"Krishnam Vande Jagadguru" Telugu Movie Review

“Krishnam Vande Jagadguru” is quite a resonant title taken from a Sanskrit Sloka in Bhagavatam. It has Rana  Daggubati who hasn’t yet tasted Box Office success and casts Nayanatara in her first glam role after “Srirama Rajyam”. Director Radhakrishna Jagarlamudi is known for themes which are seldom dwelled upon on celluloid. In “Gamyam” he talks about being a humanist instead of a hedonist and enjoying the journey more than the destination in life. In “Vedam” he talks about the essence of right living and right thinking taking stories of five different people and blending them in the climax to drum up  the broad message of Vedas. It broke new ground in presentation and clearly remains a unique film of sorts  - in genre, theme and vivacity. “KVJ” his current, therefore, built a crescendo of expectations  - it has the implicit backing of the king of script-judgements D Suresh Babu, and all the paternal support that comes with such backing – theatres, distribution, the works. It is touted to be the real launch film of Rana. Does it deliver? Maybe, but it’s a mixed bag, according to me.

The story is quite explosive. Loosely borrowed from the famous “Surabhi” Nageswar Rao character. The patriarch of Surabhi theatre  (Kota Srinivasa Rao) runs the troupe with new generation of artists who show mixed commitment to the craft. One of them is BTech Babu (Rana) who is the “manasa putra” of Kota Srinivasa Rao, he is 6’3”tall, handsome, built like a planet and pulls off any role from the mythologies from Abhimanyu and Ghatotkachha to Narasimha and Krishna Avatars. He is the only hope for Kota to enact his magnum opus “Krishnam Vande Jagadguru” in Bellary Mines but BTech Babu has plans to study in US. Crest-fallen, Kota  dies. Shaken by Kota’s death and his past, BTech Babu re-dedicates himself and unites the troupe to  carry on the tradition. This takes him to Bellary where he falls in love with Nayanatara (an investigative documentary film-maker on mining scam). He also meets with the real baddies of Bellary – Murali Sharma and Milan Gunajee and finds more economic and social arson leading to imbalances in the surroundings of Bellary. Then the climax in a filmy way where Btech Babu pounces on the real villain who disturbed his ecosystem: While playing Narasimha Avatar, he pounces upon the villain (find out yourself) and eventually lets the displaced villagers give a fire exit to the villain.  

Director Krish had picked an explosive theme of Mining loot and its effect on the underbellies affected by it. He blends it half-heartedly with the declining patronage for theatre arts with the influx of media and economic boom leading to evolving forms of crisp entertainment. He lacks the control and finesse to blend both. In 136 minutes, he shows half-hearted will to grapple with the issues of the movie. Unlike Bengali and Marathi theatre, why did Telugu theatre vanish after centuries of fantastic run? There must be reasons beyond the evident – could it be mass urbanization or media invasion? Could better improvisation of language (simplification, actually) helped? Could they have picked up shorter and more vibrant and relevant themes? Any craft dies not because of falling patronage but only because of lack of marketing initiatives and perceived value – those aspects were not properly investigated. If Annamacharya had sung several thousand keerthanas, how come only few are sung with telling noticeability by even the unitiated? Some soul-searching needs to be done by Telugu theatre why such a decline befell it  - those who don’t adapt to the changing times in technology, presentation, content, theme or relevance, they are bound to perish. Krish disappointingly, has done no justice to the relevance of this debate. Instead, he sprinkles a few powerful dialogues that art is that which wakes you up from dreams, not the dream itself. Point taken, but how does the art become sustainable, remunerative and fulfilling? Krish doesn’t answer:  If you use  language that’s not crisp or clear to the current generation, the theatre has no hope in hell. But if you make it entertaining and improvise, it can survive the odds as in cities like Pune, Mumbai, Kolkata etc. For every “Surabhi” example, we need to see why some others have succeeded like “Prithvi” or “Qadar Ali Baig theatre” or some noted English theatres. Everybody loves a good play and stage performance and I can vouch that given good presentation and content, people will go to any lengths to watch theatre, there’s no dearth of audience here.

