Reviews

I just got back from seeing this movie for the first time. And what haunting movie it was!

I can't really add to all the good reviews here, except for one thing. As far as I understood it, this movie was not just a comment on 1950's psychiatry, but also an allegory of life under communism in Chechoslovakia. Next to the direct police oppression there was obviously a lot of 'mind control' going on as well.

This reading explains some of the 'goofs' noted about this film, the most important being that when McMurphy wakes up after the Christmas- party, it seems to be spring outside. This refers to the Prague spring. The Prague Spring obviously led to the full scale invasion of the Soviet Union of Chechoslovakia, analogous to 'the institution' (the Chief refers to it as The Combine in the book) 'invading' McMurphy's brain by lobotomizing it. Another hint is Martini (Danny DeVito) saying 'hovno' in the card game at the end, which is Slovak for 'shit'. Since the original novel is an American novel written in 1959, I'm guessing Forman put this in for a reason.

I point this out because I just watched this together with a Slovak lady, and apparently, amongst Slovaks and Chechs alike it's kind of common knowledge that the movie is also about Chechoslovakia (and it's also still about the horrors of mental institutions, obviously).

The story of Brahm is fantastic. Also, Part of the execution is well done, by having a story about a web of illusions which is slowly unravelling, and telling that story mostly via flashbacks. In the beginning, the movies gives you almost a David-Lynch kind of feeling, with seemingly off-plot scenes - but after a while you begin to understand: those seemingly loose ends were not actually means to the end of interrupting the narrative you were attempting to construct - they actually are loose ends. The confusing scenes which throw you off-balance are not actually meant to alienate you from the story in the eerie-David-Lynch way - they are just displays of the massive and random incapability of the screenwriters team.

It's actually quite amazing to see just how many mistakes they made. From incredibly stupid dialogs ("is that Greek?" - "maybe I am a geek"), to even more incredibly stupid characterization-devices ("boy", says Shan to supermodel Antara, who must be an air-head because she is a model, right? "you read so many books?" Could it be she has a brain after all?), from just random-out-of-the-blue plot twists (suddenly, after a relative stranger Antara accuses Devendra of rape and murder, both his wife and his own brother believe unconditionally that Devendra is a rapist and a murderer, even while we've just seen them a few minutes before declaring their undying love and trust in the Great Man) to an ending which is as predictable as it is pathetic, the screenwriters' unique talent for making mistakes is just unending.

But even with all these mistakes, it's still a movie which is "mweh, not so bad" - not a complete excruciating bore. The reason is the actors.

First the two leads: Dino Morea and Sheetal Menon. Dino is just about alright as the cheeky but romantic here who accidentally walked into a film noir. Sheetal Menon is sizzlingly hot. And please understand: I too am against the (recent) trend of young "actresses" bearing all without reason in Bollywood-movies - you know who I am talking about, those starlets who mistake showing skin and pouting lips for "talent". But Sheetal's role here is different. Not only does her role here require her to be sexy, but she achieves this not by showing gratuitous skin, but by her presence (and well, yes, also showing some skin - but not even that much when compared to let's say, a Mallika Sherawat). A good performance for a débutante - the moments where she becomes unbelievable (when she "recognizes" Dev as the rapist and murderer of her sister, to name one example) mainly have to do because of the bad screenplay the writers have given her.

Them the other pair: older brother Devendra played by Milind and his wife, played by Simone Singh. Especially the latter gives a stellar performance, first as the funny, sweet and loving housewife, then as the disappointed and heartbroken woman. But Milind also has some strong scenes, especially at the end, where we get to see what happened according to Devendra, had some really good scenes from him.

Ohyes, and also there is just human curiosity to help you sit through the film. You just want to know what happened.

So all in all, the story is good, but the writers ruined it. One wishes David Lynch would actually take up this idea and make his first Bollywood-movie called "Bhram: The way it should have been done". That would have been a brilliant film for sure!

I just saw this one and still processing it, but here's a few comments anyhow.

I found Kangana's and the entire movie's portrayal of schizophrenia pretty well done. Someone above already said: if you've ever dealt with people closeby who have a serious mental illness, you will recognize a lot. Please do bear in mind, trying to portray the delusions of a schizophrenic is very difficult, because their delusions are, by their nature, tremendously unbelievable. Kangana succeeds because she is able to portray a schizophrenic AND a likable, sweet woman - and these are the two sides that Shiny Ahuja's character finds himself torn between.

