Archive for July, 2010
Movie Review: Khatta Meetha (2010)
-1 Star (out of 4)
That’s right. I give Khatta Meetha a negative-one star rating. The producers owe me a star. Khatta Meetha is one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen.
Here’s the best example of why Khatta Meetha is so bad: the hero of this slapstick comedy punches his girlfriend in the face, humiliates her in public, destroys her house, threatens her, and then frames her for a crime she didn’t commit, driving her to attempt suicide. And he’s the hero! OF A COMEDY!
How did a movie so morally reprehensible get made? How? I beg you: do not pay to see this movie. No one involved with this garbage deserves to make another cent from it.
The first ten minutes of the movie are a typical Akshay Kumar slapstick comedy. Kumar plays Sachin Tichkule, a hapless contractor who’s the black sheep in a family of successful (i.e., corrupt) engineers. His brother and brothers-in-law have enough money to bribe their way into large contracts building bridges. Penniless Sachin is stuck paving roads, cutting corners to ensure future work repairing the same roads the next year.
Things quickly turn serious when a bridge Sachin’s brothers built collapses, killing dozens of people. To avoid jail, they collude with an up-and-coming politician. They convince the Tichkule family’s loyal chauffeur, Mr. Rao, to take the rap for them. The next day, the politician has Mr. Rao killed to keep him from talking.
No one else in the Tichkule family, including Sachin, seems to notice that Mr. Rao is gone. He gets mentioned in an aside in the last five minutes of the film, but the slapstick resumes shortly after Rao dies.
The bulk of the movie is bad gags, punctuated by fits of yelling that are allegedly humorous. Sachin seems doomed to forever be a failure when his ex-girlfriend, Ghena (Trisha Krishnan), becomes the local bureaucrat in charge of construction contracts.
Back in college, Sachin punched Ghena in the face when she defied him. This got him kicked out of school, which somehow led him to become a disreputable contractor. Blaming the victim is always a nice touch.
When Ghena demands that Sachin play by the rules, he belittles her in public, making threatening gestures and destroying her house, which he then jokes about. He frames her for taking bribes, and she tries to kill herself.
These are the actions of the guy the audience is supposed to identify with and cheer for. Sachin belongs in jail with his murdering brothers. But, since this is a comedy, Ghena accepts his apology from her hospital bed.
The degree of casual violence against women in Khatta Meetha is appalling. At one point, Sachin’s sister is murdered. Almost as an afterthought, one character mentions to Sachin that, before she died, she’d also been gang raped by her new husband’s friends. WTF?
There’s nothing redeemable about Khatta Meetha. Nothing. The way it flits from goofy comedy to violent drama is absurd. The way it follows scenes of violence against women with celebratory dance numbers is insulting. Everyone who had any part in making this should be ashamed.
Links
- Buy Khatta Meetha on DVD
at Amazon
- Khatta Meetha Official Website
- Khatta Meetha at Wikipedia
Movie Review: Toh Baat Pakki (2010)
2 Stars (out of 4)
Compared to many other recent Hindi comedies, Toh Baat Pakki is understated, for the most part. But the beginning and end of the movie fall back on conventional slapstick.
Tabu stars as Rajeshwari, a big sister seeking a husband for her little sister, Nisha (Yuvika Chaudhry). But she only wants the best for Nisha, who’s pretty, smart and considers teaching village children for free a hobby.
Rajeshwari literally runs into Rahul (Sharman Joshi), a friendly engineering student, as she’s walking home from the shops. She’s suspicious at first, scolding him even when he goes out of his way to return her purse. When she eventually realizes that Rahul could be a perfect match for Nisha, Rajeswhwari contrives to move him into her vacant guest bedroom. Then she invites Nisha over for an extended stay.
The plan works perfectly. Nisha and Rahul fall for each other, and Rahul ingratiates himself with Rajeshwari’s husband and their two kids. The family starts preparing for Nisha & Rahul’s wedding.
Then Yuvi (Vatsal Seth) shows up on Rajeshwari’s doorstep. The son of her husband’s uncle’s friend, Yuvi arrives looking to rent the spare room currently occupied by Rahul. It’s just temporary while his bungalow is being repaired. Because he’s handsome and already successful, Rajeshwari makes the executive decision that Yuvi is actually a better match for Nisha than Rahul. She tricks Rahul into vacating the house, installing Yuvi in his place.