Krish also under-utilises his own strengths in documenting social problems well in his assessment of the mining mafia. Even though so much has happened in Bellary, and Goa mining scams, some justice is happening in terms of export bans, invoking of the RTI, land acquisition laws,  etc. I don’t want to delve deep into this issue as there are other larger points of debate which can be tackled separately. Showing how mining barons terrorise the villagers is just old-school villainy. When you have the main villain as “Reddappa”, there is so much scope for bringing real-life characterization and depth to sophisticated villainy. Krish fails to deliver here as well as in the characterization of most roles in the film. Nayanatara is a documentary film-maker on the mining scams. We don’t think she is either intelligent nor capable of the task at hand in the way she is characterized; she is mostly seducing Rana, dancing with him or running with her camera in Ambassador car. And what is the connection between a CBI officer and a documentary film-maker? Do they authorize film-makers to shoot documentaries and give leads? Murali Sharma is a talented villain who continues to be short-changed in Telugu films, he had scope to give a fiery performance but is again given short-shrift. The three best characters in the film are L.B.Sriram as the safekeeper of sand, Brahmanandam as “Rampam” and Posani Krishna Murali as “Tipu Sultan” car driver. Infact, the lightest moments in the film are when Brahmanandam takes a dig at stage artists and when Posani Krishna Murali sizzles on screen with his antics.  Their screen presence electrifies for the moments they appear.

Rana  Daggubati definitely has a diction that is top of the tree and credit must be given for his awesome dialogue-delivery of tough Telugu. He looks very impressive in the roles of mythological characters especially as Abhimanyu and Narasimha but he needs to improve his looks and work on what is the best facial hairdo for a person of his hulk and height. He looked better in “Dum Maro Dum” and previous movies in terms of looks than in this movie. He probably looks better with a stubble or a beard and a moustache like Victory Venkatesh (btw,  Venkatesh has a guest appearance with Sameera Reddy in a song). But he delivers a heartful performance that may make him win more hearts. Had Krish concentrated on every scene one at a time, the intensity of Rana would have come alive because he has streaks of fiery acting like Venky. Krish has treaks of my uncle Bapu – he doesn’t allow a scene to fully develop to its potential (like they say in Telugu, “scene panda ledu”).  Music by Mani Sharma  sounds unlike him and lacks the class and masterly touch of his earlier films. I get a sense that Krish imposes his own restrictions on the music output expected for BGM and songs except in “Vedam”. The background song with SPB at about half-dozen moments of the film brings out the pathos well.  There are songs which abruptly break into the flow of the scenes - like the circus song. What mars the film also is the degree of violence – it has some scenes that you will cringe to watch like tongue-slaying and hot-water throat bath etc. Why do they show such scenes? Why compound cruelty with clarity? I understand the censors have ordered for 36 seconds of brutal violence to be cut but only 12 seconds are cut in some theatres and the rest are showing off.

On the whole, a movie with mixed-bag results and could have been better handled by Krish because he had a great opportunity. I hope he becomes deft enough to be equal to the themes he selects henceforth. I will give this movie 2.5 out of 5 as I was disappointed a bit. It is watchable more in the first half than the second.

