• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Indian Movies Thread V
<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+Feb 27 2008, 08:12 PM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ Feb 27 2008, 08:12 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->How and why should the moves be copyrighted?[right][snapback]79043[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Was referring to Ninja moves. Just expressing my opinion that they should not be put to the kind of criminal use as appearing in ultrabad movies ('ultraviolet'... ewwww, 5 minutes and it was off - there was no warning on that one). Also Ninjas are Shinto, hence when their arts are used in western action flicks these look totally out of place and out of context - in the movies I'd seen, anyway. There should be a law against (mis)using cool moves in uncool movies <!--emo&Tongue--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The movies that are listed are comparatively less and not the most popular ones when one compares to the copies done by Bollywood.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You wanted a list of Asian movies that were copied by hollywood that were <i>as/more popular</i> than the hollywood movies copied by Hindi cinema? I wouldn't be able to help you. For one thing, I wouldn't have a clue which movies have been copied into Hindi cinema. I've watched a sad total of 3 Hindi movies so far. Kuch Naa Kaho was my most recent (I don't <i>think</i> that was copied). Also, it's been a while since I watched American box-office movies. Am ignorant both ways.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is there list of Hollywood movies that copied ideas/stories from European<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->There were a number. I have heard of remakes of German movies, but never seen the remakes. No comment. French ones I know of include Besson's Nikita (remade as Point of No Return, sadly not to be compared to the stylish original), the comedy Nine Months with Grant and Moore is a remake, Mon Pere ce Heros was remade with Depardieu himself again for English audiences. Others will know of more. The problem is I'd have to have seen both to know, and these are the only ones of which I had seen both original and remake. There are certainly several Russian ones, but at the moment all I can remember is Solaris (Lem's Russian book made into incredibly famous Russian movie, then more recently remade in US; but that's based on a book so it doesn't really count, unless the American filmmakers never read the book and based it on the first movie instead...). I happened to like both versions, though purists may have got out a hitman already. Then again, I think US generally does sci-fi really well and are even better at making original sci-fi material, so I have no reason to complain. It's where they shine, IMO.

<b>ADDED:</b> The fact that I don't understand a language (Hindi in this case) has never stopped me from watching movies; the reason for why I've watched only 3 films in Hindi is because:
(1) Don't want to support piracy - who knows, the money may go to Pk which is famous for making pirated copies of Indian films;
(2) Don't want to support Dawood and his kind or cinema mafia by paying for legal rental copies;
(3) Don't want to support psecular filmmaking - meaning, movies I hired that turn out to contain stuff insulting Hindus. Why should I pay for that? (Even Kuch Naa Kaho had a little bit of a bad taste here and there: a 'Hindu wife liberation' sermon in the end artificially grafted onto the plot, and Javed Akhtar had a very psecular lyric talking about 'stone idols' and God. Of course it was immediately obvious that his lyric was about his Kaaba and his gawd mohammed-jehovallah.)
(4) Going by some dvd back-covers: Brainless plots about 'modern, progressive' Indians (and which may involve them unrealistically and tackily flirting with each other) is lost on me, I'm afraid. I'd like to care about protagonists or at least understand their motivations. And contrived, sham-relations make me want to watch paint dry instead.
There are a few good movies that came out in the recent past in Tamil like Anjathey, Oram Po, Evano Oruvan. Pudupettai, mirugam, Chittiram Pesuthadi, Raam, Paruthiveeran, Kaadhal, Kaloori, Mozhi which were very realistic but not sure how many were original themes.

I think Bala, Ameer and Selvaraghavan are directors who I like to watch because they produce realistic films which are not always honky dory. FWIW, Bala produced Sethu (which was copied as Tere Naam) and Pitamaghan/Sivaputhrudu. I am sure there are equally good Telugu/Marathi/Malayalam Movies which are realistic and different. Infact, a lot of these movies seems to originate in malayalam and copied into the rest of the languages.
Khuda Kay Liye
4 Apr 2008, 2046 hrs IST , Nikhat Kazmi , TNN
Print Save EMail Write your Review
Khuda Kay Liye
Khuda Kay Liye (drama)
Cast : Shaan, Fawad Khan, Iman Ali, Rasheed Naaz, Naseeruddin Shah
Direction: Shoaib Mansoor
Critic rating: /photo.cms?msid=2926563
THERE have been a number of post 9/11 offerings from Hollywood, but it takes a Pakistani film to create the maximum impact, worldwide, with its topical rendition of contemporary history’s most burning issue: Islamic fundamentalism. Shoaib Mansoor’s Khuda Kay Liye is indeed a historic event, being the first Pakistani film to be released in India after a hiatus of almost four decades. More importantly, it arrives with an awesome reputation of having created a storm at the international film circuit and having rattled the Pakistani film industry out of its somnambulism with a royal picking of Rs seven crore at the box office. But more than all this, the film becomes important because it addresses concerns that affect the global mindset and clears myths that have already wreaked havoc in today’s world.

