Reflections from the pensieve

Kurbaan: something you wouldn’t want to Kurbaan your money on

3 things why you shouldn’t watch Kurbaan

1. The movie should be called Fana in New York. If you have seen Fana and New York you know the entire script of the movie. I haven’t watched Shoot on Sight so I don’t know if the story gets some of its incline from that movie as well, then it would be called Shoot on Sight in New York while going Fana.
2. The movie is very slow, it has gone tooooooo much in detail when it didn’t require that much stuff, not at all a fast paced movie.
3. If you are going in for the chemistry between Saif and Kareena you are going to be disappointed. The story doesn’t demand chemistry after a while.

If you are thinking why I m being so sarcastic or being so pessimistic about the movie at the start of my critic itself it’s because I can’t forgive a movie which makes me sleep in between. I don’t know why after Fana and just recently released New York Karan Johar and Rensil had to come up with the same script. Anyways talking about the debutante Rensil who penned the script of Rang de he does a good job on the directors seat. Now here m not contradicting my above statements, the movie is good for a starter. I m trying to compare him with others like Anthony D’souza (Blue) who made a total disaster. Rensil though does do into minutest of minute detail in the movie but the scenes though connected take too long to establish as a real sequence (as one friend quoted “it’s a documentary”). Though he tried his best I would mention a few errors in the movie (that’s the best part J I like finding errors)

• There s this scene where Saif and his colleague try to dump a body when they are intercepted by the police, now the issue is the person is dead for some good number of days, they want it dispose it off coz its stinking, yet when the police fella intercepts them he doesn’t catch a sniff (maybe he had a cold) first mistake forgiven
• The second mistake follows after this, the police guy gets shot and Saif and his friend are chased by just 2 patrol vehicles. Crap, this is America on a shootout on police you will be swarmed by police (maybe some police fellas got stuck in a traffic or their radio shot off) second mistake forgiven
• Time for another mistake, in USA the security has been beefed up big time post 9/11 so if they have the picture of the terrorist with a talibani beard I don’t think their technology is that dumb that you can enter USA with a French beard foxing all authorities and technology
• The last scenes where there’s a bomb explosion the terrorist try to run before they get cordoned off when they explode themselves. If the prime idea was being a suicide bomber why run on being challenged.

Well the movie is good in small slots, some good dialogues like one scene when an American is of the opinion that all Muslims should leave their country Vivek Oberoi states first leave ours, gives out the message in a loud way, leads to a deep introspection why terrorism from a particular religion is rampant, and ofcourse the explosions in the end which look copy book Hollywood. The movie crawls mostly on all fronts suddenly picks up and then slooooooooowws down. It slows down to such an extent sometimes that you can go grab yourself a coffee, get fresh, have a small chit chat, take your own sweet time to be seated yet when you are back you know you haven’t missed anything.

In the end we were fretting singing the song of the movie itself “Kurbaan huaaaa” the only thing our song lacked was the sobs L

Ratings

Screenplay: looks copied errrr inspired

Direction: good for a debutante

Watch it????: (“AND” conditional operator to be used) if you haven’t watched any of the above movies AND if you have the patience of sitting for 3 hours even then think twice

If you knew that the world is gonna end soon after watching this movie you would pray it surely wouldn’t want it to end the way it’s depicted in 2012. Roland Emmerich gets a hattrick of end of civilization movies after Independence Day and Day After Tomorrow. And he succeeds in enthralling the audience the third time in a row. 2012 is set against the Mayan prophesy of the world coming to an end in 2012. (Special news which states that NASA had to build a special team to debunk the myths of Mayan civilization which point out the destruction: http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20091107/981/tsc-scientists-debunk-six-2012-end-of-th.html). Rumors are rife that the world would come to an end at 2012. Don’t know who would be benefitted from this rumor but the movie must have gained a very good opening across the world. Might be a marketing gimmick by the movie guys, riding on fear, don’t know just speculations which might turn out in favor of the movie. The film revolves around the lives of a few characters that during the course of the movie face a brave death, a accidental death, get stranded or get rescued. One of the stories which presumably is the mainstay of the movie is that of John Cusack, who plays the role of Jackson, a struggling writer and struggling divorced parent trying to get the attention of his kids. Cusack does a lot of justice to the character save for some places where he looks out of place or emotions, he does the bulk of action sequences. Quite aptly supporting him are the characters Adrian (the scientist who first brings the calamity to the govt. notice), Jackson’s wife and Carl the opportunistic rational govt. servant.

