Om Shanti Om

Om Shanti Om

Directed by: Farah Khan

Starring: Shahrukh Khan, Deepika Padukone, Arjun Rampal, Kirron Kher, Shreyas Talpade

Released: 2007

My rating: destroy every copy – horrible – bad – whatever – flawed but enjoyable - good – great – amazing

While I do not hold Farah Khan in high esteem as a director, she did something remarkable and created a film which has been terribly important in my personal Bollywood journey, and so enjoyable that it easily ranks in my top ten Indian films. Om Shanti Om is like a gigantic puzzle box. There is truly everything you may ask for in a film – puppy love, eternal love, slapstick humour, subtle humour, tragedy, action, memorable dialogues, great soundtrack.... and when it all comes together it just clicks and works wonders. Nothing speaks more in favour of the film that even though it is stuffed to the broom with film-references and making good-natured fun of the style of Indian filmmaking, it has become my number one choice of recommendation whenever Bollywood beginners ask me to show them a film. They know nothing about Bollywood, yet all of them like Om Shanti Om with all the quirks and in spite of not understanding any of the underlying jokes (and having no idea who that bunch of people randomly appearing in Deewangi Deewangi are).

Shahrukh Khan is allowed to over-play his already dramatic antics and as a result we get two delightfully different, yet both completely over the top heroes: Om Kapoor the goofy, star-struck movie fan, who lives only for his dream of becoming a star and gaining love of the gorgeous Shantipriya, the dream girl of the silver screen; and Om Kapoor the spoilt brat and arrogant actor who takes everything for granted. They only really become one and the same person as they near their destiny – the goofy bubble-gum 70s Om finds his doom in flames, that also shockingly take away Shantipriya, the irritable 00s Om upon realizing that he has unfinished business from his previous life. His over-dramatic acting is spot on and exactly what the film needs. And Dard-E-Disco is the greatest item song Bollywood has produced and you cannot tell me otherwise, capturing both the fun and ridiculousness item songs stand for.

I could not but oogle over Deepika Padukone (and her stunning, stunning wardrobe throughout the film), who, though dubbed, gave a very confident and good debut performance. Her expressions and eyes speak a language of their own, even if the voice is not hers. She is glamorous and perfect as Shanti. The whole supporting cast is apt and excellent, Arjun Rampal giving you the necessary creeps, Kirron Kher both amusing you and breaking your heart as typical filmi Maa, Shreyas Talpade with his adorable and undying support to Om´s dreams. Not to mention all the array of stars and superstars who agreed to do a cameo. The whole Filmfare awards bit was utterly hilarious also thanks to impeccable comic timing of Abhishek Bachchan and Akshay Kumar. And how heartening it was to see Rishi Kapoor and Subhash Ghai, who “opened” the whole film, fighting over a microphone? That is one of those golden moment that make Om Shanti Om so endearing.

THIS

IS

NOT

OK (did I mention I am pyrophobic?)

The film is visually opulent, nothing short of Bhansali level of opulence actually. The aesthetics of it appealed to me greatly as they stem from my beloved Art Noveau, which gives for example the green-rooms corridor almost a fairy-tale look. Another wonderful thing are all the beautiful painting by Alfons Mucha on the walls. The songs are skillfully choreographed and also magnificent, from romantic randez-vous in a film studio for Mein Agar Kahoon, to fabulously theatrical Dastaan, clearly inspired by the big masquerade scene from the Phantom of the Opera. And they are all beautiful. Except for Dar-E-Disco which is not beautiful, but totally fab in its own right as mentioned above. The lyrics “Now I am a wanderer, and a lover of disco, as I wander around London, Paris, New York, L.A., San Francisco!” are a true gem.

Do...

you......

.....hear his heart breaking?

