Desicritics Author: meetu

Movie Review: Money Hai To Honey Hai

meetu — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:21:40 EDT

The concept "The common man should have style too" is an interesting one to put forth. To strengthen the case, there is an ensemble of interesting characters in Money Hai To Honey Hai. A rich, spoiled brat with business acumen, a fashion designer who cares for the common man, an honest advertising creative head, a fashion model, a popular TV actress, and a loser who has an unbeatable positive attitude. All this is done in a light vein. Unfortunately, ultimately nothing comes of the synergy they could create as a team or for them as individual characters.

You're right, this is too serious an analysis for a movie in this genre and with this look and feel. But, every time I see a good idea blow up in execution, it hurts, and think about it - a comedy that squeezes out the sense of humor in you (believe me, I do have one!)

Of course, the common man here refers to a person with no means to wear labeled brands, and has no sense of fashion. However, if the basic idea were thought through properly, it could have been extrapolated to so many situations where the common man suffers an unnecessary inferiority complex. This complex could be treated with something as simple as a product created just for him and by just being honest with him. Alas, if wishes were horses...

If the elaboration of the story is amateurish, the other departments from screenplay, to dialogues, to their delivery, to the expressions on the actors' faces, to the ambiance created around the actors, to the background music are equally amateurish. It's really a shame that when half an hour is spent in establishing the 6 main characters and 2-3 side characters, in the end it all seems futile. For example, Aftab Shivdasani's character who's creative at coming out with advertising taglines, does nothing spectacular in the end! None of the actors are given anything out of their comfort zone and thus nothing seems more than below average. As we have it, Govinda fans could very well be disappointed too.

I guess we should be grateful to Ganesh Acharya for deciding on limiting usage of Om Puri as a voice over. Otherwise, we know what he can be made to do in slapsticks such as these. But, that doesn't relieve us from Prem Chopra's antics. One can't get everything one wishes for.

Yet, there can be no excuse for keeping him on screen for long spans of time with just one expression on his face. And this happened more than once, where nothing was happening on screen, even the camera wasn't moving! So yeah, some trimming was obviously called for.

There are digs on various characters and issues you would encounter in your day-to-day life - Label designers and their attitude. Family soap operas, the camerawork and sound effects they use and of course, their viewers. Industrialists, the rich and their problems which have seemingly simple solutions. Telemarketers and how they annoy us. Popularity can make the commonest person a TV show host.

I thought the non-jumpy movements given to the actors in the songs were nice, if only for being different. But, the placement of the not-so-good-sounding music is so abrupt that the 'nice' feeling comes too late in the song to register.

As Manoj Bajpai, the guy with the ultimate positive attitude, says when he loses 80 lakhs in a business deal, "I gained 1 crore worth of experience, I'm still in the green with 20 lakhs!", anyone who sees the movie can say, "they gained 1 crore worth of experience of not watching a movie that looks slapsticky and has a cheesy title!"

Movie Review: Khuda Ke Liye

meetu — Wed, 9 Apr 2008 07:52:51 EDT

I can't decide what moved me more. The way in which the author's take on Islam - the use and abuse of the religion - unfolded, or that someone even dared to touch upon it so openly in the first place, that too in Pakistan. I think there would be very few makers for this kind of a story even in India - a secular state.

And by the climax, I was amazed at the number of issues Khuda Kay Liye touched upon. We had the whole gamut. Atrocities faced by women at the hands of fellow Muslims, double standards of Muslim parents living abroad (I have seen this with non-Muslim Indians too), injustice disseminated because of racial profiling, Jihadi's misuse of easily-influenced-relatively-meek youngsters to turn them into terrorists. Each problem is given its own space to breathe and develop.

The parallels drawn between the racial profiling storyline based out of Chicago and all the other things happening in Pakistan were amazing. There are points where you can interchange the US law officials with the Jihadi leaders in terms of their unyielding attitude towards whatever they believe is the truth. How they all mince words to have people say what they want to listen to. And to make sure the audience doesn't miss the parallels, the similarities are directly shown towards the climax.

