Doesn’t touch a chord…Sandy’s review of London Dreams

sandy |

20 | October 31, 2009 at 12:58 pm | 547 views | NaachGaana Bol| Share

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

Director: Vipul Amrutlal Shah
Starring: Salman Khan, Ajay Devgan, Asin, Ranvijay, Aditya and Om Puri
Rating: **

london dreams

Another big budget film bites the dust. The reason is the same. Low on concept, low on imagination and a story that just does not cut ice.

Director Vipul Shah’s intentions are grand but they hang on an incredibly shaky and silly premise, making it a chore to sit through this. When was it that you had Indian pop singers attracting such fanatical fan base among the goras of the world as the film wants us to believe? And that too watching an Ajay Devgan sing, who frankly doesn’t appear to have one musical bone in his body.

The director takes the action away from India because big time stage concerts, he says, is not an Indian phenomenon. And herein lies the problem, because without a reference, it’s not a story you can digest.

Manjeet (Salman Khan) and Arjun (Ajay Devgan) are childhood friends, typically as different as cheese and chalk. While Manjeet is happy go lucky, Arjun- like his name – is focused and dreams of making it big as a singer. Some quick plot contrivances brings Arjun to London and he grows up the same burning ambition to win over countless fans. And he goes about it in a certain vulgar fashion which is off putting.

Arjun creates his own band, London Dreams, along with three others (Ranvijay, Aaditya and Asin). All this while he remains in touch with his old friend Manjeet – who is portrayed as a country bumpkin with a heart of gold. Of course, his obscene womanising ways (he even impregnates a lady!) should not make him any less lovable in your eyes it seems!
Manjeet does not take his singing seriously, until Arjun sees the spark in his friend and gets him to London. Soon, it is Manjeet who becomes the shining star without even trying too hard for it. He also wins over Asin – who Arjun had set his heart upon.

What it portrays is the contrasting irony between raw talent and meticulous preparation. Manjeet is not hardworking but can effortlessly sway a crowd. Arjun applies himself to a fault, but with lesser impact. This is an interesting conflict in the film, and could have actually been watchable had its setting been something different. An Indian backdrop would have served it very well. Such a story set in the Mumbai film industry or something similar would have made for far better viewing.

But as it stays, the whole music band scenerio in the film appears a sham. The film picks up momentum in the mid-portions with Salman’s comic antics, but soon enough slips into cliched melodrama with a juvenile conspiracy and equally silly ending.

Ajay Devgan looks dapper after a long time, while Salman is unbelievably haggard and old for the part. Vipul Shah should take some blame for making their characters appear and behave in a ludicrous way in several scenes. Shah also deals in extremes and there are no nuances to his characters. So if Ajay is full of obsessive ambition, Salman is the clueless man-child. There is nothing more to them.

After a rather striking debut with Ghajini, Asin disappoints with London Dreams, partly because the role lets her down. Asin’s imposing presence on screen is all wrong for a character that has precious little to do beyond smiling and shaking a leg. This is ideally Katrina Kaif’s territory.

The music by Shankar Ehsaan Loy is ho hum.
Ultimately, London Dreams somewhat like Ajay Devgan’s character in the film- someone who tries too hard and the effort becomes a strained one in the end.

-Sandhya Iyer

Review: London Dreams

Review – London Dreams (2009)

London Dreams Review: This is perhaps Salman Khan’s best performance ever. The actor is completely in control and emotes like never before. If you thought Wanted showcased bits of Salman Khan’s acting, London Dreams is several notches higher.

London Dreams Releases at a Huge 225 Prints overseas

My Review of LONDON DREAMS (Hindi, 2009)

There Are 20 Responses So Far. »

cticize 30 October 2009
01:22:20 pm

Good review, so effectively its a DVD or a cable film. I still might watch it in theater.

Doga 30 October 2009
02:09:10 pm

Thank you for the review, Sandy Ji.

Though the movie has been getting generally favourable reviews, its the WOM thats crucial here.

Qalandar 1 November 2009
08:03:28 am

RE: “When was it that you had Indian pop singers attracting such fanatical fan base among the goras of the world as the film wants us to believe?”

