The best, the worst and the in between - adieu 2010

The year is racing to a finish, and it is time to look back at what went by, or rather whizzed by. I wish I could have read more, seen more films, traveled more places – and eaten less
Films: There were some really good ones and there were some really bad ones, and then there was mostly a lot of stuff in between. After a hiatus from Bollywood I went back to watching a lot of BW films (mostly what released in theaters here), while picking my HW films with care and caution! Here is a HW list:
1. Inception – loved the film, the mind-bender that kept us thinking and discussing for days on end. Leo DiCaprio did not disappoint and Marion Cotillard was luminous.

Looking for that elusive crossover film

Of late every Bollywood producer wants to make the ultimate film, one that will crossover and become our own Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon or Slumdog Millionaire. Both Slumdog and Crouching Tiger not only won critical acclaim but also became big money spinners in the West. So is it a quest for glory per se in the form of recognition in the West, or is it sheer size of the market for movies in the rest of the world that is driving these endeavors? The attempts so far have seen marginal to no success. Which brings to mind the questions - what is a crossover film and what content would make a successful crossover film?

Let me put forth my definition of a crossover film. Such films go beyond the traditional markets in the home country, or already exploited by films from the country, and usually end up making a lot of money. This is why no big studio film from HW is ever thought of as a crossover film - they have already expanded to the far reaches of the world, and depending on content, enjoy varying success in these regions. So why do we think of Slumdog Millionaire as a crossover film? Is it the fact that it is based on an Indian novel? Or the fact that it has a completely Indian cast? Can we think of Mel Gibson's Apocalypto as a crossover film? I would propose that Slumdog Millionaire was never intended to be, nor was it ever supposed to be a film that needed to crossover. It could be thought of as an Indie film that made it big, sort of like a mammoth Little Miss Sunshine.

What about Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon? Ang Lee was coming off two successful Chinese films Wedding Banquet and Eat Drink Man Woman (both quite popular in the West) when he directed Sense and Sensibility. This one got him nominations and awards galore. As someone who went to film school in the US and trained under Spike Lee, it is not surprising that the man is in touch with Western audiences. So when he decided to make Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon in the Wuxia genre with three strong female warriors, and a master who connected them together, he did not pick a traditional Chinese tale set way back in the past, but a rather contemporary tale set in the past, and used two actors who were not Chinese and already somewhat known in the west. Chow Yun-Fat was well known from the John Woo actions thrillers and has been seen in a few HW productions already, so this was favored over his inability to speak fluent Mandarin. Similarly Malaysian born Michelle Yeoh had already gained popularity as a Bond girl a few years before, and was picked despite her lack of Mandarin. So the film was made mainly for crossover audiences. It ended up being just that and not doing well at all in the home market in China. Similarly, the "Indian" (though never Bollywood) film Monsoon Wedding was a quintessential crossover film, that did poorly in the domestic market in India. Subjects that are acceptable to the Western audiences (like incest and pedophilia) will never be palatable to general Indian audiences outside a small niche of multiplex viewers.

Recent efforts in Bollywood to crossover also seem studied ones. The makers picked a demographic, and it had to be one that was fairly large, and then tried to fuse elements into their films that would entice that demographic. Thus Chandni Chowk to China filmed in China and used Chinese actors, had a martial arts focus, and even a leading lady who was supposed to be half-Chinese. The film fared poorly in the domestic market and created no blip in the Box office that caters to a billion Chinese speakers. Another similar example is that of Kites. In this film a Hispanic leading lady, a lot of Spanish dialogs, and a New Mexico and Mexico setting were used as hooks to lure in some fraction of the 400 million Spanish speakers worldwide. The film sank in the Indian market and left no mark anywhere else in the world. The third film had an Islamic focus, hoped to capture the fancy of some of over 1.5 billion Muslims population worldwide, and used an autistic man to showcase religious profiling in the US. The film was a decent success in the domestic market (though much less than one would expect for the scale at which it was mounted), and a bumper success in the Middle East, Malaysia, Singapore, all non-traditional markets with a substantial Muslim population. It fared well in the usual overseas markets and ended up as the highest overseas grossing BW film.

Before thinking of content that would work in crossover films, there are two points to consider. The first relates to the capacity in India itself. A film like 3 Idiots showed that with a crowd pleasing content it is possible to collect 2 times the money (in India) collected by any other Indian film. And when a film like this one does a decent job overseas (though in the traditional markets), one wonders why there is this fuss about crossing over. Second thing to keep in mind is that no film that was made with a deliberate aim to crossover ever succeeded on the home-ground. So success overseas, if seen at all, is usually at the expense of domestic success. While this has happened for some crossover films, with Crouching Tiger and Bend It Like Beckham as prime examples, when Indian film-makers stop making films for Indian audiences and chase after fame or money overseas they end up with NOTHING in their hands.

There is also the issue of Hollywood Studios trying to gain a foothold in the Indian market. Their investment aims to capitalize on the 1 billion plus Indian population, and is not focused on making a crossover film. They already have most of the Western market, and want to expand to non-traditional markets. Have they invested wisely so far? The investment of Sony Pictures in Saawariya was probably most suited to the goal the outfit was after, Saawariya was not supposed to be a crossover film. However, it turned into a debacle because no one ever saw what Mr. Bhansali was cooking until the dish was served up! And an adaptation of The White Nights, set in a fantasy land was not a film rooted in any tradition the Indian audiences could relate to. Warner Brothers invested in Roadside Romeo without realizing that a pricey children's film is a non-starter in India. We will go with our kids to see Harry Potter, but not some Indian made film that seems half baked. Now they are investing in more low key films, like Atithi Tum Kab Jaaoge, and meeting with good success. Fox invested in My Name is Khan and did not see much success in India, though the film saw excellent success in the Islamic world and in the traditional Hindi film markets overseas.

So what kind of films can crossover? Make films that tell stories that appeal to people world-over. Do not ape the West in narrative, or style. Be true to your roots and traditions.
Read more HERE

Looking for that elusive crossover film

Of late every Bollywood producer wants to make the ultimate film, one that will crossover and become our own Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon or Slumdog Millionaire. Both Slumdog and Crouching Tiger not only won critical acclaim but also became big money spinners in the West. So is it a quest for glory per se in the form of recognition in the West, or is it sheer size of the market for movies in the rest of the world that is driving these endeavors? The attempts so far have seen marginal to no success. Which brings to mind the questions - what is a crossover film and what content would make a successful crossover film?

Let me put forth my definition of a crossover film. Such films go beyond the traditional markets in the home country, or already exploited by films from the country, and usually end up making a lot of money. This is why no big studio film from HW is ever thought of as a crossover film - they have already expanded to the far reaches of the world, and depending on content, enjoy varying success in these regions. So why do we think of Slumdog Millionaire as a crossover film? Is it the fact that it is based on an Indian novel? Or the fact that it has a completely Indian cast? Can we think of Mel Gibson's Apocalypto as a crossover film? I would propose that Slumdog Millionaire was never intended to be, nor was it ever supposed to be a film that needed to crossover. It could be thought of as an Indie film that made it big, sort of like a mammoth Little Miss Sunshine.

What about Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon? Ang Lee was coming off two successful Chinese films Wedding Banquet and Eat Drink Man Woman (both quite popular in the West) when he directed Sense and Sensibility. This one got him nominations and awards galore. As someone who went to film school in the US and trained under Spike Lee, it is not surprising that the man is in touch with Western audiences. So when he decided to make Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon in the Wuxia genre with three strong female warriors, and a master who connected them together, he did not pick a traditional Chinese tale set way back in the past, but a rather contemporary tale set in the past, and used two actors who were not Chinese and already somewhat known in the west. Chow Yun-Fat was well known from the John Woo actions thrillers and has been seen in a few HW productions already, so this was favored over his inability to speak fluent Mandarin. Similarly Malaysian born Michelle Yeoh had already gained popularity as a Bond girl a few years before, and was picked despite her lack of Mandarin. So the film was made mainly for crossover audiences. It ended up being just that and not doing well at all in the home market in China. Similarly, the "Indian" (though never Bollywood) film Monsoon Wedding was a quintessential crossover film, that did poorly in the domestic market in India. Subjects that are acceptable to the Western audiences (like incest and pedophilia) will never be palatable to general Indian audiences outside a small niche of multiplex viewers.