The strong and clever dialogues had a huge role to play in the overall impact In the name of Godhad. I was wondering how much more effect it would have had on me had I understood the language completely. The use of Urdu is elegant, and at the same time not entirely overwhelming. Since the movie is more or less situation-driven you can make a fair guess from the context.

However, there was a lack of the same aptitude in the departments other than story and dialogue. In particular, the editing was very abrupt and didn't render a smooth flow. The only exception was in the climax scene in the courtroom, where the cuts worked towards narrating the story. Similarly, while the songs were beautiful, the shifts in and out of western classical in the background music seemed pretty random.

Most of the actors too came across as very stiff. Only, Shan (Mansoor) stood out with an excellent performance - from the inspired musician to a completely broken down man. Fawad Khan who played a confused youngster, Sarmad, did look aptly baffled. So it would be too soon to judge whether he can really enact other emotions.

But, given the strength of the message all these shortcomings seem pardonable. The questions that I am left with are - Has it reached the right ears? Or at the very least have the people sitting on the fence convinced to keep from committing such heinous acts?

Rating: Watch for sure, preferably in theater

Rating Scale (best to worst):
� Must see - on the big screen
� Watch for sure, preferably in theatre
� Wait for video release
� Watch if you have nothing better to do
� Switch channels if it's on cable!

Movie Review: One Two Three

meetu — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:05:51 EDT

Rating: Watch if you have nothing better to do

Usually in a movie which has a promo song running along with the opening titles, I block my brain from making any assessment - trying my best not to judge the proverbial book by its kitschy cover. But, the thought just wouldn't leave me. If this is how One Two Three starts, how do I go through the next two hours? And it worked! Thanks to the lowest possible expectations set in the first five minutes, it fidgets its way half-a-point up.

The film is regular slapstick with a dash of original one-liners thrown in. But, it feels like the one-liners determined the situation rather than the other way around. And the lack of flow is evident when you just shake your head in helplessness. This goes for both the dialogues and the screenplay, or lack thereof.

This is one of those brainless comedies that can't be seen without a brain. As in there are three people with the same name who reach the same place at the same time. So keeping track of the chaos cannot be done without some gray-cell exercise. And, honestly, I did see this as a situation with tremendous potential for craziness. But, it's all too commonplace and just doesn't work out.

Neither do the production values - from the amateurish animation to the art design. The costume designer is fascinated by the scissors. We have holes and cuts in dresses where they don't belong. Setting trends? I hope not! These over-used, blunted-down scissors were then passed on to the editor. Low-budget, you see? Can't blame him for the jerks and jolts now, can we?

Now that so much is spent on putting the cut pieces of cloth together we need people to wear them. So we have the threesome - Sameera Reddy, Tanisha, and Esha Deol. Amazingly, and I'm using the word with all sincerity, Neetu Chandra is wearing just one costume, and is covered all over at that! Maybe those scissors were too blunt for cotton clothing by the time it was Neetu's turn. Thank goodness for some mercies!

Now that we have these ladies, what do we make them do? What women do best, of course, scream and screech and yell some more. Why distract the audience by giving them such things as meaningful dialogue? Consistent character would cause an outcry. To be fair though, in the name of gender equality, the men are dealt a similar hand, too. Any hopes of Paresh Rawal saving the fort are demolished in the fifth minute of the movie where he is introduced as a bra seller. Need I say more?

The only people who do recognize their limitations are the lyricists. Since, they know they cannot write that well, they wrote a few half-decent lines and got them repeated over and over till Raghav Sachar's music ran out. The latter does put his goods on display and how. A range of foot-tapping music remixed together. And he takes showcasing a step further by featuring himself in the end credits.

Barely different from the other slapstick churned out this shoddiness named One Two Three is absolutely passable. Waiting for next Friday, already. ...