As you can already tell, I adore this film. I dare to go as far as to compare Om Shanti Om with another Bollywood extravaganza – Amar Akbar Anthony – even though the latter is without doubt on a whole another level of iconic. The right mix of stuff that ranks from touching to pretty much crazy, with logic loopholes that one couldn´t care for any less, since it is simply all just too much fun. It is a well known fact that Om Shanti Om is an unofficial remake of Karz, which in turn was a remake of Madhumati, all films dealing with the themes of revenge “from beyond the grave”, with reincarnation being the turning point. It is also remarkable that unlike another set of remakes (based on the trope of separated twin siblings), all these films are memorable and great. Farah Khan simply took the story and filled every scene with potshots on almost every aspect of Hindi films. However these are all taken with much love and never even border on insulting. Om Shanti Om is both a parody of Bollywood and at the same time appreciates most of what makes it distinct and special.

Aitraaz

Aitraaz

Directed by: Abbas Mustan

Starring: Akshay Kumar, Kareena Kapoor, Priyanka Chopra, Amrish Puri

Released: 2004

My rating: destroy every copy – horrible – bad – whatever – flawed but enjoyable - good – great – amazing

Few films are as problematic for me as Aitraaz. On one hand it seemingly adresses the issue of male rape and false accusation, on the other hand it outright condems women who are ambitious and demonizes statements which, taken out of context of the movie, are true and should be respected (i.e. This is my body and my decision if I have a child.) However what could have been a good psychological drama ultimately twists and turns and becomes a clichéd glorification of „traditional Indian values“ in opposition to wicked western ideas of sexual independence. Mind you, Priyanka Chopra´s character, the bearer of the „western“, is unlikeable and definitely the worst example of any culture one might think of. She is shown as highly manipulative and vengeful. Still I resented how she was made an unredeemable demon, while Akshay Kumar an innocent angel. But as the poster suggests, it is a „women´s world“ and men who do not conform suffer (ha!).

Whereas Priyanka in the film never gets a chance to elaborate on her motivation (unless one is ready to accept she is simply a basic and greedy bitch), Akshay plays the martyr with the help of the law-student-turned-domestic Kareena Kapoor (with really weird blond hair). His character, though, makes few questionable moves himself. He lies to an unknown girl because he likes her. He deceives her to win her affections. Fortunately for him she finds it cute and loveable, had it been me he would have a shoe in his face. He has a history of hitting women when angry. Upon Kareena introducing herself as Priya Saxena he only manages to stammer „Priya Sex.“ In other words veritable Prince Charming.

Alongside this suffering Romeo, Priyanka and Kareena represent the already mentioned two poles – the devil in anything not sanskaari versus Indian goodness, innocence and tradition. Heck, Kareena is even FULLY clothed while dancing on the beach, while bacground dancers are in bikini. The greatest difference between them however lies in their reaction towards pregnancy. Kareena is happy. Priyanka gets an abortion. One would have though that by 2004 Bollywood has outgrown the formula of the angelic/devious extremes, but unfortunately that was not the case.

On the whole Aitraaz comes as awkward. From Kareena´s hair colour to Priyanka´s seductive rolling on the floor. And the whole choreography. In the end I cannot shake the feeling that the whole movie did not really care for exploitation of men, and only used it as a veil for yet another film that demonizes women. The double standarts set by Akshay´s character are obvious too. He has no problem with oggling over a bikini-clad woman on the beach, but is insulted when other men react similarly to her when they see her photoshoot. Maybe I am wrong. That´s why the film remains problematic. Even if it was not, however, it would be a mediocre venture, with outdated sets, forgettable music, sloppy script and half-hearted performances. The only one truly into the character was the vamp - Priyanka Chopra, whose acting chops were not great back then. She is utterly beautiful in the movie still, and already showing the future Priyanka, who would not be shy of experimenting with her roles by taking a negative lead.

Devotional dance by the righteous to close this review.