Rahul, convinced that Nisha still loves him, undertakes a convoluted plan to get Yuvi to call off the wedding. No one asks Nisha what she really wants.
At its best, Toh Baat Pakki is a winsome romantic comedy. Tabu is spectacular in the complicated lead role. Rajeshwari automatically assumes the worst of people. Even when she’s being nice, it’s to further her own ends. She’s a force of will that can’t be stopped.
But Tabu keeps Rajeshwari from being a nasty caricature. She’s motivated by a sense of familial duty that has been warped into a ceaseless hunt for perfection. Rather than employing cartoonish overreactions, Rajeshwari responds to events in a believable way: a slightly raised eyebrow when a more promising suitor walks by or a furrowed brow when she spots the tacky vase she’s trying in vain to regift.
However, these subtle comic reactions are overshadowed in the beginning and end of the movie by dumb sound effects and cheesy gags. There’s no reason for Rahul’s plan to be as complicated as it is, except as a means to include unfunny bits like throwing a pile of saris on a nosy neighbor or having goons disrupt a wedding.
Early into Rahul’s scheme, one of his friends asks why he doesn’t simply tell Nisha that he wants to marry her. There’s no good reason why he shouldn’t. Rahul’s answer makes no sense, and neither does the end of the movie.
Links
- Buy Toh Baat Pakki on DVD
at Amazon
- Toh Baat Pakki at Wikipedia
- Toh Baat Pakki at IMDb
Retro Review: Harishchandrachi Factory (2009)
3 Stars (out of 4)
I normally review only Hindi movies, but I made an exception for Harishchandrachi Factory. The Marathi movie was India’s official entry in the Best Foreign Language Film category of the 2010 Academy Awards. Ultimately, it wasn’t one of the five nominees, but it is worth watching.
The film is about the creation of the first full-length Indian motion picture in 1913: Raja Harishchandra, a depiction of the life of an ancient king renowned for always keeping his promises and telling the truth, no matter the consequences for him and his family.
(I didn’t think the moral of the story of Harishchandra was explained clearly via the movie’s subtitles. I had to look up the story later to appreciate some of the references.)
Dhundiraj Govind Phalke was the man responsible for Raja Harishchandra, in addition to dozens of other movies over the span of 19 years. He’s credited for founding the Indian film industry, back when cinema was dominated by the British.
Harishchandrachi Factory begins in 1911, when Phalke (Nandu Madhav) sees his first motion pictures: a documentary on bullfighting and a depiction of the life of Jesus Christ. He’s instantly seized with the notion of making an Indian film for an Indian audience.
Phalke, having recently sold his stake in a printing company, convinces his wife, Saraswati (Vibhawari Deshpande), and several investors that movie making is just another kind of printing, winning their support. He spends two months in England learning the trade and returns with the necessary camera equipment.
Phalke’s path is remarkably free of obstacles. Saraswati takes her husband’s career change in stride, never complaining as he sells most of their furniture to finance his London trip, which he schedules when she’s supposed to give birth to their third child. And Phalke has little trouble getting money from investors, who are impressed by his hard work ethic and the potential of the new storytelling medium.
The only hiccups occur when Phalke actually starts making his movie. Motion pictures are held in such low regard that even prostitutes refuse to join Phalke’s production, for fear of ruining their reputations. The men he hires to play the female roles are reluctant to shave their mustaches.
The lack of conflict, despite conventional wisdom, actually makes Harishchandrachi Factory more enjoyable. There is enough inherent risk in being a pioneer. Manufactured arguments between, say, Phalke and Saraswati would’ve been depressing, rather than dramatic. Happy onscreen relationships are rare enough as it is.
Harishchandrachi Factory is impressive, given that it was made for less than $500,000. But the meagreness of the budget is evident in some aspects of the movie. The costumes, particularly those of the British characters, look cheap and made from modern synthetic fabrics.
Despite the fact that they’ve little to do, the Anglo actors are distractingly bad. Most of the extras look like they were kidnapped from a British university field trip. Still, Harishchandrachi Factory is a fun and educational experience, if not a completely immersive one.