Movie Review: Valu

meetu — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:05:39 EST

Simplicity always feels good. Maybe because it is earthly or maybe because the very essence is lack of exaggeration. Valu's charming simplicity, however, in combination with its repetitiveness makes it a good watch but only for the very patient.

The most endearing part about Valu is its characters. And these characters add up to create the atmosphere of a village in the interiors of Maharashtra. The language has a strong dash of an every-day sense of humor. The rawness of the dialect adds to the overall appeal. But this could also keep it from being accessible to a larger audience.

Unfortunately, the language that defines the characters shows only one facet of their personality and thus end up giving a one-dimensional feel to each character. And make them not-so-interesting once you get to know them. However, I cannot take away from the fact that each and every actor has played their role in an utmost convincing manner, making you laugh and understand the one point they are trying to make. Right from the politician's sidekicks to the middle-class government worker (Atul Kulkarni) - each one enjoyable in his/her own right.

The screenplay takes its own sweet time in establishing these characters. And it has all the time in the world because there is no great story to narrate here. The baseline story is as one-line as it can get. The villagers want to get rid of a bull that has become a menace. But there are layers if you are interested in peeling them. Underlying the superficial "nothing happening" feel of the screenplay are a couple of strong themes.

Something about the way this one line is narrated makes you think about human nature. Is every human just trying to find some excuse to blame for his/her misfortune? "Is the bull really a menace?" Nothing about its behavior on screen justifies the behavior of some of the villagers. There are three people in the village who don't want the bull to go. Why are they the only ones who are seemingly content with their existence?

Is the bull a metaphor for any argument concerning society - abortion, affirmative action? There are pros and there are cons. Or is the one-liner yet another representation of the mother of all metaphors - The system! Is the bull a metaphor for everything that deviates from normal behavior in the "system"? Most people want to be rid of it, while a handful doesn't mind the co-existence. As you can see, I am not very good with metaphors. All I know is the director is trying to say a little more than the obvious. And I think that's the inherent beauty of metaphorical work. It's open to interpretation.

Oh well, let's come back to what can be seen. The camera breathtakingly captures the curves of the rugged terrain. And in tandem, the actors are given a curving trajectory that gives the frames a captivating beauty. This is especially true in the scenes where the bull is being chased.

Yet, all this put together, Valu is only adorable and not necessarily a must watch for everyone. For people who can enjoy the language, maybe. But otherwise, without "really good" subtitles it might end up being quite tedious.

Rating: Wait for video release

Movie Review: Checkmate (Marathi)

meetu — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:47:20 EST

The plot twists in Checkmate indeed make your grey cells twist and turn as they would in a game of chess. Unfortunately, the events develop at a pace that unplugs you instead of getting you hooked. Also, since the non-linear narration is not from any particular point of view, the twists seem random and all over the place. This makes the non-linearity itself rather haphazard.

The base story takes its own time to formulate and settle down. On the way it develops the main characters' frustration with their situation. However, the different traits of these characters are not given full vent. And thus, the initial character development seems in vain. Unfortunately, yet again, the only way a woman can achieve anything is by using her sexuality, however intelligent she is. The actors playing these characters also give no earth-shattering performances, but neither does any one of them make you pull your hair apart. Each one is just doing his/her bit.

The voiceover narrative style used throughout the movie gives the feel of watching a choppy chain of events rather than a story flowing from one plot into another. However, it was a nice touch to have the voiceovers pass judgments about other characters also, rather than just narrating the story.

My basic problem is with the pace of the movie. A thriller has to be on the move. It cannot pause to take a breather; it cannot stop on seashores just because. A pause has to be about something, it has to be pregnant, has to do something via the background music or the camerawork. But here the pauses just exist because the director thinks he is building suspense. Nope...tedium he is surely building.

