From Lucy-dity to Acidity: Movies Review

 I have had the fortune of watching two back-to-back once-in-a-decade kind of movies over the weekend. Both were thabks to the recommendations of my ‘significant other’.  

Lucy (2014) starring Scarlett Johansson explores the theme of utilising 100% of one’s brain and its outcome. Lucy is a stupid girl who gets tricked by her wasted boyfriend to deliver a package to a mafia don. The mafia has synthesised CPH4, the chemical that supposedly makes a foetus grow. In a quirk of fate/luck, Lucy who’s now made a mule to carry drugs, gets a whole bag of CPH4 into her system resulting in her brains to open the floodgates of awareness and functioning. From barely managing to survive, Lucy goes on to vanquish everyone at 20% performance, and becomes omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent  - in other words, God/immortal - by the end. To make matters easy for the viewers, the film tells us whenever Lucy’s brainpower has expanded. She also voices over what capabilities get added at each phase - for the sake of us lesser mortals! She even bottles up her essence into a pen drive for posterity! It is an outrightly delusional movie, that for reasons best known to the (m)asses became a runaway hit, when it was released. 

Kraven the Hunter (2024) is a Marvel movie about a vigilante out to finish off all the criminals in the world, with his special powers. Sergei Kravenoff is the son of a Russian don, and has shown huge promise to succeed in his dad’s big footsteps. Fate though has different plans. He almost gets killed by the biggest lion ever in Ghana (which has by then killed only 3000 people and had failed to kill the writer/director of this movie). He’s saved by the magic potion of a young girl with a crazy name (I thought it was Chlamydia, but Sayambhu insists it was Calypso). He wakes up yo become the greatest hunter ever. He is every beast rolled into one - hawk’s vision, lion’s courage, a bison’s thick skin and skull (pun certainly inten-dead), and a tiger’s ability to scent a trail. Last checked he hadn’t yet grown a baboon’s tail. It’s the cringiest movie on any side of any ocean! Terrible dialogues, mindless violence, tacky graphics, bad English, and situations and actions that completely defy logic, explanation, or sense, are the hallmarks of this great movie. Even ‘Aquaman’ feels like a cerebral masterpiece in comparison. 

Don’t ask me why I chose to watch them, and why I didn’t choose to stop watching. I don’t know. To learn that I am thinking I’ll enter into therapy!

Movie Review: Boyhood

For two months after I came to the Netherlands I hadn’t watched a movie.  And yet suddenly I have been watching them back-to-back at the theatre.  Thanks to recommendations of critics and a persistent friend I ended up watching ‘Boyhood’, the cinema that has been generating a lot of positive conversations. It has been winning rave reviews and awards at many film festivals.  People too have received the movie very warmly.

‘Boyhood’ – the USP of the movie is that it has been shot over a period of 11 years, capturing the natural growing process of a kid.  It tells us the coming-of-age story of Mason Jr (Ellar Coltrane) growing up in different parts of Texas from the age of 6 to 17. 

Mason Jr and his sister Sam – Samantha (Lorelai Linklater) – live with their single mother Olivia (Patricia Arquette).  Ethan Hawke (Mason Sr) is the absentee father – who’s all charm when present but is largely a vagabond, irresponsible and a lout of a father.  Young, struggling with motherhood too soon and wanting to do better, Olivia moves from a small town to Austin in pursuit of higher education and career.  She also finds her second husband in her professor Bill (who has two children from his earlier marriage). The children gel well but the marriage doesn’t last long as Bill becomes an alcoholic and an abusive husband/father.  Olivia moves town again much to the displeasure of her children.  While she’s teaching psychology she finds another husband in her student and ex-army guy.  Even this marriage doesn’t last long as he too turns out to be alcoholic. 

Even though living in the same house, the siblings do not become close and grow apart as they grow up.  Mason Jr discovers his love for photography, dabbles with hash, alcohol, experiments with piercings and nail polish, finds a girlfriend, breaks up, mouths bits and pieces of philosophy, bonds with his father (and his new wife and her parents), wins silver medal at the photography contest and ends up graduating from high school with a scholarship.   The movie ends with Mason going to college and moving out of the house (and discovering new friends, places, etc.).

