Disclaimer:
1. I do not claim any knowledge of the nuances of movie making - direction, lights, etc. It is also not my contention, like many others', that RGV has lost it or that should not make crazy remakes (including AAG). He makes movies for himself and he has every right to.
2. Contains SPOILERS.
Here's the review.
1. I do not claim any knowledge of the nuances of movie making - direction, lights, etc. It is also not my contention, like many others', that RGV has lost it or that should not make crazy remakes (including AAG). He makes movies for himself and he has every right to.
2. Contains SPOILERS.
Here's the review.
It is an OK film. Not too bad, not good either. Amitabh Bachchan is great, and Aishwarya Rai and Abhishek Bachchan do well enough despite the poor script. I do not know anything about lights, direction, and other technical stuff. But apparently they were good (read reviews at Amitabh Bachchan's blog for that). For a movie with a poor script, it is much easier to point out negatives than pick out the positives. Some of the things that I didn't like in the movie are listed below. It might seem like nitpicking, but RGV prefers concrete examples.
1. The biggest turn off for me in the movie was the background music. Let me explain. "dholakiya ke marne ke baad uske oopar ka link toot gaya ..." "phir tumhe zinda rakhne ka kya faaida". Normal dialogue, you'd say, and even naturally expect at that moment, if you are anything of a movie fan. No problems till now (except that for a movie that is a follow up to the movie that was supposedly inspired by Godfather, you'd not like to be able to guess the dialogue). But then the background score comes in screaming and claiming it to be a kick-ass line. Consider a joke that is meant to evoke just a smile, but suddenly somebody starts laughing uncontrollably - the essence of the joke is lost. Now just imagine, that the joke is lame, and instead of letting it go when somebody doesn't respond, you start laughing yourself. That's the problem with the background score.
2. 'saam daam dand bhed' chant is heard often without any relevance to the situation. For example, just after "phir tumhe zinda rakhne ka kya faaida?" What's so 'by hook or by crook' about it?
3. When Anita (Aishwarya Rai) comes to the Nagre residence and starts explaining the project, Sarkar says 'ye sab technical baatein chhodiye, point pe aaiye'. A 'don't kid me, I'm super-smart' line. Then dialogues are muted, background score comes in, and camera focuses on faces while Anita explains something. My understanding was that she was talking about how it will impact the people, how many people will be displaced, etc. But when the dialogue resumes, Sarkar asks her about the exact same thing. So what were they talking about while the music was out? As somebody commented, 'may be the writer was not paid enough'. I can sometimes be a moron, and not see the obvious (actually it happens a lot). So if you can suggest something that I missed, I'd be glad. Also, the platitudes by Sarkar to the CM about responsibilities of government did not go well with me (but that is probably a quibble).
4. For someone who claims "mujhe naamumkin lafz se sakht nafrat hai", she gives up pretty easily ("lag raha hai yahan ye project lagana naamumkin hai") after Sarkar disapproves the proposal. She shouldn't have needed Hasan Qazi's pointer regarding Shanker Nagre, if she was such an astute business woman with a never-say-die attitude. More so, since she supposedly takes up major Godfather duties in the last scene of the movie (or did I completely misinterpret that scene?) and should be the protagonist in Sarkar 3. She even had to ask 'to?' when Hasan Qazi pointed it out to her that Shanker didn't say a word in the meeting. Itni tubelight? Not good omen for Sarkar 3.
5. And wasn't Al Pacino supposed to be smart in Godfather. Would you expect him to disregard a good advice from a friend about possible threat to his life, instead initiate romance, and then get shot at immediately afterwards? It's not that he was a car salesman that threat to his life was unthinkable. Yes, if he talked a little more and behaved like a normal guy, such lack of regard to sound advice and, if I may say so, the occasional stupidity would be excused. But a no-nonsense guy going nonsensical does not go very well.
6. I didn't like the ending as well because I prefer Vyomkesh Bakshi to Tehkikaat. While in the former, the viewer is walked through the investigation, sees the clues for himself/herself, tries to figure it out, and is then surprised by the intelligence of the detective, in the latter, the detectives just put up their hands and say, "Hey, listen up guys. HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED". No explanation of how the conclusion was achieved at. So while I am impressed by Sarkar's intellect at discerning the politics behind it all -I already knew he was super smart because he's supposed to be the Indian Godfather - I would much rather like to know the thought process that drove him to the conclusion.
