Does anyone know what to expect from the trailer/teaser of Talisman and Munnabhai 3? Should be a great viewing alongside the actual film.

gotta agree with u Ali bhai my enjoyment of many movies on the big screen have been ruined due to chopping by ZEROS...but i'm afraid there's could be nothing left of this movie if ZEROS decide to chop away with the running time at 1hr 45 min and with just 1 song it will hard for them to chop anything off except their own D...K

First review by rediff

Eklavya: Must watch

Arthur J Pais | February 14, 2007 13:25 IST


Eklavya: Must watch

Arthur J Pais | February 14, 2007 13:25 IST




Looks like filmmaker Vidhu Vinod Chopra has managed to keep the vow he made to himself in 1981 with Eklavya. The filmmaker had vowed to veer away from the traditional song and dance in Hindi films. Eklavya has only one, well-shot song sequence.

This dark and brooding film about a former royal family with secrets looks like it was made for film festivals. If the success of Omkara, which wrestled with the themes of betrayal, jealousy, destructive ambition and revenge, is any indication, then Eklavya too should do solid business abroad.

The film could also be another international hit for Saif Ali Khan, who does the nearly impossible by holding his won against a deeply anguished, conflicted and revengeful Amitabh Bachchan.

The film starts with Bachchan sonorously recalling the story of Eklavya, from the Mahabharata. Throughout the film, the legend is invoked obliquely as well as directly by the characters reeling off Sanskrit sayings on what is dharma.

Set in the early years of Indian Independence, the movie involves a casteist, jealous and ungrateful ruler Rana Jayawardhan, played by an over the top Boman Irani, who will not let his wife (Sharmila Tagore) die in peace because she is uttering the name of Eklavya (Bachchan).

Rana's brother Jyotiwardhan (Jackie Shroff) and nephew Udaywardhan (Jimmy Shergill) are impatient to grab his palace and wealth. But when the estranged son (Saif Ali Khan) returns to the palace after his mother's death, the complications increase.

The ruler's mentally challenged daughter's Nandini (Raima Sen) recollection of a crime is the turning point of the film. Looking after the mentally fragile child woman Nandini is Rajewsari, the daughter (Vidya Balan) of a chauffer (Parikshat Sahni).

The scheming father and son set in motion a chain of events that brings a lower caste police officer (Sunjay Dutt) into the story whereby allowing the film to take up a populist stand against evil minded rulers who mete out terrible treatment to the lower caste denizens in their princely realms.

As the scheming continues, there are murders, attempted murders, rebellion by the villagers whose lands are confiscated by the greedy ruler, and fleeting romance.

The film, which owes as much to Shakespeare (it is no surprising that the dying queen asks her favourite Shakespearean sonnet to be read to her) as to the Mahabharata, loses its momentum and focus in the last 15 minutes.

Much of the eye-catching action by lensman Natarja Subramanian takes place in the palace. Chopra has staged quite a few well-edited and hair-raising scenes, especially when a blindfolded Bachchan is testing his archery skills.

While all the male actors apart from Bachchan and Saif get good amount of attention, Raima Sen's character becomes infrequent as the intermission approaches. One is left wondering why the director banished her off the screen when more calamitous events are unfolding. Vidya Balan looks lovely and poised, though her character is limited.

Eklavya in a nutshell: Despite the loopholes in the script, a few unbaked characters and a made-for-the-masses ending, the film definitely watchable.



Looks like filmmaker Vidhu Vinod Chopra has managed to keep the vow he made to himself in 1981 with Eklavya. The filmmaker had vowed to veer away from the traditional song and dance in Hindi films. Eklavya has only one, well-shot song sequence.

This dark and brooding film about a former royal family with secrets looks like it was made for film festivals. If the success of Omkara, which wrestled with the themes of betrayal, jealousy, destructive ambition and revenge, is any indication, then Eklavya too should do solid business abroad.

The film could also be another international hit for Saif Ali Khan, who does the nearly impossible by holding his won against a deeply anguished, conflicted and revengeful Amitabh Bachchan.