The movie though shot over a long period of time doesn’t look old at all.  And, there’s subtle humour that warms up the audience.  The lead actors are extremely competent and a pleasure to watch.  Ellar grows up from an adorable moppet to a good looking, lanky teenager in front of one’s eyes and it’s almost unbelievable that it’s the same person (while Lorelai as Sam is recognizable throughout).  Patricia and Ethan are as dependable always. 

But, Boyhood is NOT a great movie as it is being made out to be.  I really wondered what the purpose was, of making THIS movie over a period of 10 years!  And, at almost 3 hours, it stretched my patience.  Especially because many threads are left untied.  One never is told why Bill becomes an alcoholic and turns abusive (when he’s shown the first time, one gets a different impression).  Ditto with the next husband.  Even though a lot of time is spent on characters, except for the two Masons the other characters are not well-flushed out.  Especially Olivia’s.  Despite being a resolute person, she comes across finally as someone who cannot ever take the right decisions in life.  Even the one scene that’s been incorporated – where a manager at the local restaurant tells her how her advice turned his life around and suggests to her children that they must listen to her -  to redeem her is too contrived.  It is only because of solid acting by Arquette the role doesn’t degenerate into one of a shrew.  

Ethan has the role of a lifetime where he most times walks away with the best lines and the sympathy/support of the audience despite being a troll of a husband and father.   Also, the movie - through its dialogues inadvertently - promotes and reinforce the same patriarchal and anti-women shit that is found in the society around us.  At the end, it feels like you are watching the growing up of someone around you and that there need not be any reason or purpose in telling a story.  You end up asking, “So?”  I do not recommend this movie.  

'Queen' Review: Kangana All the Way!!!

My first impression on seeing the trailers of ‘Queen’ wasn’t positive.  ‘The same Punjabi music and the same nach-gana.  Hasn’t Kangana done this already in ‘Tannu Weds Mannu’?’ I wondered.  But my partner – a big Kangana fan - had already warned that we’d watch the movie no matter what and I was bracing myself for a terrible outing.  Until Friday morning.  Almost everyone was singing deliriously on how good the movie was and I wasn’t yet convinced.

 ‘Queen’ (directed by almost-first-timer, Vikas Behl – he co-directed ‘Chillar Party’ that won the National Award for the Best Children’s Movie a while ago) opens with the chatter on the impending marriage of Rani, a bholi-bhali Punjabi kudi from Rajauri Garden, Delhi with Vijay, engineer working in London.  Love-cum-arranged marriage between children of two friends.  And, Vijay (Rajkummar Rao) develops cold feet over marrying a ‘behnji’; so he calls it off a day before the ceremony leaving Rani crestfallen.  The girl – who’s dreamed on for long to go on a ‘phoren’ honeymoon – decides to take off on her own to the European destinations – Paris and Amsterdam.  On this journey, egged on by her grandma’s words over the phone (‘agar TV hi dekhna that toh idhar hi dekh sakti thi; Paris jaane ki kya zaroorat thi?’), a chance-friendship with a very hippy VJ (Vijayalakshmi, a half-Indian hotel staff in Paris) and a resolve-forming encounter with a thief, and her very ‘awakening’ sojourn of Amsterdam, Kangana morphs from a self-pitying douche-bag to someone who opens up to the idea that there’s life beyond shaadi, pati and pyar.  And, as she sheds her inhibitions - and even takes a ‘selfie’ in satin and sends it to Vijay – her ex-beau rediscovers his ‘mojo’ for her and launches his search for her to win her back. 