R.I.P Balasaheb Thackaray

Balasahab Thackaray shares his surname with a famous English novelist (William M Thackeray) who in turn shares his first name with the world’s most famous playwright (William Shakespeare). I firmly believe that Balasaheb’s life is an interesting mixture of half a dozen Shakespearan plays and “Vanity Fair” written by the original Thackaray. He commanded a following that shames the twitter following of Dalai Lama or the facebook friends of Mark Zuckerberg and definitely commands more silent followership than the likes of Puttaparthi Sai Baba or any film celebrity. He has achieved a cult status that’s colossal and unassailable in many many years for now - because of his nationalistic fervor, unrivalled outspokenness and a Zionist love for India that’s at once messianic and heart-warming. Balasaheb was the final authority when it comes to anything that concerns Indian pride and self-respect and carefully used pulse-points that created euphoric waves of opprobrium whenever India’s masses were vulnerable to mass hysteria to do his bidding – whether it was playing a cricket series with Pakistan, Sania marrying a Pakistani, Sanjay Dutt’bail or Salman Khan’s behavior, Amitabh’s exit from politics after Bofors, or whether national security laws kept a vigil on terrorists. What Balasaheb bade was final, and woe betide anybody who went against. Balasaheb had achieved all this with a hysterical mass following outside the reaches of Sadgurus and Superstars and led an interesting life that had enough contradictions that can trigger a few hundred Bollywood films (infact many were inspired by him). There will be lot of questions that intrigued biographers and journalists always – Was he really a catnip? Were all the finest femme fatales deflowered at his bidding? Why did he favor Telugus over Tamils in the famous tirade against non-Marathas? Why was he such a mad fan of Hitler and how much of Zionism influenced his “anti-immigration policy”? What led to the parting of his nephew and the death of his son? If he was so strong, how did so many Satraps shoot up even at the peak of Shiv Sena’s meteoric rise like Sharad Pawar and Pramod Mahajan? Has Mumbai moved on during the last five years or so because of anachronistic anti-immigration stance adopted by the Shivsena? All said and done, it was a life more colorful than the most larger-than-life figures seldom seen in world history. Bal Thackeray commanded a premium right till his end and had he stuck to his calling of a caricaturist like RK Laxman who shared his desk at Free Press Journal or confined to writing “Burning Words” like Babu Rao Patel, Bal Thackaray wouldn’t have been a phenomenon as the world knows him today. We all aspire to live interesting lives. Bal Thackaray had a cracker of a life from the time he was out of the womb. Balasaheb has been the only voice outside of Congress who lent credence and vitality to every world view that mattered on foreign affairs, diginitaries visiting India across the fields, whether we should encourage multi-culturalism and what is good for our security. We should be thankful for Balasaheb that but for him and Sushma Swaraj, we would have had a foreign citizen Sonia Gandhi as a Prime Minister. History always had a place of honor for fierce patriots like Savarkar and Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Prithviraj Chauhan – Balasaheb built a business and political empire out of nationalist fervor and zeal that sometime bordered on the theatre of the absurd. May his soul R.I.P.

"How Will You Measure Your Life?" Book Review

"How Do You Measure Your Life?" is one of the most exciting self-help books I have come across in years. It starts off like a business book with a blurb that promises to help you find fulfilment using lessons from some of the world's greatest businesses. Deceptively alluring for a Senior Management book-reader, it draws you charmingly into the issues that keep us away from lasting happiness and sense of making a contribution to life.   We gather the book is a creative collaboration between three different folks who have differing views on God and Spirituality. The main author of the book is Clayton M Christensen, who wrote "The Innovator's Dilemma" which became a sensation in triggering a huge debate in what sustains market leadership.This book grew out of a speech Christensen used to give on finding a meaning and happiness in life at Harvard Business School. James Allworth, the second author, is a graduate of the same school where Christensen teaches. Karen Dillon was the editor of Harvard Business Review who helped chisel the thoughts of the duo into an immensely readable and lively commentary on what makes living worthwhile - sometimes bordering on spirituality, most times offering plenty of sage counsel on the right living without being preachy.

The book is neatly divided into ten chapters running to less than 207 pages. It seeks to answer primarily three questions that unlike the Innovator's dilemma, haunt every graduating student: 1. How can I be sure that  I will be successful and happy in my career? 2. How can my relationship with my family and close friends become an enduring source of happiness? 3. How can I live a life of integrity - and stay out of jail? Pretty simple, right? Yet we observe from Rajat Gupta to David Madoff, breaches of integrity abound, even if differing in degrees. Most folks have got a problem with atleast one of the three aspects inquired into by the authors. Christensen offers plenty of refreshed and relevant examples from the world of business, sports and celebrities to take us through a tour of how to answer these three questions so we may find if life's worth it.