The film starts with Bachchan sonorously recalling the story of Eklavya, from the Mahabharata. Throughout the film, the legend is invoked obliquely as well as directly by the characters reeling off Sanskrit sayings on what is dharma.

Set in the early years of Indian Independence, the movie involves a casteist, jealous and ungrateful ruler Rana Jayawardhan, played by an over the top Boman Irani, who will not let his wife (Sharmila Tagore) die in peace because she is uttering the name of Eklavya (Bachchan).

Rana's brother Jyotiwardhan (Jackie Shroff) and nephew Udaywardhan (Jimmy Shergill) are impatient to grab his palace and wealth. But when the estranged son (Saif Ali Khan) returns to the palace after his mother's death, the complications increase.

The ruler's mentally challenged daughter's Nandini (Raima Sen) recollection of a crime is the turning point of the film. Looking after the mentally fragile child woman Nandini is Rajewsari, the daughter (Vidya Balan) of a chauffer (Parikshat Sahni).

The scheming father and son set in motion a chain of events that brings a lower caste police officer (Sunjay Dutt) into the story whereby allowing the film to take up a populist stand against evil minded rulers who mete out terrible treatment to the lower caste denizens in their princely realms.

As the scheming continues, there are murders, attempted murders, rebellion by the villagers whose lands are confiscated by the greedy ruler, and fleeting romance.

The film, which owes as much to Shakespeare (it is no surprising that the dying queen asks her favourite Shakespearean sonnet to be read to her) as to the Mahabharata, loses its momentum and focus in the last 15 minutes.

Much of the eye-catching action by lensman Natarja Subramanian takes place in the palace. Chopra has staged quite a few well-edited and hair-raising scenes, especially when a blindfolded Bachchan is testing his archery skills.

While all the male actors apart from Bachchan and Saif get good amount of attention, Raima Sen's character becomes infrequent as the intermission approaches. One is left wondering why the director banished her off the screen when more calamitous events are unfolding. Vidya Balan looks lovely and poised, though her character is limited.

Eklavya in a nutshell: Despite the loopholes in the script, a few unbaked characters and a made-for-the-masses ending, the film definitely watchable.

Rediff Rating:


3.5/5..

From making imho, I thought it was not on par with MK!

I am disappointed in two aspects of VVC's film making.

1. I thought I will get a music nirvana after parineeta to my disliking , not enough music to listen. He could have done couple songs, picturize them and just leave them in soundtrack, and on dvd as extras! as Imho, has good flavor in picturization.

2. seems he is beting on action drama here, so is Alan Amin there? and how come he picks actors for characters, then how come like Chopra/Johars Roshans, all characters are filled by same actors...VVC has been consistent with Sanjay, Saif, Vidya, Jackie, Rima sen, Booman and added AB for every one's flavor!and mass box office appeal imho.

Finally got a BBFC cert of 12A with a running time of 107m 31s

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classifie ... enDocument

There was a favourable review in todays Metro newspaper which gave it 3/5 stars.

Ali

do u know what star they awarded MK? I am not talking about VVC company films, like munna, parineeta

In my opinion VVC fails again in a pretentious and confused attempt at combining too many classic thoughts and epics - from the Mahabharata, to Hamlet, Macbeth and what have you. With the grandiose vision of trying to make an epic out of a common Agatha Christie type fortress murder mystery, he falters and underwhelms completely.

Just saw this on the big screen. An excellent melodrama that is highly recommended.

I found the suspense intriguing and loved Big B performance. My only qualm is that the production values were a bit too rich for the script. The OTT lighting, lush camerawork and saturated colour grading ruined the atmosphere and overall aesthetic.

precisely!!It was not comfortable feel, that you are watching vvc version of batwara or hddcs, there was no time when yateem or batwara did not cross my mind

Vidhu Vinod Chopra is a huge name in Indian cinema, and that's not only because he uses his full name professionally. The man, in just a handful of pictures, has established himself as one of India's "élite"; one of the (pre-Dil To Pagal Hai) "Yash Chopra"s of Hindi cinema. Accordingly, the expectiations people have from anything in which he's elbow-deep are bound to be as large as he. On top of this, Chopra, himself, has been touting Eklavya as being not only his best film to date, but as showcasing Amitabh Bachchan's — the Brando/Pacino/De Niro/Jesus of Hindi pictures — best performance ever. So much hype and so many promises about one 107-minute movie. So, where there're cries about smoke, is there fire (it's the best I could come up with)? If you care what I think, read on to find out...