‘Queen’ belongs to the genre of movies that are about the protagonist’s self-discovery and coming-of-age – like, ‘Wake Up Sid’, ‘Zindagi Na Milega Dubara’ and ‘English Vinglish’.  And, the story is not completely hatke.  But what sets it apart, along with the quirk of Rani who wants to go on her honeymoon even though the wedding gets cancelled is the treatment to the subject.  Also, this is the equivalent of the bromances that we're seeing of late! Never OTT, never in-your-face, a sparkling script and screenplay, subtly witty and natural dialogues (oh yes, Kangana has co-penned them!), and some real foot-tapping music (including the suddenly-rediscovered-and-trending-mightily ‘Hungama Ho Gaya’).  The parting scene of the movie best symbolises how understated the entire stuff was!

And, of course every person who’s part of the cast has delivered amazingly.  Rajkummar Rao as the self-centred, cocksure fiancé is convincing and anyone else would possibly have reduced the role to a caricature.  Lisa Hayden as the Parisian Indian is a revelation – a just amalgamation of seduction and warmth.  Even the bit part players – dadi, the motley friends of Kangana in Amsterdam, her parents and ‘motu’ brother – are lovely, believable and endearing.  Finally, it’s an out-and-out Kangana’s show who appears in almost every frame.  The best compliment that could be paid to her is you forget it’s Kangana and think of her as a plane-Jane Rani for almost the entire movie – and root for her in every scene.  Be it when she’s crying inconsolably at the Café when her beau calls off the marriage or when she innocently is picking up souvenirs for her family at a sex toy shop or advising Lisa not to sleep around with everyone or not getting that the jokes are on her several times, she’s absolutely marvellous. 

There are some stuff that jar too.  The cinematography is pedestrian.  Even Paris and Amsterdam look ordinary here.  And, indoors are uniformly dull and boring.  Also, some of the scenes are so clichéd you know what’s coming from miles away – like the cookery challenge to Kangana.  And, easily the movie could have been trimmed by another 10-15 minutes even though you don’t ever get bored.  But, then these are minor things that only a critic cribs about.  Just don’t miss this.  Go watch it to celebrate the woman/women in you or in your life! This certainly is one of the best 'coming of age' movies made on a woman and would stand out in 2014 among the best of the lot. 

Highway: Review

A celebrated director with a story he wanted to tell for a long time, a tantalizing title, a surprise yet interesting cast, the coming together of a successful production house and a commercial producer, a star composer – quite a few reasons for a movie aficionado to walked into the theatre/multiplex to watch ‘Highway’ that released yesterday.  I did too. 

Highway, starring Alia Bhatt and Randeep Hooda, and directed by Imtiaz Ali tells the tale of a strange relationship (‘Stockholm syndrome’?) between the abducted and the kidnapper as they travel from one hideout to another – unfolding their secrets and pent-up tales of trauma.

The movie kicks off in a hurry – Veera (Alia) who’s about to get married sneaking out of the house in the dead of the night for ‘some fresh air’ with her reluctant fiancé Vinay.  Much against his caution Veera insists he drive further and farther from the city.  At a gas station as Veera steps out even as Vinay implores her not to, gun shots are heard and in the blink of an eye, Veera is kidnapped by a gang led by Mahavir Bhati (Randeep Hooda).  Even as the gang realizes they've picked up someone they can't handle, Hooda refuses to let go of the prize catch.

Veera’s initial efforts to find ways to escape soon give way to her developing a liking for the entire road-trip – and her captors.  Even when provided with opportunities to return to her family and sanity, she stays put resolutely.  As the bond of trust and friendship slowly grows between the two, they share their agonies and seek acceptance and solace from the other.  Alia a victim of child sexual abuse at the hands of a family ‘uncle’ while Hooda’s mother was pimped by his father for lucrative contracts as he watched and cried. 