Chandni

Thursday, 24 September 2015

Chandni

Directed by: Yash Chopra

Starring: Rishi Kapoor, Sridevi, Vinod Khanna, Waheeda Rehman, Anupam Kher

Released: 1989

My rating: destroy every copy – horrible – bad – whatever – flawed but enjoyable - good – great – amazing

Chandni is iconic. No doubt about that. Even if only for introducing the myth of Yash Chopra´s „eternal woman in white“. Myth, because after Chandni, she hardly appears in any other of his films. Yet so deep is the image of Sridevi dancing an enticing tandav engrained in all our minds, that we accept her as something definite. Yash Chopra´s „woman in white“ has always been adn always will be Sridevi in Chandni, and no one else. However much like another film that set certain standards - Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge - Chandni too is a movie that has its own problems, and though iconic, it ain´t untouchable. So let´s touch it today, with some delicacy and some less delicacy as well.

Rishi Kapoor plays an obnoxious rich dude who employs all the annoying, forceful ways of getting closer to a girl he likes, and pretty much gives her no choice in matter of loving him back. When life turns tables on him and does not go the way he planned it to, he falls into depression, gives up completely, and slips into a hardcore self-pity mode. In short he is a douche. Sridevi plays beautiful, annoying in her childish mode, touching in her serious mode, Chandni, who likes to dance in the rain and is... well... beautiful. That truly seems the most prominent feature that Yash Chopra chose to endorse in his heroine that time. Sridevi with her thick mane of hair, long limbs, shy smiles and of course those huge eyes looked like a fairy-tale come true. The first half is cruel to her character though, as she is merely dragged along by Rishi and his family. But Chandni also manages to pick up the pieces of her shattered heart and make a new life for herself, complete with a successful career job and a new man who falls in love with her.

Enter grief-stricken Vinod Khanna, whose mother Waheeda Rehman is probably closer to him in age than his first pyaar Juhi Chawla, who appears in a small but sweet cameo. He is all that Rishi Kapoor (in this film) is not. Thorough gentleman, principled, going after his desires but not forcing himself where he is not wanted. So naturally he does not get the girl in the end, because Rishi suddenly decides he wants Chandni back – and much like in the beginning he blackmails her into a renewed relationship. Sigh. I was ready for Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam after this, to heal my aching soul. The score of the film did its share of healing too, for if there is something worth going back to, it´s the music – yes, including the out-of-tune Sridevi parts of „Oh meri Chandni“. The already mentioned wild tandav in nature is stunning and „Tere Mere Hoton Pe“ remains possibly my favourite track ever picturized on Sridevi. Chandni is also, quite possibly, the last film in which I was ready to accept Rishi Kapoor as a romantic hero. No matter what problems the characters displayed, all the actors did a good job with their roles, even if Anupam Kher going around and mouthing tutotial on life and love was boring. Again, I much prefered his meddling in Lamhe than here.

Did I mention these two get their own Switzerland song?

Chandni is one of the best known Yash Chopra films, and was one of his most successful ventures, however compared to let´s say Lamhe it lags behind, as a nice, but all in all average film. It is a notch better than Kabhi Kabhie though, being more tight in screenplay and not bothering about too many characters. Furthermore in spite of the obnoxious boyfriend (hell he even tricks the girl into getting drunk in pursuit of bodily pleasures), Chandni must have been a revelation at the time when action masalla had its boom. It aimed for simplicity and lots, lots of romance, on which it delivered (though there is still the question of the douche who initiates it all. And the whole Switzerland bit was unneccessary.). I have given up on Yash Chopra films being great in terms of script, rather it is best to simply let go and try and enjoy the atmosphere he managed to create. With this film he succeeded in conjuring up a charming little thing, even if only with help of Sridevi´s beauty and lovely music.

Posted by shahraiz gunjial at 21:30 No comments:

Cowboys and Aliens 2011 - Trailer with full movie directions

All latest hindi movies online.indian movies available online for free.new hindi movies 2011.hindi movies 2011 trailers. All online movies available for free on high speed. Watch latest hindi movies online,hindi movies in dvd print free.

yamla pagla dewana free download

tees maar khan free download

 Love U Watch Online Full Movie

Starring 
:

