4
Just saw the film last night. Never have I come across a film where the critics have got it all wrong so much ( Maybe Black was another such film.) The film is a one-trick pony, hinged completely on the twist in the end. Right from the scene where Naseer lodges a complaint about losing a purse ( Lodging a FIR about losing a purse! In that vague language, without details of the credit card and ATM card!) everything is very unbelievable and amateurish. Even taking it as a fantasy, the message is silly. No common man can have the wherewithal to pant the six bombs , and neither is it desirable. That is why they have the police and law-enforcing agency in every society. A film like Indian/ Hindustani is done in a different key, and the point of those films is not really justify the solution shown, but captre the anger and frustration. That aspect is totally lacking in this film. Increasingly I am getting convinced that the mainstream audience is a more reliable judge of the quality of a mainstream film than our present-day critics.
There Are 4 Responses So Far. »
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
"But reason for them being A-lister is that they always bounce back."
Agree Gorilla.Infact,every A-lister has had his share of flops. 
'A-Listers dont have flops.'
Some do. But reason for them being A-lister is that they always bounce back.
I think with UTV, ...
- Because everyone wants a slice of his integrity, whether it is the govt of India’s Incredible India campaign, the ...
I, for one, never considered Akshay an A-lister. A-Listers dont have flops. 
India Today's piece on Sharukh Khan at number 6.
1.Because he stared down the bullying Shiv Sena, emerged as the voice ...
btw, akshay fans shud still hold their breath on this one - adding the promotion and publicity cost UTV's investment ...
TMK is not a lavish film like OSO.Yes it will be hit but it might not be the highest ...
although all regions uses Hindu Calander but celebrates New year on different days. In Punjab it is Veshakh month, Mahrashtra ...
Thanks Rud for clarifying. Yeah it is 2068, but can you tell me why that figure, ...
manoj16_391 8 September 2008
01:24:21 am
utkal,a word or two about the performances?
inetk 8 September 2008
02:38:39 am
Interesting point of view, Utkal. But, don’t you think the anger comes across strongly in the end when Naseer speaks on what sparked this extreme reaction? We’ve seen umpteen films on slam bang vigilante justice, but this film put a new spin to it.
Also, while most other films have a protagonist take up this cause only when someone close to him/ her getting affected, the fact that Naseer did not have a personal angle to it makes it even more interesting and less filmy – i.e, if you consider the personal angle as contrived and filmy, by now.
utkal 8 September 2008
04:23:05 am
Manoj, the performances are first rate. Naseer is so perfect with his dialogue delivery. Anupam Kher hints a lot of depth to his character. But as I said the problem is, it’s very flimsy premise, and Naseer’s character is very ill conceived. A common man can feel angry, but not have the gumption or the application required to carry out an operation like this. I mean that’s why he is the COMMON MAN. A common man is happy to lead an ordinary life, he does not expect much either, and he expects authorities like the police to provide him protection. And the nager you talk of is the writer’s imagination too. The common man is so worked up about terrorism. That’s why it is not connecting with audiences in a big way. In Indian/ Hindustan the Kamal Hassan character was worked up about corruption in daily life, at the RTO, at a hospital, things that touch all pour lives daily. Now terrorism, that’s a distant thing, even if it happens in a train you were travelling, it’s like an accident, or a natural disaster. And the execution is so pat, without any cost to oneself, philosophically that;s faulty. Hypothetically, even if a common man was worked enough, brave enough, and smart enough to pull this off, there would still be price to pay, causalities to be borne.Heroism is not easy and painless. At least films like Indian or Nayak did not underestimate the enemy.
Forget all this, the sheer amateurism of writing is what left me uninvolved from scene one. Naseer comes to the police station to lodge a FIR about a lost purse! H” how did you lose your purse? ‘ ” What do you mean? How does one lose one’s purse? ” No recording of the details of credit card card, nothing, just directing him to the toilet . I was not convinced at all. And referring to Naseer as ” the Common Man’ and naser’s impeccable English betrays the shallowness of the director, where the ‘ common man’; is an English speaking, muslim hating, computer savvy, morally ambivalent vigilante. No, this one is a college drama guy’s idea of a brilliant script. And about as mature and meaningful.
utkal 8 September 2008
04:23:54 am
I meant: The common man is not all that worked up about terrorism.