I thought his character was a bit less well developed. His delivery was a bit slow sometimes, and his emoting could have been better. All in all, not bad, but not splendid either.

Someone upthread was reminded a lot of the movie "Gia". I do agree that it does bear some similarities to that movie - but this movie is no Gia-rip-off. It is based on the real-life story of Parveen Babi, a famous Bollywood-actress in the 70's (Zeenat Aman's main rival, so to say), who was also destroyed by her mental illness and the pressure of stardom. Saying it is a Gia-rip-off shows you just didn't do your research, and is an offense to these two excellent movies which only ebar a superficial resemblance to each other.

The connection with Parveen Babi's life and Mahesh Bhatt's role in it, makes this movie even more interesting. One can sense the love that Bhatt poured into making this, a very true type of love. But at the same time, one cannot help but wonder: is this tribute also a way for Bhatt t o redeem himself, cleanse himself from any mistakes he feels he might have made with the real life tragedy of Parveen? This background makes the movie a must-watch for Bollywood fanatics. For others, it is a perfect movie to watch at home with your significant other.

Shobayatra (procession) is a movie based on a play also called Shobayatra. The storyline is only partially relevant to the message the movie wants to put across: several unrelated people are blackmailed or otherwise forced to play historical Indian characters in a procession celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Indian republic. One problem: the cart they're supposed to be standing on is delayed. So the characters wait around for the cart in an abandoned warehouse. What follows is an "interesting" piece where the characters shift in and out of the role they're supposed to play, whilst on the outside, the world is going mad.

Recurring theme is the ways in which Indian heritage these days is corrupted, confused and forgotten: Indian history is felt as a burden, not a source of pride. The movie shows kids celebrating Independence Day getting drunk in stead of truly remembering, and it also shows homeless kids who are left forgotten by all, except by the woman who is supposed to be Rani Laxmibai, who in real life in this movie is a history teacher.

This movie is quite a failure. The main reason: it tries too obviously to be a smart social commentary. The problem it wants to tackle (Indians squandering their heritage away under the influence of Americanization and internal strife) and the analysis of it's causes might or might not be spot on, but it just fails to interest. It pulls every arthousey trick k out of the hat in a very clichéd and all too obvious manner. Some examples which were excruciating to watch: 1) blurring character-delineations, confusing "what's real and what not", in for example the man who plays Subash Chandra Bose, who actually starts behaving like a one-dimensional interpretation of the INA-leader.

2) the scene where Rani Laxmibai/the History teacher finds a phone to call her son, whom thereupon doesn't recognize his mother's voice, is too obviously an allegory for 'today's youth not recognizing the loving voice of Mother India' that it just becomes ridiculous - what should have been an excruciating moment (any mother whose son doesn't recognize her voice will be heartbroken, which, in Bollywood, would and SHOULD in this case have lent itself to some beautiful tear-jerking moments) loses all the intimacy, emotion and power because the moment is too obviously a vehicle to communicate the message.

3) The scene where Babu Genu is suggested to have sex with the American journalist girl who inexplicably prances around the warehouse too, is also too much of an allegory to be taken seriously.

The only slightly interesting moments come when the character playing Gandhi is actually trying to kill someone - it's so completely idiotic to see this emblem of ahimsa, non-violence, attempting to shoot someone, it becomes, well, not hilarious, but, compared to the rest of the movie, almost tolerable cinema.

Then again, I can't blame the actors for their bad acting. It's the producers of this monstrum that made Sbobayatra the ugly mutt of a movie it is, and for one simple reason: It was the famous English writer John Gardner who gave a very important piece of advice to any writer, a piece of advice that should the makers of Shobayatra should have heeded. He admonished authors to respect their characters, and to care for them deeply, even if they would be bastards. The makers of Shobayatra cared not an inch for the characters in their movie, and use them shamelessly to portray their own smugly smart social commentary on modern India.

The movie is pretentious, too cerebral and arrogantly smug. Don't watch it.

