Bhag D K !

Irreverential, rib-tickling and total paisa vasool - that's Delhi's under Belly served on a platter with a generous serving of outrageous scenes and garnished with a mouthful of obscenities. The audience relished every bit of it, everyone sat through even the credits at the end.

Deo has done a good job with this situational comedy and the A-certificate was a marketing masterstroke. Lots of attention to detail. I liked Kunal Roy Kapur's acting as the friend with the diarrhoea. Not surprisingly, his best moments in the movie are shot in the loo. Good use of the cliche slapstick comedy devices - farts, noises and all; his expressions made them stand out. Newcomer Poorna Jagannathan is quite impressive. But Vijay Raaz must take a bow - he was the best of them all with his trademark swagger and dialogue delivery. Then there are the potshots at Mithunda.

My friend who saw the movie with me didn't even notice that the dialogues were all in English - almost all of them ! Funny!

This movie certainly reinforces Brand Amir Khan - King Midas.

Do watch it and take a crowd along. Just leave the kid and parents at home.

By the way, Ajay Devgan looks good in Surya's rule in the upcoming Singham remake. He is going to give Salman 'Dabang' Khan a run for his money!

Hail the new Mr Bond !

When I first saw Daniel Craig's pic (I havent seen any of his earlier movies), I was surprised at the choice of the latest actor to portray Mr 007. I thought this surely will hasten the end of the Bond saga. Kahan dashing PB aur kahan ye jerk ! I also read that this is the movie where Bond becomes 007 and gets his "license to kill", so I expected to see a movie set in the real olden days and hence sans all the modern day stunts, gadgets and a toned down version of the regular Bond paraphernalia.

But well, this evening proved me wrong on both counts. Since I had a wonderful saturday evening to enjoy but nothing much to do in the cold, the movie at the nearby Mall seemed the best recourse. When I climbed the three floors and reached the ticket counter, I almost decided to go for another movie "Stranger than Fiction"- its storyline sounded intriguing, but decided to check out the latest Bond flick and be ready to dismiss the latest agent from her majesty's service as an also-ran.

Folks, this is definitely one of the best Bond movies I have seen and not just because of my low expectations to start with. Pierce B was totally dispassionate and devoid of emotion, all too suave, cool headed and clinical. I read somewhere that George Lazenby was perhaps the only Bond who wasnt devoid of emotions and the only one who marries a woman, albeit for very short time. But Craig comes across as both a macho guy carrying out all the stunts and possessing the charisma required of James Bond, but he is also refreshingly human and emotional. He is intense with a simmering anger within him and is raw and uncut.
Craig plays a Bond who actually falls in love with a woman and decides to trade in his license to kill for the license to marry and live a normal life. He even delivers mushy romantic dialogues with convincing emotions. Also, this is a Bond who thinks on his feet, sometimes ridiculously so in contrast to his rival in the scene. Kudos to Craig's acting, he has been able to shrug off the older actors' legacies and create his own persona of Bond.

Chronologically, I expected this movie's plot to be based before all the previous movies. But surprisingly there are terrorist organisations in the plot, fancy Sony Ericsson cellphones (Its a Sony production, remember?) and flip phones, advanced GPS systems etc and yet the amount of money at stake in the plot is quite small by today's standards - its about 100 million. I bet this movie cost much more to make. So I am confused.

The plot is refreshingly simplistic - Bond is not out to save the world. A terrorist banker, who by the way weeps blood (every Bond nemesis needs to have his own peculiarities), plays a dangerous game by using his client's money to short an airline's stock and then attempts to blow up the aeroplane company's latest prototype to reap rich profits. But ah well, he didnt account for Mr Bond, did he? Agent 007 displays his usual skills at hanging on to the treacherous sides of an oil tanker, rigged with a miniature explosive and homing in on the airplane - its target. He of course turns the tables on the terrorist and prevents the blast. So now Mr Chiffre (our wily speculator) is left short of about 100 odd million in cash and his clients on his back demanding their pound of flesh or the money back. But his clients are no mean Armani-wearing businessmen but African rebel militia (conveniently termed as "terrorists" considering today's no-tolerance towards terror approach) wielding machetes and ready to chop off hands and wring necks at the drop of a hat. So Mon. Chiffre tries to use his skills at poker to recover his dough. The stage is set for a high-profile, high stakes game of poker at a "Casino Royale", with Bond at the table too, bankrolled by the British govt and chaperoned by a witty and provocatively seductive MI6 accountant. Of course, Bond outwits our poker king and leaves him high and dry, but not before plenty of drama, action and emotion to entertain the viewer. So now I think since Chiffre will become a turncoat and seek sanctuary with MI6 to save his own skin, its time for the curtains to fall on this episode of the exploits of the Queen's agent but the director surprises me with still more meat in the plot. The film finally ends with a flourish, with the signature Bond introduction which I was thinking would never come.

