MxMIndia

Tag: Deepa Gahlot

  • Every week, Deepa Gahlot casts a critical eye over media reviews of Bollywood releases… in Reviewing the Reviews.

    Reviewing the Reviews: Ferrari Ki Sawaari

    Ferrari Ki Sawaari

     

    Directed by-Rajesh Mapuskar

     

    Produced by-Vidhu Vinod Chopra

     

    Written by-Rajesh Mapuskar, Vidhu Vinod Chopra, Neeraj Vora

     

    Starring-Sharman Joshi, Boman Irani, Ritvik Sahore

     

    Sometimes ‘well-meaning’ is not a compliment. When applied to a film that has a lot of good elements, but doesn’t quite make the grade, it sounds like a lot of critics struggling for compliments.

     

    Newbie Rajesh Mapuskar’s Ferrari Ki Sawaari, settled into the 2.5 to 3 groove, with only the usual suspects, Times of India and bollywoodhungama.com, going higher.

     

    It’s the kind of film that might get awards for wholesomeness, but doesn’t come anywhere close to the Hrishikesh Mukherjee kind of cinema it aspires to. (And just by the way, how does a middle-class, scooter-riding Parsi and a tapori manage to drive a Ferrari?)

     

    Rajeev Masand of IBN gives it 2.5 and writes: “Starting off nicely as a portrait of a middle-class Parsi home, Ferrari Ki Sawaari coasts along comfortably, delivering clean laughs punctuated by occasional moist-eye moments. But from the moment Rusy makes off with the master blaster’s hot-wheels, the film seems to abandon all sense of logic, and subsequently sinks into a sludge of melodrama.”

     

    Shubhra Gupta if the Indian Express is usually fair and not swayed by Bollywood hype. She gives it 2.5 too. “The title says it all. This is a film about a Ferrari and a boy who takes a very special ‘sawaari’ in it. The boy is cricket-mad. The super-fast, super-luxe car belongs to the one and only Sachin. Can a film which has these ingredients – cricket, cars, and how-dreams-can-turn-into-reality – turn out less than a cracker? ‘Ferrari Ki Sawaari’ is well intentioned, well produced and well acted, but doesn’t really vroom off the screen.”

     

    Preeti Arora of rediff.com, 2.5 again: “So much love flows around but nothing is really happening on screen. Sit back and admire the father-son duo, the narrative will move ahead at its own pace. It’s the predictability which pulls the story down. Like one knows even as Kayo’s father searches desperately for a new bat, he will reach the cricket field in time to hand it over to his son. Or when we see him enviously eyeing a new pair of shoes, Kayo’s shoes will come undone on the field, causing him to stumble mid-run. Ho-hum.”

     

    Saibal Chatterjee of NDTV, 2.5 too: “This competently crafted and well-intentioned cricket-themed film steers clear of many of commercial Hindi cinema’s narrative conventions – it sure gets full marks on that count – but succumbs to some of its most retreaded clichés. You might root for the young underdog and his honest-to-a-fault family as they chase an impossible goal, but Ferrari Ki Sawaari isn’t another Iqbal. It won’t have you springing off your seat. The protagonist’s battle against the odds lacks the dramatic horse power that could have sent the film zipping down the fast lane. The characters are lovable enough, but their little joys and setbacks, and the emotional ebbs and tides, dangle somewhere between reality and make-believe. Ferrari Ki Sawaari is a bit like a warm bear hug that eventually leaves you cold.”

     

    Now come the 3s.  Vinayak Chakravorty of India Today comments: “We have here a Rajkumar Hirani film that the director didn’t make. Every twist about Ferrari Ki Sawaari bears the Hirani trademark and logically so. The filmmaker co-wrote this script and also penned its dialogues that bring back the good-natured humour of the two Munnabhai flicks and 3 Idiots. Ferrari Ki Sawaari takes us back to Planet Hirani, where even evil is basically nice. It’s a world where the hero doggedly defines innocence and does a wrong turn only by chance. The baddies can’t quite mess with goodness no matter what they do, and a tearduct-friendly finale will see a large group of people coming together to root for the hero (recall the college Q&A session in Munnabhai MBBS or the FM radio/shaadi climax of Lage Raho Munnabhai). Debutant director Rajesh Mapuskar doesn’t break the formula. Being Hirani’s associate director on 3 Idiots and Lage Raho… obviously rubbed off on his cinematic sense.”

     

    Karan Anshuman of Mumbai Mirror gives it a generous 3 stars and writes: “In the end, Ferrari ki Sawaari tries too hard. With its manipulative music, serendipity-dependent writing, over the top characters and its length, it does get a little tedious. I love cricket, the underdog story, and well, who can resist a head turn at a Ferrari? It still didn’t work for me. But that’s not to say it may not for you.”

     

    Aniruddha Guha of DNA, 3 stars, comments: “Where the film flounders is the hyperbole. Time and again, we’ve compared Hirani’s films to Hrishikesh Mukherjee’s, and while the legendary filmmaker’s characters were as good-natured and lovable as Hirani’s, they were also very real. Hirani, and now Mapuskar, tend to show their characters to be a lot more extreme – either too good, or too honest, or too naive – and the situations they are put under are sometimes so unreal, you start feeling disconnected.”

     

    The gush and 3.5 stars come from Taran Adarsh: “On the whole, Ferrari ki Sawaari is a noble film, a film that has its heart in the right place. It’s well-intended and sincere and it goes about its business with incredible earnestness. Of course, the film has its share of hiccups, but then all films do, right? But keeping the fault-finding apart, Ferrari ki Sawaari is an accomplished effort. It’s that exceptional film that communicates a point and tells a sensitive story in those 2.10 hours. This heartwarming, tender and sprightly film should not be missed!

     

    And the crowning 4 from TOI’s Madhureeta Mukherjee: “Sometimes, it doesn’t take 11 players to make a dream team. Debutant director, Rajesh Mapuskar has a winning team with just three, plus a red hottie (Ferrari of course, we’re not talking about boombaat Balan). And guess what…we don’t miss the presence of a pretty ‘maiden’ here too. The spirit of the film is in the effusive chemistry between Rusy and his son, which is entertaining and utterly moving. The writing (Mapuskar and Vidhu Vinod Chopra) is refreshing, Raju Hirani gives the dialogues his trademark spin, and the film unfolds with sheer subtlety and simplicity. Except that, the ride could’ve been shorter (jumping a few red signals would’ve helped), and a few speed bumps saved (a song with a flying red car). The climax goes on an emotional overdrive, and at times, with extra spoonfuls of sugar the film is too-good-to-be-true. But that’s feel good cinema for you!”

     

  • The success of such a bad and old-fashioned film is inevitable, notes Deepa Gahlot in a look at the various film reviews over the weekend

    Reviewing the Reviews: Rowdy Rathore

    By Deepa Gahlot

     

    Producer: Ronnie Screwvala, Sanjay Leela Bhansali

    Director: Prabhudheva

    Music: Sajid-Wajid

    Cast: Akshay Kumar, Sonakshi Sinha, others

     

    These days, most critics have nothing against mainstream cinema. But Rowdy Rathore is the kind of film that has the mildest of then gnashing their teeth in frustration, because the success of such a bad and old-fashioned film is inevitable.

     

    The masses want mindless entertainment even today, they don’t care how loud, crass or silly the film is; does it give them their money’s worth?  For the non-massy types, such films are a kind of guilty pleasure.  What shocked most is that Sanjay Leela Bhansali is partly responsible for unleashing this on the public.

