apant Reviews

The Namesake (2006)

Mira Nair's Triumph

[8/10 · 7 April 2007]

There's a scene in Mira Nair's The Namesake, where Ashoke Ganguli tells his teenage son- Gogol, "we all came out of Gogol's Overcoat". This seemingly simple utterance resonates with profound meaning in light of the theme of the film. This is a very famous quotation that has been attributed to a number a Russian authors including Dostoveysky and Tolstoy, and highlights the fact that Nikolai Gogol's short story 'The Overcoat' has played a defining role in influencing the course of Russian literature. When uttered by Ashok in the film, it takes on a completely different meaning. It underscores the reason of conflict in young Gogol's mind, it justifies the title. At the point when this scene appears in the film, we do not know what Ashoke means till a crucial scene between the father and son in the car much later. Suddenly, we know the reason behind Gogol's name – it's just not what you (as well as the protagonist – Gogol - in the film) thought all along – his daaknaam(pet name) is Gogol not simply because Nikolai Gogol is his father's favorite author.

Jhumpa Lahiri's Gogol Ganguli suffers from a strange identity crisis because "not only does (he) have a pet name turned good name, but a last name turned first name". Mira Nair's Gogol has the same crisis, but we don't witness that as explicitly. In Mira Nair's world we don't see Gogol's parents having a tough time trying to explain to his teacher why he should be called by his bhalonaam (good name) in school; we get only a brief glimpse into his frustration when he finds out that his namesake almost fits the definition of a 'loser'; and we don't see the delightful moment when the adolescent Gogol first introduces himself to a girl by his 'good name', which infuses in him a curious sense of courage to experience his first kiss. The beauty, however, is that though Mira Nair had to omit a lot of events from the book and change a few, she has brilliantly captured the spirit of the book, thereby making her version as heart warming as the book.

Scriptwriters Sooni Taraporewala and Mira Nair deserve the credit for writing a screenplay that does complete justice to the original book. If the book was primarily about Gogol, the film is about the Ganguli family. One gets so involved in the trials and tribulations of the Ganguli family that one doesn't mind the length of the film. In fact, one almost wishes that the film could go on a bit more so that we could see what happens next in Gogols' life, or Ashima's or Sonia's...

Yes, it wasn't possible for Mira or Sooni to capture the entire book on film. So you do have some things that are omitted, or presented cursorily in the film. In one of the scenes early on in the film, Ashima is shown preparing a snack by mixing some peanuts, salt and chilly powder with rice crispies. It's an interesting scene, but we miss an important aspect that what she is preparing is "a humble approximation of the snack sold pennies on Calcutta sidewalks..." i.e. Jhaalmuri. The line in quotes is from the book. How does one translate that on screen?

And yes, there are also some minor changes. One that works wonderfully is the scene where Gogol gets his head shaved off after his father's death. The barber dances to rap music while shaving Gogol's hair. This accentuates the theme of culture clash that runs all though the film. For the barber it's a sort of fashion statement, whereas for Gogol it's a life changing moment - "his atonement". In the book, Gogol doesn't shave his head.

As Mira has herself admitted, this is her most personal film. And that, in my opinion, makes this her most accomplished film yet. Since she could herself relate to the story and the characters of the book, she has successfully captured the essence of the book on film. Also, she has been able to lend some extremely fine directorial touches by adding the scenes with small elements that do not necessarily appear in the book but add more weight to the depiction of cultural differences. For example, the uncomfortable twitch that glides through Ashima's face when Gogol's girlfriend, Maxine, addresses her by her first name. Or when during Ashoke's eleventh day mourning ceremony, Maxine dressed in black stands in stark contrast amidst all other mourners who are dressed in white.

What makes The Namesake work is not only the script or Mira Nair's warm direction, but also the strong performances by the main actors. Irrfan Khan as Ashoke Ganguly gets under the skin of his character and it's difficult to imagine that he's not a Bengali, so perfect is his accent and body language. Tabu struggles a bit with the Bengali accent, but her knock-out performance more than makes up for it. In my opinion, it's a truly Oscar-worthy performance. Watch her in the scene where she finds out about her husband's death - absolutely heartbreaking!! Kal Penn as Gogol is a revelation. So far one has only seen him in some goofy, eminently forgettable role in utterly forgettable comic films. This is the film that gives him an opportunity to show his dramatic side, and that side, mind you, looks quite promising.

What I found most interesting was the point the book (and also the film) alludes to quite subtly: that cultural affinity is not enough for a relationship to work. Gogol marriage to Moushumi - a Bengali - collapses, while his sister Sonia finds an almost perfect partner in Ben - a half-Jewish, half-Chinese. This by itself can be the theme for a whole new book and a film. Will Jhumpa Lahiri and Mira Nair oblige?