The best portions of the movie were the repartees between Bond and Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), esp the ones when the meet for the first time in the train and in the car on th way to the casino. The cinematography is very good too in the movie with many breathtaking landscapes and locales. The house by the cliff and the ocean in the end of the movie is amazing. And perhaps for the first time, the heroine in a Bond movie has a role with some meat on it.

So folks, I think we are going to see more of the new James Bond, ruthless enough to slit throats without mercy and vulnerable and human enough to love - all with a depth of passion of his own. Oh boy, the ladies are going to love him !

Fanaa...Oh Kajol...

Two movies this Saturday, two different flavours from a similar pot.

Although the first part of Gangster was barely watchable, I stuck on and found the second half to be entertaining. It depicted how the mind of a woman is often an emotional playground. It can play wierd games and she might make the most surprising and irrational decisions at times. I felt pity for the gangster in the end, as the director intended, but I guess the director succumbed to temptation and ended up making Emran's character all black and that of the gangster all white, instead of both being shades of black and white as humans really are. Shiney Ahuja, I thought acted decently well as the brooding gangster. I wonder how this story is even faintly similar to the Abu Salem-Monika Bedi chapter. Did I forget to mention the song "Ya Ali"?

"sahi aur galat raste mein faisla karna aasan hota hai..magar, do sahi raston mein se behtar ya do galat raston mein se munasib rasta chunna bahut mushkil..aaj kiye huye hamare ye faisle hi hamare kal ka faisla karte hain.." Well, this was the theme of the Kajol starrer, Fanaa. About difficult decisions that you got to make in life. Entertaining sher-o-shayari and I bet no forty year old can flirt as well as Aamir does, he does deliver the couplets with great panache. I am a big-time fan of Kajol and boy, is she great in the movie ! She looks as sexy as ever and great acting. Although Rani in Black was good, but Kajol's performance as a blind girl is refreshing because it is more real and effortless, without any histrionics. I liked one particular scene for the attention to detail given there. Its night, Kajol and her friend are on their beds in the dormitories reading a book each. They finish chatting and her friend tucks herself in, switches off her light and asks Kajol also to do so as she (the friend) is going to sleep. I instinctively thought "How rude !". Then immediately I realised as Kajol switches off the light and continues to roll her fingers over the braille script that she is reading, that she really doesnt need a light to read !!

There was this other scene in which their kid hands aamir a glass of milk and tells him that there was no use trying to dispose off the milk by throwing it into the sink, out into the snow or some other means because his mom was too smart for all this. Then as he turns to go away, he pauses and remarks that in case Aamir ("deadman" ) happens to find out a foolproof way of doing it, he would be glad to know about it too ! Reminded me of how my own methods of doing away with the awful daily glass of milk without my mom coming to know about it evolved over time to perfection. Alas, the ingenuity of a child's brain...

To cut a long review short, Fanaa is definitely atleast a one-time movie just for Kajol.

So Dark the Con of Man

Zzzzzzziiippppppppppppppppppp.....Thats how the two and a half hours went by me.

Sprinkling of anagrams, dollops of suspense, a pinch of blasphemy and two measures of history, served by Ron Howard, made up for a good treat on a lovely Sunday afternoon. Really fast paced, the movie sprints through the book. The film covers the entire story in the book, but falls short of the details, which is only to be expected. I liked the book for the detailed description of the symbolisms and the discussion on the importance given to and the role of the sacred feminine in most ancient religions and civilizations. The film doesnt go into any of these except for a passing mention. A mention of these and what the Church tarnished as pagan practices in its proselytising past would, I suppose, have been more unpalatable to some people than the mere claim that Jesus actually married and his bloodline existed to which the film owes its controverial nature.

Tom Hanks as usual has acted very well. Jean Reno also does full justice to his considerable reputation. The film opens, as does the book, with the dying curator in the Louvre leaving clues and puzzles strewn all over. Then there begins a chase for the legendary and exotic Holy Grail, with the astute symbologist and his beautiful and intelligent (does God make them in enough number?) French policewoman played by Audrey 'whatever'. A chase that takes them across Europe and different churches and graveyards and crisscrossing interesting meridians. Hanks's brains work faster than Chacha Choudhary's to decipher complex anagrams in real-time finally leading to the startling discovery about the Grail. Langdon shows remarkable wisdom at the end - the author's conciliatory ending. The director refrains from giving any romantic angle to the lead-pair in deference perhaps to the hero's greying temples or maybe to avoid any distraction from the suspense in the plot. This, I thought, was the only deviation from the book. The way Director uses the special effects in the Mona Lisa painting in Teabing's study to illustrate his point is quite facinating.

Where the book lacked in the skills of the author, the film compensates through the director's talent. All in all an enjoyable movie, worth the seven and a half bucks that I paid for it.