At the centre of the movie is a great idea.  It is brave of Imtiaz Ali to have chosen a ‘hatke’ story to make the movie. However, the script and direction fail to do any justice to it as situations and characters don’t seem to be fleshed out fully.  Many a moments bring unwitting laughter from the audience at inopportune/serious frames.  The biggest drawback of the movie its excruciatingly slow pace.  The road movie refuses to take off most times.  Mr Tripathi – a seemingly rich and powerful man and Alia’s father – is talked about in great fear by the gang but he doesn’t appear till the end.  Nor does one get to know much on what’s happening beyond the two lead characters.  And, Alia’s turn from the victim to the liberated is too abrupt and pat and hence extremely unconvincing.  The movie’s pace is also hampered by unnecessary songs – Rahman’s music is a great disappointment and offers nothing you’ve not heard before (and he must take a break from singing; he sounds almost besura).  When the folk songs of the Himachal/Manali play in the background the music perks up though.

What though saves the movie from being a complete disappointment are riveting performances by the lead pair.  Randeep Hooda as the ruffian abductor is great. His looks smoulder and his dialogues pack more than a punch but it’s an out-and-out Alia show.  Alia – though looks way too young for her part – is a revelation.  Her maturity and confidence in pulling off the role – including excellent dialogue delivery – are marvellous.  If she displays the same spunk and skills in her choices of roles, I’m certain she will shine brighter than many other stars in the days (and years) to come.

Few mainstream movies are made on child sexual abuse; nor have there been many roadies.  If only Imtiaz had sketched his scenes better and spent more time exploring characters and motives, we’d have had a great time on this ‘Highway’.  I felt waylaid though. 

Movie Review: Celluloid - Poignant Story Poor Script/Direction

I by chance heard, 'Kate Kate' while I was visiting my friend, SK.  He told me that it was from the movie Celluloid that was going to release soon.  The tune stayed in the mind and I'd hum it and that created a desire to watch the movie too.  Sure enough SK reminded that the movie's released and we both went to watch it (SK being a Malayali and my hold on the language is next to nothing).

Celluloid - directed by Kamal, supposedly one of the better directors of Malayalam Cinema - is the story of JC Daniel, the first movie-maker of Malayalam and is based on a book called, 'Nashta Nayaka' (meaning, Hero of Loss or the Hero who Lost).  It attempts to tell Daniel's journey in making his first (and only) movie - a social drama, an unheard of thing during the days of silent cinema where every movie was either a fantasy or a historical or based on mythology - and his life thereafter.  For a long time, JC Daniel (until 2004, as the movie brings out) was not acknowledged as the father of Malayalam Cinema.  It took a long struggle to make this happen.  The travails of a man who's set out on big dream surely are many.  And, there would be many interesting facets to this visionary too.  A tale behind a tale - on why and how he wanted to make cinema - surely would be there? And, how did he cope with the heartbreak of his inability to take his movie to the watchers beyond the first few shows? How did he get his recognition at last and when? There certainly is a heart-rending story in Daniel's life.

JC Daniel made a social-drama (The Lost Child) in 1929 and cast an untouchable girl as the heroine resulting in the movie being boycotted by the caste-and-class-conscious Nair society of Kerala.  Daniel's dream is shattered and he moves on to study dentistry, becomes successful and is again redrawn to movie-making much against the advice and counsel of his doting wife.  He faces complete ruin as he pursues his dream and dies in penury, unacknowledged at the first-ever filmmaker of Malayalam.

Kamal does a great job in recreating the 1920s in the movie - be it the clothes that people wear (except when Mamata is seen sporting some extremely trendy sarees) or the vehicles of the era or even the roads of the time.  The music - just two songs - stays in the mind long after you've left the hall.  So does the last scene of the movie.

But, the movie is a disappointment.  The director fails to recreate the magic of making a movie. The excitement that one must bring out in the scenes or the characters reflecting the history that they're creating is completely amiss. The characters are all one-dimensional.  And, the actors portraying the roles (barring some) are absolutely wooden.  Prithviraj, playing JC Daniel, has just one expression  - eye-brows raised with a lopsided smile - for the entire first half of the movie.  Ditto Mamata Mohandas, who plays his wife, Janet.  But, Chandni, as Rosamma (later Rosy) who plays the heroine in JC Daniel's movie is very good as the Dalit girl who becomes heroine and then vanishes into nothingness.