     

    Except for Taran Adarsh’s 4 and The Times of India’s now-standard 3 stars, everybody else tossed between 1 and 2. Writes Adarsh, with an eye firmly on the ticket windows of single screen cinemas. “On the whole, Rowdy Rathore, is designed to magnetize the masses in hordes. The accurate blend of action, emotions, drama and humor, besides a superlative performance by Akshay Kumar, makes this motion picture an immensely pleasurable and delightful movie watching experience. If you savour typical masaledaar fares, this one should be on your have-to-watch listing for certain. Dhamaal entertainer!”

     

    Srijana Mitra Das of the TOI gushes, “Indeed, Rowdy Rathore pays homage to iconic filmi characters – identical heroes, golden-hearted chors, brave Men in Brown beating evil people to pulp. However, it pays most homage to its own star, Akshay Kumar, who pulls off Shiva with style but Vikram less so, possibly because all that violence overwhelms acting itself. Not that the crowd seemed to mind. As Shiva exhorts a woman raped by Baapji’s son to beat him up, the girl next to me cried, “Why doesn’t she?” Her neighbour replied, “She will.” And she did – much to the crowd’s Rowdy delight.”

     

    Saibal Chatterjee of NDTV gave it 2 stars and commented, “Rowdy Rathore is a shrill action flick designed to help Akshay Kumar return to his hit-making ways. Accept that obvious intent and you might actually end up enjoying certain parts of the film against your own better counsel. Isn’t that the effect that many a Bollywood potboiler of the 1980s would have on us? Yes, Rowdy Rathore employs narrative elements that hark back to a bygone era of Bollywood potboilers: two men who look like each other without any apparent reason, a bunch of baddies that snarl and snap at the slightest provocation and indulge in rape and pillage with abandon, and the good old back-from-the-dead revenge seeker who goes back dispensing rough-and-ready justice.”

     

    Two stars from Raja Sen of rediff.com.”Inured to the kind of exploding-beedi violence promised by the trailer, the film instead starts stupid and stays silly. This is much more like an early Khiladi movie — where Kumar recklessly got away with anything, goofily stumbled towards the climax and then proceeded to kick bottom without mercy — than any of the recent films which have completely forsaken plot. As a result, it’s far less objectionable. Still moronically stupid and entirely pointless, but nowhere near as horrid as what the genre’s been reduced to in the last couple of years.”

     

    Shubhra Gupta goes with 2 stars as well, “We don’t have to be told that this is a remake of a Telugu film. It could have been in mainstream Tamil or Kannada. Because whether it is Priydarshan or Prabhudeva (who has directed this one), the film is bound to have South Indian actors trying to pass off as North Indian. Fictional towns which look as if they’ve been created on a set. Blinding colours. Songs at the drop of a hat. Dialogues which don’t go beyond a line. Or two. And a leading lady whose job description is, apart from possessing a swaying ‘kamariya’.. um, let me think about it.”

     

    Now come the one star rants. Anupama Chopra writes, “Don’t Angry Me! Akshay Kumar bellows this often in Rowdy Rathore. At one point, the command even plays out as background music. I think viewers need to co-opt the line. To all the directors, producers, actors who are inflicting eighties-style, low-IQ, deafeningly loud, unapologetically crass, mind-numbing movies on us, I just want to say: Don’t angry me! Don’t exhaust me! Don’t bludgeon me!”

     

    Rajeev Masand comments, “Rowdy Rathore is the kind of movie that’s made by people with a cash register in place of their brain. Because no legitimate reason, other than financial gain, can justify why this movie was made – it has no story or plot whatsoever, the characters are entirely forgettable, and it’s so long and loud and silly that the laughs dry up early on. That the film has such impressive pedigree – it’s produced by Sanjay Leela Bhansali, directed by Prabhudeva, and stars Akshay Kumar – is both baffling and shameful.”

     

  • Every week, Deepa Gahlot casts a critical eye over media reviews of Bollywood releases… in Reviewing the Reviews

    Reviewing the Reviews: Department

    Department

    Directed by-Ram Gopal Varma

    Produced by-Siddhant Oberoi, Amit Sharma

    Written by-Nilesh Girkar

    Starring-Amitabh Bachchan, Sanjay Dutt, Rana Daggubati, Madhu Shalini, Lakshmi Manchu

     

    Ram Gopal Varma doesn’t care about critics (he doesn’t care about audiences either!) or he would have spent a very depressing weekend, as his latest film Department is shredded into small pieces.  The lowest rating ½ , the highest 2.

     

    One opinion is that this film is even worse than Ram Gopal Varma Ki Aag.  It certainly is a toss up between the two to decide which one is more crass.

     

    Janhavi Samant of Mid-day gave it ½ star and wrote: “It doesn’t matter what the plot is, Sawatya has an endless supply of gang members who take till the end of the film to perish. And there is some random gyaan about Bhagvad Gita. At some point Mr Bachchan enters the fray to do some spectacular hamming of his own, showing his penchant for doing ‘legal things illegally’ rather than ‘illegal things legally.’ Really Ramu, did you have to say that thrice in the film?”

     

    One star from rediff.com’s Raja Sen, who calls it a failed experiment: “Varma, predictably, has fun with a couple of quirky lines – especially one that blatantly introduces Nathalia Kaur’s item number, a cameltoe-y milestone for Bollywood – and a scene with the camera mounted on the striker on a carrom-board is genuinely imaginative, but Department is an utter waste. The director who showed us how to film violence is now sucking basic action scenes of their dynamism, leaving them dry and dead, but filming his movie’s carcass from multiple angles. Tragically enough, Satya and Shiva are just names of characters for the new Ramu.”

     

    DNA’s Aakanksha Naval-Shetye and Chhaya Unnikrishnan moved up to 1.5: “Dizzying shots, bizarre camera angles and a confusing storyline mark Ram Gopal Varma’s cop and underworld drama, Department. With Varma returning to his forte, (read underworld), one expected a gritty drama but what unfolds is a saga of gory violence and crass scenes.”

     

    Rajeev Masand gave it 1.5 too and wrote: “Small cameras positioned at odd places, indulges his quirk for gravity-defying angles. It works occasionally in the action scenes that appear more visceral now, but for the most part the bizarre camera movements give you a headache. Just shy of two hours and thirty minutes, ‘Department’ is tedious and boring and doesn’t have any of the originality of ‘Satya’ and ‘Company’, or even the occasional tension of ‘Sarkar’. Dutt delivers his lines like he’s reading out the phone book, and Bachchan hams it up no end as the gangster-turned-minister. It’s only Rana Dagubatti who approaches the film with any earnestness whatsoever… It’s a lazy, indulgent film that tests your threshold for pain.”

     

    Karan Anshuman of Mumbai Mirror went with 1.5 too: “No matter what format a film is shot on, no matter what technique – whether it’s of conventional genre or found footage or experimental Dogme 95 – the gimmick is only a means to an end (a broad view of the end being audience engagement at a story level). With RGV, now the end is simply a different visual experience that does nothing to draw you in. So many times you’re missing dialogue and performances because the camera is overwhelmingly, utterly distracting. This would be acceptable if the visuals were any good, but they are not.”

     

    Anupama Chopra was kinder with 2 stars: “Varma has mined this material before, from Satya to Ab Tak Chhappan, which he produced, so he decided to embellish this film with a new technique that he calls “rogue filmmaking.” Which means he chose student camera operators and high-end digital cameras over a cinematographer and film camera. Which further means that strange camera angles, a regular feature of Varma’s films, are now the main event.”