1. The biggest turn off for me in the movie was the background music. Let me explain. "dholakiya ke marne ke baad uske oopar ka link toot gaya ..." "phir tumhe zinda rakhne ka kya faaida". Normal dialogue, you'd say, and even naturally expect at that moment, if you are anything of a movie fan. No problems till now (except that for a movie that is a follow up to the movie that was supposedly inspired by Godfather, you'd not like to be able to guess the dialogue). But then the background score comes in screaming and claiming it to be a kick-ass line. Consider a joke that is meant to evoke just a smile, but suddenly somebody starts laughing uncontrollably - the essence of the joke is lost. Now just imagine, that the joke is lame, and instead of letting it go when somebody doesn't respond, you start laughing yourself. That's the problem with the background score.
2. 'saam daam dand bhed' chant is heard often without any relevance to the situation. For example, just after "phir tumhe zinda rakhne ka kya faaida?" What's so 'by hook or by crook' about it?
3. When Anita (Aishwarya Rai) comes to the Nagre residence and starts explaining the project, Sarkar says 'ye sab technical baatein chhodiye, point pe aaiye'. A 'don't kid me, I'm super-smart' line. Then dialogues are muted, background score comes in, and camera focuses on faces while Anita explains something. My understanding was that she was talking about how it will impact the people, how many people will be displaced, etc. But when the dialogue resumes, Sarkar asks her about the exact same thing. So what were they talking about while the music was out? As somebody commented, 'may be the writer was not paid enough'. I can sometimes be a moron, and not see the obvious (actually it happens a lot). So if you can suggest something that I missed, I'd be glad. Also, the platitudes by Sarkar to the CM about responsibilities of government did not go well with me (but that is probably a quibble).
4. For someone who claims "mujhe naamumkin lafz se sakht nafrat hai", she gives up pretty easily ("lag raha hai yahan ye project lagana naamumkin hai") after Sarkar disapproves the proposal. She shouldn't have needed Hasan Qazi's pointer regarding Shanker Nagre, if she was such an astute business woman with a never-say-die attitude. More so, since she supposedly takes up major Godfather duties in the last scene of the movie (or did I completely misinterpret that scene?) and should be the protagonist in Sarkar 3. She even had to ask 'to?' when Hasan Qazi pointed it out to her that Shanker didn't say a word in the meeting. Itni tubelight? Not good omen for Sarkar 3.
5. And wasn't Al Pacino supposed to be smart in Godfather. Would you expect him to disregard a good advice from a friend about possible threat to his life, instead initiate romance, and then get shot at immediately afterwards? It's not that he was a car salesman that threat to his life was unthinkable. Yes, if he talked a little more and behaved like a normal guy, such lack of regard to sound advice and, if I may say so, the occasional stupidity would be excused. But a no-nonsense guy going nonsensical does not go very well.
6. I didn't like the ending as well because I prefer Vyomkesh Bakshi to Tehkikaat. While in the former, the viewer is walked through the investigation, sees the clues for himself/herself, tries to figure it out, and is then surprised by the intelligence of the detective, in the latter, the detectives just put up their hands and say, "Hey, listen up guys. HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED". No explanation of how the conclusion was achieved at. So while I am impressed by Sarkar's intellect at discerning the politics behind it all -I already knew he was super smart because he's supposed to be the Indian Godfather - I would much rather like to know the thought process that drove him to the conclusion.
7. One last quibble. When the hired killer, who is never shown and refuses to divulge the method of his/her killing (politically correct, chuckle), it is certainly a let down when the assassination is old-fashioned shooting without anything innovative. So you knew without letting it be known by the hired hand that it was going to be a shooting (it is the normal mode of assassination). And there was no surprise, something like "oh, that sequence was interesting". So what was the need for secrecy, except to give a certain air. This is but an example of the underlying problem with the movie that it tries to be smart and hep and cool (of course, in a Sarkar way), but not enough thought has been given to back that up. Again, if the hitman was put in a more normal light, his face shown, him letting to speak a couple of lines, (or even if he/she wasn't shown at all) the shooting wouldn't have disappointed.