Nishabd (2007)

Interesting, but not bold enough

[7/10 · 3 March 2007]

In my opinion, Nishabd is a fairly well-made film. RGV tackles an unconventional theme - I won't call it bold, at least not bold enough - with remarkable ease. The director uses his signature style of very tight close-ups to great effect. Of course, the camera cannot enter the minds of the characters, but it comes very close. Through every minute expression, every twitch of the facial muscles, it shows you what the characters are thinking and feeling. And if you have an actor like Amitabh Bachchan, that only heightens the impact.

The absence of a plot actually works to the film's advantage. The film moves forth in a languorous fashion, which can be irritating to some viewers, but for me it worked well. It gave me all the time to witness and reflect upon the events as they lazily unfolded themselves. It gave me the time to savour the subtle directorial touches.

Yes, it also gave me enough opportunity to think about what could have been done differently. But that's precisely what I expect from a fulfilling movie-going experience - an opportunity to watch a movie at an emotional as well as a rational level: from the heart as well as the head.

The director opts for blue as the predominant color in the palette he uses to paint his vision of a May-November romance between his lead characters Vijay (Amitabh Bachchan) and Jiah (Jiah Khan). Each and every scene, even when it captures the breathtakingly beautiful and lush locales of Munnar, is bathed in a blue hue. Now that's an interesting color for a tale like this.

At the most obvious level, blue stands for romance and in that respect seems completely harmonious with the theme. If we really get into various kinds of symbolisms, blue also stands for virtues like truth, honesty and fidelity. And that's a delightful contrast from what we see in the relationship between Vijay and Amrita (Revathy). I can't say what RGV's real idea behind using this colour was, maybe I'm seeing too much into a device used merely to present a pretty picture, but to me it opens up a number of interesting possibilities.

Interestingly, elements of incongruity crop up in other areas as well - whether it's the quirky camera movement or the very out-of-character background music. While the story itself moves at a leisurely pace, the camera moves all over the place almost in an intrusive fashion. Ditto for the brilliant background music by Amar Mohile - the hammering, thriller-like background score is in perpetual conflict with the sensitivity of romance on the screen.

I don't take these incongruities as faults, though I must admit they were quite distracting at times. I thought that the very fact that they were in stark contrast with the film itself was an interesting way to depict the inner conflict of the characters. Rules of conventional film-making would say that the camera movements and music should be in tune with what's being depicted on film, but when has RGV followed rules or conventions? Now for the compromises - RGV clearly shies away from including any sexual angle to this unusual love story. Given the way the unashamedly voyeuristic camera (and to an extent the writing) has a field day presenting Jiah Khan as a sex object - the extra-short dresses, the wet scene (ah, this predilection of Hindi commercial filmmakers for showing heroines getting wet in a white saree!! Only, the white saree gets replace by a white shirt worn over an almost non existent pair of shorts), over-emphasis on showing her naked legs, and Jiah Khan's defiantly sexual demeanour - it is certain that the director had all the intentions of showing lust as the trigger for the relationship, but probably had to compromise on that aspect because of the demigod status of his lead actor.

This is one area where the disconnect between the technique and the content works to the film's detriment. The story would have been much more interesting and realistic if this aspect had been adequately explored. Much as I am in absolute awe of Amitabh Bachchan and think that his performance in Nishabd is one of his finest, I can't help admitting that his presence in the film dilutes the impact of the film. RGV clearly develops cold feet and refrains from adding any dirty thoughts into his male protagonist's mind; yet his camera is not quite convinced and continues to explore the baser emotions.

The other big compromise that RGV had to make also stems from trying to show Vijay in a more favorable light. There was no reason to add that monologue justifying/ rationalizing the attraction between a 60 year old man and an 18 year old kid - "an old man gets attracted to a young girl because he wants to hold on to his youth" - Phew!. I strongly believe that love, even when it is triggered by lust, does not always have a straight-forward reason, but is in fact a very complex psychological thing that cannot always be rationalized.

It is here that you just can't help thinking that the film definitely needed to take its title seriously: some things are better left unsaid - Nishabd.

Honeymoon Travels Pvt. Ltd. (2007)

Doesn't rock, but doesn't suck either...

[6/10 · 25 February 2007]

Reema Kagti's Honeymoon Travels Pvt. Ltd. is just the kind of film that can be a professional movie reviewer's nightmare. How does one write a review of a film that has neither any exceptional high-points nor any downright bad elements? One that doesn't rock, but doesn't suck either? No praise, no curse. Thank God, I'm not a professional reviewer.

We all know what Honeymoon Travels Pvt. Ltd. is all about - six newly married couples going on their honeymoon together. Though it has elements of mutual discovery one would expect in a theme like this, the director's intention is not to explore that aspect of the couples' honeymoon. The end result is a film where you get some nice, funny moments sprinkled in an uneven fashion across the 108 minute duration of the film, but that's just about it. Sometime you do long for some further insight into a few aspects, but you don't let that bother you, because a few minutes into the film, the director has made clear what she wants you to expect.