The film posits a clash of ideology between two strains of Islam. On the one hand, you have the fundamentalist version represented through the views of Mullah Tahiri (Rasheed Naaz). The cleric brainwashes the young Pakistanis with his sermons on jihad and an interpretation of Islam as an orthodox religion that denies women their rights and treats music and art as haraam (forbidden). And on the other hand, you have the liberal face, showcased through two main characters: Sarmad (Shaan), the young musician who refuses to fall prey to dogma and inadvertently becomes a victim of racial profiling and human rights abuse in the US; and Maulana Wali (Naseeruddin Shah), the enlightened seer who beats the fundamentalists at their own game. Quoting extensively from religious texts, the Maulana proves that Islam is neither anti-woman nor does it frown upon music, art and culture. More importantly, it espouses the concept of jihad as a war to overcome the failings within the fallible human self rather than as a synonym for terror. In a cameo that sends the viewers clapping and wowing, Naseer declares: Din mein daadi hai, daadi mein din nahin (the beard lies in religion; religion doesn’t lie in the beard)! Hence the nullity of outward rituals, dogma and conservatism.

The film unfolds as a dramatic clash of cultures between two rock musician brothers, the liberal Sarmad and the impressionable Mansoor who is brainwashed by the local maulvi and ends up completely messed up. Ironically, trouble befalls both the brothers, leaving their happy-family idyll scarred for life. While Sarmad ends up in the infamous US prisons and is tortured for his alleged links with the Al-Qaida, Mansoor becomes a pawn in a vicious game, where a distraught father uses him to forcibly prevent his British-born daughter (Iman Ali) from marrying her British boyfriend. And if that’s not enough, the young boy is forced to double up as a mujahideen in war-torn Afghanistan, even though he hates violence and declares he can’t kill a man. The film criss-crosses across three countries Pakistan, America, England to expose the acidic fall-out of a twisted interpretation of religion. If the Americans are guilty of equating Islam with terrorism, then a certain section of Muslims are equally guilty of holding the world and their community -- ransom with their misconstrued beliefs.

Khuda Kay Liye isn’t merely a powerful story; it’s a film that boasts of fine performances, a great music score and sophisticated production values. Naturally, the scene-stealer is Naseeruddin Shah who enters only in the penultimate moments of the film, but adds enough punch to leave a lasting impression. He is ably matched by his rival, the fundoo mullah Tahiri, with actor Rasheed Naaz spewing fire and brimstone within the precincts of the mosque through sermons that are a deadly mix of religion and politics. Now here’s meaningful cinema that doesn’t compromise on commercial values. Go for it and get thinking.

Read Indiatimes review
^ This should be in the Bollywood Propaganda thread.

@ Admins : please Check if Capt M Kumar's account has been hacked? He is posting articles from commies like barkha dutt and posting in irrelevant threads.
<!--emo&Sad--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> HC issues notice to Anil Kapoor, Ghai over Black and White
9 Apr 2008, 2059 hrs IST,PTI
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notices to Bollywood actor Anil Kapoor and Director Subhash Ghai over on a petition filed by a Delhi University professor seeking a ban on the screening of their recently released-film Black and White alleging it was anti-Muslim.

Petitioner Dr Khalid Alvi, Head of Urdu Department in Zakir Hussain College, contended before Justice Geeta Mittal that the film portrays his community in bad light and its screening should be stayed.

"The producer, director, the actor and the script writer have intentionally produced the film with an anti-Muslim angle. The film is communally inflammable," advocate Asad Alvi, appearing for the professor, said.

Taking note of the plea, the Court sought a response from the Centre and the censor board.

The petitioner alleged that the film shows his community as harbouring terrorist which was wrong and it should not have been allowed by the censor board.

Justice Mittal, after brief a hearing directed all the parties to file their replies by May 23, when the matter would be taken up for further hearing.

