold fresh strokes, Scorsese at once informs and imbibes the experiences of growing up in Little Italy, of family and relationships, of loving, and leaving and what it once meant to be 'just a kid'.

Thirty years later, it remains a 'must-see' for fans of good cinema and good performance both.

The story in this movie is decent in its originality however it suffers extreme damage at the hands of the film-makers due to a convulsive, non-linear format. At least two viewings are required before any of it can make sense. It may even be argued that the reason for using this method could be a weak story which is very boring if 'simply told'.

Whether the director is responsible for jumbling up the script, or the editor used too many jump-cuts to suit his/her whim, its just not clear what they wanted to achieve. Past, present and future intermingle in a wacky hand-job that isn't easy on the eyes. Ultimately the non-linear / hand-held combo becomes ineffective for such a complicated plot.

Aesthetics are OK. Acting and dialogs are great. Naomi Watts' character is totally miscast and she absolutely doesn't look like any 'mother of 2 kids' you've seen before. There's no explanation for the woman's body lying belly-up in the swimming pool, and few more continuity gaps. What finally happens to Charlotte's (Mary Rivers) character is not known.

Nonetheless in this post-Tarantino world, where Hollywood is constantly looking for something 'new' and pretty labels are a dime a dozen, this kind of fare is an instant hit with critics who gobble it up as fresh (read: asinine, but we'll save that for your next release) and original (read: there was nothing else from Dreamworks, Miramax or Tristar).

Such movies are great to watch on DVD so as to pause, rewind or forward anything that doesn't make sense at first go. Such movies also go well with 21 grams of favorite drugs, 21 ounces of favorite booze, 21 pounds of favorite food or 21 tons of favorite whatever....

This film based on the life of Mumbai Police Dept. Encounter Specialist Daya Naik and his band of mercenary cops, depicts the face offs between underworld dons and the CID (crime branch) plainclothes detectives, in which the latter have an upper hand with their direct-hit 'Shoot first, ask questions later' M.O.

Sadhu Agashe's (Nana Patekar as Daya Naik) team goes about the business matter-of-factly, with tacit blessings of their masters, both political and police force. Sadhu has some scores to settle with an overseas don, who frequently phones in, tending his ops remotely and lending the cops grief. For reasons undisclosed, their rivalry continues unabated even after Sadhu's superior changes, a wanted gunman supposedly escapes from custody and Sadhu's own wife is killed in a revenge spree.

Although a different film than the usual cop-criminal drama, it settles quickly into a dull, monotonous pace. Director Shimit Amin is unable to breathe life into the plot. Some of the textbook dialogs do not build up any intrigue. Even a five-year-old could figure out the climax as Sadhu holes up overseas to avenge his wife's murder.

Nana Patekar's hard-hitting performance does salvage the movie to some extent. Daya Naik was well-known amongst crime-watchers both within and outside Mumbai, though the 'encounter business' has encountered serious opposition from politicians, civic activists and Human Rights groups, and has largely wound down.

Just like instant baby cereal, this 'Instant Formula Flick' from RGV's factory spoon-feeds viewers using a patent format. Burrrp.

The amazing screenplay of this film and the rapid-fire pace at which it unfolds the story is fantastic. There isn't a moment of boredom, indeed most of the interrogation in the police station only serves to suck you in deep into the fiendishly clever plot. Story within a story!

In this action-packed drama directed by Bryan Singer, a mythical hit-man hoodwinks the cops into playing into his paralytic hands, while coolly extricating himself from their clutches. Was there a real Keyser Soze?? Or was he a mere figment of the imagination? Probably both?

Kevin Spacey steals the thunder in a highly composed, eccentric and yet definitively mesmerizing performance. Starting from the opening lineup right up to walking out of the station, loosening the limp, and speeding away with his associate, his sombre demeanor captures the very mystery and essence of Soze's character, as also his comrades in crime.