Christensen divides the book into three sections each analysing the questions on finding respectively one's mojo in career, family and living a life of integrity without ending up in jail. The chapters on how to choose one's calling in life and the ones on bringing up children are brilliantly analysed with telling value and counter-intuitive evidence from business research. As the author says, " I don't have an opinion. The theory has an opinion." This is not a typical book that gives quick-fix solutions to perennial dilemmas. It gives the right paradigm-changing objective assessment of some of the simplest questions that we must really be asking ourselves in order to make our lives count. I recommend this book irresptive of how early or late you are in life. It sure tickles you to make those critical decisions that will deliver results in all the three areas of life - career, family and character.

"How Will You Measure Your life?" by Clayton M Christensen, James Allworth & Karen Dillon, pp.221, pub. Harper Collins

Lessons of 1962 Sino-Indian War: Have we learnt?

My dad has read every book there is to read on Indo-China War of 1962 (for that matter on every war!) which completes the 50th Anniversary today. According to his perceptible reading, India has never learnt any lessons for 50 years because despite the public outcry against Nehru after the humiliating defeat by China, it has yet to de-classify the Brookes Report (commissioned to study the wages of war). But primarily, much like the ill-famed Panchasheel policy of Nehru, there are five reasons why we lost the war to China:


1. A weak-willed Nehru's blind-bets on China's "peace initiatives".

2. Keeping Nehru's weak (first cousin) BrijmohanKoll as In-charge for war. He was so inept, my dad tells, he applied for "sick leave" when a full-scale war was on in Northeast. Which General-in-war want to be on "leave"?

3. A communist-at-heart Krishna Menon was our honorable Defence Minister during war - and he continued to blunder and get blindsided by China - until impeachment came his way.

4. Lack of preparedness in both skill, scale of weaponry and strategy - blundering after blunder, believing "headfakes" and "false alarms".

5. Wishful thinking, Utopian drams and Living on Mythical assumptions - that China can never attack India, that China is at the foot of Himalayas whereas India is on top of the mountain ranges, that we don't need to modernise or coordinate artillery and airforce, that we should retreat when outnumbered by the enemy (except the legendary Capt.Shaitan Singh).



According to my father, the real unexpected help to India came from two forces - one, the brave Nagas and other tribes in Northeast who never supported India at other times rallied behind the Indian Army in their weak battles with Chinese and two, United States of America - John F Kennedy - who "big-brothered" Pakistan not to take undue advantage of the Sino-Indian War by simultaneously attacking from East and West Pakistan. (Pakistan obliged until 1965 and then 1971). So, the lessons are many but after 50 years, the country is owed a full de-classification on how we lost - honor and lakhs of hectares of sovereign territory - to a fellow BRIC nation. As my dad says, "It is clear the Indian psyche is so scarred that we know why we will never admit this defeat - and Nehru also cringed, collapsed and cut short his life by atleast 8 years."



Even JP Datta or Manoj Kumar never made films on this war because as Indians, we would rather flex our muscles against weaker military nations and show off our bravado. But if we are determined, focused and realistic in self-introspection, then we should re-assess our strengths and weaknesses in the military battlefield, equip better, pulverise our disempowering myths - and avenge our defeat in economical battlefields. Thats what progressive nations humiliated in war have done - examples, South Korea (crushed by Japan), Japan (by US), China (by Japan), and Germany (by Allies). All of them regained national pride. What about India? Remember this always, on Oct.20th.

"Brothers" Telugu Movie Review/ "Maattraan" Tamil Movie Review

“Brothers” (“Maattraan” in Tamil) is the dubbed film starring Tamil superstar Suryaa directed by K.V.Anand who made one of the best movies – “Rangam” in 2011. K.V.Anand’s first film is about the rot in media and politics that’s splitting the social fabric. In “Brothers” (“Maatraan”), he takes on a much more advanced topic that’s still being discussed and the jury is still out at Biodiversity summits and conclaves – Genetically Modified Foods. But wait, that is not the basic story. It is more complicated. Its about the bonding between conjoined twins (joined at the hip) both played by Suryaa - who are born after Prof. Ramachandran (played by Sachin Khedekar) performs many experiments in artificial insemination in trying to create the ultimate gene factory – someone who is multi-talented combining the likes of Sachin Tendulkar, Ilayaraja, Michael Jackson and seven other people. Sounds absurd, right? Is that all? Its a little more complicated. At the outset itself, despite the efforts by Professor to implant the best sperm bank in his wife’s womb, Surya square is born as conjoined twins much against his wishes. Later, the professor forms a company called Locus Lactos Limited which makes a billion dollar Energy Drink containing milk-related contents. Soon, this energy drink called “Energion” leads the market with over 70% market share causing consternation in competition. It leadis to lot of industrial espionage from foreigners who you gather are actually from Ukraine. Why do these foreigners want to unravel the secret formulae of “Energion”? Its even more complicated. The team from Ukraine suspect that the drink made by Prof.Ram’s company is debilitating the health of the consumers by boosting the energy in short-term but flattening their lives with harmful overdoses of steroids. Or Androids. Who cares?