Recent efforts in Bollywood to crossover also seem studied ones. The makers picked a demographic, and it had to be one that was fairly large, and then tried to fuse elements into their films that would entice that demographic. Thus Chandni Chowk to China filmed in China and used Chinese actors, had a martial arts focus, and even a leading lady who was supposed to be half-Chinese. The film fared poorly in the domestic market and created no blip in the Box office that caters to a billion Chinese speakers. Another similar example is that of Kites. In this film a Hispanic leading lady, a lot of Spanish dialogs, and a New Mexico and Mexico setting were used as hooks to lure in some fraction of the 400 million Spanish speakers worldwide. The film sank in the Indian market and left no mark anywhere else in the world. The third film had an Islamic focus, hoped to capture the fancy of some of over 1.5 billion Muslims population worldwide, and used an autistic man to showcase religious profiling in the US. The film was a decent success in the domestic market (though much less than one would expect for the scale at which it was mounted), and a bumper success in the Middle East, Malaysia, Singapore, all non-traditional markets with a substantial Muslim population. It fared well in the usual overseas markets and ended up as the highest overseas grossing BW film.

Before thinking of content that would work in crossover films, there are two points to consider. The first relates to the capacity in India itself. A film like 3 Idiots showed that with a crowd pleasing content it is possible to collect 2 times the money (in India) collected by any other Indian film. And when a film like this one does a decent job overseas (though in the traditional markets), one wonders why there is this fuss about crossing over. Second thing to keep in mind is that no film that was made with a deliberate aim to crossover ever succeeded on the home-ground. So success overseas, if seen at all, is usually at the expense of domestic success. While this has happened for some crossover films, with Crouching Tiger and Bend It Like Beckham as prime examples, when Indian film-makers stop making films for Indian audiences and chase after fame or money overseas they end up with NOTHING in their hands.

There is also the issue of Hollywood Studios trying to gain a foothold in the Indian market. Their investment aims to capitalize on the 1 billion plus Indian population, and is not focused on making a crossover film. They already have most of the Western market, and want to expand to non-traditional markets. Have they invested wisely so far? The investment of Sony Pictures in Saawariya was probably most suited to the goal the outfit was after, Saawariya was not supposed to be a crossover film. However, it turned into a debacle because no one ever saw what Mr. Bhansali was cooking until the dish was served up! And an adaptation of The White Nights, set in a fantasy land was not a film rooted in any tradition the Indian audiences could relate to. Warner Brothers invested in Roadside Romeo without realizing that a pricey children's film is a non-starter in India. We will go with our kids to see Harry Potter, but not some Indian made film that seems half baked. Now they are investing in more low key films, like Atithi Tum Kab Jaaoge, and meeting with good success. Fox invested in My Name is Khan and did not see much success in India, though the film saw excellent success in the Islamic world and in the traditional Hindi film markets overseas.

So what kind of films can crossover? Make films that tell stories that appeal to people world-over. Do not ape the West in narrative, or style. Be true to your roots and traditions.
Read more HERE

Hype? Yes Hit? No

big bollywood has flopped big time in the first few months of 2010. “this has been one of the worst years for the industry with major films failing to match up to the pre-release hype,” says mumbai-based trade analyst taran adarsh. t2 lists nine big films that were full of sound and fury signifying nothing...

LINK

PYAAR IMPOSSIBLE

Budget: Rs 25 crore (approx.)

Cast: Priyanka Chopra, Uday Chopra

Director: Jugal Hansraj

Tall claims: Promoted as a ‘beauty and geek’ love story, producers Yash Raj Films tried filming this Priyanka Chopra-Uday Chopra starrer on the lines of a Hollywood rom com. “I have a feeling that Pyaar Impossible will be one of the biggest grossers of the year,” Uday — who turned scriptwriter with this film — announced to all and sundry in the run-up to the January release.

Promo madness: Not really a topline Yash Raj production, Pyaar Impossible didn’t witness an OTT publicity blitzkrieg. But fresh from the success of Kaminey and flush with the excitement of a National Award, Priyanka — in an eye-catching bob and sexy shirt-dresses on every TV channel — forced you to give her a 10 on 10 while the peppy Alisha had every nightclub grooving.

Why: Uday as hero (even though he was playing a geek!) was one of the primary reasons why the audience decided to stay away. Formulaic and boring, Priyanka did her best to justify her Rs 6 crore fee, but still found it impossible to save Pyaar Impossible from tanking at the box office. According to www.boxofficeindia.com, PI collected a mere Rs 6 crore in its three-week run.

Viewer voice: “Uday Chopra made a mess of a promising story. Priyanka looked like a dream though,” says college student Surbhi Joshi.

t2 suggestion: Can you imagine how much fun a geeky Ranbir Kapoor could have infused into this yawnathon?

DULHA MIL GAYA

Budget: Rs 35 crore

Cast: Sushmita Sen, Fardeen Khan. Plus, Shah Rukh Khan

Director: Mudassar Aziz

Tall claims: Sushmita Sen and Shah Rukh Khan together after Main Hoon Na with Fardeen Khan in a supporting act in a film produced by Viveck ‘Raju Ban Gaya Gentleman’ Vaswani sounded like a dream project on paper. “This is one film that has not aged despite the delay in shooting. When I look at the finished product, the entire wait was entirely worth it,” was what Sush had to say weeks before the release. Well, the handful of viewers did age a few decades sitting in the audi where DMG was being screened!

Promo madness: Conscious that they had a potential loser on their hands, the makers went all out to promote DMG as a Shah Rukh Khan film, despite the Bollywood Badshah having only a guest appearance. As a result, SRK distanced himself from the promotions, even going as far as announcing that he would never make a special appearance in a film again!

Why: Poor direction and a dated script ensured that Dulha Mil Gaya was nothing more than old wine in an old bottle. Sushmita lapsing into Archana Puran Singh mode time and again, Fardeen’s deadpan expressions and Shah Rukh’s bored look did nothing to help. Boxofficeindia.com reported that the film earned just Rs 3.5 crore, labelling it a “disaster”.

Viewer voice: “Dulha Mil Gaya had a 60s storyline in a 2010 packaging. Sushmita Sen’s Shimmer was a real headache-inducer,” says software professional Mainak Duttagupta.

t2 suggestion: Fardeen Khan shouldn’t be seen within 200 yards of a film set. And director Mudassar Aziz, next time get a script!

VEER

Budget: Rs 55 crore (approx)

Cast: Salman Khan, Mithun Chakraborty, Jackie Shroff, Sohail Khan, Zarine Khan

Director: Anil Sharma

Tall claims: In pre-release interviews, Anil Sharma described Veer as a “mass entertainer”, while Salman crowned it “Bollywood’s biggest epic yet”!

Promo madness: Salman turned scriptwriter for Veer and went all out to promote it — from riding a horse at the Mahalaxmi Race Course to walking the talk at his Being Human fashion shows.

Why: Numerous historical fallacies apart, the unintentionally comic Veer was a test of the audience’s patience. Salman tried his best to breathe (read snort) life into his character of a braveheart with Mithun lending able support, but to sit through three hours of this mangled mess of a movie was just asking for three much. Zarine was dubbed Fat Kat, with ample reason. Veer’s total losses amounted to nearly Rs 40 crore!

Viewer voice: “I laughed at even the supposed serious scenes,” says banker Kaushik Mitra.

t2 suggestion: Trimming the film to less than two hours and retaining only the Salman-Mithun scenes would have been the only way Veer would have managed to be a little more Wanted.

CHANCE PE DANCE

Budget: Rs 20 crore (approx)

Cast: Shahid Kapur, Genelia D’Souza

Director: Ken Ghosh

Tall claims: Touted as an autobiographical take on Shahid Kapur’s real-life struggles. “Chance Pe Dance is a film everyone will identify with. The young and old will flock to see the film,” Shahid had claimed in many a pre-release interview.

Promo madness: Post the Kaminey frenzy, director Ken Ghosh decided to do chance pe dance and piggyback on Shahid’s red-hot status. Apart from the usual brand tie-ups, a series of unique promotional activities followed with Shahid and Genelia even spending an entire night cooped up in a car — just as Shahid’s character does in the film!

Why: Thanda story, thanda direction, thanda performances. Even though this was his mentor’s film, one could tell clearly that Shahid’s heart was not in Chance Pe Dance. The Shahid-Genelia cute rom com moments failed to rise above the mediocre script. The promos didn’t pique audience interest and the string of negative reviews sounded the death knell for Chance Pe Dance which managed to earn only a third of its investment.