Had it been shorter by 15 minutes, it could well have been worth a watch. But people crossing and double-crossing and double-double-crossing till they themselves lose track is pretty annoying by the time the end credits roll.

Rating: Wait for video release

Rating Scale (best to worst):
• Must see - on the big screen
• Watch for sure, preferably in theatre
• Wait for video release
• Watch if you have nothing better to do
• Switch channels if it's on cable!

Movie Review: Jodhaa Akbar

meetu — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 08:04:17 EST

Jodhaa Akbar can be clearly divided into two parts - the political saga and the romance between the royal couple. It is also obvious that the romance is the prime focus of the narrative.

Hrithik Roshan (Emperor Akbar) who is chiseled to fit the handsomest mould and picture-perfect, Aishwarya Rai-Bachchan (Queen Jodhaa) are wonderful in their scenes together. You get your dose of Chemistry along with History and Geography. But, I would say that it is largely due to the time given for that chemistry to develop - for the curiosity to become respect to become love. And here we hit the circular argument; the time taken is the biggest culprit. The movie is unjustifiably long.

In these often heavily clichéd romantic scenes, the law of diminishing returns kept cropping into my mind. In any movie in general, every extra minute beyond the 120-minute mark yields lesser enjoyment than the previous one. Unless, unless ... you have an extremely captivating story to tell, or you are telling it in an extremely captivating manner. I need something more than glittery jewelry and costumes, bright reds, oranges, and yellows, and fantabulous sets to keep me from fidgeting. Something more natural, something less made-up. And get this, here the interval is at 120 minutes!

The romance is pretty dull. From the bedroom tiffs to the mistaken identities - nothing is new or handled in a creative way. Especially appalling is the way the mother of all misunderstandings takes shape - a speech delivered in the most monotonous fashion by Ms. Rai-Bachchan. The sole scene that might stand out is the sword fight between the two. All-in-all this romance lacked Bhuvan-Gauri's innocent charm or Mohan Bhargav-Geeta's elegance.

On the other hand, the political drama, including the dialogues, was extremely interesting, - even though most of it is a voiceover delivering a lesson in history. All credit to the history teacher, Amitabh Bachchan - listen to how the voice softens when it talks about Jodhaa. Some of the political situations are executed really well too. The reactions of various Rajputs to Akbar's orders is a fine example.

Another highlight of political dramas is the language used. Both Urdu and Hindi are used beautifully, especially in the political sequences. At times the same dialogue was repeated once in each language. It sounded like an enchanting jugalbandi of the languages.

Unfortunately though, these are treated as mere sub-plots to give a break to the mushy-mushy happenings in the main story. Most of the side characters are underdeveloped and thus one-dimensional. It seems like the director is simply fulfilling his duty by filling us in on the political environment. To watch Akbar become a crowd-pleaser with just one act of kindness is unconvincing. If this one action is supposed to be symbolic of all such actions he must have taken, then it is extremely dissatisfying. More instances of Jodhaa being the light that guides Akbar's soul would not have harmed. And of course, lack of time cannot be an excuse now, can it?

The war and action scenes are an integral part of the entire drama. While other battle sequences are rather repetitive, the first one has some exquisite camera work and background score. Some of the fast camera movements have an awesome 3-D effect (okay, almost!). The silences add to the drama as much as the drum rolls.

The Rahman-Gowariker duo usually churns out some wonderful music. And if nothing else they are a spectacle. But, here I felt let down. Only towards the end of "Khwaja" did I realize that all through the song they were trying to build Akbar's character. To show how he can be mesmerized and go into a trance. Till then, all I could do was empathize with the giggles around me looking at mannequins wearing clay-pot-look-alike hats and attempting a puppet dance. "Azeem-o-shaan" is brilliant more because of the crowd and the aerial shots rather than the choreography and use of color. We've had much better from both A. R. Rehman's musical sensibilities and Javed Akhtar's pen and imagination.