The story held such promise.  It's a pity that it doesn't deliver.

Kahaani Mein Twist

What could one write as a review of a movie that’s already become the darling of the critics and audiences alike?  Difficult but I’ll try being the fault-finder that I’m known to be (apart from giving a ring-side view).

It’s about Kahaani, alright!  After two back-to-back hits last year (Vidya started and ended the year 2011 with NOKJ and TDP and both were BO successes) and a National Award for her portrayal of ‘Silk’, Vidya’s Kahaani had made all the right noises in the pre-release buzz.  But, the director’s previous two outings were BO Turkeys and hence there were sceptics too. 

Sujoy Ghosh’s latest outing – a thriller this time - is satisfying on many counts.  It starts off slowly and before you start wondering what’s happening you’re hooked to it completely and there’s not a moment to pause from the tension to ponder if the plot has any loopholes.  The performances by all the actors are above par, the background music blends in perfectly and the photography captures the mood evocatively and incorporates Kolkata as an integral character to the story. 

By now everyone and her uncle knows what the movie is all about.  So I’ll steer clear of what the movie is all about.  All I want to say is, ‘Guys, don’t miss this.  This possibly is one helluva thriller to hit Indian screens in a long while’.  What works BEST for the movie is nowhere does the director tries to bring in the Western (read, Hollywood or whatever else) style of story-telling.  It’s completely the time-tested Indian style of storytelling (minus the compulsory naach-gaana that we most times suffer and sometimes long for). 

So, what am I cribbing about then? At last here I come to them:

1.    The film credits show Ms Mamata Banerjee as ‘honorary’ Chief Minister.  It should be ‘honourable’.  How come nobody noticed this blooper?

2.  An ex-IB Officer is introduced as ‘Captain Bajpai’ but Vidya repeatedly calls him ‘Colonel’.  Promotion suddenly?  (Unless he originally was a Navy Captain but ‘somehow miraculously’ made it into the Army and got his equivalent Colonel rank)

3.  Rana (Parambrata Chatterjee) is so stylish that he wears low-waist trousers as a police officer.  Special concessions?

4.   In a scene the second-in-command from IB slaps Rana, the Police Officer (twice).  Why was this necessary at all?  Since there’s no further talk of the incident, it gets reflected as if it’s acceptable to do so.  Poor!

5.   There’s the reference at the end of the movie to ‘Durga’ (voice-over by Amitabh) as the destroyer of the demons and her arrival every year for this purpose.  I somehow thought it jarred and didn’t sync with the movie.  

There are other plot-holes but pointing them out would mean giving away the plot completely to those readers who may have yet not watched the movie.  So, mum’s the word (pun intended). 

Go watch it, pronto!  Don’t wait for it to appear on your telly.

The Dirty Picture: Vidya Takes It All!

The amount of publicity generated by Vidya Balan starrer, “The Dirty Picture” wasn’t unprecedented nor surprising.  After all it was avowedly the biopic of Silk Smitha, the screen Sex Goddess of 80s.  Dark, luscious and dreamy-eyed oomph girl who dominated the South Indian movie scene.  Famously, an apple half-eaten by her sold to a sum of Rs 100 in those days!  She had named the pets at her home by the names of producers!  It’s been almost 2 decades since she committed suicide but she still generates more columns than many top actresses of today put together.

It was however a surprise when Vidya was announced the heroine of ‘The Dirty Picture’.  I wasn’t too impressed with Milan Luthria at the helm of affairs – a pretender at the craft, at best.  When I was offered the tickets on a platter on a Friday evening in Saddi Dilli (accompanied by my interesting group of friends), I wasn’t one to back out – despite my migraine.  The story, I knew, was predictable.  If any thing, the movie would rely heavily on how taut the screenplay would be. 

The film opens interestingly and chugs along swimmingly, on the now rather broad-shouldered Vidya.  Double entendres are aplenty – the most popular being the ‘pichkari’ dialogue.  Par for the course for a bold movie, so you don’t really flinch.  Skin show is the order of the day or every scene.  You know the by-now-I’m-on-everyone’s-minds story.  Small-town/village girl running away to city, finding opportunities after struggle and sacrifice, superstardom and the plummet. 