Viewer voice: “I love Shahid and Genelia but still couldn’t sit through more than an hour of the film. I liked Shahid’s moves on the dance floor though,” says college goer Samir Agarwal.

t2 suggestion: Only a good cast doesn’t a good film make. How about getting a credible script the next time around? Even a love triangle would have spiced up this dance pe failed chance a wee bit.

KITES

Budget: Rakesh Roshan’s Filmkraft sold Kites to Big Films for Rs. 105 crore

Cast: Hrithik Roshan, Barbara Mori, Kangana Ranaut

Director: Anurag Basu

Tall claims: Now this was one film that made far more news before release than after. From the fallout between director Anurag Basu and producer Rakesh Roshan to the hot-hot Hrithik-Barbara offscreen vibes, the Roshans went all out to keep the Kites interest flying high for months.

Promo madness: With premieres at London and New York, Kites was promoted as “Bollywood’s first international project”. The entire PR machinery of Kites worked long and hard in highlighting the Hrithik-Barbara chemistry. Stories of Hrithik’s wife Sussanne walking out of the Roshan home because of Barbara were fed to the media months prior to the May 21 release date.

Why: Stylish locales, beautiful people and a distinct international feel were there all right, but somewhere the makers forgot to spare a thought for the script. Ticket rates hit the roof, but after a frenzied weekend, footfalls plummeted miserably. Team Kites has been unable to take the failure, with papa Rakesh blaming biased reviews and beta Hrithik tweeting vociferously against those who have given them the thumbs down.

Viewer voice: “Hrithik looked hot but Kites was a huge bore,” says college goer Pavitra Joshi.

t2 suggestion: A total remake.

RANN

Budget: Rs 30 crore

Cast: Amitabh Bachchan, Paresh Rawal, Riteish Deshmukh, Sudeep

Director: Ram Gopal Varma

Tall claims: Touted as an expose on the murky goings-on in the media world, director RGV claimed Rann was “the most hard-hitting film of the year”. Well, what can we say apart from the fact that Rann did hit the unsuspecting viewer. Hard!

Promo madness: Innovative movie marketing got a strong fillip with Rann. Bachchan went all out to promote friend RGV’s latest, even reading out the primetime bulletin on news channels!

Why: Sensationalistic and over the top, Rann turned out to be a little too hyperbolic for the audience’s taste. Bachchan tried to salvage matters towards the end but it was a case of too little too late.

Viewer voice: “Rann had a promising theme let down by poor execution. I thought Sudeep was good in certain scenes but sometimes he overacted too,” says homemaker Mita Sengupta.

t2 suggestion: Needed: A hard-hitting, no-holds barred treatment of the subject. Not needed: the weird camera angles, the eardrum-bursting background score, the caricaturish performances.

TEEN PATTI

Budget: Rs 25 crore

Cast: Amitabh Bachchan, Sir Ben Kingsley, R Madhavan

Director: Leena Yadav

Tall claims: Boosted by the to-die-for opportunity of casting Big B and Sir B in the same film and backed by Hinduja money power, director Leena Yadav went all out to promote Teen Patti as a Bachchan-Kingsley classic. “The conversations between them are dynamite,” Yadav told t2 in the run up to the release.

Promo madness: Led by Bachchan, the lead cast left no card unturned in promoting Teen Patti, just stopping short of organising gambling sessions! But the racy promos failed to translate into a racy film.

Why: Cryptic and confusing, the much-touted Bachchan-Kingsley interactions were as cold as a slab of ice. Yadav tried to pack too many things into Teen Patti, making it an unbearable watch.

Viewer voice: “I couldn’t really understand much of Teen Patti. But whatever I could understand was pretty bad,” laughs college student Antara Dasgupta.

t2 suggestion: Yadav should have exploited the Bachchan-Ben jugalbandi to the hilt. Also, would have made more sense to prolong the bare-back fest in the Neeyat number. That was far better than the rest of Teen Patti put together.

BADMAASH COMPANY

Budget: Rs 25 crore

Cast: Shahid Kapur, Anushka Sharma, Meiyang Chang, Vir Das

Director: Parmeet Sethi

Tall claims: In pre-release interviews, director Parmeet Sethi claimed that he had written the Badmaash Company script in six days flat. Well Parmeet, it showed!

Promo madness: Shahid and Co. did not go on a massive promo binge, but in the days before the release, their faces were plastered on every television channel. Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi girl Anushka’s hotbod in a teeny-weeny yellow bikini top was massively promoted. We weren’t impressed.

Why: A hastily put together script and lacklustre performances summed up Badmaash Company. A disinterested Shahid only made matters worse. Despite a decent first weekend, Badmaash Company was a major loser at the box office.

Viewer voice: “For a con film Badmaash Company was pretty boring. I lost interest midway through the film,” says school student Ishaan Singhania.

t2 suggestion: Er, how about taking a little more time to write a more gripping script? And how about a little bit of badmaashi between Shahid and Anushka?

HOUSEFULL

Budget: Rs 45 crore

Cast: Akshay Kumar, Arjun Rampal, Riteish Deshmukh, Deepika Padukone, Lara Dutta, Jiah Khan

Director: Sajid Khan

Tall claims: With weeks to go for the release, Sajid Khan promised producer Sajid Nadiadwala that Housefull would rake in upwards of Rs 60 crore at the box-office.

Promo madness: From the IPL matches to the Roadies finals to the T20 World Cup, team Housefull was just about everywhere. Led by the director, the cast even landed up at the doorstep of unsuspecting fans urging them to watch the film.

Why: Cringe-inducing humour and the lack of genuine laughs was the chief complaint against Housefull. Though not a flop by any standards, Housefull failed to meet audience expectations. It shattered many a box-office record in its opening weekend, but negative reviews and poor word-of-mouth slowed down its box-office run.

Viewer voice: “People slapping each other at random doesn’t make me laugh. The laughing gas gag at the end only made matters worse,” says homemaker Shweta Sareen.

t2 suggestion: A little less toilet humour, a little more script-sense. A little less of the prolonged climax, a little more genuine laughs. A little less of Lara and Riteish, a little more of Boman Irani’s Gujju papa and Chunkey Pandey’s Aakhri Pasta.

Hype? Yes Hit? No

big bollywood has flopped big time in the first few months of 2010. “this has been one of the worst years for the industry with major films failing to match up to the pre-release hype,” says mumbai-based trade analyst taran adarsh. t2 lists nine big films that were full of sound and fury signifying nothing...

LINK

PYAAR IMPOSSIBLE

Budget: Rs 25 crore (approx.)

Cast: Priyanka Chopra, Uday Chopra

Director: Jugal Hansraj

Tall claims: Promoted as a ‘beauty and geek’ love story, producers Yash Raj Films tried filming this Priyanka Chopra-Uday Chopra starrer on the lines of a Hollywood rom com. “I have a feeling that Pyaar Impossible will be one of the biggest grossers of the year,” Uday — who turned scriptwriter with this film — announced to all and sundry in the run-up to the January release.

Promo madness: Not really a topline Yash Raj production, Pyaar Impossible didn’t witness an OTT publicity blitzkrieg. But fresh from the success of Kaminey and flush with the excitement of a National Award, Priyanka — in an eye-catching bob and sexy shirt-dresses on every TV channel — forced you to give her a 10 on 10 while the peppy Alisha had every nightclub grooving.

Why: Uday as hero (even though he was playing a geek!) was one of the primary reasons why the audience decided to stay away. Formulaic and boring, Priyanka did her best to justify her Rs 6 crore fee, but still found it impossible to save Pyaar Impossible from tanking at the box office. According to www.boxofficeindia.com, PI collected a mere Rs 6 crore in its three-week run.

Viewer voice: “Uday Chopra made a mess of a promising story. Priyanka looked like a dream though,” says college student Surbhi Joshi.

t2 suggestion: Can you imagine how much fun a geeky Ranbir Kapoor could have infused into this yawnathon?

DULHA MIL GAYA

Budget: Rs 35 crore

Cast: Sushmita Sen, Fardeen Khan. Plus, Shah Rukh Khan

Director: Mudassar Aziz

Tall claims: Sushmita Sen and Shah Rukh Khan together after Main Hoon Na with Fardeen Khan in a supporting act in a film produced by Viveck ‘Raju Ban Gaya Gentleman’ Vaswani sounded like a dream project on paper. “This is one film that has not aged despite the delay in shooting. When I look at the finished product, the entire wait was entirely worth it,” was what Sush had to say weeks before the release. Well, the handful of viewers did age a few decades sitting in the audi where DMG was being screened!