Links
- Harishchandrachi Factory at Wikipedia
- Harishchandrachi Factory at IMDb
- Dhundiraj Govind Phalke at Wikipedia
- Harishchandra at Wikipedia
Movie Review: Milenge Milenge (2010)
1 Star (out of 4)
Milenge Milenge (“We Will Meet, We Will Meet”) is a remake of the 2001 Hollywood romance Serendipity that is, at times, remarkably faithful to the original. Too bad the writers missed the point of the movie.
Kareena Kapoor stars as Priya, a college girl who abhors guys who drink, smoke, and lie. A tarot card reader — played by the great Kirron Kher, who acts like she’s embarrassed to be in the movie — informs Priya that she’s going to meet her soulmate on a foreign beach in seven days. The next day, Priya learns that she’s been selected to attend a youth conference in Bangkok.
At the same time, good-for-nothing fellow college student Immy (Shahid Kapoor) finagles his way onto the same trip. In Bangkok, he stumbles into Priya’s room while running from the cops and immediately falls in love with the sleeping beauty. He steals her diary and learns about the tarot card reader’s prediction. He makes sure he’s the one waiting for Priya on the beach on the seventh day.
Of course, pretending to be Priya’s fated soulmate means Immy must give up drinking and smoking. After he finally decides that being with Priya is worth abstaining, she discovers his scheme and calls the relationship off.
At this point, Milenge Milenge becomes a full-fledged Serendipity clone. The couple meet up in India when they both reach for the same item in a department store. Priya has Immy write his name and phone number on a 50 rupee note, and she writes hers inside of a book. Then she gives both the book and bill away. If Priya and Immy are destined to be together, she reasons, he’ll find the book with her name and she’ll find the note with his.
The original Hollywood movie began with two strangers meeting in a department store. They spend some time together and enjoy each other’s company, but both are already in committed relationships. They also do the bit with the book and the dollar bill, a cosmic test to see if they should ditch their partners and be together.
The whole reason that the fate angle worked in the original was that the lead couple had no history. The test of fate was based on the idea of what could be.
When Priya and Immy test fate, they already have a history, and it’s a bad one. Immy is a thief and a fraud, and Priya has good reason to dump him. If he wants to prove that he can change, he needs to be with Priya to do that.
If their test works and they are reunited by fate, it doesn’t prove that Immy is a better man. What if Priya was simply destined to be with a jerk?
In addition to the logical problem of Priya & Immy’s fated reunion, there’s also a practical one. In Serendipity, the male lead didn’t know the woman’s last name. In Milenge Milenge, Immy knows Priya’s last name, as well as where she went to college. Why not call the alumni office? Why not Google her? There’s no reason why he can’t find her.
The fact that neither Immy nor Priya thinks to consult the Internet makes the movie feel dated, as does virtually everything else about Milenge Milenge. The quality of the cinematography makes it look like a contemporary of Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge (1995) rather than a movie made in 2004. (The movie’s been stuck in post-production hell for the past six years.) A cheesy soundtrack, wacky overacting, and a prudish sense of morality make Milenge Milenge seem even older than that.
Milenge Milenge languished on the shelf for six years. It probably should’ve stayed there permanently.
Links:
- Buy Milenge Milenge on DVD
at Amazon
- Milenge Milenge at Wikipedia
- Milenge Milenge at IMDb
- Serendipity at Wikipedia
Movie Review: Well Done Abba (2010)
2 Stars (out of 4)
It’s hard to imagine a comedy film premise less sexy than: “A middle-aged chauffeur returns to his village to build a well.” But Boman Irani’s comedic skills make Well Done Abba an enjoyable, if overly long, movie.
Irani stars as the titular abba (“dad”), Armaan Ali. Armaan returns to work two months late from his month-long vacation to the village and attempts to explain the circumstances to his boss. The story of Armaan’s extended holiday is told in flashbacks with occasional returns to the modern-day. This framing device is one of many unnecessary elements in Well Done Abba.
Armaan’s vacation takes him from Mumbai back to his village near Hyderabad. He intends to find a husband for his daughter, Muskaan (Minissha Lamba), who’s being raised by Armaan’s twin brother and the twin’s wife, a pair of small time grifters. Muskaan is only interested in continuing her studies and flying kites.