I found Baabul a B-category movie with an A-list-casting. The story, about a young girl being widowed, and the challenges she faces to try and get married again, is really an interesting idea, even though I am not sure whether it still is a common social problem amongst Hindustanis.

There's two reasons which make the movie quite bad: Salman Khan and Screenplay/Dialogue.

I don't know what people see in Salman Khan, but by the gods, this man CAN NOT act. He sounds like he is a half-German, half-Indian class B actor who is dubbing himself over in real-time. His post-modern interpretation of Romantic Love reminds me more of freshly laid asphalt then of anything else. Why do people still hire him? Were they out of money after Amitabh, Malini and Rani signed up?I found him so irritating that I could not suppress a small 'yay' when he gets run over by a car, halfway through the movie. "Great" I thought, "now let's get on with the people who CAN act and make it a good movie".

The second reason: at about three quarters of the movie, I suddenly realized something: if at this, or at any point in the movie, any of the characters would suddenly be played by another actor, it probably wouldn't change any of the dialogue, screenplay or anything else. If Rani would have been replaced in every other scene by let's say Kajol, Priyanka Chopra and an anonymous street vendor from Kolkata, the movie would go on. Now, that may seem an interesting achievement, but it isn't: it shows that many of the people involved just did not care about the actors, the plot and the movie. Screenplay and dialogue should be made to fit the actors: this is what makes chemistry and empathy possible. This just felt like the producers and director thought of this movie as 'another day at the office'. This comes out during the climax: at the point where even hard and sturdy men like me should break down and cry: "oh yes, that's so true, how can humans be so cruel?", you just don't feel anything.

The reason why I don't give the movie lower then a six, is that: well, at least the movie is tolerable. The camera-work is quite nice, the idea is quite nice, and the songs are not that bad. So, if you must see it, buy it on DVD and watch it at home when you have nothing else to do.

If you look at the film-cover and see Madhuri and Sharukh, you know you're in for a romantic drama, right? WRONG!

Anjaam is what in Western Cinema would be called first class slasher movie. It has it all: an insane psychopath, and lot's of bloody deaths, with some divine justice in the end. It deals with how much a woman (shivani,played by madhuri) can take by men (the worst being Vijay played by Sharukh) before she exacts her revenge. Of course overlaid with the obvious references to Maa Durga, Madhuri takes on that revenging-part awesomely well: she even bites off a piece of her bad brother-in-law's arms with her bare teeth before choking him on his own money. As far as slasher movies go, this one is top notch - at least for the second part of the movie.

But Anjaam is able to achieve something that most slasher movies of the West can never achieve. It's the political message. Because however horrid and incredible the stuff that is done to Shivani seems, it is not all that exceptional. Of course, for the film some parts were overblown. But everyday in beautiful India young girls ARE being sold as prostitutes, wives ARE being beaten just because there husbands can, et cetera, et cetera.

Anjaam asks us two questions: 1) Why should women take such punishment? The answer is provided by a monologue Madhuri delivers: because they are the only ones strong enough to be able to take it.

2) What are the consequences (Anjaam) when women refuse to take it anymore? The answer is: Anjaam! Bloody gore and divine justice done by stark raving mad women empowered by Maa Durga.

So, don't go watching this movie expecting romance. Expect gore and death. And in that genre, Anjaam reigns supreme.

This movie just goes to show the awesome strength of Indian Cinema - where else can we see a tragic love story like Titanic, a dead-scary horror like The Shining, a fair dealing with terrorism aka freedom fighters like United 93, peppered with Die-Hard like action-sequences and ending in a tragically personal shoot-out that could have come straight of the bat of Johnny Woo or Tarantino, and that all rolled into one movie AND STILL be utterly, utterly believable, moving and mesmerizing? Yes indeed, only Bollywood can do that! Eat this Hollywood! Ha! The smartest thing of the movie is the plot. Especially after the 'intermission' it just drives you through the entire movie: it had me sitting up straight for the entire 1 and half hour climax, filled with complete and utter dread. With smart twists and turns, the writers were just able to up the ante with every other development, until you just feel utterly disembowelled by tension - and still you want more.