     

    From the Times of India, 2 stars is a massive put down. Sriranjana Mitra Das wrote: “The violence might even have clicked, considering the tale’s twists – but crazy camerawork makes you forget all that. Varma’s experimented, placing multiple cameras at different angles, treating you to close-ups of bottles pressed to mouths, lips sucking cigarettes, zooms up Dutt’s hairline. The camera even flips upside down, puncturing the tension that should’ve vibrated between Bachchan and Dutt. One line – “Chamatkaar ko namaskar” – nails it. You stagger out sensing something wasted – Nathalia Kaur’s item number’s more hideous than hot, the prettiest thing around is a translucent tea-cup, the action is mind-numbing. Losing the plot and three strong stars, Department shoots itself in the foot.”

     

    The Zee News critics commented: “Watch ‘Department’ if you have been missing your headaches for a long time. Watch ‘Department’ to see the way in which brilliant actors can be wrung dry and left skill-less. And above all, watch ‘Department’ if you are an ardent Ram Gopal Varma fan. And then leave the theatre cursing yourself for watching this brilliantly crafted piece of – well, by now – you know what.”

     

    The Business of Cinema reviewers are brutal too: “The film opens with the line ‘Absolute power corrupts absolutely’, but Ram Gopal Varma’s action film frustrates absolutely. Not only is the story old wine in cracked bottles but also it’s shot with camera angles that make you nauseous and dizzy while leaving you wondering what Varma and his cameraman were thinking.”

     

  • Every week, Deepa Gahlot casts a critical eye over media reviews of Bollywood releases… in Reviewing the Reviews

    Reviewing the Reviews: Ishaqzaade

    Ishaqzaade

     

    Directed by: Habib Faisal

     

    Produced by: Aditya Chopra

     

    Written by: Aditya Chopra, Habib Faisal

     

    Starring: Arjun Kapoor, Parineeti Chopra

     

    A Yashraj film, by the man who wrote Band Baaja Baraat and directed Do Dooni Char; an industry kid being launched and a modern day Romeo & Juliet set in the political badlands of Uttar Pradesh. At least the combination of plusses evokes interest.

     

    Parineeti Chopra walked away with accolades in Ishaqzaade, which otherwise got mixed reviews, mainly because critics expected more than just a collection of cliches from Habib Faisal.  Another Hindu-Muslim romance against an election backdrop? Oh no! Still, it got between 2-3.5 stars, which is not bad.

     

    Raja Sen of rediff.com gave it 2 stars and felt that it did a disservice to its heroine. “There is much craft on display, and some lovely moments, but the immense promise shown by the first half turns out as hollow as a politician’s. Soaked in sloppy sexism, the second half has the heroine repeatedly tortured — cheated, slapped, bound, gagged, shot at and abused — and yet the film decrees that she forgive. In the heartlands the film is set in, maafi is an all-absolving concept, an irretractable token of instant forgiveness, like a church confessional. Ishaqzaade, despite its artistry, deserves no pardon.”

     

    Saibal Chatterjee writing in the NDTV website gave it 2.5 and commented: “ Faisal Habib creates the small town environment with an eye for detail, with many of the interactions between the young foes-turned-lovers taking place in and around a train station, in abandoned coaches and decrepit yards. It is a typical upcountry semi-urban space – dusty, crowded and cacophonous – with genuine and tangible dimensions.   The main characters, too, are by and large believable, especially because the roles are essayed by young actors who look real. The hero isn’t a sculpted hunk; the heroine is, at best, a pretty girl next door. However, the supporting cast, with the exception of Gauhar Khan, make little impression. That leaves too much of a load on the inexperienced leads. If only Arjun Kapoor’s dialogue delivery had greater punch and Parineeti Chopra could pull off the emotional moments without going shrill, Ishaqzaade would have been a markedly better film.”

     

    Rajeev Masand of IBN gave it 2.5 as well. “Much of the film’s strengths come undone by the use of such tired cliches as the religious differences that stand in the way of true love, and the sacrificial hooker with a heart of gold. Also Faisal resorts to an unforgivably unoriginal climax – for both the resolution of the lovers, and their families – that sticks out in a film with such promise. ‘Ishaqzaade’ benefits considerably from Amit Trivedi’s excellent soundtrack and Hemant Chaturvedi’s sharp cinematography. Faisal creates a believable world with charming characters, and his leads have crackling chemistry. I’m going with two-and-a-half out of five for director Habib Faisal’s ‘Ishaqzaade’. It’s far from perfect, but you won’t be bored.”

     

    Shubhra Gupta of the Indian Express also went with 2.5. “Small town romance is back again on Bollywood’s radar, and ‘Ishaqzaade’ goes about checking all the boxes. Locations yielding picturesque railway crossings, little bazaars, sprawling ‘kothis’. Determinedly dressed down characters. Lots of local patois, which these days, translate into a shower of ‘gaalis’. And a pair of lovers who wield guns with much more ease than roses. It’s all in there, and yet the result is mixed: some of ‘Ishqzaade’ hits the spot, the rest is a drag.”

     

    Anupama Chopra of the Hindustan Times was not too impressed, still, gave it 3 stars. “Faisal sets up the story with great precision. Kapoor and Chopra are terrific as the explosive twosome. The music, composed by Amit Trivedi, works well. The casting is bang-on:Parma’s swaggering grandfather and his long-suffering but strong mother are nicely etched characters as is the local dancing girl, played by Gauhar Khan. Which is why it’s so disappointing to see it unravel. Still, Ishaqzaade does provide half a good time. How many films can you say that for?”

     

    Sudhish Kamath of The Hindu wrote, “How do you take a story that’s been told over a hundred times at least in 100 years of Indian cinema and still make it relevant and reasonably engaging? Writer-Director Habib Faisal succeeds to a great extent in crafting an unpredictable first half full of spunk and spirit, but plays it boringly safe in the second, offering no new solutions or fresh perspectives in a story that has been done to death. You can’t help being disappointed with the limited ambition of this film that succeeds in creating characters who alternate between love and hate for each other.

     

    Taran Adarsh of bollywoodhungama.com gave it a generous 3.5. “On the whole, Ishaqzaade, a volatile and intense story with ample doses of fanatical romance, should appeal to a pan-India audience. This broadly engaging love story has a winsome pair who deliver dexterous performances, besides popular music and several poignant moments, which should appeal to fans of mainstream films. Go for it!?”

     

    Surprisingly Madhureeta Mukherjee of The Times of India gave it 3 stars, which is low by the paper’s standards. “Director Habib Faisal takes you into the heart of this small-town story, creating a politically-divided Almore with elan – penning gripping characters (a rigid and arrogant Dadda, a suppressed, dukhiari Amma, two overbearing brothers), but fails to maintain the crescendo in the second half. After highlights like a sensitively shot lovemaking scene on a rusty train berth, a subtly picturized romantic song (Pareshan), and a shocking pre-interval scene, it starts falling apart like a house of cards; ultimately folding into a predictable climax. The flatness of the second half is what takes away from the pace of a launch vehicle that could’ve been memorable.  ‘Ishaqzaade’ starts with a bang-bang, but ends up firing blanks.”

     

  • Every week, Deepa Gahlot casts a critical eye over media reviews of Bollywood releases… in Reviewing the Reviews

    Reviewing the Reviews: Jannat 2

    Jannat 2

     

    Directed by-Kunal Deshmukh

     

    Produced by-Mahesh Bhatt, Mukesh Bhatt

     

    Story by-Shagufta Rafique

     

    Starring-Emraan Hashmi, Esha Gupta, Randeep Hooda Kunal Deshmukh’s Jannat 2, follows the Bhatt Brothers formula pretty faithfully. Crime, Sex, angst, Emraan Hashmi, in no particuar order of preference.