Our conjoined twins – Vimal and Akhil – sons of billionaire Prof.Ram meanwhile date Kajal agarwal – who is a petite Russian translator who figures out exactly what’s happening with the company and Professor. But by then, Prof.Ram and his criminal gang of overlords in factory intercept and eliminate each one of the so-called spies who uncover the real happenings in the factory – where products are inter-mixed with hazardous substances that kill millions of lives. The shocker in the film comes bang in the middle of the film at interval time – where the father of the conjoined twins hires organized labour to kill the main whistle-blower, his son Vimal. Then, in a bid to survive Akhil, the doctors transplant Vimal’s heart into Akhil so he survives. And later Akhil gets to the bottom of the murky dealings. He takes the help of Kajol to get to the real story in Ukraine which is even more complicated. Then the painful ending of realization by the father and the final confrontation between the father and the son. Phew! Quite a story that, can’t be retold without gulping down the daily intake of water a man requires.

K.V. Anand has actually steamrolled three stories into one story and like the father of the conjoined twins tried to infuse a giant killer of a plot that will be called the mother of all films. There is a story of conjoined twins, which by itself, if allowed to progress smoothly would have been a perfect entertainer. Then there is a story of industrial espionage which looks credulous. And then, there is a story of Genetically Modified foods enmeshed with animal and clinical trials of drugs tested before market release that is poorly researched and misinforms. Allowing the three stories to interact with each other in a simple plot of action and romance is the biggest mistake K.V.Anand has made. The most glaring defect in the story is the weak characterization of father - Prof.Ramachandran played well by Sachin Khedekar. How can a father be so heartless to kill his own sons right from the infancy stage to the stage they begin confronting him? By showing that a father’s sense of mammon-worshipping knows no bounds, KV Anand’s plot is the weakest I have seen in years in the manner of being absurdly wicked against one’s own children. This is why, one feels switched off after knowing the culprit is the father and the one who is massacred is one’s own offspring – it kills whatever emotion is left in the film half-way through. Had the villain been somebody else whom the twins attempt to bring to justice, it would have felt differently and maybe might have been more watchable. The initial sixty minutes of the film where the conjoined twins grow up with an overlapping body part in the hip, go to study and chill and enjoy being together in bath or baseline tennis – all of that sizzles and the audience gasp for more. But once the interval comes and goes, there ends the best part of the film and all the soul in it. The second half bores you with the tedium of the plot that’s already known well before the interval - it reminded me of the same way in which “7th Sense” (“7th Ariyu”) dragged its plot in the second half with monotonous villainy and lack of depth in characterization of the villain. In a bid to make it international (the film has atleast 15 minutes of running time in foreign languages – Russian, et al) the film over-concentrates on the dense and complicated plot without checking for its emotional content, comedy (hardly present and comes like a whiff of fresh air only in the first half).