Mr. Gowariker, how about leaving the melodrama, the "almighty solving all problems without any input from humans" syndrome to the Barjatyas? How about letting Ekta Kapoor reign the "salt-pepper" kitchen politics? So, we can block that out of our systems just by name. Surely there must have been more to the saas-bahu equation than that! Cannot thank you enough for sparing us the triple action repeat cuts, though. A thousand salutations to N D Studios, magnificent sets! But how about leaving that to the Bhansalis of the world? What's the point if you can't focus on what you do best - narrate a story, reach out to us?

Rating: Watch if you have nothing better to do (but, if you must watch it in theaters)

Movie Review: Mithya - Leaves You Cold

meetu — Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:46:22 EST

Watching Mithya is like watching a cricket match that started out well but ended up being one-sided after all. Anything can happen before the lunch break, but in the second half, there is no fight, no struggle to keep your attention and thus you end up with a very cold climax. The cold-blooded murders don't have anything to do with this cold. It is more like the "I couldn't care less" cold.

The subtle comedy in the first half is an integral part of the plot - from a comment on "anything free is better" attitude, to the hints at the eating habits of people in the film industry. Barring a lone toilet joke, the interdependency between the lines and the situation brings a flow to the plot. The humor along with the art direction, the background score, the performances, etc. create an environment conducive to suspension of disbelief. And disbelief you can live with. Only to see the movie being rushed from one episode to the other keeping a 120 minute time-limit in mind.

Genre shifts or mixing too many genres generally bother me, but, the finger cannot be pointed towards that either. It moves from dark comedy to plain dark. That's not that much of a shift. But its disconcerting to see the humor dry up along the way. I would blame the writing for the downfall - the dialogues are not witty or funny any more, the sub-plots not that well streamlined. And it lacked the punch, the mind-bending twist that a movie of this genre needs.

Giving credit where it's due though, only the likes of Rajat Kapoor could cast Ranveer Shorey as the main lead. It takes guts to have Naseeruddin Shah play second fiddle. And he certainly has made an attempt to show the many layers of VK/Raj's (Ranveer Shorey) character. Now, whether he was successful in getting them across to the audience is an altogether different issue. An awesome opportunity to portray the VK's mental process is lost.

The first half-second half split in writing has taken its toll on the performances too. A promising start has everybody doing their bit and getting a cackle out of you with their comic timing. And suddenly, the acting too becomes very superficial as the movie approaches the climax.

On the other hand, I thoroughly enjoyed the background score throughout the movie. At times however, especially in the beginning, it overpowered the volume of the dialogues and thus I might have missed a few good dialogues. But overall, it was refreshing accompaniment.

A second half that flowed better would have made Mithya a must watch with its tongue-in-cheek humor. The anti-climatic climax leaves you feeling high and dry. All this hoopla for what? The most common way to get to a oft-repeated noir climax?

Rating: Wait for video release

Movie Review: Gauri - The Unborn

meetu — Tue, 4 Dec 2007 06:51:43 EST

I don't remember the last time someone's strong opinion was shoved so vehemently down my throat using a medium of mass communication. Maybe I was agitated because I have a strong opinion diametrically opposite to the one expressed in Gauri - the unborn. The point is that even if you were anti-abortion, I doubt you would enjoy it because it is also badly made.

An otherwise fine actor, Atul Kulkarni, overacts. Rituparna Sengupta's dubbing was so bad and distracting it was difficult to focus on her performance. And close-ups of her awfully made-up face didn't help either. So, if you were inclined to shut your ears and eyes every time she's on screen, well...there's not much left.

Baby Rushita has given a decent performance, but I can't help feeling bad for her. In this day and age, where parents mull over introducing adult topics to children at the right age, should a child even be allowed to play the spirit of an unborn child, let alone lecture and emotionally blackmail adults who choose abortion. (I am not giving the movie away anymore than the marketing department, because the movie posters say this in so many words).

Given these factors, it matters little that the camera work and background score are just about alright for a movie of this genre. On the other hand, the visual effects were pretty lame.