If I would recount the plot here, it would sound utterly unbelievable. That's why it requires two great actors to pull it off and make it believable. And dear me, do Aamir and Kajol succeed in that. Aamir, who basically has three main developments to play (from Romeo to terrorist to father) succeeds mightily, but in my mind is even bested by Kajol: she also has three developments to play (from all-too-innocent Juliet to mother to patriot - and combine these descriptions and you've guessed the gist of the plot) but does that so incredibly well, it's just..wow. And moreover, there is her eyes. As someone here said above: she can cry just so gutwrenchely, you indeed feel to turn your eyes away to allow her some privacy in her grief. It seems at times as if the entire tragedy is completely locked in her eyes. Really good.

So. I don't have anything negative to say about this movie - alright, if I have to: the intelligence officer lady is just completely unbelievable. She looks like she ran away straight from some bad American forensic psychiatry series, you know the ones, where there's a woman playing the lead, who is out there to understand the minds of psychopaths and always gets just the right clues after too much empathy and too little hard thinking. I don't know what the current series of choice for that particular genre is now, it used to be Profiler.

These and other possible flaws are way overcome by the massively riveting plot and the impressively admirable job by Aamir and Kajol. Once again: Eat this Hollywood! Ha!

I've just seen Parineeta - and I honestly can not tell you whether I think it a good movie or not. The reason? Vidya Balan. Dearest God, what a woman! 1. She's pretty. Not in the MTV-showing-skin-think-of-me-naked pretty, but unearthly, religiously pretty. Even though she almost bears it all in this movie (in one of the best hot scenes I have ever, ever seen), she manages to keep the radiance and presence of a true angel. Even Serafs would start singing to her instead of Gods glory if she would walk past.

2. She's a very good actress. And with that I mean Indian actress. She's able to convey emotions effectively, which is the core of acting of course, but there's just so many little typical Indian details in her acting: gestures she makes, the movement of her eyes and eyebrows, her body language, that shows: she took her acting lessons from Old School Indian Cinema - all the way from Meena Kumari, Nargis, Nutan, via Hema Malini, Rekha (who makes a stunning guest appearance, too!), Sridevi and, my all time favourite, Mahuri Dixit. Believe me when I say this lady is a legend in the making! So, whilst watching Parineeta I could do nothing but watch enthralled every time Vidya graced the silver screen with her radiance. For what it's worth, I did notice a few other things as well though: 1. Saif Ali Khan. After seeing him first in Kal Ho Naa Ho, I had my doubts. Sure, he's eye-candy for the ladies, but can he act? In Kal Ho Naa Ho, he couldn't - but he shows that he does have the talent here: he does a good job at portraying the anguished Shekhar, and to be honest, I think the director could have gotten more out of him: the movie does not show enough of either his or Vidya/Lolita's doubts, troubles and inner thoughts to really test their mettle. So, compliments for him.

2. Sabyasachi Chakravarthy (who plays shekhars dad). He plays the guy you just love to hate very well - even so effectively that you don't even feel for him when, during the climax of the movie, his little scams and self-built empire come apart. I thought that scene was not really a good scene: he was so unlikeable that as an actor he surely felt it would have been weird to show the despair his character must have felt. But apart from that scene, he is doing such a good job at being the dislikeable $%#&@&@, that he is just worthy of praise.

3. Sanjay Dutt. he was nominated for best supporting actor here, and he should have gotten it. Even though I thought he was better at supporting in, for example, Eklavya, he is so very able to give a character dimension and depth within just a few seconds, that he just deserves that award.

4. I do think the plot/script could have been a bit better written. The biggest problem I had was this: why didn't Lolita at least try to tell the truth about Shekhar's dad evil scheming earlier on? Now I understand as a person, why that is difficult, but why didn't we, as viewers, at least see more of Lolita's doubts about that, and more of Shekhars confusion over Lolita's then erratic behavior? Sure, I get why we also need to buy into the eternal deep love thing to really feel the tragedy of them being separated, but the tragedy-part is equally important, and this is where it got blunted a bit: the movie focused too much first on how great they are together, and then on their confusion over possibly marrying other people in stead of each other (the arrival of Girish for Lolita and that Paris Hilton avant la lettre for Shekhar) and too little on the pains and misconceptions Shekhar's dad's manipulative moves caused directly. I didn't feel that they were 'caged' as characters need to be in a tragedy, I still felt their was room for manouvre, and I didn't really believe that they didn't take the room which they too my mind had.