The film produced and directed by Subhash Ghai was released all over India last month.

The petitioner alleged that the protagonist of the film, a professor of Zakir Hussain College, is based on his character which has been wrongly portrayed.

The students and the staff of the college were stunned and shocked that the college was used with such a malafide and inimical intention of the filmmaker, hand in glove with the censor board, to malign their community as anti-national and unpatriotic, the petition said.
Any word on the "Sarkar Raj"? Does it live up to the original 'Sarkar'?
Will see it this weekend. Wanted to avoid the crowds on first weekend.
It is watchable though does not come close to Sarkar. Role of senior bachchan is larger and junior shorter. new set of villains, who come up to the performance of old ones. storyline is new, and not an extension of the old - feeble effort to connect them both have been made. Some ideas have been picked straight from the Godfather.

overall, a good movie, just dont go with expectations of the old one.
I hear Anupam Kher is opening a branch of his acting school in London. It will be called Bollywood Acting School or some such thing. Its emphasis will be on acting with Bollywood twist!

Pioneer Book Review,

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Revisiting Ray

John Hood has failed to provide anything new about the master filmmaker, says Derek Bose

<b>Beyond the World of Apu: The Films of Satyajit Ray
Author: John W Hood
Publisher: Orient Longman
Price: Rs 550  </b>

<b>The biggest problem about writing on Satyajit Ray is that there is nothing left to write.</b> So much has been written on his life and films over the past 50 years that the moment another book on him appears you are tempted to ask, "Now what?" Ray was himself a prolific writer and a wonderful wizard with words. Anybody would have expected him to have had the last word.

The excuse Australian Indophile John W Hood has for this book is the nature of finishing an unfinished business. Years ago, he had done a compilation of essays on "major filmmakers of Indian art cinema" in which he had tried unravelling the "essential mystery" of Ray, Ritwik Ghatak, Mrinal Sen and others. Obviously, some points on Ray required revision, perhaps as an afterthought. So, he went back to his notes, played around with the language, stretched a few ideas, beat them into shape and has pulled off what he describes as a "personal reassess-ment" on the 29 films Ray made in his lifetime -- from Pather Panchali (Song of the Little Road) to Agantuk (The Stranger).

<b>Nevertheless, the book has its use.</b> For a generation of young cineastes not exposed to the magic of Charulata (The Lonely Wife), Aparajita (The Unvanquished) and Devi (the Goddess) here is a handy primer that encapsulates the work of the maestro over 37 years of filmmaking. Even otherwise, the synoptic treatment of every film serves as a ready-reckoner for anybody interested in a more in-depth study. For the sake of convenience, the author has grouped the films under broad thematic chapter heads -- 'Apu Trilogy', 'An Early Pastiche', 'The Urban Middle Class', 'The Calcutta Triptych'... rather than deal with them in chronological order.

Two early black-and-white films, Tin Kanya (Three Daughters) and Charulata are thus bunched together with Ghare Baire (Home And The World), made two decades later, in 1984, just because they fall pat under the chapter, 'Tribute to Tagore'. Likewise, two completely unrelated films -- Devi (1960) and Sadgati (1981) -- appear together under 'Cry Against Tradition' (well, which Ray film isn't?).

Devi was intrinsically a Bengali film, based on Prabhat Mukherjee's story of a silly old man (Chhabi Biswas) who "sees" his daughter-in-law (Sharmila Tagore) as a goddess Kali incarnate. In contrast, Sadgati was a tele-film in Hindi, based on Munshi Premchand's story about class conflict -- between a low caste (Om Puri) and a village Brahmin (Mohan Agashe). Ray's approach to these two widely divergent subjects, his treatment, the camerawork, sound design, editing pattern... everything is so dissimilar that bracketing them arbitrarily is rather unfair.

The book can be faulted on other counts as well. What is the purpose, for instance, to get into minute details of films when their storylines have been analysed threadbare by others (including Ray) countless times before? Their interpretation can also be questioned, but that will have to pass as the author does not hide the fact that his observations and impressions are primarily "personal".