Granted, it is a low budget movie, but then therein lies the creativity, right - to make a presentable product from the limited resources. The least they could do was give the child a lovable character so that the target audience would want to reconsider their decision on abortion. Especially when you are trying to convince people of a nation - most of whose problems can be narrowed down to the population explosion. - that abortion is evil.

Rating: Switch channels if it's on cable!

The Film Appreciation Course 2007 - Part 2: The Movies

meetu — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:01:24 EDT

This is the second in a series of posts about the film appreciation course I did this summer. The first post was about the overall experience. This post attempts to discuss the selection of movies, and what I liked, and the very little that I did not.

I am a baby as far as exposure to world cinema goes. The course was a brilliant introduction to non-mainstream movies for me. I doubt there is any other forum where you can see such a wide range of movies.

Yes, we were living, breathing, eating and of course, discussing cinema. Yes, we would be dead tired by the end of the day. Yes, we were exhausted by the end of week 2. Yes, our brains were mended and dented by one "heavy" movie after another "over-weight" movie. And yes, I doubt there was even one out of the 60+ participants who did not doze off during a movie.

Yet the course was NOT a film festival. First, because it had most of the "classics". What film festival could boast of that? And second, because there was a lot more to the course than just the movies.

There was an attempt to tie the movies to be screened on a particular day to the topic of discussion for that day. Admittedly, it must have been a daunting task. The connections wherever I could see them are as follows -

Battleship Potemkin was an example of Editing. Sergei Eisenstein testing his montage theory (Montage is a film editing technique).

Krzysztof Kieslowski's A short film about love and Damle-Fattelal's Sant Tukaram were used to show the various ways in which the rhythm of the story can be used. How the "ups and downs" in the lives of the characters keep the audience engrossed. How the three act structure can be used not only for the movie as a whole but for the sub-plots too.

Orson Welles' Citizen Kane and Michaelangelo Antonioni's Red Desert followed lectures on visual composition. And this is the first time I began to appreciate a movie beyond its story. A movie is not only, and not always, about "narrating a story". It can also be a visual experience and meaning can be conveyed through use of light and colors.

Alejandro Inarritu's Amores Perros was shown as an example of a different way to narrate a movie.

Having said that, it was unfortunate that there wasn't a separate period allotted to discuss any of these movies after we had seen them. So, unless there were specific questions about any of these movies, they would hardly be discussed, mainly due to lack of time. Most disappointing was a non-discussion on Andrei Tarkovsky's Mirror which went swooooosh over my head. It is a much talked about movie but we didn't talk about it at all. Or maybe, the movie has "interpret me" so boldly written over it, that there is no point to a discussion. Each person is supposed to think about it and make whatever they want of it. I for one would have loved to know how others interpreted it.

By far, the best discussions were the ones in which we had a chance to interact with the director of the movie. At most times, the outcome of such a discussion would be an appreciation of the effort that went into making the movie, regardless of whether or not you liked it. I enjoyed the discussion on Khosla ka Ghosla with Dibakar Banerjee the most. After all, I got to talk about what I didn't like about the movie. He was adorably receptive to criticism.

Then there were these movies that I did not understand and the ensuing discussion with the directors confused me further. Granted, it is not in the director's job description to be able to express his thoughts. But, it was exasperating to listen to, "oh, I didn't think about it", "yeah-ok, I made it for myself", "I just had an idea in mind and started shooting (without any specific purpose in mind)."

I guess I am a bit self-indulgent here. In the sense that, as long as "I" understand it, I am fine if the director is unable to explain himself, irrespective of whether or not I liked it. But, if I don’t understand and the director refuses to explain, who do I turn to? Or should I just say, they are not good at expressing their thoughts in words, so I shouldn't be surprised if I didn't understand what was happening on screen. Yet these movies had a reason to be on the list. Because, they were different, experimental and the director's were available.

