Satyagraha - Prakash Jha does a Madhur Bhandarkar

Prakash Jha has become the slave of his own formula. I have loved his films in past. They always have meaty subjects, excellent story-telling, actors giving their best and above all he takes you to places, Hindi cinema rarely goes. 

This time also he does all this, but somehow fails to connect with me as an audience. In fact as a director he comes across more as Madhur Bhandarkar in this one than himself. He relies heavily on scandalizing every aspect. He peddles every stereotype associated with post independence movements. e.g. Capitalists are bad. Greed is not good. Only teachers / old men who have renounced everything are respected by masses. Youth only participates through social media, etc. etc. Also, the way Anna Hazare movement was misguided, this film is equally superficial. Never really delves deep and the end result is a 'khichdi' of sorts.

It is not that everything is wrong with the film. The 1st half, the set-up of conflict and the pace till interval is good. Manoj Bajpayee gives yet another performance you can watch this film for. It is the stupid climax and over-simplification of the possible solutions that leaves you angry at the end.

At the same time it is true, that watching Satyagraha is a better option than many more films 'still' playing at a theater near you...

P.S. Amitabh Bachchan is now doing same kind of roles. Though still reliable, needs to re-invent. Ajay Devgn needs a break. Arjun Rampal has done well for himself, by being a constant in Prakash Jha's films irrespective of the role he gets  Kareena Kapoor is always Kareena Kapoor - never the character....

Copyright® CINEMAnia

Madras Cafe - India's first political thriller?

Most probably it is India's first political thriller and 'may be' parts of it are true as well. I am choosing my words carefully here, because while the film works fine as a thriller, it somehow doesn't get its political machinations right. A fictional story of a RAW agent set against the backdrop of true incidents like Sri Lankan Civil War and assassination of a national leader from India, the film never truly mines the potential of the material at hand. Though at the same time, it is a compelling watch, due to its ability to get under the skin of a RAW agent (unlike 'Ek Tha Tiger').

The film's strength is that it takes a nuetral stance over the issue and presents the film through the eyes of the lead played by John Abraham. So it ensures several hard-hitting moments related to work and dangers faced by a RAW agent. This aspect was highlight of the film for me. But this very strength, actually turns into a weakness as well. The film-maker in order to avoid taking sides, sanitises the political aspects and the mess that was created by Indian government's meddling. It never fully delves into the psyche of key players in the conflict as well. As John Abraham's Major Vikram Singh is mostly clueless, it restricts the scope of the film. But I still applaud Shoojit Sircar and John for making this film. May be the film wouldn't have been allowed to release if they had treaded outside the safe zone.

After 'Vicky Donor', Shoojit Sircar displays his assured direction once again. John Abraham acts well, but it is the supporting cast including Nargis Fakhri (relatively unknown) that makes the film credible.

Kudos to the makers for giving me a break from the run-of-the-mill stuff being churned out, in last few weeks. I just wish they had the strength to go the whole hog...

Copyright® CINEMAnia

Once Upon Ay Time in Mumbai Dobaara - My kind of masala film

First up, answers to three questions that everyone is asking:

1. I haven't yet figured it out, that why there is an extra 'y' after 'A' in the film's title. May be it will help the film to cross Rs. 100 crores despite the promotional blitzkrieg of Chennai Express.

2. OUATIMD is not better than OUATIM. (By the way is it fair to have a film title so long, that even its acronym seems never ending? It is difficult to do justice to such films on twitter). See my views on OUATIM at the end of the post.

3. OUATIMD is any day better than Chennai Express. (Just saying in purely relative terms)

Now review -

The film retains several good elements of part 1. It has clap-trap dialogues, larger than life characters, glamorized gang leaders, a quirky sense of humor (especially in the 1st half), a plot which can't be called wafer thin and good performances by leads.

Akshay Kumar is a good choice for mouthing out those heavy duty punch lines and his swagger makes up for the lack of intensity, that defined Ajay Devgn's character in part 1. Sonakshi Sinha is fast emerging as a reliable actress. I have always liked her. Even here where her character isn't very well written, she makes the best of it. Imran Khan was disappointing in parts, though he handled romance well. The music of the film is also above average.

But the film lacks the soul of the first one. It is not as if first one was a great film, but this one doesn't bring out the mentor - protege conflict as well as it should have. Also it takes a lot of time to come to the point of conflict and that makes second half a drag. While Shoaib (Emraan Hashmi) in OUATIM was pure evil, the Shoaib in OUATIMD (Akshay Kumar) has a heart. This somehow takes away the continuity and the edginess of this character.

But I like my masala films like this one and not like Chennai Express. 

-----
My views on OUATIM when it released in 2010 (see how things didn't change much)

"Once Upon A Time in Mumbaai - Movie is partly good..Lots of claptraps and old style dialoguebaazi..ajay and emraan give good performances..BUT BUT its very slow and dragging...and thats a sin for a gangster movie..also very lil guns n blood..another cardinal mistake for gang based movie... climax was weak..Overall an average watch"

OUATIM - First reviewed on my facebook account on 2nd August 2010

Copyright® CINEMAnia