The danger of such a subjective treatment lies elsewhere. For, <b>Ray was more than a storyteller -- one who translated great literary works into celluloid -- as the author makes him out to be. He was a visionary, a philosopher and in many ways a historian. He was the only filmmaker to have documented more than a century of social change in India -- from the fall of the Mughal empire in Shatranj Ke Khilari (The Chess Players) to the collapse of the zamindari system in Jalsaghar (The Music Room), to the awakening of modern India (Apu Trilogy, Devi, Charulata) and women's power in Mahanagar (The Big City) to the rise of the middle class in Pratidwandi (The Adversary) and social decadence in Jana Aranya (The Middle Man) and finally, raising a glimmer of hope in Agantuk (The Stranger). No Indian filmmaker has covered such a wide canvas. This is a point Hood misses.</b>

One is also tempted to question the author's understanding of the social milieu against which some less notable films like Kapurush O Mahapurush (The Coward and the Holy Man) Ashani Sanket (Distant Thunder) and Ganashatru (An Enemy of the People) are set.

As a known translator of popular Bengali fiction and poetry into English and as one who divides time between Melbourne and Kolkata, Hood is no doubt better placed than such firangs as <b>Marie Seton</b>, Andrew Robinson and Robin Wood who had interpreted Ray from a Westerner's point of view. Instead of providing a fresh insight on the subject, Hood sadly misleads.

-- The reviewer, a well-known author and journalist, specialises in Bollywood and other aspects of India's film industry


I think the reviwer is vitrolic and acerbic as he is left out of the Ray author genre. I am such afan of Ray that I read any new compilation for all the very reasons that the critic writes about Ray. I will buy the book.

BTW, I have Marie Seton's version on Satyajit Ray. I bought it at UCLA book store in the filmography section. In IITM , they suded to have a book called' Seven Directors" with Ray as the last and ultimate. I was impressed by that book.

Can we split this thread at page 9 so it can be archived?

Thanks, ramana
Not an Indian movie. But when browsing the rentals, I saw the DVD "The Last Legion" (with Colin Firth from BBC's mid 90s pride and prejudice). The film is apparently about Romulus, Excalibur and another take on the origins of the Arthurian legend. I thought: Romulus... ROMULUS and Arthur? Wanting to know the explanation - which should certainly be entertaining for its high improbability - I turned over the DVD, and there was the next immediate improbability: Aishwarya Rai.

Did I miss something <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> ? Can someone explain to me what an Indian is doing in a story about Romulus (or a story about Arthur for that matter)? And I'm not even commenting yet on what looked like <i>pirate</i> clothes on her.
Never mind. This is not one of those life mysteries I must have solved at all costs. And I seriously doubt the movie will be focussed on answering those questions.
That movie got very poor reviews btw.

Esh Rai is some kalari expert in that movie.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pandyan+Jun 15 2008, 06:30 PM-->QUOTE(Pandyan @ Jun 15 2008, 06:30 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->That movie got very poor reviews btw.
Esh Rai is some kalari expert in that movie.
[right][snapback]82877[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Good for her... Aish in a B-movie. (It's not quite fantasy though, more of a muddled-history-myth film.) But B-movie is something every actor who wants to be remembered ought to do. More than one preferably, but at least now she's done the absolute minimum.
Not sure that it looked bad enough to be good, though. From the cover, it looked a bit drab - as in boring.
Wasn't she supposed to be in some Bond movie? That would make lotsa Indian's day, I suppose. <!--emo&Rolleyes--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rolleyes.gif' /><!--endemo-->
she is appearing in the sequel to the Pink Panther movie 'Pink Panther 2' with Steve Martin. not sure how good her role is.
<!--QuoteBegin-k.ram+Jun 18 2008, 07:52 PM-->QUOTE(k.ram @ Jun 18 2008, 07:52 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Wasn't she supposed to be in some Bond movie? That would make lotsa Indian's day, I suppose.  <!--emo&Rolleyes--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rolleyes.gif' /><!--endemo-->[right][snapback]82987[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Bond films had already covered India in Octopussy. So perhaps they were under the wrong assumption that she was going to play the character of Bond itself (but as a female version)? I can imagine that might have got some people more interested.