     

    Critics were divided on this one with ratings going from 1 to 4. It has opened well proving that Hashmi has a fan following among those who don’t go by film reviews.

     

    Sudhish Kamath of The Hindu titled it “Hardly Heaven” and wrote, “The fact that this is called Jannat 2 though it has no connection with Jannat except for the leading man and director only shows that the Bhatts are not ashamed to admit that they keep making the same film again and again (with Murder 2 or Raaz 3 coming up). Liked Murder? Then you’ll probably watch Murder 2.  Liked Jannat? Okay, here’s more of the same thing. The Bhatts have perfected this mass production with blatant disregard for originality or art by ripping off entire movies (like Murder 2 from The Chaser) or key moments here in Jannat 2 (from The Departed).”

     

    Raja Sen of rediff.com was left cold too. He gave it one star and cribbed, “A lot would have been forgiven – as it often is with these producers – if the film had either a meatier plot or a more gripping narrative, but this one’s just tiresome as the obvious story drags on. A couple of chase sequences, particularly one through the arteries of a Dargah, are slickly shot, but even these lose their charm as they get needlessly long-winded. And finally, telling a bad actress she looks like Angelina Jolie is just cruel – to both her and to the audience forced to sit there while she tries to smile coyly through a silly pout.”

     

    Rajeev Masand was kinder with 2.5 stars. “Jannat 2 isn’t all bad; in fact there are portions that are eminently watchable. Hashmi and Hooda play off nicely against each other, and their scenes together are particularly strong, occasionally laced with humour. The film also has at least two thrilling foot chase scenes, including one in the first half between two sets of cops and criminals that’s almost comical. The second chase, filmed in the crowded lanes of a dargah has an urgent breathless feel to it. If the film suffers, it’s because the material’s too slim. There just isn’t very much here apart from the obvious shades of The Departed, and some over-familiar scenarios of inter-gang rivalry. The film fully exploits its ‘Adult’ certification, peppering every scene with colourful Hindi cusswords, but after a while the graphic expletives seem excessive.”

     

    Anupama Chopra gave it 2.5 too, but was not too impressed. “Logic isn’t a priority here. Deshmukh is creating an old-school Bollywood film with high drama, punchy dialogue, thunderous background music and villains who glare and maim with aplomb. Some sequences are nicely done, including a chase sequence in a dargah. Emraan Hashmi and Randeep Hooda are also extremely watchable. But there are no surprises here and by the second half, Jannat 2 starts to feel like an endurance test with your head being bludgeoned by the violence and incessant Hindi swear words.”

     

    DNA’s Aakanksha Naval-Shetye & Chaya Unnikrishnan thought it worth 3 stars. “The action chase sequences in the dargah and the climax have been brilliantly executed and are worth a mention. Also unlike most films, the second half is actually better than the first. Kunal shows his tight grip on the film throughout and doesn’t let the film get neither preachy nor light-hearted, balancing finely between the serious nature of the topic and entertainment. The music is in tandem with the film. Emraan’s chemistry with his leading ladies has always been the talking point in all his films. But in this one, it’s clearly his chemistry with Randeep that steals the limelight and it’s this ‘jugalbandi’ between the cop and the criminal that makes the film worth a one time watch for sure.”

     

    Taran Adarsh of bollywoodhungama.com was one of the small 4 star clan. “Jannat 2 is a compelling account of a conflicted man who ultimately faces the effects of his deeds. The movie advocates that firearms and cartridges are the actual perpetrators accountable for the fatalities and killings of blameless people. Jannat 2 is ingeniously fashioned and skillfully filmed, while the characters are pertinent and compelling. On the whole, Jannat 2 is an engaging film with tremendous appeal for the masses. An absorbing story, a swift and coherent narrative, exemplary direction, fantastic action, soothing music and stellar performances summarize the highlights of this triumphant franchise.”

     

    Shubhra Gupta of The Indian Express isn’t half as gushy. “Don’t be fooled. This is not a sequel to ‘Jannat’, in which match-fixing shenanigans in high profile cricket matches gave Emran Hashmi and Kunal Deshmukh a fertile hunting ground, and us a watchable film. ‘Jannat 2’ is, for the most part, a badly-done, badly-acted enterprise, lifted only a notch by a couple of performances.”

     

  • Every week, Deepa Gahlot casts a critical eye over media reviews of Bollywood releases… in Reviewing the Reviews.

    Reviewing the Reviews: Vicky Donor

    Vicky Donor

     

    Starring: Ayushmann Khurrana, Yami Gautam, Annu Kapoor

     

    Directed by: Shoojit Sircar

     

    Produced by: John Abraham

     

    Written by: Juhi Chaturvedi

     

    Critics are often so happy to report the release of an entertaining film that easy rah-rahs follow.  Vicky Donor is one such film—funny, with quirky characters, smart dialogue, and such a sense of joie de vivre, that hardly anyone was even willing to look at the improbable side of it– that sperm donation can hardly be a career for healthy young men with no other skills.  And nobody, but nobody can make a fortune out of it.  Plus there are moral and emotional angles to it that the film doesn’t even touch upon.

     

    Still it can’t be denied that the film is entertaining, and deserves the 3 and above stars that it got from all reviewers.

     

    Anupama Chopra of Hindustan Times gave it 3.5 and commented: “Vicky Donor is one of those rare Hindi films that work purely on the strength of writing and performances. There are no crutches here of stars, sets, styling or foreign locations. But director Shoojit Sircar and writer Juhi Chaturvedi create a heart-felt, keenly observed comic-drama. Sadly, Vicky Donor derails in the second half – the climax is flat-out foolish – but until then, it’s great fun.”

     

    Aakanksha Naval-Shetye & Chaya Unnikrishnan writing in DNA, felt: “Sure the film is not without it’s flaws. There are parts when the editing could’ve been tighter and the climax does seem a tad bit far fetched too, but in the bigger picture, these are minor chips that one can overlook in favour of the entertainment the film otherwise provides. Overall, it’s absolutely worth your money, so go for it!”

     

    Ritu V Singh of IBN Live writes: “Shoojit Sircar proves himself as a director with ‘Vicky Donor’. The film which starts with ‘Sperm bhi koi donate karne ki chiz hai’, ends with a positive message without too much of preaching. Good effort by producer John Abraham who also turned an item boy for the film. It seems, John has worked hard on his dancing skills. Overall, ‘Vicky Donor’ is a lighthearted fun film, which meets expectations. It definitely deserves a watch.”

     

    Kunal Guha of yahoo movies gave it a rare 4-star rave: “Movies that try to cleanse socially disreputable professions tend to get preachy and subsequently boring. But donating one’s seed to enable the seedless garden a happy family is a cause that cannot be covered in a classroom. So director Shoojit Sircar takes us to downtown old Delhi where we breeze through this hilarious adventure that ends in just 122 minutes, leaving you craving for more. While the very mention of sperm donation makes many cringe, this film manages to make the noble deed seem respectable without  compromising on the hilarity that one associates with the process of donation.”

     

    Sukanya Varma of rediff.com, writes: “Often, sex and everything it entails is a matter of prudence, provocation or parody. On a few occasions, however, it’s treated as a perfectly healthy science with its share of hiccups and humour. Like Shoojit Sircar’s latest film, Vicky Donor. As its cheeky title suggests, the part rom, part com dwells on how there’s no need to get all queasy over a little round thing with a tail just because it’s outsourced without really dwelling too much on the sensitive nature of infertility.”

     

    Madhureeta Mukherjee of the Times Of India, gave it  3.5 stars, which seems less for the paper that is usually generous: “Director Shoojit Sircar is back with a bold, first-of-its-kind concept that’s taboo. He makes this sperm of an idea swim all the way. He intelligently uses comedy to break mindsets, without embarrassing moments.”