&

RE: “The director takes the action away from India because big time stage concerts, he says, is not an Indian phenomenon. And herein lies the problem, because without a reference, it’s not a story you can digest.”

Sandy, I haven’t managed to see London Dreams yet, so at this point I can only say that your review is well-written and forceful, but that is to be expected. However, I take issue with the above two statements, not because they aren’t true, but because, EVEN IF THEY ARE, they are true of very many films. Consider the second one: that is PRECISELY what Karan Johar said about why Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna was not set in India; he said that in India, you couldn’t have an extra-marital relationship without the whole world knowing and having an opinion, interfering etc. If he was sincere, he was demonstrating a level of cluelessness that boggles the mind (so extra-marital relationships don’t happen in India? Are Indian adulterers so inept that they cannot manage to keep liaisons a secret, especially if they do not live in joint family set-ups?). For that matter, why did Love Aaj Kal, every fricking comedy and love story, NEED to be set outside India? I mean, Life Partner and Acid Factory?! Heck, with Jhoom Barabar Jhoom Yashraj took a story that was supposed to be set (according to the guy who provided the story idea) in small-town India, and nevertheless set it in the UK.

As to the first comment, surely that is as much par for the course as the notion of Brits singing the Indian national anthem, or the notion that party planners can be fabulously wealthy in Manhattan. On a more substantive note, the position of “Asians” (as desis are known in the UK) is very different in the UK than (e.g.) in the US, as far as pop culture visibility is concerned. A better analogy would be desis in the UK being more like Latinos in the US (not at the same level, though) — i.e. a minority group whose popular icons have great cross-cultural currency. Perhaps the only stretch is that these icons in London Dreams (Devgan) are not homegrown in the film, whereas the sorts of figures I am thinking about are homegrown, but that isn’t much of a distortion by popular film standards…

sandhya 1 November 2009
08:15:05 am

“However, I take issue with the above two statements, not because they aren’t true, but because, EVEN IF THEY ARE, they are true of very many films.”

I didn’t say they aren’t true of many films. It’s just not very convincing here. This story could have worked in an Indian setting that is my overarching point. I don’t care what Karan JOhar thinks- he is obiously wrong in his assumption. He wanted the locales of course! In this case, I am convinced that taking the action outside India was a mistake. That is why I am harping on it. Take this story and put in the Mumbai film industry and I say it would have made for a rivetting watch.

Also, Q, just because something is true of many films proves what? That it is par for the course and does not need to be highlighted? I might agree with that, except that I will reiterate, here the ’setting’ is the villain. I’m sure KANK would make for a very plausible film even if it was set in Mumbai – to that degree, it doesn’t make that much of a difference. I can’t stress enough how much difference it makes in LD.

sandhya 1 November 2009
08:23:57 am

“Perhaps the only stretch is that these icons in London Dreams (Devgan) are not homegrown in the film, whereas the sorts of figures I am thinking about are homegrown, but that isn’t much of a distortion by popular film standards…”

I disagree there Q. You haven’t seen the film of course. But essentially, even after all the leaps and somersaults of faith you are prepared to take, the lack of reference in the story is an issue! I need to know some singers/bands who have achieved what is being shown in the film.
I don’t say a story like this CANNOT happen at all. But I think people like to borrow from familiar templates and that is missing here.

Qalandar 1 November 2009
08:26:23 am

Re: “…I will reiterate, here the ’setting’ is the villain. I’m sure KANK would make for a very plausible film even if it was set in Mumbai – to that degree, it doesn’t make that much of a difference. I can’t stress enough how much difference it makes in LD.”