With an equally fine supporting cast comprising of Kevin Pollack, Chazz Palmintieri, Benicio del Toro, Steven Baldwin and Gabriel Byrne, there is very little that can go wrong. Even after 10 years, the suspense and the minute attention to detail, keep you riveted as you watch the film for the 5th, 6th, 10th or umpteenth time.

Clearly, the story is everything as demonstrated by The Usual Suspects.

Ms Aparna Sen, the maker of Mr & Mrs Iyer, directs this movie about a young girl's struggle to cope with her debilitating condition.

Meethi (Konkona Sen) has been an aloof kid ever since childhood and has shown signs of delusion, no one knows why. The dormant tendency however slips out of control, when the job assignment takes her to neighboring Bihar where she's raped by some political goons. The resulting trauma also leads to episodes of manic-depressive psychosis in addition to her schizophrenia. She careens out of control over the years, progressively getting worse and sinking deeper into her private 'world'.

The juxtaposition of an 'unsettled' (divorced) elder sister and how her domineering ways make an already bad situation worse, is indicative of what a fine line there is between abnormal and *seemingly normal*. Ms Sen also makes an excellent commentary on the social alienation of such individuals. Social rehab is standard therapy along with all the deadly mind-altering drugs. But what about the poor and the destitute, who're always left to fend for themselves and usually fall by the wayside?

The romantic connection between Dr Kunal and Anu was unnecessary. Also the cafeteria scene where Dr Kunal explains to Anu how real their world really is to them, was redundant. Anu should already know all that. The English dialog is a bit awkward at times though the acting compensates for that. Konkona and Shabana prove that their reputation is every bit worth it. Waheeda, Rahul and Shefali play their limited roles very well.

Extensive research seems to have been done about this illness, its very evident. But its not clear if MDP can coexist with schizophrenia in the same patient, side-by-side. Also in the early part, Dr Kunal recommends E.C.T (shock therapy) while invalidating the fact that it doesn't work for schizophrenics, only for extreme MDP with suicidal tendencies and other forms of bipolar disorder.

The ending of the remarkable story is suggestive of an unknown solution (maybe no solution). The movie could have ended on a nicer note, since worldwide the mentally ill can and do lead balanced and fruitful if not very fulfilling, lives under good medical care.

Nonetheless, its an excellent film made with extreme sensitivity to the subject. HATS OFF to Ms Sen! No one in India could've done it better.

Basanti is the latest and perhaps loudest, mouthpiece of 'Stop Whining, India Shining' campaign. When the producer, director, dialog writer, script supervisor, auntie, Bobby, Kakaji, Dikra, Prem, Snookums and the Dhobi (laundryman) all go on Telly to promote their movie, you can rest assured they're going to have their say. After all, they paid for it.

Director Rakesh Sharma, dialog writer Prasoon Joshi, script-man Renzil, and even Aamir all chose to speak about their Hindi film in English in the 'Making of...' show. Why? Even if the interview was in English, why not intersperse with some Hindi! Many bilingual people switch back and forth. The hypocrisy of Bollywood types really stinks. If they felt so strongly about Desh, they could choose to speak in Hindi (or some other language). But never mind, thats a mini Maha-Bhaarat by itself.

The big irony in the story is that the wasted youth depicted here need the help of a young British documentary filmmaker, not only to discover themselves but also the India they've completely forgotten. And in the process these chaps hope to clean up politics, overhaul the system, blah blah, other idealistic nonsense. Neither Aamir-Rakesh nor anyone else at RDB ever heard of Bihar, UP and MP, nor did they bat an eyelid over the purposeless deaths of Satyendra Dubey (age 30, IIT-Kanpur alum, gunned down in UP for whistle-blowing corruption on PM's highway project), or Manjunath Shanmugham (age 27, IIM Lucknow alum, IOC employee, shot dead by Bihar mafia for fighting adulterated petrol racket). Why not focus on such recent events that have shaken the country?