Tusshar Kapoor, Amrita Rao, Madhoo, Prem Chopra, Ram Kapoor, Kiran Kumar, Kunal Kumar
Director 
:
S.Manasvi
Producer 
:
Ajit Kumar Barjatya, Kamal Kumar Barjatya, Rajkumar Barjatya
Singers 
:
Neeraj Shridhar, Shreya Ghoshal, Vijay Prakash, Gayatri Ganjawala, Kunal Ganjawala, Mohit Chauhan, Reeky Dev, Jenice Sobti, Vinnie Hutton
Lyrics 
:
Manoj Muntashir
Genre 
:
Romance

For Other Parts click here

Ready Full movie Watch Online

All latest Watch Ready Full movie Watch Online ,hindi movies online.indian movies available online for free.new hindi movies 2011.hindi movies 2011 trailers. All online movies available for free on high speed. Watch latest hindi movies online,hindi movies in dvd print free.

Who will be James Bond after Spectre?

November 20, 2015 Bud Boomer 1

With Spectre pulling in a decent haul in the box office it seems like a sure thing that the James Bond franchise will continue to produce additional films in the series until the well runs dry. With that said, it’s no secret that actor Daniel Craig has expressed little interest in reprising his role and continuing to star in future films and fans have been debating who should take on the mantle in future installments. There are a ton of fantastic actors available to choose from and we decided to share our thoughts on who we think should be considered for the role:

Tom Hardy

Tom is an interesting pick in that he has the stamina, the charisma, and the looks to play a very interesting hybrid of old school James Bond that Sean Connery and company made famous and the more rugged approach of Daniel Craig. He’s a proven action star that’s still, somehow, somewhat underrated enough to surprise audiences with a fantastic performance. He’s one of our favorites, but not the only one…

Idris Elba

Idris Elba is a name who’s been discussed for the role of James Bond for years now. He’s said in interviews that he would love to take on the role and also exhibits a lot of the traits and charisma desired for the role. The shift in ethnicity of the character has been a hot topic on the internet for a long time and seems willing to accept the challenge. He’s one of our favorite’s for the role but there’s potential concern for studios to change JB’s ethnicity in fear that it would affect audience interest.

Michael Fassbender

Michael Fassbender is a fantastic actor and a role like this seems well within his range but one has to argue if the role is even a little beneath him. He’s certainly capable of sleep walking through this sort of film and still putting on a better performance than 90% of the other actors in Hollywood. Would he be interested. Would audiences mind if a German actor assumed the role of a character that has traditionally been portrayed as British? Would Britain mind, as JB is clearly one of their cinematographic pride and joys.

Clive Owen

Clive Owen has the rugged approach to action films that would make him a clear contender for the role of James Bond. My first recollection of Owen in film was in The Bourne Identity way back in 2003 where he portrayed a stoic product of Treadstone hunting down Damon’s Jason Bourne. The idea of him taking on this sort of role and bringing the suave charm to the character seems like a natural fit… but are the odds in his favor?

Jason Statham

Jason Statham, like a lot of the people on this list, exhibits the necessary characteristics to portray what audiences find familiar in James Bond in a lot of his movies. If anything sets him apart from the other actors is that he can also be viewed as a bit more extreme than the others. His filmography is littered with films in which he portrays a manic, almost insane, version of a super spy with a bit more graphic violence than we are accustomed to in a typical Bond movie. Would Bond be willing to adapt to Statham’s edge? Would Statham be willing to adapt to Bond?

Damian Lewis

Damian Lewis is a high regarded British actor that has a lot of support on the internet to portray James Bond. He’s by far the popular choice for new actor to take on the role but does he have what’s necessary to take over the now booming bond franchise?

Daniel Craig

What should be the obvious choice would be for studios to give Craig a raise and let him continue the upward momentum in box office figures that began when he took over the role. It’s been reported that Craig has never asked for a raise while making Bond movies and considering the records the franchise has recently broken it may be in the studios’ interest to secure their bond for a few more movies.

Mixed reviews aside, Spectre has passed the half-billion mark in box office receipts. It’s safe to say that you can expect to see a new franchise installment sooner rather than later. Vegas has updated the official odds on which actor will take the lead as the new Bond. This [online betting site] lists Damian Lewis as the favorite, with Tom Hardy and Idris Elba trailing close behind.”