     

    Komal Nahata looking at it from a trade point of view and a little cautious with praise was still 3 star optimistic: “What does not work, to a certain extent, is the latter part of the second half, which starts to play out like a regular love drama. Ashima’s estrangement, Vicky’s despair and the ‘happy ending’ climax are just not predictable but also boring to a certain extent. The crucial scene in which Ashima questions Vicky as to why he has not undergone tests to clear the fact that is he not infertile, stands out like a sore thumb. The drama lacks scenes that might bring tears to the viewer’s eyes. Besides, Vicky’s character endears himself to the audience but they do not necessarily root for him. The orthodox among the audiences will also enjoy the film to an extent, but they might not like the basic plot, which deals with a social taboo.”

     

    Shubhra Gupta of the Indian Express, always a votary of the offbeat writes: “Sircar’s film, a morality tale wrapped up as a fun bon-bon, delivers enough sparkles to make us overlook the sagging bits. And that’s got to do with the perky writing, which leads to fresh characters who speak as they ought to, in flavourful, authentic settings.” From all accounts, the film is a safe bet at the box office. John Abraham can justifiably be proud of backing a dark horse in Shoojit Sircar.

     

  • Every week, Deepa Gahlot casts a critical eye over media reviews of Bollywood releases… in Reviewing the Reviews

    Reviewing the Reviews: Housefull 2

    Housefull 2

     

    Key Cast: Akshay Kumar, John Abraham, Riteish Deshmukh, Shreyas Talpade, Asin, Jacqueline Fernandez, Zarine Khan, Shahzan Padamsee, Rishi Kapoor, Randhir Kapoor, Mithun Chakraborty, Boman Irani

     

    Directed By: Sajid Khan

     

    Written By: Sajid Nadiadwala

     

    Produced By: Sajid Nadiadwala

     

    Sajid Khan is one of those filmmakers who revels in making crude comedies that work with a section of the masses and that encourages him to make more.

     

    Of course, films like Housefull 2 are critic proof and everybody who writes about it acknowledges it. The film has got 1 to 2 star ratings and teeth-gnashing rants from all except the trade papers and a weird 4 stars from the Times of India, which unfortunately serious cinema fans don’t take seriously any more. Four stars for this film, then what would they do when faced with a real masterpiece?

     

    Kunal Guha of yahoomovies gives it 1 and writes, “People getting kicked in the behind and falling in a puddle of embarrassment. Laughter track? Yes, please. Anyway, the film is about four friends, three of whom are pretending to be the fourth person- Jolly, who is the son of UK-based millionaire, JD. Why? Because it’s the only way to charm any prospective father-in-law. And just for fun, the two sets of fathers of the bride are arch enemies. How does that alter the plot? It doesn’t but allows for bitter exchanges filled with pokey insults and ridiculing confrontations. So much for your hard-earned multiplex ticket.”

     

    Sudhish Kamath of The HIndu titles his piece Dumb and Dumber and says. “The plot does not matter, you know what you are going to see, you are familiar with the territory because well, the stars and the action is just a rehash of the previous part that was successful and the plot and the background is just an excuse to unleash that action you have come to watch.”

     

    Rajeev Masand –1-star– says that it is for four-year-olds. Surely not! Kids do have better taste and thins one got a UA certificate. “Housefull 2, directed by Sajid Khan, is ‘bigger’ than the last film, but not necessarily better. To be fair, you can’t use words like ‘better’ or ‘funnier’ to compare these films; and asking me which one I preferred out of Housefull and Housefull 2 is like asking me what I’d rather have between a migraine and a hernia. Thank you, but I’ll pass. ” Ouch!

     

    Raja Sen of rediff. com calls it Shamefully Bad, slams down 1 star and writes, “Look, I have nothing against stupid comedies. The keyword, however, for Khan’s films is that he stresses the stupid part much too much, and all at the expense of the laughs. Even a basic, childishly simple gag – where a compulsive thief walks out of a sauna and pinches a character’s towel – is turned flat by Khan’s perplexing decision to equip that character, and only that character, with a towel for his head, which basically means he can wrap it around his privates and saunter out instead of being genuinely starkers and embarrassed. And so we have Chunky Pandey hiding behind a towel – a towel he’s holding in his bloody hands – and crying about how he wished he had a towel. Come on, Sajid, at least try to see the joke through, foolish as it is.”

     

    Anupama Chopra of Hindustan TimesT gives it a kindly 2 and writes, “If you are wondering about the quality of humour, here are some sample lines: At one point, a character says, “I got your virgin, I mean version” and “Langoors have my angoors.” Another one remarks, “You have piles in your brain.” One sequence has Riteish Deshmukh being bit on the rear end by an angry crocodile while Shreyas Talpade’s crotch is sucked by a python. In another, item-queen Malaika Arora Khan serenades Chakraborty and Boman Irani. And just when you think you’ve hit rock bottom, Khan springs a level lower. My vote for the grossest visual is Chakraborty romancing a dwarf maid.”

     

    Shubhra Gupta of The Indian Express gives it 1.5 and comemmts, “Several times in Housefull 2, random characters laugh at their own jokes and sing out: sense of huuuuumour. It pretty much says everything about the film, a sequel to the film of the same name which came out two years ago. You have to be able to find the doings of this vast cast amusing. And if you don’t, you have to be able to summon your funny bone to keep sitting, while pondering the cosmic corniness of the world according to Sajid Khan and other such weighty matters.”

     

    It’s all more in the same vein. The film makes money, Sajid Khan sticks his tongue out and goes from gross to grosser.

     

  • Every week, Deepa Gahlot casts a critical eye over media reviews of Bollywood releases… in Reviewing the Reviews.

    Reviewing the Reviews: Agent Vinod

    Agent Vinod

    Key Cast: Saif Ali Khan, Kareena Kapoor, Ravi Kishan, Adil Hussain, Ram Kapoor and Prem Chopra, Special Appearance – Gulshan Grover

    Directed By: Sriram Raghavan

    Produced By: Saif Ali Khan & Dinesh Vijan

     

    Of late, it has been seen that more often than not critics are united in their praise or pan of a film. It used to be rare to get such a consensus but Agent Vinod has done it again. Except for one 4 star and one 4, the highest rating the film has received is 2.5.

     

    Opinion of reviewers as well as the public match in that the film’s plot does not match its high production values. Sriram Raghavan had acquired a kind of following after Ek Haseena Thi and Johnny Gaddar, which is why expectations from the film were high. The jokes are already out, a few of them calling it ‘Travel Agent Vinod’ taking potshots at the fact that it was shot on several foreign locations.

     

    Hindustan Times’s Anupama Chopra gave it 2.5 stars and wrote, “Agent Vinod is also attempting to be too many things – a slick thriller to match Hollywood but also a cheeky homage to cheesy Bollywood movies. So the film has gloss and fast-paced action but the villains are a throwback to the 1980s – after all, how seriously can you take Gulshan Grover in a white suit or Prem Chopra with a ponytail or Shahbaz Khan with one glass eye? The result is that Agent Vinod never becomes more than the sum of its parts and even though it picks up speed in the second half, it leaves you both exhausted and unsatisfied. But I enjoyed the character of Agent Vinod. If he does get a sequel, I hope he has a better narrative to romp in.”

     

    Akanksha Naval Shetye’s DNA review, one of the few 3 stars goes, “On the downside, what doesn’t work is the weak plot and it is that weak chink in the armour that fails to hold all the strong elements together that could make it a riveting watch. The script should’ve been crisper, to do justice to its ambitious, high production value. With predictable twists and forced uncomplicated sub-plots and not so required elements and characters, you know it’s time to send logic out early on and you see yourself lose interest at some points. The stereotypical characters fail to make it interesting too.”