Or maybe I was just too happy every time I saw Vidya Balan too really be able to empathise with the lovely sad love story this ultimately is. It's just hard to feel the tragic melancholy of it all when you believe your watching a divine presence.

So, come to think of it, it is a good movie, really. I think I have to watch it again, just for Vidya Ba..the good plot, of course.

One of the strong points of Indian Cinema is that they're able to blend tragedy and comedy very well. Indian Cinema is abound with gorgeously tragic love-stories, filmed and scripted in such a way that they want to make you laugh at points and cry your heart out to. This to Western viewers almost shameless playing to the emotions is what I like about Indian cinema, and makes me proud of my own Indian heritage.

This movie has the comedy part right, with the running gag of SRK and Saif being gay lovers (to Kantaben's dismay), but it doesn't get enough out of the tragedy part. The reason? A flaw in the script: we see SRK and Preity falling in love - and then he turns her away. Only at that point in the movie do we get to understand that SRK has an unexplained and fatal heart-disease, and that he loves Preity so much that he doesn't want to put her through the tragedy of being with him whilst he dies.

Now, this motive is noble enough to build a beautiful story on. My problem: the extent of SRK's sacrifice would have been so much clearer if we would have known beforehand and all the way through when they fall in love. Surely SRK's capability to play the tragic hero was way up to that challenge, and it would have added a logic and drive which the first part of the movie missed.

There were many things to make the movie really enjoyable though. As people above have stated already, Kal Ho Naa Ho sets an example of how to blend Western and Indian Cinema in a believable and working fashion. In that sense it really sets a standard for other movies and for that the movie should be lauded. But with all those Easter Eggs ( I didn't know the Wim Wenders reference for example), guest appearances and what not, I do start to wonder: wasn't this especially a movie for other movie makers? All in all, a nice movie to spend your sundayevening on with your family - but not brilliant.

Rajkumar Santoshi should be lauded for the subject he takes on, and deserves praise for not being faint-hearted about it. He is not afraid to show, literally, what happens to women in India. That being said, Santhoshi suffers a bit from his 'evangelism': like anyone who has found a true and important message, he tends to over-scream himself a bit: we hear dramatic strings suggesting dire traumas even when manisha in the beginning suffers just minor mishaps compared to the very real trauma we see later on. This overdoing it especially hinders the beginning of the film. The ending of the film is also completely unbelievable: why would Manisha return to Jackie Shroff? Why would Shroff have changed his views of womanhood? I guess its a Bollywood thing to give movies a happy ending, even though I know plenty of them that don't end happily. Then again, a realistic ending would probably have been too much - and in that sense, Santoshi should be excused somewhat for his mishaps, since any medium could not portray the real-live horrors he wants us to see.

That said, I think praise should be given to Anil Kapoor and Ajay Devgan for really doing their job really well: they are true supporting actors, and they provide a sparkle of light and hope in a world which is for the rest completely dark. These two characters help Santoshi to make clear that not ALL men are bad, but he also gives these men sufficient lack of depth and somewhat above human proportions to make clear that us men still have some way to go before we are up to a normal, civilized standards. he makes them heroes somewhat, and intendedly so, since I guess he wants to inspire little Indian boys to be like them.

The best acting however is done by the ladies. There's not much I can add to what has been said already: Mahima Chaudhary is able to keep it up, Manisha starts off a bit awkward but ends up very impressive - but the most impressive acting is done by Madhuri and Rekha: I can't decide whose performance I found better, but thankfully, I don't have to choose.

Madhuri was good since she..well, dear god, she's always good! Completely natural, completely in character, and bringing that unique fire and spirit that is hers to every role. From the moment where she interrupts the Ramayana (and to be sure for western viewers, the revolt of the crowd thereafter isn't so unbelievable!) to speak her mind until she gets trampled by the angry crowd, she's just....goddess-like. And mind the little details she puts in her role: when Manisha wants to pick her up after she's been battered, Madhuri at first is also scared of Manisha: I actually felt the mortal fear she portrayed at that moment.