Promo madness: Conscious that they had a potential loser on their hands, the makers went all out to promote DMG as a Shah Rukh Khan film, despite the Bollywood Badshah having only a guest appearance. As a result, SRK distanced himself from the promotions, even going as far as announcing that he would never make a special appearance in a film again!

Why: Poor direction and a dated script ensured that Dulha Mil Gaya was nothing more than old wine in an old bottle. Sushmita lapsing into Archana Puran Singh mode time and again, Fardeen’s deadpan expressions and Shah Rukh’s bored look did nothing to help. Boxofficeindia.com reported that the film earned just Rs 3.5 crore, labelling it a “disaster”.

Viewer voice: “Dulha Mil Gaya had a 60s storyline in a 2010 packaging. Sushmita Sen’s Shimmer was a real headache-inducer,” says software professional Mainak Duttagupta.

t2 suggestion: Fardeen Khan shouldn’t be seen within 200 yards of a film set. And director Mudassar Aziz, next time get a script!

VEER

Budget: Rs 55 crore (approx)

Cast: Salman Khan, Mithun Chakraborty, Jackie Shroff, Sohail Khan, Zarine Khan

Director: Anil Sharma

Tall claims: In pre-release interviews, Anil Sharma described Veer as a “mass entertainer”, while Salman crowned it “Bollywood’s biggest epic yet”!

Promo madness: Salman turned scriptwriter for Veer and went all out to promote it — from riding a horse at the Mahalaxmi Race Course to walking the talk at his Being Human fashion shows.

Why: Numerous historical fallacies apart, the unintentionally comic Veer was a test of the audience’s patience. Salman tried his best to breathe (read snort) life into his character of a braveheart with Mithun lending able support, but to sit through three hours of this mangled mess of a movie was just asking for three much. Zarine was dubbed Fat Kat, with ample reason. Veer’s total losses amounted to nearly Rs 40 crore!

Viewer voice: “I laughed at even the supposed serious scenes,” says banker Kaushik Mitra.

t2 suggestion: Trimming the film to less than two hours and retaining only the Salman-Mithun scenes would have been the only way Veer would have managed to be a little more Wanted.

CHANCE PE DANCE

Budget: Rs 20 crore (approx)

Cast: Shahid Kapur, Genelia D’Souza

Director: Ken Ghosh

Tall claims: Touted as an autobiographical take on Shahid Kapur’s real-life struggles. “Chance Pe Dance is a film everyone will identify with. The young and old will flock to see the film,” Shahid had claimed in many a pre-release interview.

Promo madness: Post the Kaminey frenzy, director Ken Ghosh decided to do chance pe dance and piggyback on Shahid’s red-hot status. Apart from the usual brand tie-ups, a series of unique promotional activities followed with Shahid and Genelia even spending an entire night cooped up in a car — just as Shahid’s character does in the film!

Why: Thanda story, thanda direction, thanda performances. Even though this was his mentor’s film, one could tell clearly that Shahid’s heart was not in Chance Pe Dance. The Shahid-Genelia cute rom com moments failed to rise above the mediocre script. The promos didn’t pique audience interest and the string of negative reviews sounded the death knell for Chance Pe Dance which managed to earn only a third of its investment.

Viewer voice: “I love Shahid and Genelia but still couldn’t sit through more than an hour of the film. I liked Shahid’s moves on the dance floor though,” says college goer Samir Agarwal.

t2 suggestion: Only a good cast doesn’t a good film make. How about getting a credible script the next time around? Even a love triangle would have spiced up this dance pe failed chance a wee bit.

KITES

Budget: Rakesh Roshan’s Filmkraft sold Kites to Big Films for Rs. 105 crore

Cast: Hrithik Roshan, Barbara Mori, Kangana Ranaut

Director: Anurag Basu

Tall claims: Now this was one film that made far more news before release than after. From the fallout between director Anurag Basu and producer Rakesh Roshan to the hot-hot Hrithik-Barbara offscreen vibes, the Roshans went all out to keep the Kites interest flying high for months.

Promo madness: With premieres at London and New York, Kites was promoted as “Bollywood’s first international project”. The entire PR machinery of Kites worked long and hard in highlighting the Hrithik-Barbara chemistry. Stories of Hrithik’s wife Sussanne walking out of the Roshan home because of Barbara were fed to the media months prior to the May 21 release date.

Why: Stylish locales, beautiful people and a distinct international feel were there all right, but somewhere the makers forgot to spare a thought for the script. Ticket rates hit the roof, but after a frenzied weekend, footfalls plummeted miserably. Team Kites has been unable to take the failure, with papa Rakesh blaming biased reviews and beta Hrithik tweeting vociferously against those who have given them the thumbs down.

Viewer voice: “Hrithik looked hot but Kites was a huge bore,” says college goer Pavitra Joshi.

t2 suggestion: A total remake.

RANN

Budget: Rs 30 crore

Cast: Amitabh Bachchan, Paresh Rawal, Riteish Deshmukh, Sudeep

Director: Ram Gopal Varma

Tall claims: Touted as an expose on the murky goings-on in the media world, director RGV claimed Rann was “the most hard-hitting film of the year”. Well, what can we say apart from the fact that Rann did hit the unsuspecting viewer. Hard!

Promo madness: Innovative movie marketing got a strong fillip with Rann. Bachchan went all out to promote friend RGV’s latest, even reading out the primetime bulletin on news channels!

Why: Sensationalistic and over the top, Rann turned out to be a little too hyperbolic for the audience’s taste. Bachchan tried to salvage matters towards the end but it was a case of too little too late.

Viewer voice: “Rann had a promising theme let down by poor execution. I thought Sudeep was good in certain scenes but sometimes he overacted too,” says homemaker Mita Sengupta.

t2 suggestion: Needed: A hard-hitting, no-holds barred treatment of the subject. Not needed: the weird camera angles, the eardrum-bursting background score, the caricaturish performances.

TEEN PATTI

Budget: Rs 25 crore

Cast: Amitabh Bachchan, Sir Ben Kingsley, R Madhavan

Director: Leena Yadav

Tall claims: Boosted by the to-die-for opportunity of casting Big B and Sir B in the same film and backed by Hinduja money power, director Leena Yadav went all out to promote Teen Patti as a Bachchan-Kingsley classic. “The conversations between them are dynamite,” Yadav told t2 in the run up to the release.

Promo madness: Led by Bachchan, the lead cast left no card unturned in promoting Teen Patti, just stopping short of organising gambling sessions! But the racy promos failed to translate into a racy film.

Why: Cryptic and confusing, the much-touted Bachchan-Kingsley interactions were as cold as a slab of ice. Yadav tried to pack too many things into Teen Patti, making it an unbearable watch.

Viewer voice: “I couldn’t really understand much of Teen Patti. But whatever I could understand was pretty bad,” laughs college student Antara Dasgupta.

t2 suggestion: Yadav should have exploited the Bachchan-Ben jugalbandi to the hilt. Also, would have made more sense to prolong the bare-back fest in the Neeyat number. That was far better than the rest of Teen Patti put together.

BADMAASH COMPANY

Budget: Rs 25 crore

Cast: Shahid Kapur, Anushka Sharma, Meiyang Chang, Vir Das

Director: Parmeet Sethi

Tall claims: In pre-release interviews, director Parmeet Sethi claimed that he had written the Badmaash Company script in six days flat. Well Parmeet, it showed!

Promo madness: Shahid and Co. did not go on a massive promo binge, but in the days before the release, their faces were plastered on every television channel. Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi girl Anushka’s hotbod in a teeny-weeny yellow bikini top was massively promoted. We weren’t impressed.

Why: A hastily put together script and lacklustre performances summed up Badmaash Company. A disinterested Shahid only made matters worse. Despite a decent first weekend, Badmaash Company was a major loser at the box office.

Viewer voice: “For a con film Badmaash Company was pretty boring. I lost interest midway through the film,” says school student Ishaan Singhania.

t2 suggestion: Er, how about taking a little more time to write a more gripping script? And how about a little bit of badmaashi between Shahid and Anushka?

HOUSEFULL

Budget: Rs 45 crore

Cast: Akshay Kumar, Arjun Rampal, Riteish Deshmukh, Deepika Padukone, Lara Dutta, Jiah Khan

Director: Sajid Khan

Tall claims: With weeks to go for the release, Sajid Khan promised producer Sajid Nadiadwala that Housefull would rake in upwards of Rs 60 crore at the box-office.