     

    Raja Sen writing in rediff.com was left cold too and went with 2.5. “The essential problem lies in the characterisation of Saif Ali Khan’s titular protagonist, an unconvincing secret agent suffering from mood swings, saucy and wink-filled in one shot, dour and stony in the next. He’s both nonsense and no-nonsense, a flawless leading man morally incapable of doing wrong and sartorially incapable of a hair out of place. So cool for school is he, for example, that even when drugged and being slapped around with his head shoved in a pool, his white shirt stays firmly tucked into his trousers. So much of the film is sadly compromised by making the leads look good – but perhaps that’s the price we pay for actor-producers.”

     

    Writing in Mid-day, Shaheen Parkar sticks with 2.5 too. “Though there is an earnest attempt to make a thriller considering that the director (Sriram Raghavan) is known for this genre of films -Ek Hasina Thi and Johnny Gaddar — this time the makers have tried to make a masala thriller stirring in too many ingredients making it difficult to digest. Its long running time (over two and a half hours) proves tedious for the viewer. Instead of incorporating item numbers, there should have been more focus only on the agent’s mission. Also, the plot criss-crosses from Afghanistan to Morocco to Russia and even Somalia, but just everyone either knows Hindi or understands it. If only the locals in the various destinations of Agent Vinod spoke in the local languages (with subtitles) would have lend more credence to the plot. The Agent’s every move is explained leaving little suspense for the viewer, as by then you know the end.”

     

    Sonia Chopra of sify.com also gave it 2.5. “A story traversing multiple locations can be fun, if it can avoid getting convoluted. But this film overstays its invite. All spy thrillers find their inspiration in the James Bond series. Most recent Bond films have had less plot; more style. But they get away with it, because the brand is so established. But an Agent Vinod is a rookie in that respect and needs solid support.”

     

    Rajeev Masand of ibnlive, who is usually kind, gave Agent Vinod 2 stars. “For a large portion of Agent Vinod, you don’t know where things are going… and then it all stretches on so needlessly that you stop caring. Given that this is a film that sees itself as a desi-style Bond, it has glaring loopholes that are embarrassing. Like a tacky scene in which Vinod spots a familiar scorpion tattoo on a doctor’s wrist that helps him deduce that he’s actually an assassin. Or the ridiculous pre-climax portion in which a grievously injured character is gasping out a password to our hero, as he frantically tries to disarm a bomb while flying a helicopter.”

     

    Shubhra Gupta of the Indian Express also went with 2, writing, “There’s nothing to warn us that we are in for strictly bits-and-pieces of fun. But that is the film’s trajectory, split between speeding and slowing down to re-create familiar scenes. This results in a repetitive loop : fast-paced Bond-style bang-bangs interspersed with two good-looking spies criss-crossing each other, as corpses pile up. It doesn’t help that the plot is overly busy, scurrying from one point to another, and going on and on, much after the story is over. Even the camp is not high enough, and some of the humour is clunky.”

     

    Mumbai Mirror’s Karan Anshuman matched the majority with a 2.5. “In between the mayhem you’ve bomb-carrying helicopters, the Trans-Siberian Express, Russian mafia, Indian industrialists, Afghan warlords, gay flight pursers, Moroccan camels, Pakistani generals … and one man to sort it all out. Agent Vinod is the kind of film with a lot of breadth, but very little depth. The sentimental bits especially, islands on their own, just don’t cut it.”

     

    The Times of India, always rates a film higher than the rest and very rarely goes below 3 stars, which is hardly a compliment to a film. Madhureeta Mukherjee writes, “Director Sriram Raghavan, who’s made fine mind-twisters (Ek Haseena Thi, Johnny Gaddaar), attempts a spy-thriller this time. His obsession for retro reflects here again, whether it’s casting Prem Chopra and Gulshan Grover, references to classics, or infusing soundtracks from the bygone era. Aaah! Nostalgia! Agent Vinod is slick and visually stylized, but loses steam at times. The movie is a tad long and often creatively compromised – for style over substance. With well-designed stunts and car chases, there are very few high points or shock value. One being the background score (Daniel B George) that changes beautifully with the locations. Otherwise, Agent Vinod is cool. But not steamy enough to win a license to thrill.”

     

    Bollywoodhungama.com’s high 4-star rating by Taran Adarsh goes with the comment, “A hi-octane espionage thriller with a heart. It is not just brawny and dynamic, but witty and crazy too. Ultra slick and stylish, this desi Bond movie adheres to the formula and succeeds in meeting the humungous expectations.”

     

    The lowest 1-star rating is by yahoo’s Kunal Guha, who quips, “The best way to defuse a bum is through butt crunches. Unless one is referring to the Hinglisized word for a bomb. And the much-awaited dhamaka that this thriller hoped to detonate at the box office might just be defused once you read this review. Despite miraculous leaps in production values, spy thrillers in Bollywood end up looking like Chinese equivalents of western products. And here, the characters are even stereotyped to the extent of detectives wearing trench coats and moles being obvious, shifty-eyed and literally uncomfortable in their own skin. So let’s just say foreign locales, weapons to annihilate the world, designer suits and not-so-excruciating interrogations don’t cumulatively justify Agent Vinod as a thrilling movie-watching experience.”

     

  • Every week, Deepa Gahlot casts a critical eye over media reviews of Bollywood releases… in Reviewing the Reviews.

    Reviewing the Reviews: Kahaani

    Kahaani

    Key Cast: Vidya Balan, Parambrata Chattopadhyay, Nawazuddin Siddiqui

    Directed By: Sujoy Ghosh

    Written By: Sujoy Ghosh, Advaita Kala

    Produced By: Kushal Kantilal Gada, Sujoy Ghosh

     

    Sometimes miracles are known to happen. Everything happened just right for Sujoy Ghosh’s Kahaani. After the success of The Dirty Picture, Vidya Balan was on a high. A day before the film was to release, she won a national award. This just compounded the high-powered promotion she did for the film, going to the extent of attending every media event with that unflattering ‘pregnant’ tummy – her look in the film.

     

    Critics and audiences were already favourably disposed towards the film, and though everyone pointed out the loopholes in the script, no critic was curmudgeonly enough to give it less than 3.5 stars.

     

    Gaurav Malani of Indiatimes.com gave it 4 stars and raved, “Kahaani rightly lives up to its name and reinstates the fact that the core criterion for a decent film is a strong story. And if that story is in competent hands, you don’t need anything else. No big stars, songs, budget or even a customary male lead. For a (pleasant) change, the script is indeed the hero here!”

     

    Anupama Chopra of Hindustan Times gave it 3.5 and wrote, “Kahaani is a nifty thriller with an enjoyment quotient that is indirectly proportionate to how long you spend thinking about the plot. If you back-track and try to connect all the dots, the implausibility of the story amplifies – there’s even a piecing-together-the-puzzle moment that echoes The Usual Suspects but this riddle isn’t a patch on the intricate web of lies in the Bryan Singer film. However, if you’re willing to think less, there is some fun to be had here.”

     

    Sukanya Verma writing on rediff.com rated it 4 stars. “The concept behind a jigsaw puzzle is most fascinating. Its three-step model involves drawing an intricate picture laden with buried details and fine clues, cutting it into several unrecognizable segments and assembling a jumble that carries a seemingly simple challenge – to fall in place, to make sense. Suspense thrillers are just the same. But very few films belonging to this genre are able to fit the right piece in the right place. And that’s what makes Sujoy Ghosh’s accomplishment in Kahaani worth all the applause that comes its way.”