However, the movie hits air-pocket post interval, gets way too long even for its runtime of 2hrs and 20mins and you feel suddenly want to go home.  (Of course it might be because I got squeamish to watch the leading lady’s impending doom and demise). 

If anything the movie is eminently watchable because of Vidya and (surprise surprise) Emraan Hashmi.  Vidya is OTT and restrained in the most beautiful way.  Her growth as a star and the way she’s put on weight over time for the role and unselfconsciously displays herself is a lesson to the rest of the heroines.  I doubt if anyone among the top Indian actresses would’ve done justice to this role the Viday’s grabbed it and made it her own – giving her every inch of body and mind to it.  Be it in the seductive scene in the bath-tub, playing the mob in order to screw up a party to which she’s not invited or when she breaks down finally reading what was always written about her or when she spews venom at a new starlet.  The only (minor) complaint would be about her at-times-affected-and-stilted dialogue delivery.  Emraan Hashmi has never been this good ever (and yes, he gets to kiss Vidya but then everyone does) as an actor and he’s playing an author-backed role for a change.  And, Naseeruddin Shah is effortlessly wonderful in his role as an ageing superstar Surya.

Beyond these three people, the movie flounders and falls apart terribly.  The screenplay is shoddy and written by a sleepwalking Rajat Arora adding nothing new to a beaten track – a million movies have already been made about female stars and their tragedies and he doesn’t tell anything new here.   Apart from those three lead roles, the only two other roles that are well-etched are that of the producer Selva Das (competent Rajesh Sharma, of the ‘No One Killed Jessica’ fame) and the journo Nayla (an uber-cool Anju Mahendroo, a treat to watch appearing after a l.o.n.g time on screen).  Tusshar is a shame – both his role and his histrionics.  He looks lost and apologetic throughout.  Others are forgotten the moment they disappear from the screen

There are some more positives about the movie though.  The music is class (Bappi and Vishal-Shekhar).  And, the tone of the story-telling is uniformly non-judgmental.   This saves me from judging Milan’s efforts behind the camera as ordinary.  Watch the movie at least to savour Vidya’s performance.  She’ll stay on your mind many days to come.  However, if you have no stomach for the gaudy stuff or the below-the-belt dialogues or loads of titillation, stay at home.  This movie is not for you if you can't stare at reality.

P.S. Everyone of course would be curious to know if Vidya's as seductive as Silk was.  Don't even compare. :)  And, beyond the first few scenes, you'll forget though the movie's about Silk Smitha as Vidya completely takes over.

Movie Review: 'No One Killed Jessica'

For a movie without songs, heroes, or the routine song-dance sequences, and for one based on real-life tragedy, ‘…. Jessica’ is pretty long – runtime of 2 hours and 20 minutes.  You notice that only once the movie’s over.

Arguably, Jessica Lall’s murder has bagged maximum print-space and eye-balls in the post-liberalization era.  Her case created the new vigilante media as we see it today in the country (albeit for a good cause).  Jessica’s has been one of the few moments when Indians collectively have come together in the recent years to fight a system that needs to be put into an ICU.  It is also one of the few cases where high-profile people have been finally brought to book (even as many other cases languish, despite media’s hyperventilation). 

When a movie was announced based on this episode I honestly was certain that it was only to cash in on the hype.  I wasn’t ready to believe the movie would be any good.  The promos didn’t help the cause either.  Rani mouthing dialogues laced with cuss words only made me think that the woman’s desperate.  But, watch the film, I did. 

The movie could well become an example for other Indian directors who want to make movies based on real-life drama.  Especially since MOST Indians (who ultimately end up watching this movie) knew almost every detail of the murder, the botch-up, the mistrial & the triumph of the evil and the final – much celebrated – victory.  So while the first half traces the tragedy, the initial trial and release of the perpetrators of the crime, the second half creates the story of a feisty, story-hungry journalist who single-handedly turns the case around and helps bring the culprits to the book through sting operations,  involvement of the public through marches and candle-light vigils and appeals to the Highest Authority in the Country and so on. 