Promo madness: From the IPL matches to the Roadies finals to the T20 World Cup, team Housefull was just about everywhere. Led by the director, the cast even landed up at the doorstep of unsuspecting fans urging them to watch the film.

Why: Cringe-inducing humour and the lack of genuine laughs was the chief complaint against Housefull. Though not a flop by any standards, Housefull failed to meet audience expectations. It shattered many a box-office record in its opening weekend, but negative reviews and poor word-of-mouth slowed down its box-office run.

Viewer voice: “People slapping each other at random doesn’t make me laugh. The laughing gas gag at the end only made matters worse,” says homemaker Shweta Sareen.

t2 suggestion: A little less toilet humour, a little more script-sense. A little less of the prolonged climax, a little more genuine laughs. A little less of Lara and Riteish, a little more of Boman Irani’s Gujju papa and Chunkey Pandey’s Aakhri Pasta.

The Reluctant Hero - Hrithik Roshan

Something in him has changed. In place of the jovial boy is a dark brooding man. But Hrithik Roshan continues to see life as a beautiful journey. 

 

LINK

He reached for it like a desperate man, clutching at straws. That was Hrithik Roshan’s reaction when he first heard the script of Kites. “I jumped at it, on my crutches,” he says. For five dark months in 2008, Hrithik grappled with crippling knee pain. On long, sleepless nights, the 36-year-old brooded over whether he should quit acting. “Science had given up on my knee. I was heartbroken. Kites pulled me up.”

Hrithik’s labour of love, Kites, released on 21 May to lukewarm reviews and mixed audiences. On public forums like Twitter and Facebook, viewers ranted against the film’s haphazard execution. On the Friday it opened, the star defended his film on Twitter, posting, ‘To all the people who didn’t like Kites n stated that with honesty n love—I’m PROUD to have u as my fans.’ Hrithik also sent ‘understanding’ to those who hated the movie with a vengeance.

The star was quoted saying that if he couldn’t “dance or jump around”, he didn’t want to be an actor. Surely there is more to acting than that? “Yes,” he says, “In fact, I’m playing a paralysed man in Guzaarish (directed by Sanjay Leela Bhansali). I don’t think you get the scope of my knee problem. I couldn’t get up from my chair without the help of my hands. How could I look like a fit, strong character? I would have had to compromise on the spirit of my roles, even my walk. I didn’t want to act if I didn’t have the spirit.”

Hrithik Roshan has always been passionate about acting. There have been no walk-on parts for the sake of friendship. After his first brush with stardom, he hasn’t signed films in a frenzy just to prove something to his audience. As a film journalist, you interview Shah Rukh Khan and Salman Khan perhaps twice a year. Akshay Kumar does five movies a year and that much pre-publicity. The last three Christmas seasons, there have been journalists at Aamir Khan’s door.

Hrithik, in comparison, has had nearly two-year gaps between his films (he has done only 15 in the lead role since Kaho Naa Pyaar Hai in 2000, and the figure would have been much smaller if it were not for the blitz that followed his extraordinary debut). Meanwhile, Ranbir Kapoor has caught on Hrithik’s heels. At the time of filing this story, Hrithik has about 224,000 followers on Twitter, somewhat modest by the standards of his contemporaries. And there are regular complaints that he does not tweet enough.

Is Hrithik a reluctant superstar? “Superstardom is a waste of time,” he says, “There’s no truth in that. When your ego fills up, your creativity is switched off. I follow my instincts and look at where it’s got me.”

In 2008, before the release of Jodhaa Akbar, when we met at his Juhu home, he wore a sunny attitude. He was just back from shooting a commercial in Goa. At the time of Krrish in 2006, he gamely joked about being a superhero while a grey Persian cat walked gingerly around us. This interview, though, is going to be different.

I’m ushered into a room with an overpowering painting of his wife Sussanne and him, his green eyes staring at you from the frame. ‘Baba’ has gone for a haircut, say his staff. Hrithik eventually walks in wearing a black T-shirt. The mood is somewhat sombre.

He has been a subject of intense speculations—an affair with Kites co-star Barbara Mori, Sussanne walking out on him, a fall-out with his father that caused him to leave home, wild partying, alcohol, drugs, his disapproval of his sister Sunaina’s remarrying. Didn’t it worry him, the damage such rumours could do to his image? After all, he perhaps has the largest fan base among children in the country. “In fact, this is the best lesson I could teach children—don’t react. Live with dignity. Don’t get provoked. After all, on a macro level, it’s things like these that cause wars.”

Hrithik says the drugs and partying allegations stuck to him because of the wild, dishevelled appearance he cultivated for Guzaarish. His hair was a crazy, unruly mop, his face hidden behind a beard. Does he miss that look? It’s a teasing question, looking for some humour in a guy who once sportingly showed a flash of his secret buzz cut (for Lakshya) from beneath a baseball cap. But this Hrithik is more serious, he doesn’t take the bait. “I miss every character. I feel lost that I may never meet that guy again. For seven months, I looked through the eyes of a dying man. Nothing matters. There’s so much pain and suffering; you have to spread love.”

Hrithik knows pain. His sister Sunaina fought a protracted battle with cancer and has said that her younger brother helped her pull through. His knee problem has persisted for a few years. “One day, the 20,000 remedies I’d tried converged on my knee. It’s like God felt I’d paid my price,” he says with a smile. Can he play with his kids now—four-year-old Hrehaan and two-year-old Hridhaan? “I have to warm up my knee; then I can play Spiderman. I have my hands full. Two boys can do a lot of damage. But they have such pure energy; they connect to the child in me.”

As a boy, Hrithik was extremely shy. There is an incident that his uncle and music composer Rajesh Roshan told a film magazine. Back in 1979, Amitabh Bachchan was in a studio to record the song Mere paas aao for the film Mr Natwarlal when his eyes fell on five-year-old Hrithik in the chorus. “What an angelic child,” Bachchan is said to have commented in his baritone, walking up to the boy. “I got so frightened, I ran all the way home,” says Hrithik grinning.

He had an uneven childhood. A film industry child, he attended birthday parties with Farhan Akhtar, Karan Johar and Uday Chopra, went to school in the same car as Abhishek Bachchan and stood in as Ranbir Kapoor’s babysitter. “Ranbir’s peed on me,” he had once told me, laughing, “Our parents went on holiday together and I used to carry him around. He used to cry a lot.”

But with his father’s patchy career, Hrithik also saw failure from very close. So he knows the value of striving. As a terribly shy child with a stammer, he practised his speech in front of a mirror. When he wanted to develop a physique, he took tips from Salman and worked hard on the goal. He assisted his dad on Karan Arjun and Koyla. It set the base for one of the most enduring friendships between any two A-list stars—Shah Rukh Khan and Hrithik. In a recent interview, Shah Rukh introspected over how he never felt as insecure as he did when Hrithik became a sensation with Kaho Naa Pyaar Hai. Hrithik says, “There was no reason for the insecurity. Shah Rukh was vulnerable then and people were rude and disrespectful to a man who had entertained us for ten years before I came on. Things didn’t change inside me. I couldn’t stop liking my best friend. Now we can laugh about that.”

With Kites, he believes he is poised for a turn in his career, ready for big risks. The film’s US version has been edited by director Brett Ratner (Rush Hour series, X-Men: The Last Stand). There is Hollywood buzz around Hrithik after reviews like that of The New York Times film critic Jeannette Catsoulis, who wrote, ‘Mr. Roshan requires viewing uncut: writhing on the dance floor or just gazing into space, the man was made to drive women crazy, one movie at a time.’ Back home, as Rakesh Roshan works on the sequel to Krrish, Hrithik is shooting Zoya Akhtar’s road movie Zindagi Milegi Na Dobara with Farhan and Abhay Deol, and he has Guzaarish lined up for release later this year. Also, he is a prospect in Shekhar Kapur’s futuristic water politics story Paani. “I was supposed to be launched by Shekhar 12 years ago in Ta Ra Rum Pum with Preity (Zinta),” he says. Last year, Hrithik made the unusual choice of playing the role of the narcissistic, opportunistic star Zaffar Khan in Luck By Chance. “People asked me why I wanted to do this negative character. I’m an actor. You have to be negative sometimes,” he says.

The actor describes himself as naïve, a dreamer. A man whom fame cannot change. “I hear the roars and shrieks when I go on stage to perform, but I can’t fill my ego up with that. I see it as a pat on my back and I move on.”