It's a silly plot clearly inspired by "Swades" which had a lot of fizz but bombed in theaters. Since then, Bollywood types have been jumping up and down 'Mera Bharat Mahaan' pseudo-nationalistic brigade in hopes of cashing in a fast buck or two. Apart from plot, casting is lousy –- how can a 40-year old actor pretend to be college kid? None of the guys looks like youth! Doesn't Bollywood have any young actors? Why cast men past their prime in such roles? Even this director had a compulsion to pack it all in a 3-hour bore-job while devoting the *entire* first half to 'character development'. Please, 3 acts not 3 hours!!

The Defence Minister's assassination is a sheer cop-out and an escapist solution thats not only impractical but ludicrous. But is it the right thing to do, bumping off someone because they're corrupt?

Plus points: Different take on clichéd subject (corruption), masterful presentation, lots of feel-good moments (and scenes), good dialogs.

Minus points: Poor casting (no new faces), weak plot (loose ends), too many songs, average background score.

Hrishikesh Mukherjee made this masterpiece of Indian cinema three years after the equally marvelous "Anand".

More than just a reflection of man's ego, his fall from grace, eventual defeat, surrender and redemption, it is a fine glimpse of the delicate balance and intricate nuances of marriage, and of course, extra-marital relationships. Subir, himself a successful singer, is unable to digest his wife Uma's rising fame and its slow eclipsing of his own career. He crumbles under the weight of his misguided ego and misplaced pride.

The mythological underpinnings of this film are simply superb. Chandru (played so well by Asrani) says that he's not just Subir's manager, but more like a brother! But even the sane, balanced Laxman can't save Rama from life's inevitable follies. He leaves when insulted by Subir, who then takes aim at Uma and casts aspersion on her integrity, her morality and even her dignity. The interchange between Chitra, the other woman (played by Bindu) and Uma is unusual -- there's no acrimony or jealousy, just unconditional love. If you truly love someone, you must be able to accommodate all their faults and forgive! Shyam may not belong to both Radha and Mira, but surely both have equal right to love him!! That is so incredible. Chitra once calls him 'Subi', she retains the right to use a before-marriage nickname. But what about the wife...?

The cinematography, the editing and of course S D Burman's rendering of each song into a heavenly ode, is just incomparable. Jaya and Amitabh soar to such heights in this movie, they are hard to surpass. The shots where she is singing, framed by the microphones (imprisoned by Subir?!) and those of Subir talking to CHitra, looming large in the foreground, seemingly taller than his own ego, are just great.

Hrishi-da fans will recall Guddi, Bawarchi, Gol Maal, Mili (a gem) and Khubsoorat, made in the 1970s. Along with Basu-da (Basu Chatterjee) and Shakti-da (Shakti Samanta), this golden era of Hindi cinema sadly came to an end in mid-80s, after giving audiences many memorable films, some of which also became all-time hits.

It has been 30+ years since Abhimaan, and 30+ viewings later, it still holds the same charm as always. A truly evergreen film.

In "Maine Gandhi Ko Nahin Mara", Jahnu Barua has presented a different subject -- Alzheimer's and possibly the associated dementia -- which is itself a deviation from the trashy theme-of-the-decade stuff turned out by Bollywood.

Barua has shown how at least some doctors (usually the young guys fresh out of med school) will try experimental, unproven and risky therapies, while going against the mainstream. Also, the universal tendency among medical personnel, especially the mental health community, to 'keep the status quo' until SOME result is obtained, be it positive or negative, good or bad for the patient, has been very well-documented.

While it may be true that the late-onset dementia was triggered by long-suppressed childhood memories based on some incident related to Gandhi, the 'Speechifying' at the end was totally unnecessary. The court drama could've been edited for greater effect.

Both Anupam and Urmila come across as somewhat high-strung and a tad one dimensional. The professor is retired but has absolutely no neighbors, friends or colleagues that drop in or visit once in awhile. That is highly unlikely even in modern urban India.

Anupam Kher produced this movie (that is also a trend nowadays), as the fine folks at NFDC either turned down Barua's request for financing or were too busy cavorting at Cannes.

Somewhat slow-paced at times, it is nonetheless a well-made drama about human relationships. 7 out of 10.