     

    Rajeev Masand of ibnlive gave it 3.5 and wrote, “As is integral to all good stories, Ghosh creates solid characters. There’s the do-gooder rookie cop Rana, played by Parambrata Chatterjee, who’s constantly by Vidya’s side. Their antagonist comes as the surly Intelligence Bureau officer Khan, played by Nawazuddin Siddiqui, who wants the search abandoned. In Kahaani, there is attention to detail served to even bit characters like an impish errand boy in the guesthouse who becomes friends with Vidya, and a sinister contract killer who bumps off his victims after greeting them cordially.”

     

    Anuj Kumar of The Hindu also gave it 4 stars and offered fulsome praise. “A rare original story from Bollywood that engages both mind and heart, Sujoy Ghosh’s Kahaani lives up to the age-old adage that it’s not about what you say, it’s about how you say. On the surface it is a thriller about a pregnant woman’s search for her missing husband in Kolkata but its core attempts to revitalize a gender which is often clubbed with handicapped and senior citizens in public life. On the surface the four writers (Ghosh, Advaita Kala, Suresh Nair and Nikhil Vyas) plot a puzzle that you desperately want to solve but beneath it is full of moments that humanize a pregnant woman on celluloid.”

     

    Surprisingly, Shubhra Gupta of the Indian Express gave it a relatively miserly 3. “Kahaani gives us not just a woman on the trail of a missing spouse, but a terrorist plot, data-crunching specialists, contract killers, evil moles, salt-of-the-earth guys. And it keeps us guessing, more or less. Which, for a Bollywood thriller, is quite an achievement, even if the terrorist angle turns out to have faintly ludicrous edges. In the first place, Hindi cinema doesn’t really attempt fast-paced thrillers with quite these ingredients, and when it does, they turn out clunky if not plain terrible. If Kahaani had managed to keep the edge of suspense as sharp in the second half, which falls prey to a few improbable plot contrivances and some gratingly explanatory scenes, it would have been very good indeed. But despite the hiccups, it remains engaging.”

     

    Another 4 from DNA and Akanksha Naval Shetye, “There are few filmmakers who can handle the genre, and the deft handling of the twists and turns as well as the flashbacks show Sujoy’s hold over it. The film proves that Jhankaar Beats was no flash in the pan and after the trial and error of his previous two films, he can clearly take a bow for this one. Watch it and you won’t be surprised if you see yourself making a trip to watch it again.”

     

    To top it, audiences have given it thumbs up too. Vidya Balan and Sujoy Ghosh have delivered that rare species – a critically acclaimed box-office hit. The awards will follow too.

     

  • The objective of MJR is not to take journalists to the cleaners. It’s more of a celebration of the profession, and in the process reporting on all the good and bad things in there.

    Introducing the MxM Journalism Review

    So what’s a media, marketing and advertising website doing with a Journalism Review? Isn’t journalism at the bottom of the value chain for some or just one of those things that don’t quite matter? ‘Cos who will advertise on a website/microsite that’s only got journos hooked?

     

    Monsanto, perhaps, given that it was the benefactor for a major award recently. Or the Jaypee group or various others wanting to curry favour with news media professionals.

     

    There’s a reason why the MxM Journalism Review (MJR, for short) has happened. For one, we have received an astounding response to our journalism section. And two, as a media and marketing site, we can’t not track what’s happening in this part of the media. While the pressure of running the rest of the operations has taken a toll over my doing Mediaah! regularly, senior journalist, until last year senior editor at DNA and former colleague Ranjona Banerji’s ‘Freaking News’ has been attracting many hits. Plus Gouri Dange’s column ‘Naming no Names’, Deepa Gahlot’s review of reviews, Newswatch by well-known journos, Anil Thakraney’s frequent ‘hard knocks’ on news and of course our regular fare of stories.

     

    The objective of MJR is not to take journalists to the cleaners. Yes, it’s a ‘review’ but we aren’t watchdogs who like to bark at everyone. It’s more of a celebration of the profession, and in the process reporting on all the good and bad things in there. We don’t think there’s anything wrong with innovative advertising in print. So a coffee-flavoured newspaper is fine and if a newspaper wants to have a full page ad on Page 1 on a big news day, then we guess its folks know how it impacts the brand. We’ll have our commentators do the talking, but we surely don’t believe most publishers are evil.

     

    Yes, we have a very strong view on paid content. Our standpoint on the issue was evident when we were perhaps the only publication which said RJ mentions constituted an incorrect practice… quite the same when a newspaper asks a restaurant to pay for publishing a picture of its opening. We don’t think it’s right. We stand for integrity in the profession and are worried as media companies compromise on ethics when they get into allied activities like events – conferences, awards, et al.

     

    We think journalists who accept bribes are as corrupt as those indicted in the various scams. We believe journos who pass off readymade stories handed to them by PR agencies as their own are corrupt even if they may be senior editors at respected print media. We think award organisers who give out awards without a legit process and/or juries deciding on them must be damned.

     

    We also want private FM radio to air news. We think news journalism – especially local and cultural – will get a huge boost with FM radio. When Markandey Katju went on a rampage against journalists, we were upset because some of it was indeed true, except of course he had no business to do so as Press Council chief.

     

    The MxM Journalism Review isn’t just about news journalism. We are as interested in documenting how the Maxim editor is doing as is the editor of Hindustan Times. We will write about how Sun News is doing as much as, say, YouTube-based film news offering Lehren.

     

    A lot of it is tough doing, but we hope to achieve the impossible thanks to a network of well-wishers across the country. In the process, we may experiment. Our columns and features may upset Editors, CMOs and CEOs. While some may threaten to pull their advertising, a few may choose to invest their faith in us.

    MxMIndia’s MJR will strive to bring you unbiased news and views on Indian journalism. So help us God.

     

    -Pradyuman Maheshwari

    Editor-in-Chief and CEO, MxMIndia

    Email: pradyumanm@mxmindia.com,
    BBM: 23050B5D, Twitter: @pmahesh
    Gtalk: pradyumanm[at]gmail.com

    PS: Taaliyaan!

  • Every week, Deepa Gahlot casts a critical eye over media reviews of Bollywood releases… in Reviewing the Reviews.

    Reviewing the Reviews: Ekk Deewana Tha

    Ekk Deewana Tha

     

    Key Cast: Prateik Babbar, Amy Jackson, Manu Rishi

    Directed by: Gautham Menon

    Produced by: Gautham Menon, Reshma Ghatala, Venkat Somasundaram

    Screenplay by: Javed Akhtar

     

    Gautam Menon’s Tamil and Telugu hit is remade in Hindi and gives the critics something to crack their whips. The Prateik-Amy Jackson starrer got several 1 star ratings, some grudging 2 stars, a minus 1 and the usual Times of India 3, which doesn’t mean anything. The film spells D for Disaster.

     

    Kunal Guna of Yahoo and the Minus 1 rating writes: “Pain and pleasure have the same facial expression. This is why you will share the same face with the lead cast of Ekk Deewana Tha through the entire runtime. Love stories that curdle, portray societal and familial tribulations. But here, there is a far graver issue beyond the usual jaat-paat, rich-poor etc: The lead duo can’t act to saveTibet. And as dismissive as it may sound, in the first paragraph of this review; it is, in fact, the iceberg that makes this painful love story crash as we endure the burn.”