It is a cute film - reasonably short in duration, populated with a plethora of characters who in their own sweet way show you (even though intermittently) something that makes you go, "yeah, that happened to someone I know", but largely stop short of making you care for them. You know that each track would not get more than a few minutes, so why bother? It seems that while writing the script, Reema Kagti had to struggle hard to introduce some 'conflict' in each of the tracks. There was no need actually. We would have been satisfied even if the film was only about the fun-filled interaction between the couples. But the writer/director was probably not satisfied. While these conflicts work in some of the tracks, in others they appear very contrived. The cutest couple (Abhay Deol-Minissha Lamba) gets saddled with a 'conflict' that borders on the ridiculous, but which is nevertheless funny in a mindless way.

I thought that the Amisha Patel-Karran Khanna track and its connection with the Sandhya Mridul-Vikram Chatwal track was the most interesting, it only it was fleshed out a bit more and was given a more complete resolution. And the resolution to the Sadhya Mridul-Vikram Chatwal track is quite unconvincing. It also makes me wonder if the Indian cinema would ever mature enough to have a complete film based on these tracks - a kind of Brokeback Mountain meets Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna.

Even though it is the typical enjoy-while-it-lasts kind of flick, there are a few images that still linger on in my mind. The brilliantly choreographed and performed tango by Abhay Deol and Minissha Lamba, the unstructured choreography of Sajna Ji Vari Vari, the impromptu fantastical tale narrated by Bomman Irani and Shabana Azmi while describing the way they met, Raima Sen's thrilling adventure in the sky - these sequences provide a brief glimpse into what a great film this could've been, if only the writer/director had a bit more clarity on what she wanted to achieve. And pray, what was the need to resort to such horrendous clichés like a wayward daughter returning to her dad and step-mom after being jilted or the fight sequence with the goondas! And why that speech by Shabana Azmi at that end? Why? Finally, a few questions for the Akhtar family: Javed Akhtar - You did bring in a breath of fresh air with your lyrics at a time when a certain Mr. Sameer dominated the scene with his dil-jigar-aashiqui-deewangi brand of shayari. Don't you think it's time you stopped using the halka-chhalka-mehka-behka routine in your lyrics and came up with something new? Zoya and Farhan Akhtar - What was the reason for giving such a step-motherly treatment to your real life step-mom, Shabana Azmi? She certainly deserved more meat in her character.

Shabana Azmi - Was this film done just as a favor to your family? Your role in this film certainly doesn't behoove your caliber.

Eklavya: The Royal Guard (2007)

Dharma Redefined

[8/10 · 17 February 2007]

At the surface, the idea behind Vidhu Vinod Chopra's Eklavya may seem terribly anachronistic. After all who talks about the outmoded concept of Dharma in this time and age? But that's precisely the point. The philosophy of Dharma is as relevant today as it was during the time of the mythical Eklavya. Only, its definition has changed. Through Eklavya, Vidhu Vinod Chopra tries to debunk the belief that Dharma is all about following the path of righteousness as defined by tradition; rather, he endorses the view that righteousness is not an absolute concept but has to be rooted in reason - Dharmah Matibhyah Utgritah.

Vidhu Vinod Chopra takes the idea from well known tale from the Mahabharata, gives it a distinctly Shakesperean flavour, and comes up with a fascinating multi-layered saga of duty, honour, loyalty and deceit - and above all, the true meaning of Dharma. He takes a potentially melodramatic content and presents it in a largely undramatic style. Well....that's not entirely true. Let me put it this way, he deliberately makes his actors be less theatrical so that the he can create drama through other means - music, camera, visuals, etc. At times he completely goes against popular conventions. Scenes that one would expect to be dramatic are laid out subtly, whereas melodrama finds centre stage in scenes that would otherwise be routine scenes. That's the most interesting part about Eklavya.

The protagonist, Eklavya (Amitabh Bachchan) is a man of unmistakable honour. He is a 'royal guard' who would do anything to protect his royal masters because that's his Dharma. He would sacrifice his emotions to guard a royal secret because that's his Dharma. In that respect, he is in some sort of a time warp - the world around him has moved on but he still lives by what tradition dictates. This contrast is brilliantly depicted in the film by the character of Pannalal Chauhar (Sanjay Dutt) - an untouchable who questions the traditions because in today's time he probably has more 'power' than the royal family and thus demands respect that his ancestors never got.

The beauty of Eklavya does not lie in its theme, rather it's the director's vision and actors' sincerity that make it stand out. The theme demands the visual opulence that Vidhu Vinod Chopra lends it, every frame of the movie being visually perfect. But it's not that either. The director pushes the envelope here and conjures some brilliant, sometimes even surrealistic and abstruse, imagery. Forget the travesty called Kareeb, with Eklavya Vidhu Vinod Chopra gets back his groove. Remember his first film, a documentary called An Encounter with Faces, was nominated for an Oscar (I don't think many people even know this fact).