Yet again, Madhur Bhandarkar takes you on a ride to the wild side. And a remarkable one it is, literally and figuratively.

Mumbai hi-society -- stars and starlets, glam dolls and witch doctors, business tycoons and broker types, yep the whole stinking lot -- are in sharp focus here. In typical tabloid fashion, their worlds unfold, with every colorful story a clever sub-plot in itself.

A struggling starlet dumped by the producer after getting her pregnant, the stewardess and her high-profile husband, the pedophile businessman and his neurotic wife, the reporters and the police captain; all shades on display and countless hues in between.

Bhandarkar does a swell job of digging up the dirt on the drama kings, the dancing queens and the living dead. Atul Kulkarni packs a punch, as does Boman Irani and Sandhya Mrudul. Konkona Sen Sharma is effective as the ex-crime beat reporter, but she could have been dolled up a little in keeping with the job change and the party circuit.

Highly focused (running time 140 min) and refreshingly different film, well worth the money.

A first reading of this film comes across as a lofty inspiring story of true grit and wilful determination in the face of painful, irreversible personal trauma. But that turns out to be superficial.

"Shwaas" the way it is portrayed and sequenced, and here it is entirely the inexperienced director's mistake, seems to suggest that eyesight is more important than blindness, its great to be able to see and that the blind are missing out on so much of life. All of these statements are obviously true but are POLITICALLY INCORRECT and highly judgmental!

If the makers of Shwaas want to us be sensitive to the little boy, now that he's being operated upon and will go blind, how about showing some respect and sensitivity to the blind too?? This movie doesn't even pay lip service -- at the very end, there are couple of scenes showing some blind persons at work (as if to say, yea, they can work too..) but not much else. Aside from direction, it suffers from serious over-acting by Amruta Subhash who really does a disservice to the efforts of Sandeep Kulkarni (the doctor) and Ashwin Chitale (the kid). She drives all the gravity out entirely by herself.

The subject matter has been bungled completely, and the director's lack of maturity shows. No doubt this is much better fare than 99% of usual Bollywood crap. But if they expect to withstand the critical glare of a mature audience they better be impartial in their presentation.

Serious viewers are NOT blind -- then can 'see' thru the deception here that only one side of the issue is explored as if the boy's life story ends when he becomes blind. Hello?? Thats where it really begins!!!

"Sparsh" by Sai Paranjape explores this subject from a blind man's POV. Naseerudin Shah is blind and its a take on his life. In Shwaas, the boy becomes blind. But what next?

The movie uses random events of historical significance as its backdrop and willy-nilly criss-crosses the lives and time-lines of its 3 central characters. To what purpose, one may ask? The problem with this film is that the script becomes the 'story', not characters or their lives.

It starts off with a bunch of rich, aimless college kids (and a couple of not-so-rich too) drawn into the Naxalite movement. Affair, rejection and separation follows. People go their own ways, seemingly. Only till the heroine forces herself upon them. Not once but twice. After a pause in the 'Movement', the next hurdle for these 3 is the Emergency imposed on the country by Indira Gandhi. Lots of political figures roam around for no obvious reason. The sub-plots are too contrived and don't add up to make a logical whole.

The movie tries to impose a false pace but never reaches a true rhythm. Barely coherent at times, there is no maturation and growth whatsoever in the arcs of the 3 ex-college buddies. Even after they are presumably married, engaged, settled or whatever, they are ever too eager to just ditch it all and head off to a village to have sex with the ex-lover or ex-flame. What fertile imagination the screen-writer possesses. So many 4-letter words are used without any rhyme or reason that its downright abusive!!

Chitrangda Singh has a horrible American accent that she doesn't try to hide. Its hideous hearing her mouth cliché-ridden dialog like 'Whats up? I didn't think you'd come' (this, after the hellish nightmare she's just been thru) or, in the beginning, 'I appreciate your concern but I can take care of myself'. Yikes. What kind of clown wrote the dialogs for this? She invites her friend in to have a cup of 'South Indian' (no less) coffee, wishes someone Good Morning and then is wished Good Night by someone else in the family. Now whats up with THAT?!?