The Reluctant Hero - Hrithik Roshan

Something in him has changed. In place of the jovial boy is a dark brooding man. But Hrithik Roshan continues to see life as a beautiful journey. 

 

LINK

He reached for it like a desperate man, clutching at straws. That was Hrithik Roshan’s reaction when he first heard the script of Kites. “I jumped at it, on my crutches,” he says. For five dark months in 2008, Hrithik grappled with crippling knee pain. On long, sleepless nights, the 36-year-old brooded over whether he should quit acting. “Science had given up on my knee. I was heartbroken. Kites pulled me up.”

Hrithik’s labour of love, Kites, released on 21 May to lukewarm reviews and mixed audiences. On public forums like Twitter and Facebook, viewers ranted against the film’s haphazard execution. On the Friday it opened, the star defended his film on Twitter, posting, ‘To all the people who didn’t like Kites n stated that with honesty n love—I’m PROUD to have u as my fans.’ Hrithik also sent ‘understanding’ to those who hated the movie with a vengeance.

The star was quoted saying that if he couldn’t “dance or jump around”, he didn’t want to be an actor. Surely there is more to acting than that? “Yes,” he says, “In fact, I’m playing a paralysed man in Guzaarish (directed by Sanjay Leela Bhansali). I don’t think you get the scope of my knee problem. I couldn’t get up from my chair without the help of my hands. How could I look like a fit, strong character? I would have had to compromise on the spirit of my roles, even my walk. I didn’t want to act if I didn’t have the spirit.”

Hrithik Roshan has always been passionate about acting. There have been no walk-on parts for the sake of friendship. After his first brush with stardom, he hasn’t signed films in a frenzy just to prove something to his audience. As a film journalist, you interview Shah Rukh Khan and Salman Khan perhaps twice a year. Akshay Kumar does five movies a year and that much pre-publicity. The last three Christmas seasons, there have been journalists at Aamir Khan’s door.

Hrithik, in comparison, has had nearly two-year gaps between his films (he has done only 15 in the lead role since Kaho Naa Pyaar Hai in 2000, and the figure would have been much smaller if it were not for the blitz that followed his extraordinary debut). Meanwhile, Ranbir Kapoor has caught on Hrithik’s heels. At the time of filing this story, Hrithik has about 224,000 followers on Twitter, somewhat modest by the standards of his contemporaries. And there are regular complaints that he does not tweet enough.

Is Hrithik a reluctant superstar? “Superstardom is a waste of time,” he says, “There’s no truth in that. When your ego fills up, your creativity is switched off. I follow my instincts and look at where it’s got me.”

In 2008, before the release of Jodhaa Akbar, when we met at his Juhu home, he wore a sunny attitude. He was just back from shooting a commercial in Goa. At the time of Krrish in 2006, he gamely joked about being a superhero while a grey Persian cat walked gingerly around us. This interview, though, is going to be different.

I’m ushered into a room with an overpowering painting of his wife Sussanne and him, his green eyes staring at you from the frame. ‘Baba’ has gone for a haircut, say his staff. Hrithik eventually walks in wearing a black T-shirt. The mood is somewhat sombre.

He has been a subject of intense speculations—an affair with Kites co-star Barbara Mori, Sussanne walking out on him, a fall-out with his father that caused him to leave home, wild partying, alcohol, drugs, his disapproval of his sister Sunaina’s remarrying. Didn’t it worry him, the damage such rumours could do to his image? After all, he perhaps has the largest fan base among children in the country. “In fact, this is the best lesson I could teach children—don’t react. Live with dignity. Don’t get provoked. After all, on a macro level, it’s things like these that cause wars.”

Hrithik says the drugs and partying allegations stuck to him because of the wild, dishevelled appearance he cultivated for Guzaarish. His hair was a crazy, unruly mop, his face hidden behind a beard. Does he miss that look? It’s a teasing question, looking for some humour in a guy who once sportingly showed a flash of his secret buzz cut (for Lakshya) from beneath a baseball cap. But this Hrithik is more serious, he doesn’t take the bait. “I miss every character. I feel lost that I may never meet that guy again. For seven months, I looked through the eyes of a dying man. Nothing matters. There’s so much pain and suffering; you have to spread love.”

Hrithik knows pain. His sister Sunaina fought a protracted battle with cancer and has said that her younger brother helped her pull through. His knee problem has persisted for a few years. “One day, the 20,000 remedies I’d tried converged on my knee. It’s like God felt I’d paid my price,” he says with a smile. Can he play with his kids now—four-year-old Hrehaan and two-year-old Hridhaan? “I have to warm up my knee; then I can play Spiderman. I have my hands full. Two boys can do a lot of damage. But they have such pure energy; they connect to the child in me.”

As a boy, Hrithik was extremely shy. There is an incident that his uncle and music composer Rajesh Roshan told a film magazine. Back in 1979, Amitabh Bachchan was in a studio to record the song Mere paas aao for the film Mr Natwarlal when his eyes fell on five-year-old Hrithik in the chorus. “What an angelic child,” Bachchan is said to have commented in his baritone, walking up to the boy. “I got so frightened, I ran all the way home,” says Hrithik grinning.

He had an uneven childhood. A film industry child, he attended birthday parties with Farhan Akhtar, Karan Johar and Uday Chopra, went to school in the same car as Abhishek Bachchan and stood in as Ranbir Kapoor’s babysitter. “Ranbir’s peed on me,” he had once told me, laughing, “Our parents went on holiday together and I used to carry him around. He used to cry a lot.”

But with his father’s patchy career, Hrithik also saw failure from very close. So he knows the value of striving. As a terribly shy child with a stammer, he practised his speech in front of a mirror. When he wanted to develop a physique, he took tips from Salman and worked hard on the goal. He assisted his dad on Karan Arjun and Koyla. It set the base for one of the most enduring friendships between any two A-list stars—Shah Rukh Khan and Hrithik. In a recent interview, Shah Rukh introspected over how he never felt as insecure as he did when Hrithik became a sensation with Kaho Naa Pyaar Hai. Hrithik says, “There was no reason for the insecurity. Shah Rukh was vulnerable then and people were rude and disrespectful to a man who had entertained us for ten years before I came on. Things didn’t change inside me. I couldn’t stop liking my best friend. Now we can laugh about that.”

With Kites, he believes he is poised for a turn in his career, ready for big risks. The film’s US version has been edited by director Brett Ratner (Rush Hour series, X-Men: The Last Stand). There is Hollywood buzz around Hrithik after reviews like that of The New York Times film critic Jeannette Catsoulis, who wrote, ‘Mr. Roshan requires viewing uncut: writhing on the dance floor or just gazing into space, the man was made to drive women crazy, one movie at a time.’ Back home, as Rakesh Roshan works on the sequel to Krrish, Hrithik is shooting Zoya Akhtar’s road movie Zindagi Milegi Na Dobara with Farhan and Abhay Deol, and he has Guzaarish lined up for release later this year. Also, he is a prospect in Shekhar Kapur’s futuristic water politics story Paani. “I was supposed to be launched by Shekhar 12 years ago in Ta Ra Rum Pum with Preity (Zinta),” he says. Last year, Hrithik made the unusual choice of playing the role of the narcissistic, opportunistic star Zaffar Khan in Luck By Chance. “People asked me why I wanted to do this negative character. I’m an actor. You have to be negative sometimes,” he says.

The actor describes himself as naïve, a dreamer. A man whom fame cannot change. “I hear the roars and shrieks when I go on stage to perform, but I can’t fill my ego up with that. I see it as a pat on my back and I move on.”

Kites The Remix - review

Prior to watching Kites: The Remix, I'd never seen a proper Bollywood movie, and in the interest of full disclosure I should acknowledge I've never studied their films or the industry at large in any significant way. But it is nevertheless hard not to judge the taste of audiences who apparently made the film a massive success in its native India. Because even whittled down and refined by Brett Ratner, who edited out the music sequences and beefed up the drama with a new, western score, the tropes used to bring to life this tale of lovers on the run are too worn out – or just poorly executed – to make this more than a straight-to-video tale that somehow mysteriously managed to find its way to the silver screen.