And Rekha...wow! Let me rephrase that: WOW!!!! The moment she finds out her son was dating a higher caste girl, who happens to be the daughter of the village bad guy, she bursts out so...WOW!!!! It had my blood curdling, definitely. And then the rape-and-death scene. What made it so strong is that Rekha was actually able to portray how even the closest of friends suddenly become strange beasts: rapists and murderers. She pleas for mercy whilst at the same time she just literally bleeds mortal fear - true mortal fear. Her rendering of Ramdulari is truly, honestly of epic proportions - and I am talking Greek tragedy, Euripides-play epic proportions. Add to that the fact that this scene is based on true events - and you understand that after this scene, the movie has basically ended.

But it didn't end: Santoshi made place for one more speech by Manisha (good call) and some weird scenes (bad call). But the attempt at a happy ending and the crappy job Santoshi does at it, does give you time to recover from what you've just witnessed. The sheer idiocy in it allows you to just barely smile at the friends you've watched it with again and be able to talk about what you just witnessed. And when you do, realize: what you've just witnessed is everyday reality still.

Main Madhuri Dixit Banna Chahti Hoon turns a critical eye to Bollywood, and does this in a good way. There are several layers to comment this movie on: since most of the above commenters already talked about the plot and the message of the movie, I'll talk a bit more about the film-technique.

The main thing I noticed is how the movie plays with 'reality' and ' virtuality' in quite a postmodernist fashion: whenever in real-life, ' fake' or 'unreal' emotions are in play, there's a typical Bollywood-song: when Chutki sings about her dream to become the next Madhuri in the beginning for example, and when supporting role Rumi also sings about is dreams to become famous: through use of this technique the viewer realizes that part of why Chutki wants to be famous is not only because she has a real and unique talent (which she obviously has), but also because she has a certain narcissistic bent, which becomes apparent through the rest of the movie, for example in how she treats her best friend and husband Raja. The rest of the song and dance we see is carefully integrated in the movie so that there is no ' break' from the movie, something some bollywood-movies suffer from. Another technique used is at the moment when Raja and Chutki go to see her debut-film and in a near-empty theater witness how the movie excites derision and contempt in the few drunks who bothered to buy the ticket for Chutki's first movie: at the moment when reality really sinks in into Chutki's self-centered world-view, and when Raja for the first time really shows how he feels after all the bad treatment he got, the film-picture suddenly goes grainier and the colors become a bit staler, as if we were sitting at a drive-in back in the 70's or something. Those ' most real' moments are shot in an ' unreal' moment. We can interpret this as meaning that this is the moment where both characters display the film-like heroism so much talked about, but on the other hand it also signifies the disconnect there is between Bollywood and everyday reality: any moment like this in a cliché-Bollywood flick wouldn't be important.

There's more little gadgets like these, which make the movie a really well-thought out expose and critique of all types of Bollywood-clichés: not only the plot is a comment on Bollywood, but also the techniques used, the way the characters are built up , and more. In that sense it is a very good movie, and very good acting by lead actors Antara Mali and Rajpal Yadav.

At the same time, this impressive intellectual tour-de-force does make it more difficult to really identify very deeply with the characters and to really feel all of the emotions - and that is one of Bollywood's strong points: these movies are usually guaranteed to bring tears to your eyes and smiles to your face. While there are some emotionally tense moments there, the obvious flaws in the main characters, e.g. Chutki's narcissism and Raja's overall shyness, necessary to drive the plot, these necessary flaws do also irritate sometimes and at certain points seem to be unbelievable. Again: these character flaws are necessary, they don't compromise Antara and Rajpal's good acting, and they drive he plot, but their obviousness from the beginning on does make the characters reactions a bit more predictable and less identifiable with. The most interesting character is Raja's, who seems to overcome his naiveté quite quickly and from halfway in the movie onwards is constantly seen asking the right type of questions in every situation, and most interestingly, in some sentences even seems to be harking back on his knowledge as a farmer (e.g. when he talks about getting to know the film-industry from the stem and the root) to make sense of big-city Bombay.

So, all in all this is a good movie which may speak a bit more to the mind then it does to the heart. It is good to see that Bollywood is able to play with their clichés and standards. Don't get me wrong: I love the standard Bollywood movie, exactly for their 'unrealistic' topoi like song and dance and the us of color. But this movie reminds us all that their are more ways to a make a good movie, and that India is picking up on all of them. Go see it, enjoy it, and think about it.