From Stateman, Kolkota,


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Colliding Corridors

<b>The West is talking of not one, not two, but of at least three Bollywoods, all co-existing within Hindi film space, writes Derek Bose </b>

<b>Bollywood is a bad word. Not only does it mock at Hindi cinema, it questions the very credibility of the most prolific film industry in the world. It makes us look seriously fake and frivolous ~ as upstarts or wannabe Hollywood.</b>
Unfortunately, not much can be done about this insinuation now, as the word has already entered the English lexicon.
The West is however, not stopping at that. <b>Today, they are talking of not one, not two, but of at least three Bollywoods, all co-existing within Hindi film space. All three are supposed to equally active, industrious and yet, mutually exclusive of one another.</b>
<b>The most over hyped and obviously, visible Bollywood </b>is the one represented by films like Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna, Krrish, Om Shanti Om, Jodhaa Akbar, Thoda Pyar Thoda Magic... <b>These are lavishly mounted, big budget productions powered by names like Yash Chopra, Rakesh Roshan, Shahrukh Khan and Karan Johar.</b>

<b>Second, there is the cinema of Ramgopal Varma (Sarkar Raj), Vishal Bharadwaj (Omkara), Aamir Khan (Taare Zameen Par), Mahesh Bhatt (Jannat) and so on.</b> In spite of their stature and track record, they are not perceived as dominant heavyweights. But they are no lightweights either.

<b>Third, there is the Bollywood led by the likes of Pritish Nandy (Ugly Aur Pagli) and Ronnie Screwvala (Aamir). These are the corporate types ready to take risks, experiment with the film form and are constantly on the look out for fresh talent.</b> Their films have not always been commercial hits but they are the ones attracting much of the foreign capital for filmmaking in India.

<b>There are also certain low-end films </b>(Don Muthu Swamy) and C-grade (including soft porn) productions, which do not count for anything. <b>At the other end of the spectrum are the occasional highbrow art house cinema of Shyam Benegal (Mahadev Ka Sajjanpur) and others, which do not similarly qualify as mainline Bollywood.</b>

A distinction needs to be also made between the Hindi films churned out by Bombay and those produced elsewhere in India ~ particularly in Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Bihar. The latter are in the nature of niche productions (much as the source of inspiration is unmistakably Bollywood) as against what is perceived as mainstream Hindi cinema.
<b>Till recently, Bollywood films were recognised by certain characteristic features ~ extravagant celebrations of glamour and spectacle, persistent devotion to mythology, an almost slavish reliance on songs and dances, convenient coincidences, larger-than-life characters and happy endings. Tales of heroism, love and hate, justice and equity and of ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances made for this brand of cinema.
These clichés persisted until such time satellite television and multiplexes changed the dynamics of film business during the late 1990s. By 2000, the FSS (Friday-Saturday-Sunday) factor put an end to the phenomenon of jubilee runs at the box-office. And a new, so-called ‘multiplex audience’ ~ typically, a generation of young, upwardly mobile cine-goers with huge expendable incomes ~ was demanding a kind of cinema that had to be at once believable, entertaining and different from what their parents patronised.</b>