There were a couple of movies that had no business being shown along with all-time world classics on the coveted screen of NFAI. Tripurari Sharan's (Director, FTII) Woh subah kidhar nikal gayi and Somnath Sen's (faculty, FTII) Diploma. The only reason, as I could fathom, that we were subjected to these movies was that the makers were, in one way or the other, involved in making the list of movies to be screened. Diploma at least had a decent concept and some very good dialogues as redeeming factors. It's a shame that these were the two movies that showcased the talent, or rather the lack thereof, of the graduating students of the acting diploma course at FTII (except Swati Sen and Megh Varn Pant). This is a course that is supposed to produce the finest actors of our country.

Anyway, four months after the course, these are not the first things that come to mind when I think about it. What I learnt without realizing it was that I have begun appreciating more movies. I have begun recognizing that there is more to the movie than the upper layer, where it exists. Of course, I am nowhere close to understanding abstractness in its entirety. But, now I leave room for the fact that abstractness is not meant to be understood in its entirety.

I'll leave you with a list of movies that I enjoyed (in the order in which we saw them) -

Abbas Kiarotsami's Where is the friend's home?

Krzysztof Kieslowski's A short film about love

Damle-Fattelal's Sant Tukaram

Orson Welles' Citizen Kane

Ritwik Ghatak's Meghe Dhaka Tara

Anand Patwardhan's War and Peace

Pedro Almodovar's All about my mother

Federico Fellini's Eight and a half - this one is special because I liked it despite not understanding most of it.

Goutam Ghosh's Yatra

Movie Review: Jab We Met

meetu — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:35:07 EDT

It's warm, it's cuddly, it's adorable, and it's telling the truth in the disclaimer at the beginning - it's fictional. Obviously, characters like Aditya Kashyap and Geet can exist only in imagination. But we are used to letting go of our need for "resemblance to reality". And once you do that you begin to identify with the emotions playing on the screen at that moment, even though the character as a whole is pretty unreal.

Life is unambiguous when it is black and white. Everything is crystal clear. My problem with stories usually begins when people transition from black to white (or vice versa) without going through the gray. Here, it irritates, it nags, but soon enough the dialogues and the sheer charm of the actors playing the characters take you away from thinking too much about it.

The dialogues have a very fresh feel to them. They are outright funny at times and quite perceptive at others. And they are hardly ever mundane (except the one given to Dara Singh!). What I found most interesting is that, whether comic or thoughtful, they were very believable.

It must be some sort of an art form to actually make use of Kareena Kapoor's over-capacity to bubble and sparkle - it's very well woven into the story. I have always liked the way her eyes express her character's sorrow. But, in the movies I have watched so far, it is usually a glimpse, just a flicker. Here however, she retains the tone impressively for a longer time. It is also great to see Shahid Kapoor get the chance to show his maturity as an actor. As clichéd as the events might turn out to be, you don't want his character to be hurt.

How can escapist cinema survive without its song and dance? We have plenty of foot-tapping numbers with fresh lyrics. The visualization of the songs was also done well. Especially, tumse hi - makes you really believe that the characters are in love.

The length of the movie works against it. The average runtime of a movie in recent times is about two hours. There should be a very good reason for me to stay the extra 20-25 minutes, without fidgeting. And in this case, there was no spectacular cause to hold me. Tarun Arora's (Anshuman's) sequences were handled rather shabbily - almost as if they were intentionally ignored so that the audience does not empathize with him. They should have been cut down to bare minimum. And Dara Singh was absolutely, totally, completely avoidable - from all aspects - relevance to story, line(s) given to him, and the way he delivers them.

While watching the movie, there were various points at which, I wanted the script to take an unexpected turn. A turn that would make it a little more substantial than just "time-pass". But, that was not to be. It's silly, it's mushy-mushy, it's not to be taken seriously at all - it's a perfect date movie. No more, no less.

Rating: Wait for video release