It's clearly not the director's intention to make a crowd-pleasing film. His desire to do something out of the ordinary is evident all through the film, but he is particularly audacious when he chooses to blank out the screen completely for a full 90 second. Imagine watching an extremely 'visual' film in a dark theatre and the screen going completely blank for such a long time! The director pulls it off so well that this scene becomes the film's highpoint.

I have one problem with the film though. The ending seems to belong to an entirely different film. There's no place for a neat, crowd-pleasing wrap-up ending in this dark and grim tale. Why the director should succumb to pleasing the audiences in the last 5 minutes of the film, when he has defiantly stood against it in first 100 - I just don't understand. My other problem is that they're promoting the film as an "edge-of-the-seat dramatic action thriller" which is like doing gross injustice to this gem of a film - 'dramatic' is probably the only word in this phrase that applies to Eklavya. If people walk into the theatres expecting an action thriller, they'll be disappointed big time.

Eklavya is marked by some great performances. Amitabh Bachchan in the title roles comes up with a really Rolls Royce deserving performance. His character demands reticence, but he uses his expressive eyes so effectively that he's able to convey what even pages and pages of dialogue would fail to do. Saif Ali Khan seems to get better with each film, and has learnt the art of subtlety and underplaying for dramatic effect. In this film he is effectively restrained, even in the scene when the real twist in the tale comes in. If your attention flags even for a moment, you would miss the revelation because the drama is contained and there are no high-voltage theatrics here. That, in my opinion, is as much a credit to Saif Ali Khan's performance as it is to the director's conceptualization of the scene.

All through its 107 minutes, Eklavya kept reminding me of Vishal Bhardwaj's Omkara and Maqbool because of its Shakesperean quality. Any comparisons would be fallacious, for Chopra and Bhardwaj are two very different directors, with very different sensibilities. Vishal's approach is earthy and raw, while Vidhu Vinod Chopra goes for more polish and bigger scale. But they have one thing in common - whatever they serve is delicious and hugely satisfying!

Salaam-E-Ishq (2007)

A Tribute to Love Sans Emotion

[4/10 · 30 January 2007]

The problems with Nikhil Advani's Salaam-e-Ishq are many. A one-line concept that looks good on paper (which also worked in an earlier English film - Love Actually) goes terribly wrong thanks to inept and shallow writing. A well-intentioned idea gets crushed to smithereens under the weight of its own gargantuan ambition. A director so completely besotted by his own much applauded first film goes overboard with the devices that worked in his earlier film (Kal Ho Na Ho) - try counting the number of times the device of split screens is used in this flick. The problem is - what worked fabulously in Kal Ho Na Ho were the emotional excesses of the Karan Johar school of film-making, but here, 'emotion' doesn't quite grace us with its appearance on the screen - no, not even cursorily. The writer/ director gives us 'six relationships with one common problem - love', but where is the intensity, where is the depth, where is the 'emotion'? A 'tribute to love' sans emotion? And one that goes on and on and on...... Nah, it just cannot work!

In my opinion, the basic requirement for a portmanteau film like this to work is that not only should each individual story be 'complete', it should - in some way or the other - follow the graph of the traditional three-act structure (screen writing guru, Syd Field's Paradigm). That's the real reason why Salaam-e-Ishq didn't work for me. None of the stories had any depth or a roller-coaster ride of emotional ups and downs one expects in mainstream Hindi cinema. Also, the linkage between some of the stories seemed tenuous and very forced. It's not clear what Salman Khan is doing at Ayesha Takia's wedding. If he was required to be present at the wedding scene for a neat wrap-up, why not conjure a few more coincidences and bring the other two couples also to the wedding? That would be neater.

But yes, some of the stories did have a lot of promise. For one, the Anil Kapoor-Juhee Chawla story tries to address a very real situation - mid-life crisis, but its journey is so linear that you're left wondering if it was really an issue. Similarly, the problem of commitment in the Akshaye Khanna-Ayesha Takia story is also true to life. If only it was developed a little better. I felt that the more promising stories in this mish-mash were told from the male point of view, which is fine, but it brings down the emotional quotient of these stories because the female characters - Juhee Chawla and Ayesh Takia in particular - have all the depth of a half-filled bath tub. Wasn't this film supposed to be about '12 different lives'? Now the actors. John Abraham still needs to learn acting, while Vidya Balan is dependable and endearing as ever. Anil Kapoor gets a role written just for him but sometimes overplay the boredom of his character. Since she didn't get a meaty character to portray, Juhee Chawla uses her charming smile and natural acting style to cover up for it. Akshaye Khanna is fine despite going a trifle over-the-top in a few scenes. Ayesha Takia has nothing much to do, but she does remind us that she's the same girl who surprised us with her bravura performance in Dor. Govinda tries to make up for that HUGE mistake called Bhagam Bhag, and succeeds to a large extent.