Shortly after settling in, Armaan gets talked into applying for a government grant to build a well on his property. However, the grant application process turns out to be a bribery scam run by village bureaucrats. After all of the inspectors, contractors and permit officers are paid off, there’s no money left to dig the well.
Muskaan concocts a scheme to get their well built once and for all. Using the Right to Information law, she discovers how many other village families were conned out of their well money. Armed with the fake photos and contracts the corrupt officials submitted to the government, she demands that the police start an investigation: someone must have stolen all of the village wells.
Muskaan gets help from the cute mechanic in town, Arif (Sammir Dattani). He’d be an ideal marriage candidate for Muskaan, but Armaan’s too distracted by the well debacle to notice.
Well Done Abba is a great showcase for Irani. His performance is perfectly subdued as Armaan wavers between confused and irritated. The movie’s highlight is a scene in which Armaan poses for a photo. The photographer struggles to get a good headshot as the slightest muscle twitches change Armaan’s expression from goofy to dour to homicidal.
Lamba and Dattani are an adorable onscreen couple. Their relationship blooms from annoyance to friendship to love, all under the oblivious gaze of Armaan, who can’t understand why Arif goes out of his way to be nice to him.
But the strong performances by the leads can’t disguise the fact that the movie is in serious need of an editor. There are so many ideas, subplots and side characters that Well Done Abba would have been better off as a TV miniseries.
There’s the honest police inspector whose wife wishes he was corrupt, the permit officer who wants his new bride to get breast implants, and Muskaan’s friend who gets married to a sheik. At the last minute, Arif’s father reveals that the boy isn’t his son by birth. Soap operas are less convoluted than this.
Armaan’s identical twin brother, Rehman (also played by Irani), is also superfluous. Apart from one brief and predictable gag in which Armaan is mistakenly jailed instead of Rehman, the fact that the brothers are identical is never brought up again.
For all the aspects of the movie I liked, this excess plot isn’t acceptable. Trim about 44 minutes off of the 144 minute runtime and it might be a great movie.
Links
- Buy Well Done Abba on DVD
at Amazon
- Well Done Abba at Wikipedia
- Well Done Abba at IMDb
- Right-to-Know Law Gives India’s Poor a Lever (NY Times)
Marketing Hindi Movies as Art Films
Superstar actor — and up-and-coming director — Aamir Khan is reaching out to American companies in the hopes of forming new marketing relationships. Specifically, Khan wants to start marketing his movies in the U.S. as “art” films, similar to the way other foreign-language films are marketed.
Currently, Hindi movies are dropped into theaters with little promotion or fanfare. Indian production houses rarely screen their movies in advance for critics, so few get reviewed for newspapers. Fans in the U.S. must seek out information on upcoming releases themselves.
Without any promotion, mainstream American filmgoers likely scan past the names of Hindi movies on the theater marquee. At times, theaters may unintentionally steer people — especially those not obviously of Indian descent — away from Hindi movies. On several occasions, I’ve attempted to buy a ticket to a Hindi movie only to have the cashier say, “That’s a Bollywood movie,” or “You know that has subtitles, right?”
The shift to marketing at least some Hindi films like other foreign films is long overdue. U.S. theaters lump all Hindi movies together under the “Bollywood” label, evoking images of 3-hour epics full of romance, drama and action punctuated by flashy dance numbers.
Of course, those types of movies don’t make up the whole of Hindi cinema, even if they remain some of the most profitable. Just as the Indian film industry is shifting to producing more genre-specific films and away from all-encompassing epics, the industry is also producing films that American distributors would consider art movies if they were produced in other countries.
Some Indian directors, like Mira Nair, already have their films marketed in this way. But many of these Indian art movies, such as Deepa Mehta’s Oscar-nominated Water, are primarily Canadian productions.
Khan is a natural choice to forge this new marketing path in America. His recent efforts behind the camera have focused on smaller stories about specific issues, rather than mainstream blockbusters. Taare Zameen Par, which Khan directed in 2007, is about a boy with dyslexia. Peepli Live, which opens on August and is produced by Khan, is a black comedy about destitute farmers driven to suicide.
If Khan is successful, it could pave the way for other Indian directors to reach a much larger American audience. There are a few directors in particular whose films deserve this kind of treatment.