Why does a father want to kill his own children? How can higher market share of a drink correlate with rising health hazards of children who consume it? How come everybody from Food Inspector to the highest authorities and police turn a nelson’s eye to the frauds perpetrated by the company and nobody detects except competition and eventually family members? What is the connection between a sperm bank and conjoined twins? (It has nothing to do with it. Incidentally, there has been a famous project called Nobel Prize sperm bank project which tried to collect sperm from 100 Nobel Prize winners and make a genius baby but finally the project itself became a damp squib. But that’s an interesting story). What is the most harmful substance in an Energy Drink, lets say Red-Bull? (It is caffeine and not Steroids). What is the connection between Genetically Modified Organisms and the killer product? (Again that is not explained very well by the director who made it more to sound intellectual without explaining the pros and cons of GM foods. This is not just K.V.Anand’s fault – there are several happening directors in Tollywood also who drop jargon-sounding words in the middle of a script just to pander to A-class and balcony seat audiences. By the way, this is not a conclave to discuss GMO etc. but my short take on them is that it is the most misunderstood term almost like 3-D printing - the debate should be more on who owns the seeds etc. and not on the malefic side-effects of Genetically Modified Seeds. BT Cotton seeds since introduction in India have already made India a net exporter than a net importer). There are many questions unaswered. Finally, the director should have researched on Barcelona Olympics 1992 where he says the United Team (ex-USSR republics) beats the USA because of the Energy Drink made by our Professor; it actually beat the US by a mere four medals.

What is the point? My point is that nobody denies cinematic licenses to creative directors to experiment with new genres and present different themes under one roof but why do they do poor homework, play with the wrong emotions and mess up the plot? Why over-complicate? Why not make a documentary on GM Foods or Drug trials instead of making films that suck? The real casualty is Suryaa because this film will definitely disappoint his fans despite his superlative performance as conjoined twins. Showing two different shades as conjoined twins was sheer brilliance and he excels with his all-round talents. He shows class and mass with ease unlike other heroes. Performances by Kajol is average despite huge potential of full-length role. Kajol is becoming predictable as a glamour doll without any new variations. Sachin Khedekar has got a plumpy role and he makes most capital of it after Suryaa, of course. Music by Harris Jayaraj has been good in parts. Since Harris Jayaraj has got a natural proclivity towards incorporating Russian instrumentation in his music, he composes his heart out in a few songs set in the backdrop of the Ex-Russian republics but not many memorable numbers to root for. His BGM is better than the songs but all said, Harris Jayaraj is a gifted composer whose stamp on Suryaa’s career has been most vivid and it follows here too. Cinematography and visual effects have been brilliant and atleast two songs - one starring Isha Sarvaani and another starring the conjoined twins romancing Kajol in Norway were brilliantly picturised. Stunts by Peter Hein have been very impressive. The fight before interval running for over 18 minutes is astonishingly shot with all the roller coaster and speed-revolving trains orbiting at their speeds and a frighteningly risky fight ensues between the twins and the rowdies. On the whole, the movie doesn’t deliver and has lot of mental floss that disengages you from the right mood to watch the film because of wrong emotions, lack of a good romantic track between Suryaa and Kajal. You can give 1.5 for the technical efforts of the director and one more for Suryaa’s masterly effort but afterwards you have to say “Oh My God”. 2.5 out of 5 but not a film that entertains cleanly.

"English Vinglish" Hindi Movie Review

“English Vinglish” is a lovable film that is worth the wait. If you like the English language, you will find it finger lickin’ good. If you can’t digest English language and like to stick to your native language, you will find it deliciously finger lickin’ good. No jokes here, I am serious. For fans of Sridevi who have been waiting for a film where she reinvents herself after a hiatus that’s almost a generation gone, it’s a very good comeback film. Credit must go to atleast three people besides Sridevi – the producers Rakesh Jhunjhunwala and Radhakrishna Damani (both of them India’s ace stock-pickers), debutante director Gauri Shinde (an ad professional in her own right) and her backer, R.Balki (R Balakrishnan who made acclaimed films like “Cheeni Kum” and “Paa”).