The movie’s a winner because of performances.  Not a single false note by the leading cast.  Rani doesn’t bat an eyelid (nor do you sense any trace of inhibition in her voice) when she spews choicest gaalis (either in English or Hindi).  And most times they don’t seem to be added deliberately (barring one notable sequence when in flashback Jessica’s shown mouthing some, unconvincingly and needlessly too). No “My family’s been victimized; mujhe meri behen chahiye” speeches by the anguished Vidya (though I wish she was a little more fleshed-out than just being sad throughout).  Rajesh Sharma as the corrupt cop with a conscience is brilliant.  Barring a few dramatic court sequences (where the counsel for the accused is shown putting undue pressure on the witnesses) the movie flows like a calm river. And, they’re ably supported by a wonderful background score that lifts the movie a few notches.  The new girl as Jessica is very pretty too. The editing and cinematography are largely competent. 

There are flaws of course.  It’s a pity though that most of the other characters are uni-dimensional, un-fleshed and hence cardboard-like.  Rani's smoking's affected and Vidya's styling is atrocious.  The suave Manu Sharma’s been converted into a desi-dehati wide-eyed caricature (for God knows what reasons – to me it reflected a class bias).   You guffaw when you see it, but it still belittles Sikhs in the only scene they’re in.  Candle-light vigils happened in the Jessica case and the same was copied in ‘Rang De Basanti’ but here it’s shown the other way round.  Also, not much importance has been given to the styling of the people.  They remain the same through the years, over change of time and fashion.  And, most importantly, the credit for reigniting the case goes to Tehelka but in the movie it is NDTV that hogs it.  That’s a great disservice to Tehelka and its team.  I sincerely wish this was not done. 

Go see the movie.  Don’t flinch at the dialogues though!

Searching for the Stars

There was pre-release buzz. It wasn't hype. Rave reviews followed the release. Everyone talked about it. Trade pundits were taken by surprise when the movie started raking in the moola too - thanks largely to good word of mouth publicity. It took me however five weeks to convince myself to watch Taare Zameen Par though - Aamir Khan's directorial debut.

The movie - everyone already knows - is about a dyslexic child. The movie scores because of its new theme, marvelous performance by Darsheel Safary (playing Ishaan, the child protagonist with learning disabilities) and focused story-telling. Since everyone has already spoke how good the movie is I'll restrict myself to what comes naturally to me - criticising and picking holes!

Despite having a new, refreshing story, the script sticks to the old formula. So, Amol Gupte ensures that the script has enough to empty everyone's tear glands. Hindi script-writers still cannot come out of the time-warp they are in - you've succeeded in sensitising the movie-goer ONLY if you've made him/her cry senseless!

It's just Aamir Khan who recognises that the child has dyslexia - and that too because he too had suffered a similar fate in the childhood. The boy's parents are at least upper-middle-class in the movie but they don't know dyslexia. And, they really act as though they're retarded themselves! Ditto teachers, principal and fellow students. It takes one with a disability to understand another! So, a physically challenged Rajan is the only friend (apart from his elder brother) Ishaan can have! That's the saddest part of the movie. All characters in the movie are uni-dimensional. Except of course the lead actors Darsheel and Aamir. Father is permanently sour-faced, mother perennially shedding tears or showing irritation, teachers always ready to give a sound beating. It gets a little tiring.

All this could easily have been forgiven. But for the climax.The movie ends on a happy note. Ishaan makes 'improvement' in learning. Everyone is pleased. That is the most irritating thing. NOBODY changes but the child. Everyone is happy because he becomes or is becoming 'normal'.

Despite all this I still recommend everyone who has NOT seen the movie to go and watch it. I really liked it while it lasted. One last thing. Aamir Khan is really large-hearted. When the credits roll you'll notice that!