Vishal Bhardwaj’s movies are tailor-made for American fans of arthouse cinema. Westerners could consider Bhardwaj an Indian Kenneth Branagh. He’s already adapted two of Shakespeare’s plays into modern Indian stories — Maqbool and Omkara (MacBeth and Othello, respectively) — and he’s currently adapting a novel by Ruskin Bond for the big screen.
The criminal underworld of Uttar Pradesh provides the perfect setting for Bhardwaj’s updated classics. And since he broke into the industry as a composer, his have excellent soundtracks.
Bhardwaj’s frequent collaborator, Abhishek Chaubey, recently directed his first film, the atmospheric and charming Ishqiya. I can only assume that Chaubey’s future efforts will also deserve the arthouse promotional treatment.
Another obvious choice is director Mani Ratnam. His films are known for heartbreaking stories and stunning visuals. In keeping with tradition, he includes elaborate dance numbers in many of his movies, which add a surreal element.
Though it may take extra effort on the part of American distributors to determine which Indian movies are art versus simple popcorn flicks, it’s past time to stop grouping all Hindi movies under the Bollywood umbrella.
Links
- Aamir Khan Seeking Foreign Distributors For Upcoming Films (The Bollywood Ticket)
- My Taare Zameen Par review
- My Omkara review
- My Ishqiya review
- Peepli Live at Wikipedia
Retro Review: Jab We Met (2007)
1.5 Stars (out of 4)
The recent release of Milenge Milenge prompted me to watch Jab We Met (“When We Met”), a 2007 romantic comedy. Both movies star Kareena Kapoor and Shahid Kapoor (no relation). Had I not committed myself to reviewing the movie, I would’ve turned off Jab We Met within the first 45 minutes.
The movie’s first act is a prolonged meet-cute between the two leads, Aditya (Shahid) and Geet (Kareena). Aditya, emotionally exhausted by legal battles over the rights to his deceased father’s wealthy corporation, wanders the streets in the kind of depression that only exists in movies. He stares at nothing, silently boarding buses and trains, with no idea where he’s going.
He’s a lot more mobile in his melancholia than most depressed people. If the movie was going for authenticity, Aditya would’ve left the boardroom, headed home, and crawled into bed.
On the train, Aditya is verbally assailed by a fellow passenger, Geet. To call her a chatterbox is insufficient; Geet won’t shut up. She jabbers in a manner that, like Aditya’s ambulatory despondency, only exists on film. She flits from topic to topic without pause, utterly self-absorbed and failing to notice Aditya’s blank stare out the window.
The clueless chatterbox is one of my most hated movie clichés, because she doesn’t exist in real life. At least not in such an extreme and irritating form. An ordinary person wouldn’t last a minute on the receiving end of such a soliloquy before faking a trip to the bathroom and finding an empty seat at the other end of the train, thus depriving the clueless chatterbox of her audience.
Writing deliberately annoying characters is tricky because — as with Geet — they often wind up annoying the audience as well as their fellow characters. An example of annoying-done-right can be found on the television show Glee. Supporting characters refer to the main character, Rachel, as annoying, but she rarely acts in a way that’s irritating to us viewers. We get that she annoys the other characters, without having to be annoyed ourselves.
Through a series of idiotic decisions, Geet gets herself stranded at a station, minus her wallet and luggage. She berates Aditya into helping her, then berates cab drivers and beverage vendors on the way to her parents’ house. Geet’s abuse of service workers further diminishes her attractiveness.
Thus ends the first 45 minutes of a 140-minute-long movie.
The rest of the movie is pleasant enough, as Aditya finally engages with his surroundings. There are colorful wedding decorations and Geet’s equally colorful family to liven things up. But, for the most part, the remainder of Jab We Met is just above average.
The big problem is Geet. Though Kareena Kapoor does a fine job acting the part, Geet is not a nice character. She starts out annoying and fails to develop throughout the film. She reacts but doesn’t grow, remaining clueless until the last few minutes of the movie. It’s hard to believe a decent, rich guy like Aditya couldn’t have found someone better.
Links:
- Buy Jab We Met on DVD
at Amazon
- Jab We Met at Wikipedia
- Jab We Met at IMDb