As the title says, “English Vinglish” is all about a homemaker’s falling sense of self-esteem because of her ignorance of English. Mother of two, and wife to a high-flying corporate executive, Shashi (Sridevi) is bored with life and except her younger kid who adores her, her elder kid chastises her for not knowing English. (Doesn’t happen as cruelly in real life) and her husband doesn’t show much sensitivity to her blues and midlife crisis of confidence (happens). There comes a call from Shashi’s only sister Meera in US beckoning her to come early for the wedding of her daughter. With much reluctance and usual ridicule from family, Shashi leaves for US ahead of the family members by three weeks. There, in proper Manhattan district of New York, she fumbles again and again failing to communicate in English but finds accommodative nieces and an affectionate sister. And the comes a move that redeems her sense of self-pride – a secretive enrolment into a English Class – an American equivalent of Russell’s Spoken English comprising of a cosmopolitan crowd – a Chinese, a Pakistani, a Madrasi, a Russian, an African, a Frenchman (who develops a fondness for her) apart from her – all taught by an infectiously enthusiastic Gay English teacher who looks like a cross between Clark Gable and Steve Forbes.

You can guess what happens in the end – a woman driven to desperation by family finally redeems herself, gets back her mojo in life and earns her spurs with the basic character-building traits of persistence, self-awareness and determination. Towards the climax, as the story moves, the English teacher announces the date of final test as proof of proficiency in functional English wherein each one of the students has to give a speech for five minutes in English. That coincides with the day of Shashi’s niece’s wedding- the purpose of her stay in US. But she comes up trumps on the d-day, skipping the test due to her own faltering first and later delivering the speech of her life for five minutes in full glare of the guests who turned up at the wedding, her discouraging family, raving fans of her culinary skills and the students of the English class and the teacher. She delivers a speech that stupefies all with words that stir you in fully functional English that makes her earn distinction. And then, the accolades sweeter than the Laddus she is famous for.

On the whole, a good story induces a form of trance because it alters your state of awareness – of the here and now. Director Gauri Shinde’s story can take most people of both genders to an expanded awareness of an imagined world that may not always happen– to the classroom corridors with kids who shy away from the deficiencies of their parents at the PTA meetings and get needlessly “embarrassed” by their parents, to the inside of a flight you are about to take for the very first time in your life and you choke for water, to the wide-eyed canvass that never seems to strike your visual range when you get on to the last floor of a building that’s enveloped by multiple skyscrapers in New York City, to the moments of our daily life when our destiny keeps getting shaped and re-shaped and relationships build and destroyed. Gauri Shinde seems as adept as her husband R.Balki in weaving a story that’s honest, and hugely evocative. “English Vinglish” gives you a roller-coaster ride of emotions that make you cry, laugh and not necessarily choke. In 136 minutes, she stirs your senses enough to give you a fully-bathed experience of watching a nice movie. Even though the story uses tunnels underneath the conscious walls of logic to touch the subconscious, most times it is convincing and on few occasions where it seems unreal it won’t affect your growing respect for the director.

Music by Amit Trivedi including BGM and lyrics by Swanand Kirkire are exceptional. Most of the songs enhance the story and heighten the cinematic experience which is the hallmark of a good composer. The five minutes of screen space Sridevi shares with cameo artist Amitabh Bachhan is a treat for fans. Amitabh dazzles well and every artiste gives good performance thanks to the characterization achieved by the director. Sridevi should be congratulated for taking a role that suits her demeanor and her sparkling body language which is strikingly expressive – her nuances of emoting naturally with her face and her spirited body rhythms show no signs of letting up. Age definitely shows on her face with makeup that hides the wrinkles but her acting talent in her squeaky cute voice is as spotless. I am tempted to call her by a movie title: the eternal sunshine of a spotless mind. Finally, for those who want to see the US at closer shots in the inner circles of New York city, you won’t find a better film.

Comedy and entertainment come in lavish doses through the grammar grouches of native speakers in English – they form the lightest part of the film. The film can easily find its way into the cinema halls of the countries whose populations aspire to learn English. At least 45 per cent of the dialogues are in English, the level of proficiency is expected to be a basic learner’s vocabulary of less than 1000 words and the toughest word in the film is the word - “judgemental”. I wouldn’t like to be called judgemental in rating a film of this quality and sizzle; I would not give 5 out of 5 but I think it deserves an above-average rating – 3.5 on 5. Take your family to the film – whether you like subtle messages or not – you will surely have good laughs and a feeling of seeing a neat and clean film.