Just starting out, I want to state that I was quickly taken aback by the lavish, exquisite "production values" of this film. Parinda was low-key and gritty, and 1942: A Love Story and Mission Kashmir had attractive-but-modest aural and visual offerings. Eklavya, now — though no Mughal-E-Azam of the 21st century — can easily be considered Chopra's most "showy" work to date. The cinematography, the costumes, the set designs, the background score — everything is just literally magnificent. It's not magnificent in an inappropriately, glaringly "oppulent" way, either; it's the "good" sort of "big." The money spent here works toward pulling the audience into the world of Eklavya, rather than toward shining a blinding light of wealth and stupidity — all while holding a glistening can of Coca-Cola — in its eyes. At least as far as a compelling ambiance and authentic atmosphere are concerned, Eklavya succeeds as well as any film, I feel, should reasonably hope to.

At roughly one and three quarters of an hour, Eklavya moves briskly, which, per se, is a good thing. Rather than get tied down in the mandatory songs and "romantic sequences" of most Indian films, the movie keeps moving forward with its story, driving toward making its ultimate point. Well and good. However, I think that perhaps things move a bit too quickly at times, sacrificing moments that should exist, build characters and motivations, and just eagerly races to the end. The film might have worked better if it had stuck to leaving out the "non-essentials," but bothered to throw in a few more of the intricacies and moments that make a for picture that leaves an imprint on its viewers.

As for the story itself, things are kept rather basic and linear. Nothing huge and tortuous happens in the kingdom of Devigardh: no myriad secrets from the past are divulged slowly and painfully, or like a hammer at the very last moment — nothing suprising or unexpected happens just to you have something you "didn't see coming." It's not necessarily bad that a movie doesn't try to stun you off your ass (the way 2006's Don did), at the risk of looking foolish and pitiable, but I think Eklavya, for all that it is, ends up lacking a certain "punch." When things do happen, they move surprisingly slowly (at times becoming dull and even boring) for such a short movie. Additionally, there's plenty of artsy clutter to get through while searching for the plot. It's fine for royalty to quote and appreciate Shakespeare and all that, but it gets a bit tedious watching Chopra try to incorporate Shakespeare (elements of Hamlet and Macbeth are just obvious in some scenes) and "art-house cinema" into his film of supposed "commerical sensibility." Artsy-fartsy pains seem to have been taken in parts to allude to the "great moments" of (mostly Western) art culture. Overall, some of it comes off as a failed attempt to make what seemed would be a relatively "mainstream" effort into one that tries to show off its brain by citing tid-bits of European "high culture." Another small complaint: Minding all that's been written about the "stunts" performed by "the actors, themselves" in Eklavya, the film doesn't really offer very much at all in the vein of "action." One exciting pre-interval shoot-out, and then we move on to resolving matters (there's another interesting moment of "intensity," as well, but... we don't really see it...). If a movie is being promoted as a "contemporary action entertainer" (I swear, I read that somewhere about this film), it shouldn't try to replace all the action and entertainment with slow-paced drama. All these gripes are what contribute making Eklavya a "less-then-10" movie in my eyes. This noted, the effort's certainly not "bad"; it's just not quite "phenomenal."