The film stars Hrithik Roshan as J, a Vegas dance instructor and hustler who creates a cottage industry for himself marrying illegal immigrants so they can get their green cards. Managing somehow to seduce the daughter of an affluent casino owner, J prepares for his first "real" marriage, which will allow him to discard his checkered past forever. But when his fiancee's brother Tony (Nicholas Brown) announces his own marriage to J's eleventh wife, Natasha (Barbara Mori), J worries that their shared history will ruin both of their plans. While reaching out to Natasha to figure out what to do, J begins to realize he has real feelings for her; but when Tony catches them together, J and Natasha take off together on a cross-country adventure that forces them to fight not only for their love, but for their very lives.


For a 90-minute movie about forbidden romance, Kites has an absurdly complicated story structure, featuring an elliptical narrative, dual flashbacks, and even flashbacks inside of other flashbacks. But there is literally nothing sophisticated about it at all, including J and Natasha, whose chemistry is an embodiment of the Annie Hall conversation between Alvy Singer and a couple that is happy precisely because both parties are "very shallow and empty and has no ideas and nothing to say." While the film itself clearly has no understanding of the legalities of marriage, allowing J to wed multiple women without divorcing any of the previous ones, he and Natasha are exceedingly stupid: in a scene in which they attempt to divorce one another so they can marry their respective fiancées, the two of them agree verbally that they are divorced, and I am pretty sure they both believe that is a legally-binding contract.

Ironically, the musical numbers are probably the sort of thing that could redeem such a cliché-laden story as this, but Ratner removed that Bollywood trademark in favor of an overall shorter and more streamlined film. That said, I can't imagine sitting through a version that would run one second longer than this one. Even the action scenes, which dexterously replicate the energy (not to mention cinematography) of Western car chases and shootouts, go on longer than they should, suggesting that the original filmmakers didn't have the forethought to focus on anything at all, but still paid attention to everything way too much. If it tells you anything, Kites looks as if it were sponsored by a combination of Ed Hardy and '80s-era Tony Scott.

As the imperiled lovers, Roshan and Mori provide a lot of empty attractiveness, but always seem to be going through the motions of a romance that was defined more by movie formulas than actual interest in one another. But even their sex appeal has been largely neutered: apart from one scene where they show off their respective physiques, there's only one actual kiss in the film, and a scene of consummation is edited so obliquely that it plays as all build-up with no payoff. That both of the actors do more acting with their mouths than any other part of their bodies only further highlights the bottomless shallows of the cast's pool of talent.

Read More HERE

Kites The Remix - review

Prior to watching Kites: The Remix, I'd never seen a proper Bollywood movie, and in the interest of full disclosure I should acknowledge I've never studied their films or the industry at large in any significant way. But it is nevertheless hard not to judge the taste of audiences who apparently made the film a massive success in its native India. Because even whittled down and refined by Brett Ratner, who edited out the music sequences and beefed up the drama with a new, western score, the tropes used to bring to life this tale of lovers on the run are too worn out – or just poorly executed – to make this more than a straight-to-video tale that somehow mysteriously managed to find its way to the silver screen.

The film stars Hrithik Roshan as J, a Vegas dance instructor and hustler who creates a cottage industry for himself marrying illegal immigrants so they can get their green cards. Managing somehow to seduce the daughter of an affluent casino owner, J prepares for his first "real" marriage, which will allow him to discard his checkered past forever. But when his fiancee's brother Tony (Nicholas Brown) announces his own marriage to J's eleventh wife, Natasha (Barbara Mori), J worries that their shared history will ruin both of their plans. While reaching out to Natasha to figure out what to do, J begins to realize he has real feelings for her; but when Tony catches them together, J and Natasha take off together on a cross-country adventure that forces them to fight not only for their love, but for their very lives.


For a 90-minute movie about forbidden romance, Kites has an absurdly complicated story structure, featuring an elliptical narrative, dual flashbacks, and even flashbacks inside of other flashbacks. But there is literally nothing sophisticated about it at all, including J and Natasha, whose chemistry is an embodiment of the Annie Hall conversation between Alvy Singer and a couple that is happy precisely because both parties are "very shallow and empty and has no ideas and nothing to say." While the film itself clearly has no understanding of the legalities of marriage, allowing J to wed multiple women without divorcing any of the previous ones, he and Natasha are exceedingly stupid: in a scene in which they attempt to divorce one another so they can marry their respective fiancées, the two of them agree verbally that they are divorced, and I am pretty sure they both believe that is a legally-binding contract.

Ironically, the musical numbers are probably the sort of thing that could redeem such a cliché-laden story as this, but Ratner removed that Bollywood trademark in favor of an overall shorter and more streamlined film. That said, I can't imagine sitting through a version that would run one second longer than this one. Even the action scenes, which dexterously replicate the energy (not to mention cinematography) of Western car chases and shootouts, go on longer than they should, suggesting that the original filmmakers didn't have the forethought to focus on anything at all, but still paid attention to everything way too much. If it tells you anything, Kites looks as if it were sponsored by a combination of Ed Hardy and '80s-era Tony Scott.

As the imperiled lovers, Roshan and Mori provide a lot of empty attractiveness, but always seem to be going through the motions of a romance that was defined more by movie formulas than actual interest in one another. But even their sex appeal has been largely neutered: apart from one scene where they show off their respective physiques, there's only one actual kiss in the film, and a scene of consummation is edited so obliquely that it plays as all build-up with no payoff. That both of the actors do more acting with their mouths than any other part of their bodies only further highlights the bottomless shallows of the cast's pool of talent.

Read More HERE

Hoax Office Hardsell

To manufacture buzz, Bollywood’s PR engines will use anything

“What would you do if your mobile number was disclosed on the worldwide web?” I’m asked this rather odd question by Bollywood PR consultant Dale Bhagwagar. “I’ll ask the service provider to change it at once,” I reply matter-of-factly. But that’s definitely not the way Bhagwagar’s agile mind, adept at turning trivia into hype for the benefit of his famous Bollywood clients, would have reacted. In fact, one of his major triumphs arose from precisely such a situation. A few years ago, when his then client Shilpa Shetty’s number somehow got leaked on the internet (he avoids telling you how), he used the incident to whip up a media frenzy that planted her firmly in the day’s headlines. Press handouts were distributed widely and TV reporters were persuaded to take up positions outside the police station where Shilpa went to file a complaint. Candid, even boastful, Bhagwagar says happily, “We used the incident very effectively to hardsell Shetty.” And then, as we sip our cold coffees in suburban Mumbai, he casually proceeds to take a call from Rakhi Sawant to advise her how her run-in with the censor board over a music video could be played out in the media. “Good publicity is good. Bad publicity is better. Ugly publicity is the best because it travels the fastest and hits the hardest. The worst of all is no publicity,” declares Bhagwagar. 

That is his motto, and indeed the motto of every film publicist in the business, though few are as brazen as Bhagwagar. They are more likely to favour sophisticated MBA-speak about “expectation management”, like Prabhat Chaudhary of Spice PR, the man behind the marketing success of Three Idiots and Ghajini. The promotion of films and stars has become a big, clever and crafty enterprise and image managers and publicity gurus are riding the wave. Some even have management students clamouring to join them and investors willing to put serious money into their once hole-in-the-wall companies. Film marketing budgets are skyrocketing, more inventive ways are being deployed to manufacture hype for a star or a film, and the media, without which none of this would work, has emerged as a willing handmaiden for the Bollywood publicity machine. “Movies are becoming commodities. What we’re witnessing is FMCGisation—movies becoming like soaps and shampoos,” says Siddhartha Mukherjee, senior VP, communications, at TAM Media Research. 

Take this week’s big release, Kites. The film’s first “look” was unveiled last year at the Cannes film festival and it has relentlessly been in the news ever since. The publicity machine has been fed stories of a Hrithik-Barbara Mori “affair”; of Suzanne Roshan walking out of her marital home; of Hrithik turning alcoholic; of director Anurag Basu’s supposed misunderstanding with producer Rakesh Roshan; of the climax of the film getting leaked in a tabloid; of a controversial kissing scene between Hrithik and a topless Mori. Last week, Hrithik got into a scuffle with journos at Shirdi; shortly after, the film got into copyright infringement trouble in Bihar; last Sunday, a glowing advance review of the film by a foreign critic started doing the rounds on the internet; and then, to top it all, came a tweet of heady approval  from none other than Karan Johar.

Is this just a string of coincidences or a variety of cunning schemes hyping the film and its stars? That such a question can be asked about so many films that have hit the screen in recent times strongly suggests the latter.