"Rebel" Telugu Movie Review

“Rebel” is the most ambitious film of young Rebel Star Prabhas who has had a string of hits last year. He looks like an uber cool version of veteran actor and original Rebel Star Krishnam Raju and has quite a following equaling the likes of Mahesh Babu and Jr.NTR. Prabhas has picked up director Raghavendra Lawrence – who gave hits like “Kaanchana” and “Mass” and “Style”. Raghavendra Lawrence belongs to that unique set of choreographers who took up directing in a big way – a’la Prabhu Deva, Amma Rajasekhar. It comes with a certain brazenness and some arrogance as well : since they know all the right moves for the lead pair in songs, they will probably or perhaps become a capable director. To some extent, it worked for Lawrence for a few movies but in “Rebel” he falls flat in many areas – the movie is not worth all the hype. I wonder what is that in the movie that took one year in the making.

The plot is a simple revenge story that resembles his earlier films – “Don” and “Kanchana”. Raju (Prabhas) comes to a city in search of “Stephen Roberts” whom nobody has seen before but who commands a fierce army of sophisticated gunmen who extort millions from innocents. Raju learns that only one Naanu knows who Stephen Roberts. Naanu’s daughter is a dance teacher in Bangkok, so Raju woos her to get the bag of secrets about the elusive S.R. He gets the villains finally with lot of gory action and mindless stunts but before that Lawrence shows one more lengthy flashback that reveals Raju’s original background of inheriting the kingdom of a Don (Bhupathi Raju played by Krishnam Raju). Deeksha Sheth, the second heroine in the film is also thrown into the flashback as his first love. The plot and the narration is bland and there is no twist anywhere.



What mars the film is heavy-duty violence which is glorified with graphics – drilling machines are used to pulverize knee-joints, knuckles and shoulders, all kinds of guns are used in the film and there’s relentless spraying of bullets and men are killed like mice. Action sequences are meant to elevate the heroism of a handsome and shapely hero like Prabhas but they are highly contrived and look unimpressive and surreal. All the stunts of the film are straight-lifted from recent Hollywood movies and some are inspired by “Sherlock Holmes” series - the one that shows an improvisation over “Matrix” series in the sense of slow-moving, body-part-breaking kind. Scientifically, the stunt masters know that the only part that is movable in the human face is the lower jaw – not ears, not eyes, not nose. So, animating all over the face is not really credible. Music by Lawrence is unexceptional and lacks finesse that professionals give. Lawrence should stick to his strengths than spreading himself thin. Knowing beats is one thing, drum beats is another.



I am told that the script was first rejected by Prabhas the first time Lawrence narrated it. Prabhas would have been luckier had he gotten away out of this script. It is not a film that will cap his career or one that will rekindle “Chatrapathi” mania despite the potential of the actor. Prabhas carries the film well but his costumes in choreography could have been better. His dialogue delivery is again inconsistent; that’s an area that requires great rework if he has to cement his place amongst the top three. His heroism gets highlighted in unexpected times and falls flat in moments it should've got. Tamanna is exposed to all her body parts full - she is covered most times only 15 per cent in the film and shows that despite all the beauty, she doesn’t have depth in her acting – even the song featuring her exclusively where she does a Janet Jackson-style dancing, audience take a puff break. Deeksha does a tad better in flashback. Krishnam Raju looks relatively comfortable in his elderly role compared with earlier films. The big relief in comedy comes only at three points punctuated well with the entry of Brahmanandam, MS Narayana and Ali. Good to see Ali in a better role as “KamalHasan ShivaShankar”, he sizzles in the six minutes. Mukesh Rushi as the villain shows different shades. On the whole, “Rebel” is a wasted effort by Lawrence despite the stunts, action, drama and negligible comedy because there’s nothing new he could show – it’s a rehash of his earlier films, elements he loves to show of dance, helping the handicapped and orphans, transvestites, dons, revenge, et al. Choreography, his main forte, is also amiss, maybe Lawrence should have given another upcoming a talent a chance at that. On the whole, I would not even give it beyond 2 out of 5 but because of Prabhas, I will give “Rebel” 2.5 on 5.