That brings me the most irritating track of the film (which unpardonably ends up hogging the maximum screen time) - Salman Khan and Priyanka Chopra. The track is irritating mainly because of them. But I must credit them for their consistency. They're consistently BAD all through the film. Priyanka could well be the next queen of hamming - I don't buy the crap that her role (that of an 'item girl') required her to act over-the-top. Somebody should tell her the difference between being flamboyant because the character demands it and downright hamming. If you've seen Rakhi Sawant (who seems to be the inspiration behind this role) in her interviews and Bigg Boss you'll know what I mean. I strongly feel that if Nikhil Advani had taken Rakhi Sawant in this role rather than a bigger star like Priyanka, the story would have worked better. Salman Khan's phony accent is.....well, Shannon Esra's Hindi is less accented than Salman's.

To be fair to the director, he does manage to add some good directorial touches to the film. I particularly liked the use of grey as the predominant color in the Anil Kapoor-Juhee Chawla story as a metaphor for their boring existence, and the bright colors that come into the story with the arrival of the other woman. But will anyone choose to paint their house in varying, depressing shades of grey? That's acceptable cinematic license I would say. But when the film runs almost for 4 hours, it almost feels like the director is trying too hard to give the audience a glimpse of his 'touch' in an endlessly meandering montage of uninspiring sequences.

Maybe Nikhil Advani wants us to sit in the theatre for as long as is humanly possible- pata nahin, kal ho na ho.

Guru (2007)

Guru - Inpriring and Powerful

[8/10 · 17 January 2007]

Is Mani Ratnam's Guru based on Dhirubhai Ambani's life? Of course it is. Almost every single fact of the film can be traced back to Dhirubhai's life, although not in the exact context. Having said this, I think it is important to still view Guru as fiction. Because, the moment you start looking at it as a biopic on Dhirubhai Ambani's life, all you would find are factual inaccuracies. Yes, the rudiments of Dhirubhai's life are all there, so are some important people in his life, but they appear in different and sometimes even dramatized context. So let's accept that it's 'inspired' by Dhirubhai's life, keep him out of the picture and then look at Guru on its own cinematic merit.

How is Guru as a film then? It has some flaws no doubt, but on the whole this film works! After experimenting with a convoluted, though interesting, narrative in Yuva, Mani Ratnam is back with a simple, linear narrative structure.

At the surface, Guru is nothing but a typical rags-to-riches tale that we have seen countless number of times on the silver screen. Its underlying message is obvious - Follow your Dream. What makes it stand out is its focused narrative, unmistakable period feel, Mani's masterly touch that is evident in almost every frame, and, most importantly, strong acting performances.

One sequence that I just can't get off my mind is the one where Guru (Abhishek) and Sujata (Aishwarya) are talking on a swing. It is a classic example of how every single aspect of the scene - its conceptualization, the setting, the way it's performed, the background song, lyrics - adds to its impact. Here we have the couple sitting on a swing (a metaphor for trying to reach the skies), the man tells his wife about his seemingly far-fetched ambition, but the wife - tongue in cheek of course - continues to indulge in mundane talk. And the song in the background - a simple Yaman melody - is an apt summary for the scene. Can anyone better that?

At times, one does feel that Mani Ratnam could have added more meat to the script by laying more emphasis on certain things Guru did to achieve his dream. We know that Guru is adept at "managing the environment - a euphemism for keeping bureaucrats and politicians happy" but how exactly he does that, we're never sure. Mani Ratnam chooses to handle this in a subtle manner, just by alluding to it. On second thoughts, this actually works well within the film. The point the Mani Ratnam is trying to make is - think big, and you can achieve your dreams. The how of it is immaterial.

The film is not without its flaws. Some of the sub-plots are poorly developed and some abandoned midway. For example, we don't know what happens to Guru's brother-in-law, Jignesh (Arya Babbar) after he walks out on him. His unexplained absence from the film after that sticks out like a sore thumb. His character had all the potential of adding some additional drama to the second half. Also, the Vidya Balan angle to the story is so poorly developed that it's almost inconsequential. Then, there's the climax, which appears a bit lame and almost blasphemous to the extent of negating the importance of ethics and morals in an individual's quest for achieving his dream.

The other flaw, which though minor, irritated me no end was the authenticity of the village in the first half. It was supposed to be somewhere in Gujarat, but in Aishwarya's intro song, and also some other scenes some elements creep into the shots that clearly show that it's somewhere in South India. This is the problem I've always had with Priyadarshan, but that even Mani Ratnam could overlook something like this is unacceptable.

I don't want to dwell upon the flaws because to me they're minor irritants. The film, on the whole, is inspiring and very powerful.