The performances: Saif Ali Khan is more than impressive as Prince Harshwardhan. The Khan who was never really considered to be a serious contender in the "Khan War" of the 1990s, is finally doing work at least as sincere, at least as praise-worthy, as are his three contemporaries. Saif shows restraint and passion as only a competent performer can, and his screen-presence comes off as just right: Tangible, but intelligent enough not to try to over-shadow the real star of the film. Jackie Shroff has always been appreciable in Vidhu Vinod Chopra's movies, and I'm glad that, keeping up with that tradition, he finally delivers a performance after some time that doesn't seriously piss me the hell off. He doesn't look hung over; he doesn't act like an egomaniacal douche bag; he... he does a good job. Sanjay Dutt has a small role, but his effort exudes heart and sincerity; he's simply terrific in what he's given to work with. To Chopra's credit, Dutt's part isn't (or doesn't seem to be) one that Chopra created for Dutt just so he could put his friend in his new movie. The character doesn't have too much time on screen, but feels necessary and important, and thus gives Sanjay room to do something memorable. Boman Irani, Jimmy Sheirgill, and Vidya Balan don't have much to do but play characters without which there might not be a movie, and all are acceptable in their roles. Amitabh Bachchan: Eklavya is not Vidhu Vinod Chopra's best picture to date, and it's not Amitabh Bachchan's "career's best." Before I start bitching (and I will start bitching shortly), I want to get out of the way that Amitabh Bachchan owns this picture. He's great, and I expected no less from him. His voice, his body language, his facial expressions, his eyes — every aspect of Amitabh is used to its full potential in the part of Eklavya. The man is a legend for a reason (a good reason), and, here, he simply delivers. No one currently the working industry comes to mind as capable of having played the part of Eklavya as effectively or as appropriately as has Amitabh Bachchan. It's a tailor-made role, and it fits like a glove. OK, now... I wish — I wish — that film-makers would stop touting their pictures as showcasing "Bachchan's best work to date." It seems that, with every film the actor does, another cocky, egotistical, ticket-pushing movie-maker stands up to boast and holler that "Amitabh Bachchan's never been this good before"; that "the world hasn't yet 'seen' this Amitabh Bachchan." Really, shut the f*** up, already. Bachchan's been around since 1969: He's done a lot of work, and it's very dubious that he's topped his entire career's performances — a career that contains some of Indian cinema's most memorable, most amazing films; a repertoire that includes essaying the part of "Vijay Dinanath Chauhan... pura naam" — in your one effort. If Bachchan feels he has done something that might be considered "one of his best," let him say so (as he did regarding his work in Black), and stop boasting the claim yourself. It's a fun notion to play around with ("my movie's so special that it'll be the most significant entry in Amitabh Bachchan's filmography"), but it's utter bull-shit, and it's gotten very old. It's not even a sick little "delusion" that a biased, personally-involved-wth-the-project-and-thus-unable-to-see-it-straight director or two houses, any more — it can't be. It's just stupid shit that film-makers seem to have developed a proclivity for spreading over their movies, hoping that people will actually buy into it and rush to the theaters to see "the best Amitabh Bachchan, ever." Stop it. (I'm done.)

Overall, Eklavya is a good film that falls a little short of maybe unreasonably high expectations. If anyone else had made this movie, it might have been "quite good"; Vidhu Vinod Chopra made it, and thus it's "good." So, it's two things: The expectations were too high, and the movie, per se, wasn't close enough to being "awesome." Am I glad I saw it in theaters? Sure. Would I shell out the cash for another ticket? Nah. (Though I might rent it on DVD once.)

*The previews for Namaste London, Munnabhai Chale Amerika, and Talisman preceded the feature. The first looked so-so, and it (the commercial) wasn't really something I was waiting for. The latest entry in the "Munnabhai" series certainly looked promising, with Munna and Circuit as endearing and "Bumbaiyya" as we left them in Lage Raho Munnabhai, the latter having adopted a new, longer hair-style. Talisman's preview left me a bit anxious, as it looked like the B-grade Indian rendition of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings (pick whichever you want), Amitabh dressed up like a super-heroic version of Ian McKellan's Gandalf. I think the project hasn't even begun to be shot for, and so I still have hope, but I think I'd like that it not end up being too close to what I saw to-day. During the interval were shown two previews: one for Aishwarya Rai's Provoked, and the other for Amitabh Bachchan's Cheeni Kum. The latter was identical to the trailer found on the official Web site of the film (which [the commercial] I definitely find intriguing), while Provoked looked oddly like a film I'd seen countless times before, but couldn't remember the name of...