Coming back to the real ingredient of the movie, it’s the thrilling action sequences, which really make you jump on your seats, biting your nails and praying that this shouldn’t not happen atleast when we are dying. The first sequence of the earthquake which destroys the whole of California is simply simply non describable. Its about 10 minutes and in 10 minutes you are presented the worst nightmare of you in the form of crumbling buildings, bridges, cars smashing, and the road crumbling beneath you. That 10 minutes is simply what the movie stands for Total Devastation. Had it been a 3D many would have gasped for their breath, so awesome was it. The scene in Tom Cruise's War of the Worlds where the bridge collapses comes a wee bit closer to some parts of this one. The other scenes too are out of the box with flames from the volcano firing like meteors, driving a half burnt cab dodging the meteors like bullet, and then the thick smoke, which threatens to engulf a humongous aircraft, or the giant tsunamis which are big enough for Mount Everest. You can imagine how grand the scenes would have been. But the climax sequences failed to impress me, it wasn't great not even close to the massive earthquake piece which i described earlier. The director could have made this climax a more dramatic one and less thrilling and you end up asking for a better one. 

Roland Emmerich draws a lot of parallel from his previous two movies like the President of US of A being nothing less than a hero, either the president or the vice president facing a chopper crash while being escorted to the safe zone, or highlighting the relevance of developing or third world countries i.e. in day after tomorrow it was a south American nation which opened its gates to American refugees, similarly here the prediction of the calamity is brought to light by an Indian Astrophysicist (something to cheer about, fellow Indians J), the new world is Africa, and the safe eviction point being China. But he leaves some minor errors in his direction cum screenplay like for e.g. lets take the example of our own Indian fella the Astrophysicist, our man can talk English in an Indian accent but the blunder is he talks Hindi in an English accent (stumped!!!), second would be when the faithful gather in prayer in Rome with candles, where they are stuck by a massive earthquake, there’s no fire inspite of the innumerable amount of candles (I know the earthquake and the falling of the building was more important but this is Roland) and last but not the least mobiles working in India that too when there is total destruction around (amazing someone please tell Roland that in India you need to have towers). But such minor mistakes go all unnoticed in front of the amazing cataclysmic scenes in the movie.

In the end you come out of the theatre with a awe, talking how great the scenes were, but not completely satisfied I mean (100%), this movie could have been brilliant, it turned out to be a shade lower simply great. I was 95% satisfied by that 5% could have been easily turned to make it a simply superb movie. The story sometimes goes too slow for such a movie, it puts a lot of drama and irrelevant conversations which makes the impact go lose for some time, and some action scenes seemed like they were orphaned like the giant tsunami overturning a giant cruise which ends abruptly.  The movie is like a roller coaster ride up and down then suddenly very high, dips and so on. But the action sequences try to plaster the fallen moulds of direction and storyline. 

Masand gave a rating of 3 << http://ibnlive.in.com/news/masands-movie-review-2012-is-loud-and-crazy/105204-8.html >>  

My take on the movie

Story – Average

Direction – Good

Scenes – CANNOT be COMPARED, BREATHSTOPPING

Watch it – DEFINITELY

My friend changed the status from single to being in a relationship. The number of scraps to him on the social website quadrupled as compared to previous one month or so..... Wonder why people are so much interested in one's relationship status. One status change and friends who didn't even remember there was a certain this existing came flooding with scraps to know who the lucky one is. Interesting nature of human beings, by the way its a good idea if your scrapbook is barren for the past one week, one month follow this technique or should i call mantra. Guaranteed response. Happy reading :)

I happened to stumble upon Forbes top 10 richest billionaires in the world, the top 3 were no surprises, rather others also, but what caught my eye was this point: the top 5 wealthiest people did not inherit a fortune, one was an immigrant from Lebanon, the other was selling cards, matches, pens and fish on a bicycle, the other sold newspapers as his first job. So what exactly was “the” factor that made them billionaires? People would cite many factors hard work, intelligence, luck, perseverance etc etc. but I would start with “being discontent” as one of the crucial factors. All these people were discontent with the way their current lives was, discontent about the state of affairs, the way business was run. But then you may question aren’t we discontent with the way things are but we are not even millionaires let alone billionaires. Agreed, but see it in this way, haven’t we all seen one of the most intelligent/promising guy/gurl in our school/college become a complete disaster. I feel it’s the discontent, they become satisfied with what they have and do no more. Had Mr. Ingvar Kamprad, become content of selling cards, matches, pens and fish on a bicycle we wouldn’t have seen what is now “Ikea”. But you may ask what if a person is talented, is discontent with the state of affairs but that doesn’t make billionaires. Don’t we the so talented people, fret about the state of affairs, yet are galaxies far from gaining wealth. That brings me to the next point the idea of discomfort should be so harrowing to you it should lead you to change the boring stale state, that’s execution, taking risks. That’s what made Ingvar Kamprad to create Ikea, Carlos Slim to establish one of the biggest telecom networks in Mexico, or the Albrecht brothers to build the chain of Aldi stores.