Technically, Guru stands out. Rajiv Menon's cinematography and Samir Chanda's authentic art direction add to the period feel of the film. A.R Rahman comes up with a superlative score yet again, and Gulzar's lyrics fit in beautifully. Trust Gulzar to come up with something innovative even for the most clichéd of situations.

How can a review of Guru be complete without talking about the performances? The film belongs to Abhishek Bachchan. Burdened with a complex role that demands an enormous range of the actor, Abhishek comes up with a finely nuanced performance. This is that role of a lifetime that every actor secretly dreams of. And Abhishek almost lives the role, he becomes the character. What can be a better tribute to the actor's talent than the fact that what we see on screen is Guru, not Abhishek. If he wants, Abhishek can safely hang his boots now: he will always be remembered for this role. Aishwarya, as Sujata, also does a fine job. She doesn't have any scenes to display high voltage histrionics (which is sadly mistaken for 'acting' in Indian cinema). But she registers a strong impact through a restrained and subtle display of emotions. She complements Abhishek perfectly. Take her out of the film, and Guru is stripped of a few layers of his character. This has to be her best performance to date. And yes, how can I forget Mithunda? Forget the assembly-line Z-grade masala flicks he churned out with nauseating regularity a few years back. In Guru, we get a glimpse of the actor who has won a couple National Awards in the past.

Dhoom 2 (2006)

Dhoom Again !!

[7/10 · 26 December 2006]

OK, so I finally got to watch the much talked about, over-hyped sequel to the under-hyped sleeper hit of 2004. And I'm glad I did! It is what is called as the perfect time-pass, paisa vasool film.

What Dhoom-2 lacks in terms of a coherent plot and neatly crafted screenplay, it more than compensates for through a clever and consistent sprinkling of awe-inspiring stunts, energetically choreographed dance routines, picture-perfect scene compositions and oodles of eye candy.

Dhoom-2, like its predecessor, is the quintessential cop and robber tale where there's neither the place nor the need for logic. The film opens with a breathtaking visual of a lone train running through a vast Namibian desert. Though the execution of this robbery is disappointing (it almost seems that the writer and director felt that once they had a great setting, their task was done), it sets the stage for what would unfold over the next 2 hours. From then on we are drawn into a high-octane cat and mouse game (so what if the robber always has the upper hand...right till the end?). The action explodes with such energy that one doesn't get the time to think about the loopholes in the plot.

Yes, after the movie is over you wonder if the film would have been much better had the writer made it into a mind game between the adversaries - a kind of intelligent oneupmanship. But as long as you're in the theatre, you're hooked on! You don't regret that the cop - who insists that such games are won by the mind and not the bullet - has virtually no plan except planting a mole. You don't mind that the mole - seemingly a consummate crook herself - doesn't show any skill except loads of sexual energy. And you certainly don't mind that Mr. Perfect Thief gets away unscathed every single time, thanks to - if I may use the word - a DUMB cop who appears dumber than his bumbling side-kick. All this, because of the charismatic screen presence of Hrithik Roshan.

It wouldn't be wrong to say that Dhoom-2 belongs to Hrithik Roshan (Mr. A, Aryan). Mind you, that's not a tribute to his acting talent. He is at best an above-average actor, but when it comes to screen presence no one among the current crop of actors can come even closer to him. And boy, what a dancer! His dance movements are more unbelievable and awe-inspiring than the cable-supported, SFX-created action sequences. It is absolutely clear that Dhoom-2 was designed to be his showcase. How else would you explain the terribly underwritten character of the cop, or the fact that Hrithik is on the screen in 90% of the scenes?

And then there's Ash (Sunehri). Could anyone believe that her 'plastic beauty' persona could actually set the screen afire? What has she done to her body! What a metamorphosis!! Ash's Sunehri is HOT. She and Hrithik come across as the most perfect screen pairing in recent memory. But, hey, what was all that hullabaloo about their lip-lock?

On the acting front, Ash is adequate. All she is required to do is to look hot and be a perfect foil to Hrithik. She does precisely that with great élan. It's sad that Abhishek (Jai Dixit) got saddled with a hastily written role. It's unpardonable that the character of Jai Dixit, the main connecting link between the sequels - is so one-dimensional. Numerous reviews have lambasted Abhishek's acting in Dhoom-2, but the blame here lies with the producer-director-writer. They seem so hell bent on making this a showcase for Hrithik that they've given almost a step-motherly treatment to Abhishek's character. On his part, Abhishek honestly portrays what he's been asked to do.

Uday Chopra (Ali) should find solace in the fact that his father and brother are the most successful producers in India and they will continue to find roles for him in their films. He has no acting talent whatsoever. Hats off to Aditya Chopra for using the clever ploy of giving Ali's character dozens of one-liners that manage to draw a few laughs from the audience and divert them from Uday Chopra's unbelievable yet unquestionable lack of acting skills.