The countless uncredited villagers and tribals are the best actors. The editing is really erratic with too many cuts. Obviously trying hard to make a bold statement, Sudhir Misra screwed up big-time on this one.

Anyone who has 'lived' thru the tense moments of any religious riot in India, can immediately identify with the bus scene in "Mr & Mrs Iyer". Likewise, the actual experience of living in a Calcutta, firmly in the vicious grip of the Naxalite movement, can color your perceptions about the reading of this movie, whether intentional or not.

The movement, which primarily found host in the predominantly communist states of Kerala and W. Bengal, later morphed into various factions and sowed the seeds of separatist tendencies in places like Andhra Pradesh, Mizoram and Nagaland. Results have been mixed and less than spectacular mainly posing a big security risk for state governments.

But this film is not about extremism or the violence it ensues. Instead it tries to diagnose the ideological underpinnings at work, individual and collective psychologies of various proponent groups, as well as the impact on families involved and their relationships with each other. It asks in effect: what is the point of fighting for unity, equal rights, justice, etc when the price to be paid is your own family and the very foundations of civil society, regardless if the fight is just or not? Does the end justify the means?

Nihalani has chosen to use family as a metaphor, to essay the sense of guilt, betrayal, resignation and subordination all captured brilliantly in one time and place. The cast is excellent and has delivered well. In one of her best performances so far, Jaya Bachchan is reflective, yet quietly indignant. Anupam Kher, Seema Biswas, Joy Sengupta and Nandita Das in an introductory role form the remaining cast. Though the editing isn't as slick as "Ardhsatya" and the pace slows down several times, the direction is superb as is the cinematography in capturing the prevalent mood of the time.

Indeed, a very good must-see film.

This movie builds up a nice ethos by using a child protagonist as main character. That he's a budding cricketer who has to overcome a physical handicap along with the nearly impossible overall odds of selection, only adds to his sparse attributes and makes him even more endearing.

Having said that, the movie could have taken it up a notch in certain places where it loses steam. For instance, its bad enough to convince a coach, let alone an ex-cricketer who's an acknowledged loser, to get up and give you lessons. BUt there's more than one way to skin the cat. In most cities, towns and villages all over India, what is practiced is a sport called "galli cricket" (playing in a lane or road with zero or no traffic). That is how many a cricketer (Sachin?) was born. Very few of the youngsters have access to proper coaching, let alone an academy.

The plot seems to have been based on Shwaas (little boy's final hurray before sinking into darkness) and Bend It Like Beckham (battling all of the usual resistances). However, Iqbal shines on its own merit and had there been a wider percolation amongst the cine-going audiences, in all probability it would have been a winner at the BO too. Although its a low-budget picture, it doesn't seem to scrimp on technical aspects nor on production values. But the Muslim angle was unnecessary. Again, its triply impossible for a minority, deaf-and-mute, village kid to chase the dream that Iqbal does.

Some scenes and dialogs (state selection process) remind you of Kevin Costner's "Field of Dreams". Overall, its an enjoyable film. Well done, Nagesh Kukunoor, after Hyderabad Blues, Teen Deewarein, etc. In movies as in cricket, what matters is a unique style, pace and rhythm.

Shyam Benegal directs this 1993 film based on Bharti's Hindi novel. The highly experienced cast and talented production team manage to cook up a rich tapestry of semi-dream-like experiences of a young man, entering into adulthood. Using a story-teller mosaic, the narrator (Rajat Kapur) goes back and forth over the lives of 3 women whom he was involved with in his high-school and early college.

Simple-minded country bumpkins do lead colorful complicated lives filled with drama and intensity. Surely but occasionally. Mostly not as it is shown here. There's somewhat of a mismatch between the rural atmosphere and the refined, educated, urbane, clean-cut protagonist. That cavalier attitude of his ('Look, I've arrived') doesn't give it away, rather it only serves to confound. Benegal conditions you from the very start not to expect great drama until the very end. Watching the dead-pan account with an equally dead-pan expression is all you can do. Use of purist as opposed to colloquial Hindi fails to have the desired effect. Could be due to Benegal's early background in documentaries for Films Division, NFDC, 'Door'darshan, et al.