Fair enough, as I haven’t seen the film yet — I’ll check it out and get back to this point. [Although, I think Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna, like very many films, DID suffer from being set in a plastic, bubble-like "abroad", although I agree it was not the worst offender (e.g. Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham suffered even more). Whereas, the setting added to things in Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jaayenge.] It’s that relatability factor — when I see buffoons cavorting about the Mauritius landscape, i.e. not even a proper city but some malls, beaches, etc.; or when every San Francisco scene has Golden Gate backdrop; or when some ultra-traditional Indian boarding school is actually some palace in the English countryside, I can’t really relate to things anymore. That heightened level of fakeness just adds that extra few layers between me and the film.

julie 1 November 2009
09:17:16 am

Sandy – A well written and forceful review. I think the film kind of follows it’s own theme which is London Dreams. The same concept could have been replicated in another city in a part of India, but then the theme would not have been so grandiose. I think the very fact which is central to the theme is the aspiration of Ajay Devgan the key protagonist to restore the name of his grandfather who committed suicide after losing his voice in the most prestigious musical stadium – i.e. Wembeley. His silent prayers to God inadvertently lead him to the very land where his dreams could be realised. This is where he grows up and very singlemindedly pursues his ambition. Nothing wrong if this was instead shot in Mumbai or Bangalore, but then the entire theme would have changed.

Ajay Devgan renders a flawless performance first as the silent brooding character, focussed on his goals and then the vindictive human who can do anything at all – be it the annihilation of his friend if needed to achieve his goals. Salman’s foolish and happy go lucky character in Mannu, whilst goes with the script and perhaps a role that Salman has come to don with perfection over the years, is to say the least annoying for most part and your heart but can’t help but go out to Arjun to see his dreams getting vandalised by his insensitive and naive friend. I beieve the director lifts Mannu’s character towards the end by making him out to be nothing but a magnanimous friend. But for most part you can’t but actually feel more for Arjun, the central character of LD.

Agreed with your take on Asin. A complete and utter waste of a talented actress like Asin in this script. You just wondered what she was doing in this film. She is literally oversahdowed on all fronts by the male bonding and chracterisation of the two leads. After Ghajini she should have been careful with her script selection. I think that this is the biggest downside of the script and perhaps will have a telling impact on the BO collections as well. They have chopped off one solo of Asin as well. I do not believe that this film will do anything more than an average, but nevertheless it is engaging in parts and if for no one, definitely a watch for Ajay Devgan. What a wonderful performance by him…

Doga 1 November 2009
09:21:17 am

Julie can you give the reactions in UK.

Yes i liked Ajay the most here.

Qalandar 1 November 2009
09:32:50 am

Julie, thanks for the write-up, this film has certainly generated good reviews/write-ups. Also, good to see you after a while…

sandhya 1 November 2009
09:51:39 pm

Hey Julies, good to see you. Where have you been! Kites ko release karvana hai ke nahin?

ON LD, obviously not a very good film, but one time watch is fine. As I said, I didn’t find the film’s setting/situations very plausible, but it’s overarching theme where it shows a predicament, where no matter how much Arjun (Devgan) applies himself and works at his singing, he falls short of Mannu’s (Salman)natural abilities and charm. I don’t say this is necessarily very well done in the film, but it’s a concept worth exploring in a better film maybe.

SPOILER ALERT
You know the scene I liked best Julie – the one where Ajay drugs Salman backstage and then tries to hog the limelight. He finishes singing. People clap for him and then start shouting “We want Mannu” That for me was the most affecting scene of the film.

sandhya 1 November 2009
09:56:09 pm

” After Ghajini she should have been careful with her script selection.”

I think she signed this film before Ghajini or at the same time I suppose. The problem is she’s not that great a looker (a la Katrina) so when she does a role where she’s meant to add only ornamental value, it doesn’t work. In ghajini, she has a very strong role and since she has a certain flair for comedy, she stood out. I think Asin is more in the Juhi Chawla mode – she needs to do more performance based roles.

julie 1 November 2009
11:06:22 pm

sandy, Q – thanks. the feeling of having been missed at NG is touching . There are a number of issues that were keeping me engaged in the past several weeks esp. on work front. The most frustrating part was the last minute cancellation of my India trip. Anyhow, hope to make up on lost time soon.