Should I get deeper into the negatives? For one, The music is very disappointing - had it not been for the Shaimak Davar's and Vaibhavi Merchant's choreography or Hrithik's and Ash's fluid dance movements the songs would have been unbearable to watch on screen. Also, despite a larger canvas and more style it doesn't cover any new ground compared to Dhoom....nah, I wouldn't get into all this. If one were to start, the list of negatives for Dhoom-2 might be quite long but why dwell on that? I found the film very entertaining and that's all that mattered to me while watching the film.

Umrao Jaan (2006)

A Mixed Bag

[5/10 · 5 November 2006]

First and foremost, I appreciate Dutta's good intentions of exposing today's generation to the beauty of Urdu Zabaan and Lakhnawi Tehzeeb. It takes courage to do an Urdu film, in an age where Hinglish is fast becoming the linguafranca of people. It's a pleasure to hear the main characters of Umrao Jaan mouth dialogue in chaste Urdu. The problem is that except a few – Shabana Azmi and Aishwarya Rai who has evidently worked hard on her diction – no other actor can carry it off. And at many places the 'Lakhnawi' flavour of the language is missing. And even chaste Hindi words like 'Maan-Maryada' creep into the dialogue at times.

Next, the production values of the film are quite good. The sets are opulent, the costumes and jewellery exquisite. While the film is a visual delight, the objective of recreating 19th century Lucknow is not achieved. Nawab Sultan dons a Pathani look, Faiz Ali is more Afghani, and despite J.P Dutta's best effort, the Rajasthani element ends up making brief, yet damaging appearances in the art decoration.

The narration of Umrao's story demands a bit of 'thehrav', a relaxed unfolding of events. That calls for some patience on the part of the audiences who are used to instant gratification. However, I think J.P Dutta got carried away and completely forgot that a slow film need not be boring. Some of the sequences are so long drawn out that one loses interest after a while. When Nawab Sultan returns to the kotha in a drunken state, his scene with Umrao takes boredom to new heights. I wouldn't mind even a 15 minute scene where Umrao and Nawab might just exchange poetry or converse in high-flown Urdu. But here, there is no poetry to appreciate, there's no delicacy of zabaan to relish, and there's really nothing consequential going on. It hurts. The film is so long that by the time the film ends, it seems that you've been sitting at the theatre for ages. I did not get bored because I was carefully listening, analyzing and appreciating the language of the film. But for someone who does not appreciate Urdu it can be quite a torture.

I am probably one of the very few people who have liked Anu Malik's music in Umrao Jaan. After watching the film, people are cursing the movie even more because they think the songs add unnecessarily to the length of the film. I disagree with this. The songs, and the lyrics, are the highlights of this film. Instead of dialogue, the narrative moves through songs. If Umrao wants to say something, she says it through a ghazal (remember, Ruswa's Umrao is a poetess). I also think very highly of Vaibhavi Merchant's choreography. Her steps, movements and gestures are full of ada, as one would expect in a film about a 19th century 'tawaif'.

Aishwarya looks stunning as Umrao Jaan. And it is also evident that she has worked hard on her performance and dialogue delivery. I always considered her as a beautiful face with no acting talent. But in Umrao Jaan she is quite good, if only by her standards. So while it cannot be rated as a great performance in absolute terms, coming from Ash it certainly is a good job. Sadly, Abhishek disappoints big time. And I wouldn't only blame the script for that. His performance is very flat, something one doesn't expect from an actor who has shown considerable improvement over the years. The only actor who is consistently good in the film is Shabana Azmi (what else did you expect?)

The film's biggest drawback is it's script. J.P Dutta's film follows the same narrative structure as the book, where in her twilight years Umrao Jaan tells the story of her life to the author – Ruswa. In that respect J.P Dutta tries to be truer to the book than Muzaffar Ali's 1981 version. I was quite pleased with the way J.P Dutta chose to start his film. However, the changes introduced later and the confused characterisation spoil what could've been a great film. I'm all for making changes to literary works to suit the medium of celluloid, so long as it doesn't alter the spirit of the original writing. But Dutta goes a step further and creates a few entirely new events to add twists to the story. These changes do not add to the film; in fact, they drastically change some of the important characters.

The main problem with Dutta's script is that most characters have either not been properly developed or altered significantly. Gauhar Mirza (Puru Raj Kumar), Bismillah (Divya Dutta), Khursheed (Ayesha Jhulka), Faiz Ali (Suneil Shetty) – all had significant roles to play in the literary Umrao's life, but in the film all except Faiz Ali get very marginal roles, almost as if their presence was only incidental. Even Faiz Ali's character has been changed drastically. Except the fact that he's a dacoit who Umrao elopes with, every single aspect of his character and role have no relation to Ruswa's story. Ditto with Gauhar Mirza. The only character who comes across just the way Ruswa envisioned is Khanum, played with characteristic ease by Shabana Azmi.

On the whole, while J.P Dutta's Umrao Jaan has some positive aspects to it, it doesn't come across as a genuine attempt at recreating Ruswa's novel. And the length of the film, just kills it!