If one watches such movies at a theater, it will either be mostly empty to start with, or mostly empty within 10 min., or most certainly mostly empty halfway thru i.e you can sit anywhere post-interval and munch on your popcorn. Audiences thumb it down, and the producers foolishly tell themselves its because viewers are illiterate, they don't get it, etc.

No doubt the screenplay, direction, photography, etc are all top-notch. But if there's no drama and not much entertainment, why blame viewers? Style alone can't substitute for substance.

The movie made no ripples at the box-office and disappeared without a trace (can't blame that on Shahrukh-Madhuri). Left a lot to be desired by way of suggestibility (not suspense, go figure!)

This movie is an over-the-top comedy fare from start to finish. And if it does not leave you in stitches rolling on the floor, then you really ought to go see a doctor!

Pretending to be a doctor when he's actually an underworld don, this is a simple yarn of a thug out to prove a point to his parents by getting into medical school and becoming a real doctor. What a hilarious idea!! There is superb acting by the main characters Sanjay Dutt, Boman Irani, Gracy Singh as well as almost all the supporting cast. Arshad Warsi is outstanding as the don's right hand. The substitute doctor acted well, too. Some of the melodrama (the guy with cancer, his family, etc) could have been cut in the editing room, but doesn't affect the pace much. It does have a few dance numbers, but nothing out of place or forced.

Vidhu Vinod Chopra is making a name for himself taking calculated risks with new directors (Hirani, Sarkar of Parineeta) and new talent. Great to see someone in Bollywood sticking their neck out to make something at least plausibly entertaining, not the usual romantic nonsense.

OK, first off, this movie should be renamed to MURDA (dead).

Seeing this film's previews earlier on, and with Sanjay Dutt's comments that he plays a very complicated character, it had everything going for it until it suddenly became clear that its a ripoff of a recent Korean movie, Oldboy. Boy, are they fast, and getting faster each year.

The main character has been imprisoned without explanation for 15 years and when he's released, they are out to get him again. He bumps into a female cabbie of Indian origin (how convenient!). But before we get too far ahead – why the hell is this chappy living in Bangcock in the first place? Can't he get whatever it is he wants in India?? Such seemingly simple but completely *necessary* questions keep popping up repeatedly, the profound answers to which somehow keep eluding us. Confusing script yeah?!? Thats happens when you have no insights into the original.

Well, someone got a bloody bit of explaining to do is what it is. You can't expect much by way of direction knowing it is a remake after all. No flashes of inspired brilliance here, just plain old photocopying. In the overacting dept, Sanjay seems playing to the gallery. The sidekicks had no great parts to play. Fight sequences are OK and only 2-3 scenes are worth the money.

All in all, an avoidable fare and can be awaited on cable/DVD.

When a storyteller weaves a fascinating tale that holds you spellbound, it does not matter whether it was a book, a drama, a film, a recitation or some other art form. No matter how many hours elapse the characters seem to pull you into their lives deeper and deeper, until you yourself become an indistinguishable part of the picture. For that is what 'a truly unforgettable' experience is all about. And indeed, its the very essence of Parineeta.

Yes, the unmistakable signs of a master craftsman at work. Attempting a third adaptation of Saratchandra Chatterjee's immortal classic, former ad-maker and inimitable director PRadeep Sarkar does a marvelous job at a rendition so fresh, so vivid and fragrant, you can scarcely remember the original! Set in Kolkata of the 1960s, it blossoms around the lives of two lovers whom destiny has sought to separate. Father-son conflict heightens the pangs of guilt, the vain hero's deep, foreboding yearning uncherished, and his innocent lover's reticent desire unfulfilled.

Debutante Vidya Balan has delivered a fantastic performance against the more experienced Saif, Raima and Sanjay. Venerable actor Sabyasachi is the epitome of a faltering ego gone extremely overboard. Music director Shantanu Moitra's score and the songs haunt you long after. Six months after watching the movie, they are still with you, wherever you go!