SPOILERS:

Wait, is Taran Adarsh (reviewer for IndiaFM.com) mentally-challenged? Is he being allowed to post critical reviews of films because the owners of IndiaFM.com feel sorry for him (being a retard, and all), and wish to bring some usefulness into his life? It's not that he heaps what I find to be undeserved praise upon the film; here are some quotations from Adarsh's review:

"The assassination of Boman Irani minutes before the intermission, the train speeding by and the camels running helter-skelter is electrifying."

"The murders of Jimmy Shergill and later, Jackie Shroff are hair-raising. Jackie being thrown at a speeding train is superb."

"[...] Vidya’s turnaround [forgiving Saif for committing a sin] looks a bit too sudden." (Perhaps less objectionable, in the face of the former two.)

Maybe he should just throw in, "I was surprised when it was revealed that Eklavya is Harsh's real father, because the king could not impregnate the queen. Also, it was nice how, in the end, Eklavya didn't kill Harsh, but impaled his (Harsh's) hand so Harsh couldn't kill himself by shooting himself in the head with the gun that he took from Eklavya... his real father, in case you've forgotten. Also, it was great how Pannalal didn't arrest Eklavya."

Really, what the f***? I understand that just about any review will give away something one might not wish to know, but — unless, perhaps, the revival of a classic work, the "elements" of which everyone is familiar with (e.g., Romeo and Juliet die at the end of the play), is being critiqued — shouldn't the deaths of major characters in a plot not be revealed in a critical review of a film? "Man, that blew my mind, when I found out that Bruce Willis was a ghost! A big 'thumb's up' for Shyamalan!" And this guy is one of the leading Hindi-film critics; the "Roger Ebert" of Hindi cinema. ...What the f***!

*Adarsh mentions that the film was shot in synch.-sound; do we know this to be true? I'd never read so before.

Roger Ebert ? - this pea brain, this lower than a moron's IQ holder, this guy who thinks going to a convent school and having learnt the meaning of hoi polloi in an elementary school english class and its subsequent usage in a review makes him somehow the critic with an extraordinary literary bent of mind?

I think you simply made his day, year and life perhaps!!!

This guy is the silliest jerk i have stopped reading a long time ago. Its also the reason why i dont visit indiafm either. Enough time spent on this nincompoop already my friend! He's supposedly a trade analyst who has suddenly developed allusions of being a film critic. God help the vocation!!!

I agree with Commando's review. I didn't notice the sync sound problems Adarsh mentioned in his review. Talisman looked like a joke.

I've stopped reading that nutcase's reviews since he revealed the ending of Moksha (the Arjun Rampal film that was actually quite good). He basically told you the whole plot, so there was no point in seeing it. Yet after revealing literally everything, he recommends we go see it.
Only in India is a person like him praised so much that the industry makes him "the Roger Ebert" of bollywood. Seriously, if he was in the west, he would be out of a job!

Mr. Khiladi, I, too, read Adrash's review of Moksha, a film I also quite liked. This was actually back when I was in the habit of reading a few critical reviews before renting a movie to decide whether or not it would be worth the cost. Fortunately, that particular weekend, I just picked up the movie and watched it, without going on-line first, and only later went to IndiaFM to read what someone else thought of the picture. Needless to say, I was stunned by the way important elements of the plot were just typed up in this so-called "professional review." I couldn't fathom why someone would wish to reveal next to everything interesting about a movie in a piece of writing intended to be read by the masses in the hopes of informing them whether or not the film is "good." Since then, I've only seldom perused Adarsh's articles (I don't know why I've done even that...) — only when I've seen everything that could possibly be "spoiled" — and frequently been astonished by how this crack-happy dick-head is able to stay employed. Unless he owns a big chunk of IndiaFM — or is boning someone who does — it's just an example of how wonderfully odd and fucky the world can be.