Omkara (2006)

Vishal's Omkara ranks among the best adaptations of Shakespeare's work

[9/10 · 2 August 2006]

Vishal's Omkara ranks among the best adaptations of Shakespeare's work in India. With this he proves that "Maqbool" was no flash in the pan. And mind you, if he calls his films 'adaptations', they're precisely that. With both his films based on Shakespeare's tragedies, he has painstakingly - and successfully - captured the plot and essence of the Bard's work and put it into a context that's Indian to the core: he has adapted the plays, not simply translated them to the medium of film. Vishal deserves the credit for getting it! And, getting it right for the second time.

Vishal is the real hero of the film - he's the director, screenplay co-writer, dialog writer, music composer, and even singer. And he excels in every single of these departments. He is in complete command here, never letting the performances or any other aspect overshadow the film. If Saif as Langda Tyagi and Konkana as Indu do a fabulous job, it's as much a tribute to Vishal's pen than their own performances.

While adapting Othello, Vishal has taken a few liberties, but given the final result, there's no reason to complain. Shakepeare's Iago is a heinous villain, who is ambivalent about his true motivations. Vishal, on the other hand, paints his Langda Tyagi with a slight sympathetic tinge, without compromising one bit on his vile and evil core. Saif does a marvelous job at portraying this, especially in the scene where Omkara anoints Keshu as his successor.

Truth be told, Ajay Devgan and Kareena, who have pivotal characters in the film, fail Vishal. They aren't bad, but somehow their portrayal of their characters needed more sincerity. Ajay Devgan's character graph is fairly flat, although there are flashes of brilliance in a few fleeting moments, but you can't help but get a feeling of deja vu. He's done all this before; there is no innovation. Kareena is normally BAD, but here she is bearable. It's to Vishal's credit that he understood her limitations and didn't make her do anything she couldn't, even if that meant making the character a little sketchy. However, one character that sticks out like a sore thumb is Billo Chamanbahar, played by Bipasha Basu. Forget her acting skills, she looks just too refined for the role she's playing. Her character demands gaudy make-up, garish clothes and a coarse tongue. But what we get is perfect make-up, designer clothes (despite an unsuccessful attempt at making them look garish) and someone you can expect to start talking in English anytime.

A word of acknowledgment for newcomer Deepak Dobriyal - his portrayal of the bumbling Rajju, is so real that it hardly seems like an act. Quite an achievement for a newcomer who could easily have got lost amidst the galaxy of stars.

Technically, the film is top-notch. Tassaduq Hussain's brilliantly non-intrusive cinematography captures the mood of the film with some breathtaking visuals. Some of the shot compositions are truly remarkable. So is the editing and the background score that heightens the tension.

I must talk about the film's soundtrack. Vishal is essentially a musician who became a filmmaker by default. He impressed me a great deal with his divine score in Maachis. He is one of those music composers who would never compromise with their convictions. He didn't get much success as a music composer, because he refuses to work like other composers. He demands more involvement in the process of film making, so that his music blends with the film rather than stick out. That's just not the way our industry works, is it? That's why, Vishal only composes for himself these days. His scores always go with the theme of the film. His songs do not have an instant appeal, rather they always fit seamlessly within the context of his films. The beauty of his compositions is that they blend so well with the film that they have limited appeal outside the context of the film. That's the irony - a composer needs to compliment the mood of a film, but he's not considered 'good' till he's had a chart buster to his credit. Omkara can be seen as a compromise by Vishal in that he's produced two 'item' numbers for this film. Yet, the structure of these compositions is very much rooted in authenticity and thematic veracity. The entire soundtrack of Omkara ranks highly amid Vishal's magnificent, though non-prolific, oeuvre.

Talking of songs, how can I avoid mentioning my favorite lyricist and poet - Gulzar. Vishal and Gulzar are a package deal - if Vishal makes a film, Gulzar writes the lyrics and if Gulzar makes a film, Vishal has to compose the music. Gulzar's brilliance lies in his use of simple words, but profound imagery and meaning. I call him a visual poet - his words form an instant image in your mind. Even when he has to write a pedestrian 'item' number, he manages to leave his indelible mark. Listen to the lyrics of "Beedi" and "Namak". They are naughty and saucy as intended, yet uniquely Gulzar.

As a final note - I thought that Maqbool was a cool Indian name for Macbeth. Vishal takes that a step forward in Omkara. All the main characters in Omkara share the same starting alphabet or sound as their counterparts in Othello. So Othello becomes Omkara, Desdemona is Dolly, Cassio is Keshu, Emilia is Indu, Bianca is Billo, Roderigo appears as Rajju....but why is Iago Lagda Tyagi?

Well, Langda Tyagi's real name is Ishwar, though he's always called Langda all through the movie....and, don't you think Tyagi has a phonetic affinity with Iago?