Hats off to Sarkar and his team for this glimpse into Bengali culture, and for reminding us that the soul of creativity is very much alive and kicking. Such astute artists are desperately needed to combat the dual onslaught of Bollywood / Hollywood on the world of enjoyable cinema.

Narrative ......... 10/10

Drama ............... 9/10

Visual Appeal .. 10/10

This is a movie to watch many times over again, and to include in one's prized collection to grow old with.

This film is about the life of widows in pre-Independence India. While it harps on like a broken record about the injustices of the prevalent social system, it cleverly avoids commenting on the larger dynamic then at work, namely the Indian freedom struggle.

Why is it important to highlight the plight of widows in 1930 when the same plight possibly befalls umpteen young women, even today? Whats the significance of the film to 21st century India? When it is strictly for art purposes, maybe they should circulate amongst their own family and friends instead of clogging already crowded theaters.

The same "sopish-tee-katid" crowd (all reviews on IMDb are from Canada-based reviewers. Ha, no surprise there!) that attaches deeper meanings and hidden 'layering' and complex workings (ahem, Er-uh. Hmm.) to such 'works of art' does not hesitate to trash anything that might show a more reassuring, a slightly brighter, a possibly optimistic viewpoint. Yes, there's loads of sarcasm here, all perfectly intentional.

Again, what is the whole point of this movie?

Jodie Foster stars in this suspense movie about a woman on the brink of double tragedy. Returning to US from Germany with her recently deceased husband's body, Kyle's (Foster) daughter goes missing in flight and no seems to have seen her boarding, or on board the aircraft.

The film starts off very well and manages to build the suspense up to a steady peak. Post-9/11 world of aviation security is the backdrop when a group of fellow Arab passengers are her first suspects. Even the crew is unable to locate the 6-year old over 2 hours into the flight. Later, the Captain's (Sean Bean) help is enlisted, and an Air Marshal (Peter Saarsgard) has to physically restrain Kyle so she doesn't pose an undue hazard to the remaining passengers, or to the flight.

The plot does have some holes. Its inconceivable how the little girl is kidnapped on board without ANYONE noticing it. May have worked had they shown the kidnapping taking place prior to boarding, in the cab ride to the airport perhaps, when Kyle was more likely to be under the sedative effects of her anti-depressant.

In any case, Foster's acting alone carries the movie maintaining a taut and tense atmosphere thru-out the flight. Worth watching.

Written and directed by Stephen Gaghan who earlier scrubbed with Steven Soderbergh, Syriana wallops at a fast and furious pace. Based on Robert Baer's book, it spins about the life-strands of no less than 5 separate characters: a Swiss-based energy analyst and his family, a CIA agent up to his ears in mid-Eastern arms smuggling, the 2 sons of an Arab Sheik involved in a succession fight, a Washington lawyer and his perpetually drunk dad, and a Pakistani teenager laid off from his job by the merger between two oil giants.

Although their individual trajectories propel nicely, when they finally intersect, its not quite the end of the world at all. Of course, there's the customary CIA air-to-ground missile strike, the suicide bomber (its shallow to think that a mere layoff would drive him to join a Madrassa) kid that slams his boat into a ship, etc. But the whole thing comes off as somewhat too cynical and a decidedly Western take on the geopolitics of Big Oil. Thats not to say its not a very well-made film -- it is. It would have been nice to reveal the opposing view as well: why the mid-East is so crazy about the West and craves its influences, despite all of the repression by their dummy governments.

Syriana doesn't try to hide behind the thin veil of leftist propaganda. Nonetheless, it isn't for everyone. The movie had a limited theatrical release and from the number of IMDb reviews, an even limited patronage. The heady mix of globalization, international politics, petro-terrorism and the clever machinations of powers-that-be, are all somewhat beyond the grasp of the average movie-goer.

In today's globally interconnected world, the truth really doesn't need a widescreen berth for it to be "Seen". Or "Heard".