     

    Preeti Arora of rediff.com is unimpressed too. “While there are directors who dig relentlessly for a new theme around which a rom-com can be built, there are others such as Gautham Menon who believe old clichés are the best plot points for a love story. For starters, the girl is a year older to the boy. Then they come from different religions. The boy is a passionate movie buff, hopes to make a career in films. The girl’s family doesn’t even watch films. The girl’s brother is a toughie who needs an excuse to start a fight. But there is something called love at first sight. You get the drift.”

     

    Mayank Shekhar of Hindustan Times, gives it 1 star too, and rightly wonders what the story really is about. “ The boy, an obsessive, relentless roadside Romeo, having chased the girl from the streets of Mumbai to Mallu-land, finally  holds her, jolts her up, pops the winning question: “Kamaal ki chemistry hai hamare beech mein (there’s huge chemistry between us). Can’t you see it?” No, she says. He obviously can. That’s a matter between them. Audiences couldn’t care less. We’re beyond midway through the movie: chuck chemistry, all you’re wondering is what the hell’s the story.”

     

    Rajeev Masand stretches it to two stars and writes, “Charming in a goofy sort of way, Prateik Babbar makes the film’s first thirty minutes or so watchable even though very little happens here. His awkward body language and his nervous tics are refreshing, especially as his character, Sachin, skulks around spying on Jessie, and stalks her even. The same, unfortunately, can’t be said for the film’s pretty but vapid leading lady, whose lines appear to have been dubbed by someone much older than herself. Surprisingly, the actress is poorly made-up, and for much of the film sports an obviously fake tan. The couple’s chemistry is lukewarm, and save for a few inspired moments their banter is grating.”

     

    Shubhra Gupta of Indian Express gives it a surprising 2 – maybe for the memory of Smita Patil. “The old North Indian Hindu boy versus the South Indian Christian girl pole vault makes the movie feel mothballed. Whatever happened to the equally hoary Bollywood tradition of rebellion and elopement? Twenty five years back, this was a believable divide, with snarling patriarchs and a disapproving ‘samaaj’ guarding the posts. The movies made much of it, getting their lovers to leap off cliffs when there was no other way out. But to do this now?”

     

    The usually generous Taran Adarsh of bollywoodhungama.com goes with 2 stars as well. “What baffles the viewer is the character of Jessie. While the guy is crazily in love with her, the girl, in contrast, seems downright confused about her feelings for the guy. She appears indecisive about what she really yearns for and this aspect, to put it bluntly, sends out puzzling signals not only to the lover boy, but to the by-now-exasperated viewer as well. The screenplay totters and flounders the moment Jessie decides to part ways. The justification offered is least persuasive. Since the reason for separation is not forceful enough, it leaves the viewer feeling unsympathetic, detached and disconnected from the goings-on subsequently.”

     

    And finally Avijit Ghosh of the 3 star stamp: “The love story of Sachin and Jessie never becomes your own though the lead pair is okay. Prateik’s voice is evocative; Amy Jackson, a former Miss Liverpool, reeks of an understated sensuality, though strangely, her skin-tone keeps varying with every scene. But together they fail to synergize their performances. Ramesh Sippy’s presence too doesn’t add any sholay to the proceedings. May be the movie needed more spunk in Manu Rishi’s dialogues, to elevate itself. Even AR Rahman’s music wouldn’t figure among his Top 20 films.  Ekk Deewana Tha has its moments but it doesn’t really put you in the mood for love.”

     

  • Every week, Deepa Gahlot casts a critical eye over media reviews of Bollywood releases… in Reviewing the Reviews.

    Reviewing the Reviews: Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu

    Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu

    Key Cast: Imran Khan, Kareena Kapoor, Boman Irani, Ratna Pathak Shah

    Directed by: Shakun Batra

    Produced by: Karan Johar, Hiroo Yash Johar, Ronnie Screwvala

    Screenplay by: Ayesha Devitre, Shakun Batra

     

    After the very violent Agneepath two weeks ago, Karan Johar’s production house has produced newbie Shakun Batra’s Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu, what is now known as, a typical Karan Johar film- a big-budget, empty-headed romance shot with lavish production values on a glamorous foreign location Still, some critics have found merit in this otherwise formulaic rom-com, because of an atypical ending.

     

    On the whole the film got positive reviews with 3 stars, with a few 4 and 2.5s thrown in for variety. The public inIndiawas, going by initial reports, not as kind, but the film got a better reception abroad, according to trade reports.

     

    Avijit Ghosh of The Times of India kept on with the 4-star tradition. “With only the faintest trace of theHollywoodhit, What Happens in Vegas (2008), Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu shows what first-rate direction and a cute but brave script can do to the done-to-death story of opposites getting attracted to each other. EMAET has heart, charm and an enviable lightness of being. And it certainly helps that the lead players are in fine form. Like quality wine, Kareena seems to improve with every passing year though you find shades of Geet (Jab We Met) in her part. And Imran brings just that right amount of balance to the difficult part of an uptight, gawky individual who evolves with every passing day. The movie is essentially his journey from boy to man. With its neon lights and flash,Las Vegastoo is an important character adding to the film’s mood and melody.”

     

    Aniruddha Guha of DNA also gave it a 4 star rave. “Director Shakun Batra shows rare deftness for a first-time filmmaker in Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu (EMAET). It is full of honest, warm moments that – to their credit – work without the manipulation most directors resort to in films belonging to this genre. Instead, Batra relies on sharp dialogue, and some well-etched out characters. I’d go a step further and say that the film is the best you would have seen recently in the two genres it melds together – a romantic comedy and a coming-of-age-drama, something Wake Up Sid just about fell short of.”

     

    Shubhra Gupta of The Indian Express gave it 2.5 and was left a bit cold. “Ek Main aur Ekk Tu is a half and half: it gets where it needs to with flair, but not enough surprises. The film passes by, pleasantly enough, all its expected roadsigns, providing a smile and an occasional chuckle (and one of the most rousing songs-and-dances I’ve seen in a while) but making you wish for more newness, both in its characters and in the way it wends its way onward.”

     

    Sukanya Varma of rediff.com went with 3 stars too. “EMAET is neither on the epic side like Dharma Productions’ great, grand ancestors nor weighed down by an overload of pop culture references of those that define the genre. Instead the confection’s appeal lies in its underplayed wit, quirky within plausibility protagonists and a refreshing disregard for conventional conclusions. Almost like a big studio flick with an indie mindset. Almost.”

     

    Taran Adarsh also gave it 3 and commented: “For those who swear by sentimental movies and are die-hard fans of rom-coms, who fervently wish Valentine’s Day is prolonged eternally, Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu is akin to an answer to this yearning. Rom-coms relaxing in the splendour of harmonious compositions, a creative and innovative take on present-day romance, pulsating images and timed during the Valentine week… aah, you can’t ask for more!”

     

    Rajeev Masand with 3 stars found it light and breezy. “It’s fairly typical stuff, and first-timer Shakun Batra adds all the usual ingredients. If you’ve seen even three decent rom-coms, you know where this is headed. Yet these characters feel real, and they grow on you gradually despite their standard-issue problems – he has controlling parents, she only lives for the moment. But it’s the curveball that the writers throw at you in the end that displays a rare maturity about relationships that films in this genre seldom possess.”

     

    Komal Nahta of Film Information and koimoi.com gave it three stars and pinned the problem down from the trade point of view. “Ayesha Devitre and Shakun Batra’s story is quite new for the Indian audience because here, a girl and a boy get married and then come close to each other during the period needed to end the marriage. Their screenplay is designed to appeal mainly to the youngsters in the cities. In other words, the drama, like the thought, is very urbane and while it will be enjoyed by the multiplex and city audiences, it won’t quite be lapped up or, in some cases, even understood too well by the audience in the smaller centres and of the single-screens.”