Seems like I have missed out on quite a bit as the forum seems to have really come alive.

doga – there was a healthy mix of Aunties and adolescents in the theatre that I went to. The reaction is hard to tell but there were a few people clapping towards the end credits. Think it will do well in London.

julie 1 November 2009
11:10:54 pm

“The problem is she’s not that great a looker (a la Katrina)”

sandy personally speaking I do not find Katrina that great looking but that is perhaps just my opinion. Deepika – yes. I think she is a stunner. Personally speaking I find Lara Dutta better looking than Kat but then as they say beauty is all in the eyes and is subjective.

sandhya 1 November 2009
11:19:42 pm

I think Lara looked stunning in Blue but bluntly put, I find her a total fake actress. I think she has a very strong personality off screen and when she is required to play roles that are so different from what she is in real life, she tends to ham it up (No Entry).
I think barring JBJ, she’s been a disaster.
I see that problem with Bipasha too, though she’s impressed me in Bachna Hai.
With Katrina, in spite of not being any great shakes as an actress, somehow manages to bring a certain naturalness to her characters. She makes most of her roles believable, which I think is to her credit.
Deepika is stunning, yes, but too plastic for my taste. She makes even Ash look more effortless. Incidentally, I saw Guru a couple of times recently and I do believe Ash is the best thing about the film! (The film as a whole doesn’t work for me, but the first half is extremely good IMO, and must say it has aged very well)

julie 1 November 2009
11:38:37 pm

I believe such debates happen when there is room for dispute or improvement. None of these women are perfect by any stretch of imagination. Ash in recent times is the only actress who comes close to perfection in looks at least. She can deliver as an actress too but those moments are far and few in between. HDDCS, Taal, Guru, Raincoat – these are few which standout. Other actresses under discussion fall way short of even some of these performances which are not classic by any means.

BTW sands – who is that good looking guy in your gravatar?

sandhya 1 November 2009
11:54:39 pm

Jules, yeh tumne kya pooch liya! He’s an ace actor down South. He’s done the original Ghajini among other films.

See these videos, and if you don’t fall for him in 5 secs, tab kehna
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rALL43xjrRw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

julie 2 November 2009
03:06:26 am

okay. so this hunk is Surya, the rage from South. Wonder what our BW actors would do if he starts featuring in BW films in a big way. Perhaps stop squabbling for a change for the numero uno position and focus on their craft. You know I was watching parts of Dasavatharam yesterday – and it is great to see Kamalahasan in full form in 10 avataars. Our BW heores could learn something from this stalwart.

On Asin, one point to note is her similarity of expressions and voice modulation with Sridevi. It worked well for Sri in BW in her times, but would it necessarily work for Asin now – remains to be seen. The flavour and mood of the recepient audience seems to have gone through a sea change since 1980s.

RAJ 2 November 2009
04:04:17 am

Julie,

I dont think Surya will make any impact if he starts working in Hindi films(i liked him in Tamil Ghajini though)…Surya is not even the no.1 star in Tamil Nadu(Sandy,correct me if i am wrong)

South Indian actors can never make any dent in Hindi films solely because their style of acting dont appeal to the Hindi movie audince…When actors like Rajni,Kamal,Chiranjeevi,Nagarjuna ,Madhavan and Venkataesh have failed i dont think surya have any chance…

sandhya 2 November 2009
04:25:55 am

Raj: More than style, it’s the language that becomes the barrier. It’s okay for the actress to not speak a particular language fluently – that is never an issue either in Bollywood or in the South – given how both industries are male-dominated! But it matters for the actors on both sides.

Just like Southern stars can’t make a major dent in Bollywood, I think similarly, even Aamir and SRK will not be able to displace a Surya, Vijay or Vikram in the South. Personally, I find Vikram and Surya to be extremely fine actors and save for the language barrier, they are easily superior actors IMO.
Language is very closely embedded to one’s culture and this is esp so with regional cinema. Their matinee “idol” has to be one among them, but he also needs to possess qualities and abilities that makes him superior in many ways.
I am at the moment reading up on Southern films/stars and their unique influence on politics and culture and vice versa, so we’ll take that discussion when I put up the article.

PS: Surya was always considered a class actor (in the Kamal Haasan mode I think), so he was never No 1. But slowly, he’s been shifting attention to massy entertainers like Ayan and Adhavan and both were blockbusters (I hated Ayan though!). So I believe he is now at the very top or at least that’s what that article which Beld put up a while ago said.