Trumbo Is An Insiders Peek Into Old Hollywood

November 13, 2015 Jim Alexander -0-

Genre: Biography | Drama
Directed by: Jay Roach
Starring: Bryan Cranston, Diane Lane, Helen Mirren
Written by: John McNamara, Bruce Cook (book)

Synopsis: In 1947, Dalton Trumbo was Hollywood’s top screenwriter until he and other artists were jailed and blacklisted for their political beliefs. (Imdb)

Communism in Hollywood? It happened. In “Trumbo,” director Jay Roach (Meet the Parents, Austin Powers) brings forth the story of Dalton Trumbo, the most prolific Hollywood screenwriter in was blacklisted and jailed for his political beliefs. Written by John McNamara, and based on a book by Bruce Cook, this is as much a political movie as it is a look at the personality that was Dalton Trumbo. The film depicts the ugly side of Hollywood politics in the late 1940’s, while presenting it in visually elegant way, yet ultimately Cranston steals the show.

Trumbo is an all-time great when it comes to screenwriters, yet it took years to for him to get the recognition he deserved. That’s pretty much that’s what the plot of the movie works towards. The highs and lows of Trumbo’s journey in Hollywood’s lore, and the battle for voicing his beliefs.

Cranston’s resemblance to Trumbo is uncanny

This is a film that’s stylistically appealing. The cinematography is cleverly constructed by Jim Denault. The vintage look of the film is enhanced when the characters are watching television and what appears on the TV is actually not stock footage, but rather scenes filmed for the movie. An example of this is when the Trumbo family watches the Oscars and I couldn’t help but wonder if that was actual Oscar footage or it was part of the movie? Production Designer Mark Ricker and Costume Designer Daniel Orlandi do terrific work showcasing Hollywood’s Golden Age with style and elegance.

As visually pretty as the movie is, Cranston is still the centerpiece that the movie revolves around. He’s not just great as Trumbo, he is Trumbo. The transformation is incredible. His body movement, facial expressions, and look is spot on. His drawn out speech pattern, where he talks slowly but emphatically, is how you imagine the real life Trumbo spoke. He has the cigarette hanging out of the edge of his mouth at most times, and the thick black framed glasses, just the mere look gives you an idea what Trumbo was like. It’s a Best Actor type of performance no doubt. It’s crazy to think that an actor of the caliber of Cranston is finally getting his due and shot at being leading man, after years on television. For goodness sake he was the dad from Malcolm in the Middle!

The supporting cast is really strong. Diane Lane plays Trumbo’s wife, she’s the vital character in the movie who holds down the family during all the chaos. John Goodman has found a niche in Hollywood in recent years as playing the entertaining sidekick. He’s funny and entertaining as low-budget film producer Frank King, and adds some clever side gags. Lois C.K. stars as Arlen, Trumbo’s confidant and friend whose a bit of a loose cannon. C.K. shows some impressive range. Helen Mirren is Hedda Hopper, a journalist who teams up with the negatively portrayed John Wayne to start a smear campaign against Trumbo. What can you say about Mirren that hasn’t been said already, she always gives a fine performance.

Mirren and Cranston play compelling adversaries in the film

This is a film with great all-around filmmaking and acting. A collaboration that’s helmed by the great performance by Cranston. “Trumbo” has two layers to it. One on the commentary about perception and beliefs that not only resonated in Hollywood but in the country in the 40’s and 50’s, the other on the fascinating life of ups and downs that Trumbo had. Trumbo is humorous, educational, and fascinating. The man that penned “The Brave One,” “Roman Holiday,” “Exodus,” and “Spartacus” to name a few finally gets his deserved due on the big screen. A writer that stood for his beliefs and endured hardships due to the Hollywood Blacklisting and managed to hold his ground. Roach and Cranston team up to give Trumbo the ultimate compliment by telling his story.

Rating: R

Runtime: 124 minutes

Release Date: November 13, 2015 (wide)

 “James White” Cries At Us, Not With Us

November 17, 2015 Jules Neuman -0-

James, a 21-year-old New Yorker, struggles to take control of his self-destructive behavior in the face of momentous family challenges.