This is when the first cracks developed in the film industry.<b> A new Bollywood began to take shape </b>with some honest, low-budget and well-grounded entertainers like <b>Farhan Akhtar’s Dil Chahta Hai, Ramgopal Varma’s Company, Madhur Bhandarkar’s Chandni Bar and Ravi Chopra’s Baghban turning into monstrous hits</b>. Significantly, the older Bollywood was doing just as well with its hugely-budgeted, multi-star extravaganzas like Karan Johar’s Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham, Rakesh Roshan’s Kaho Na… Pyar Hai, Farah Khan’s Main Hoon Na and Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s Devdas also keeping the registers ringing.
<b>This schizophrenic phase of the early 2000s was viewed as a period of transition ~ of Bollywood trying to forge a new identity through a process of internal agitation, much like the mythical churning or manthan.</b> A big ticket director like Subhash Ghai got tossed out with Kisna. Ditto for Sooraj Barjatya with Main Prem Ki Diwani Hoon, JP Dutta with Line of Control, all Govinda starrers... Even Yash Chopra had to put the brakes on his directorial career after Veer Zaara.
<b>None of these filmmakers have since found their moorings. Strangely, the successful ones are also just as tentative, be it Karan Johar or Bhandarkar, Bhansali or Rakesh Roshan.</b> Meanwhile a newer generation of young, enthusiastic filmmakers emerged, resolutely bucking all trends and asserting themselves at the box office with refreshingly unconventional stories. Names like Rajkumar Hirani (Munnabhai), Shimit Amin (Chak De India), Sanjay Gadvi (Dhoom), Dibakar Banerjee (Khosla Ka Ghosla) and Sagar Bellary (Bheja Fry) are increasingly grabbing world attention as harbingers of a ‘neo-wave’ in Indian cinema.
<b>This is the third Bollywood. Not only does it enjoy the confidence of corporate biggies ranging from Anil Ambani and Subroto Roy to Ronnie Screwvala and Pritish Nandy, it is drawing a host of foreign production houses like JC-23 Entertainment, Playtone and Everyman’s Pictures to India.</b> They all recognise the fund of creative talent available and the spirit of enterprise in <b>the new group of young filmmakers who are better equipped at relating to the psyche of present-day audiences and more importantly, guaranteeing much higher and faster ROIs (returns on investments) than their predecessors.</b>
Unlike a Ramgopal Varma or Bhandarkar, they do not require months (even years) to complete a film. Nor do they require top ranking stars to produce a hit, the way the Johars and Chopras do.<b> As first generation filmmakers, the Hiranis and Gadvis are eminently market savvy, imaginative and capable of turning out smashing hits without top stars or heroines, even songs-and-dances or fancy locations. Their films are wrapped up in four to five weeks flat at minimum costs.</b>
Today, if Reliance Big Entertainment is prepared to commit its billions for a “film development” corpus or if Pritish Nandy] Communications is getting Sony Pictures to fund its projects, the real beneficiary would be this third Bollywood. <b>The first Bollywood of the superstars (as Shah Rukh Khan once said) does not need anybody’s money. And the second Bollywood of middle-rung filmmakers are still left with a load of baggage from the past. Even if some of them are willing to change, nobody is really trusting them with the kind of big budgets they require.</b> For any investor, it makes better business sense to distribute risks across multiple projects, rather than put all his eggs into one basket.
This is however, not to suggest that the three Bollywoods are operating in rigid, compartmentalised conditions.<b> A good deal of interaction goes on between them. </b>For instance, Ramgopal Varma would invest heavily in a film he directs like Aag or Sarkar Raj, but when he finances Jijy Philip’s My Wife’s Murder or Manish Shrivastav’s Go, he slips from the second to third Bollywood. His cameraman Amit Roy may be committed to all RGV films, but he can always find time for a Ken Ghosh’s Fida or Sanjay Gupta’s Dus Kahaniyan. Similarly, a tunesmith like Pritam Chakraborty could be working with Mahesh Bhatt one day and with Gadvi the next. Such sharing of talent is bound to coexist with a clash of interests, so long as the practice of freelancing continues.

<b>Ultimately, it is the product that determines its origin.</b> Any layperson in the audience can figure out from the look of a film where it comes from. The storyline, its treatment, star cast, locale, production values… even pre-release promotions speak for themselves. You do not need the guile of a Naaz Building operator to know where exactly to place a Bollywood film. Ask any black-marketer outside any theatre ~ first-day, first-show ~ and he will tell you. He can never be wrong.
What? People stopped watching movies?? <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Heard Tendulkar's acting (for free) in a movie related to the famous Siddhi Vinayaka temple of Mumbai <!--emo&:thumbsup--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbup.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='thumbup.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Lately saw a preview of 'Arjun' - it's an animated film based on Mahabharat. To be released next year. The animation quality was great, along the lines of say Disney's Mulan. Don't have any other details.

Some flicks I've seen lately:
Rendition : worth watching
Bucket list: Jack N and Morgan Freeman - good
Atonement - <!--emo&Confusedleepy--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sleepysmileyanim.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sleepysmileyanim.gif' /><!--endemo--> supposed to a famous book or something?
I am legend - Will Smith - wasn't my cup of tea
Hoax - Richard Gere, based on true story on a 70s fraud

Sarkar: good. Big B and small B - both good. Story a political thriller.
Kismet Konnection: not bad. Shahid Kapoor and Vidya Balan.
Don Muthuswamy: Mithun - why doesn't this guy retire.
Race: Saif, Akshay - good, tooo many twists and turns, but total time pass.
Mad Money is a good English movie. I got if from Red Box.
Anybody watched 'Mongol', dealing with the early life of Changez Khan, apparently based largely upon 'The Secret History of Mongols'?

Any online text for the 13th century 'The Secret History of Mongols' in English trans.?

Bodhi, I'm trying to find it. Its not in theaters anymore.

The only torrents that exist for it appear to contain a horrible Russian voice over.

I'm looking for original Mongolian language audio with appropriate English subtitles.

The movie itself looked really good from the trailer. Have you seen it yet?

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)