As for the charges of historical inaccuracies and blasphemy levelled against the book, well history is after all His Story, the story of mankind. The story of mankind is the story of struggles through the ages, a story crafted and narrated by the victors, the dominants, flavoured over time by various influences. To seek complete objectivity in it or to claim the same is not an act of reason. And religion is a doctrine, a way of life and principles, shaped by men through the ages not the prophets who originally expounded the principles. So rather than live in a state of denial, its better to accept this very basic premise and understand that a religion is but any doctrine that makes a person a better human being. The moment religion starts dictating one's life to the extent that he stops being human, you violate this basic tenet.

I sure want to see the Louvre !!

Rang De Basanti - the dilemma of the youth

RDB was the sequel to Dil Chahta Hai, with generous dollops of the Yuva brand. Very well shot, quite slick, good acting by most of the cast, but an unrealistic ending.

It is a made for metro kind of movie. Dont know how much appeal it would find amongst the smaller towns. But I suspect, that the metropolitan and smalltown tastes are converging these days, slowly but surely. Nevertheless, its a relief that films can be made and can be a commercial success without necessarily catering to all segments of the audience.

The theme touches first base with the audience very easily. We can easily identify with the youths here who believe the "system" cannot be changed, its far too corrupt to be changed. But their lives go on as they are not directly affected and they can go alongwith the system. But only until the muck hits home. What happens after that and how they react forms the climax of the movie.

I liked Atul Kulkarni's acting in particular. His acting and dialogue-delivery infused warmth into the script. His passionate rendition of RamPrasad Bismil's immortal lines "Sarfaroshi Ki Tamanna..." was touching. Soha Ali Khan seems to be a decent actress too. Aamir has added a Punjabi twang to his repertoire of 'Tapori' performances. Kunal Kapoor has also essayed his character well.

The parallels drawn to the real life Minister and the saffron party are too difficult to miss. I heard that a scene where the minister travels in a MIG aircraft to prove its air-worthiness was censored. Perhaps George would have sued for libel otherwise and the blatantness of it all would have been difficult to defend. In any case it is too far-fetched to assume that any popularly-elected minister would dare to villify the memory of a martyr or a soldier who died in the line of duty. He would never get re-elected or reappointed. Thank Goodness, Indian democracy isnt as immature as the director here feels. And I might feel the ending is not how it should have been, but of course its the director's cinematic license. Its his canvas to paint. But the reaction of the these youths in the movie, is the ultimate act of cynicism which the characters emphatically seek to deny through their dialogues when they go 'on air'. This apparent contradiction and need for defending the ending, which the director perhaps felt, mars the climax of an otherwise eminently watchable movie.

The Goblet of fire holds me in thrall

Beware : potential spoiler ahead, tread with wary steps

----------------------------
Well, I have been reading HP and the halfblood prince these days. Nearing the end and waiting for dumbledore to die. First HP book I fully read. And found it to be quite good. The mystical and fantasy world of magic is captivating. JKR does a good job of putting her imagination to words evoking wonderful imagery in the mind. Of course, in my case, I have seen a couple of the earlier movies. So whenever I read about Harry, Radcliffe boy came to my mind. Hermione was always Emma Watson.

So, I had looked forward to seeing the latest offering in Harry Potter - the movies. I havent read HP and the Goblet of Fire yet. Well, Sunday came and by evening, I didnt manage to see the movie yet. But finally I caught hold of a friend and went for the 10pm show at Innovative Multiplex. Braving the nippy wind, I reached the multiplex, went in and settled down in the comfortable seat. All this effort proved to be worthwhile. It is quite important that you see this movie in a theatre with good accoustics and in comfort.

Since I watched the movie without having read the book, my cinematic experience was unadulterated and not weighed down by the expectations raised by the book. So this is my unprejudiced opinion of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - the movie. :-) Maybe, after I go through the book, I shall revisit and publish another post on it for me to compare my thoughts.

The film opened with the scene of Tom Riddle's house (I think thats what it is). There was the imposing sculpture of the "Grim Reaper" supposedly there as the face of the evil. The Quidditch stadium and the display was impressive. The vision in the sky of the mark of the dark lord was also cool. But one of the best scenes of the movie for me was the entry of the team from the Witches school (I didnt catch the name of the school). The sheer grace with which they made their entry was simply superb. The actual triwizard tournament wasnt that great except for the first task. The dragon-harry chase was 'shot' well. But the movie previews made the underwater scenes to be something really special. Maybe it took great effort and skill to film, but I didnt really find it visually that great. The new Dark Arts Teacher or rather the impersonator was quite cool too. Actually his eyeball was quite eye-catching. Why, it seemed to have a 10x optical zoom !

But one of the takeaways for me from this movie was the scene where Hermione appears in her ball dress. Emma Watson looks beautiful in it and Parvati didnt manage to beat me in remarking on how lovely she looked. And the Russians looked good in their tunics too. All in all, I felt that the special effects, the cinematography and the costumes were quite good in the movie.

"Sau rupiye poore vasool", I would say. And I didnt mind the chill in my bones, when I rode back at midnight.