1The Hype Machine

• Vidhu Vinod Chopra’s spat with Chetan Bhagat over denial of proper credits to him for Three Idiots
• MNIK’s run-in with Bal Thackeray
• Karan Johar’s apology to Raj Thackeray on the use of “Bombay” rather than “Mumbai” in Wake Up Sid
• Kurbaan’s posters with a bare-backed Kareena Kapoor removed by Shiv Sena supporters
• Billu Barber faces the ire of barbers’ associations. Title eventually changed to Billu.
• Rann runs into trouble over Jana Gana Mana remix
• Deshdrohi’s Kamaal Khan gets 5 seconds of fame because of the Marathi-Bihari issue in his film

---

2Issues

• Aligning Rang De Basanti with causes like the Jessica Lall case, and fatal MiG-21 accidents
• Making dyslexia a hot topic for the causerati to sell Taare Zameen Par
• Playing up the failures of the education system to sell Three Idiots
• Organising college debates on the role of youth in politics to kickstart publicity for  Rajneeti

---

Read more HERE.

Hoax Office Hardsell

To manufacture buzz, Bollywood’s PR engines will use anything

“What would you do if your mobile number was disclosed on the worldwide web?” I’m asked this rather odd question by Bollywood PR consultant Dale Bhagwagar. “I’ll ask the service provider to change it at once,” I reply matter-of-factly. But that’s definitely not the way Bhagwagar’s agile mind, adept at turning trivia into hype for the benefit of his famous Bollywood clients, would have reacted. In fact, one of his major triumphs arose from precisely such a situation. A few years ago, when his then client Shilpa Shetty’s number somehow got leaked on the internet (he avoids telling you how), he used the incident to whip up a media frenzy that planted her firmly in the day’s headlines. Press handouts were distributed widely and TV reporters were persuaded to take up positions outside the police station where Shilpa went to file a complaint. Candid, even boastful, Bhagwagar says happily, “We used the incident very effectively to hardsell Shetty.” And then, as we sip our cold coffees in suburban Mumbai, he casually proceeds to take a call from Rakhi Sawant to advise her how her run-in with the censor board over a music video could be played out in the media. “Good publicity is good. Bad publicity is better. Ugly publicity is the best because it travels the fastest and hits the hardest. The worst of all is no publicity,” declares Bhagwagar. 

That is his motto, and indeed the motto of every film publicist in the business, though few are as brazen as Bhagwagar. They are more likely to favour sophisticated MBA-speak about “expectation management”, like Prabhat Chaudhary of Spice PR, the man behind the marketing success of Three Idiots and Ghajini. The promotion of films and stars has become a big, clever and crafty enterprise and image managers and publicity gurus are riding the wave. Some even have management students clamouring to join them and investors willing to put serious money into their once hole-in-the-wall companies. Film marketing budgets are skyrocketing, more inventive ways are being deployed to manufacture hype for a star or a film, and the media, without which none of this would work, has emerged as a willing handmaiden for the Bollywood publicity machine. “Movies are becoming commodities. What we’re witnessing is FMCGisation—movies becoming like soaps and shampoos,” says Siddhartha Mukherjee, senior VP, communications, at TAM Media Research. 

Take this week’s big release, Kites. The film’s first “look” was unveiled last year at the Cannes film festival and it has relentlessly been in the news ever since. The publicity machine has been fed stories of a Hrithik-Barbara Mori “affair”; of Suzanne Roshan walking out of her marital home; of Hrithik turning alcoholic; of director Anurag Basu’s supposed misunderstanding with producer Rakesh Roshan; of the climax of the film getting leaked in a tabloid; of a controversial kissing scene between Hrithik and a topless Mori. Last week, Hrithik got into a scuffle with journos at Shirdi; shortly after, the film got into copyright infringement trouble in Bihar; last Sunday, a glowing advance review of the film by a foreign critic started doing the rounds on the internet; and then, to top it all, came a tweet of heady approval  from none other than Karan Johar.

Is this just a string of coincidences or a variety of cunning schemes hyping the film and its stars? That such a question can be asked about so many films that have hit the screen in recent times strongly suggests the latter.

1The Hype Machine

• Vidhu Vinod Chopra’s spat with Chetan Bhagat over denial of proper credits to him for Three Idiots
• MNIK’s run-in with Bal Thackeray
• Karan Johar’s apology to Raj Thackeray on the use of “Bombay” rather than “Mumbai” in Wake Up Sid
• Kurbaan’s posters with a bare-backed Kareena Kapoor removed by Shiv Sena supporters
• Billu Barber faces the ire of barbers’ associations. Title eventually changed to Billu.
• Rann runs into trouble over Jana Gana Mana remix
• Deshdrohi’s Kamaal Khan gets 5 seconds of fame because of the Marathi-Bihari issue in his film

---

2Issues

• Aligning Rang De Basanti with causes like the Jessica Lall case, and fatal MiG-21 accidents
• Making dyslexia a hot topic for the causerati to sell Taare Zameen Par
• Playing up the failures of the education system to sell Three Idiots
• Organising college debates on the role of youth in politics to kickstart publicity for  Rajneeti

---

Read more HERE.

Crossing over, but with hurdles

With the global market beckoning, Bollywood is on the cusp. Should it woo audiences with restrained productions or continue with melodrama? Sudish Kamath finds out.

 LINK

How much of Bollywood drama can the world handle? And how much restraint will the local audience appreciate? Hindi cinema seems to be torn between the two worlds, its loyalties divided between two contrasting sensibilities.

Over the last few years, films such as “Rang De Basanti”, “Rock On” and “Wake Up Sid” have been winning over urban multiplex audiences with their restraint and, at the other end of the spectrum, the soppy melodramatic “Saawariya”s and “Kambakkht Ishq”s have bombed at the box office.

Catering for whom?

As Karan Johar recently discovered, the twain don't seem to meet. Though the melodrama in the first half of “My Name is Khan” was muted to appeal to the West, the contrasting soppy second half came under fire from critics all over the world. But when the film collects 17 out of its 39 million dollars from the West, who do you really make a film for?

“My Name is Khan” epitomises that conflict with its half-hearted change in sensibility.

When Karan Johar brainstormed for titles for his “Stepmom” remake on Twitter, he realised that any Hindi sounding title made his film sound like a soap opera about motherhood.

More recently, the Roshans and Anurag Basu met with extremely polarised reviews to “Kites”. While most Indian critics and audiences thought it was too slow, the foreign press remained in awe of the genre-bender, applauding it for changing gears from drama to comedy to action to tragedy with its song and dance narrative and compared it with the flamboyance of Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez.

For long, melodrama has been the staple of Indian cinema but with urban centres getting more and more used to Hollywood and international fare, the tolerance levels for mush and corn has gone down significantly. Once celebrated for its sense of drama, Karan Johar and Sanjay Leela Bhansali today feel the heat from the new age brand of restraint from the likes of Anurag Kashyap, Farhan Akhtar and Nagesh Kukunoor.

While multiple-Oscar winning “Slumdog Millionaire” faced no such problem despite its in-your-face drama (apart from a segment of media calling it poverty porn), “Kites” has met with scathing reviews at home for being overly dramatic, cheesy and predictable. For the record, “Kites” collected Rs. 65 crore worldwide (with Rs. 30.5 crore at home) in its opening weekend. Now consider that the film was released in 2000 screens in India and 500 screens abroad. A more West-friendly shorter 90-minute-version of the 130-minute film presented by Brett Ratner, minus the song and dance, will release this week.

Though packaging the Indian form of drama with its song and dance glory may not always work (as “Kambakkht Ishq” demonstrated), it surely has altered the sense of morality depicted in Hindi cinema over the years.

While Karan Johar makes no big deal out of his hero marrying a divorced single mother of a teenager, Anurag Basu shows the bad guy going to bed with the heroine of the film without really making it seem like a big deal. Chastity that used to be a prerequisite for the heroine is not sacred anymore (maybe it does not apply to Barbara Mori because she's Mexican) as filmmakers attempt to keep it real for the West.

As Hindi cinema makes this jump from drama to restraint, where does that leave the rural Indian audience? Who is going to give them their monthly dose of a “Gadar” and “Wanted”, once filmmakers decide there's more money abroad?

And with the growing sensibility disconnect between city-based critics and the audience from the heartland of India, what really defines a good movie? Something that reaches out to a segment of audiences that bring in more money or something that entertains of a nation of hungry, cinema-crazy fans who have been born and brought up with melodrama.

With the global market opening up, Indian cinema is at the cusp of significant change — in form and content.