The more films I watch from both low and high culture, the more steadfast I become in my belief that all films are exploitation movies. Exploitation movies typically take sex and/or violence and show it in lurid detail for the sole and obvious purpose of making money. But really the vast majority of films exist to make money, and most every film is exploiting some type of real life pain in its quest to entertain the audience. The purpose can be more complicated than solely to bring in the moola, but the formula remains generally the same.James White, Josh Mond’s debut feature, is very much exploiting its subject matter. A movie about a young man taking care of his mother as she dies of cancer, it feels very much like a cathartic film. But it is also torture. This is a Sad Movie. It’s meant for people who are on the hunt for a good cry. I remember reading a New Yorker article about the phenomenon of people looking for tear jerking literature. Many even recommended the books in Amazon.com reviews for being able to upset them so. I assume these people would look for the same in their movies, and really, it is good to cry. Crying all day and night, I can assure you, is exhausting, but every now and then turning on the water works is good for cleaning out the cobwebs.

James White didn’t get me to cry, however, mainly because it’s carousel of cancer related drama was repetitive, predictable, and somewhat torturous to watch. It’s unfortunate because the other major elements of James White, mainly the titular character, James, who is played with reckless abandon by Christopher Abbott in a performance that reminded me of Brando’s chest thumping gorilla act as Stanley Kowalski, are ripe for a yummy picture pie. James is a wild child of the New York City nightlife. He’s twenty-something, paunchy, ruggedly handsome, not working, and temperamental to the point of bad boy-ism. The constant closeups totally focused on James make us want to get inside him, to understand why such a jerk is also so irresistible. It’s the age-old question I’ve been asking ever since I tried the Manhattan nightlife scene and was spit out like a flavorless wad of gum. I noticed people like James White got a lot more out of that life than I did, and I became friends with some of them, too, despite also hating them.

But James isn’t made out to be the complicated soul with a predilection to punch. Instead he’s apologized for as a sufferer of a bad parent (his absent father has already passed away in the beginning of the film) and is struggling to get a grip on life while taking care of his dying mother (played angelically by Cynthia Nixon). Carrying mom to the bathroom and listening to her body spill out all kinds of fluids should win any boy Son of the Year, and that’s what James is willing to do. He loves her and she loves him. And while that love is poignant, it’s also a little bit flat.

James White makes James “likeable” instead of making him human. For all his anger issues, his inability to get a job, his minor irresponsibility in taking care of his mother, it is more than understandable given the circumstances. James’ faults are made easily forgivable, and therefore aren’t interesting or challenging. Many people I’ve talked to groan at the challenge of sympathizing with a character who is too unlikeable to be “likeable.” It is a much richer experience to be challenged rather than patronized. The cartoonist Roz Chast’s memoir Can We Talk About Something More Pleasant? is freakishly honest about the burden of taking care of her elderly parents in their last years of life. The result isn’t disgust for Chast, but a deep emotional bond with her, a level of universality that is rarely ever reached.

James White doesn’t go for all that. It doesn’t challenge us intellectually. And that’s fine. But that’s where I get to the idea of exploitation. Ingmar Bergman’sCries & Whispers is an agonizing cinematic experience, in a good way. Michael Haneke’s Amour is a slow burn that pays off in a dark, morally ambiguous twist. Both of these films deal with similar situations of sickness, family, love, death, and burden. I’d argue they, too, are exploitative of their subject matter. And they are very good films (Bergman’s is one of the best ever, and Haneke’s solid, though very well received when it released in 2012). Mond’s James White is a far cry from Bergman or Haneke, but it shares in their exploitative ways, only to much less success, even if it garners more tears.

• Acting - 7/10
  7/10
• Cinematography - 6/10
  6/10
• Plot/Screenplay - 4/10
  4/10
• Setting/Theme - 4/10
  4/10
• Buyability - 2/10
  2/10
• Recyclability - 1/10
  1/10

4/10

POSTED UNDER

REVIEWS