DAMARUKAM REVIEW

My friends who follow my reviews in my blog always have a compliant against me. They say that I watch movies in a hollywood hangover, and hence I do not appreciate any telugu film. "You can't compare every movie with GODFATHER and DARK KNIGHT. "  they say. So the point is that I have to review a telugu film, within the standards of this industry. Let's try.

Andhakasura is the lone survivor from the clan of Rakshasas, who is burning with vengeance towards the 'Devathas" who made them extinct. He is waiting for an opportune moment to come back and gain control over the "Pancha bhootas". Anushka is the child who is born with the blessings of Parvathi devi, but the astrologers foresee a potential danger from evil forces to her in future. Nagarjuna is the chosen one who is born to save the world. He is a born devotee of Lord Shiva but turns a cold hater afterwards when his family is brutally killed by a monster and he doesnt see Shiva to come to the rescue. As the time is ripe for Andhaka's end, Shiva manifests in human form and comes to live with Nagarjuna. I wont spoil the fun for you if you want to watch the movie. The rest of the movie is about the game between Andhaka and Shiva but through Nagarjuna.

The above story sounds fascinating enough to transport you into a world of fantasy and wild imagination, and also provides a strong platform for the director to carve out solid and connecting characterisations and delve deeper into philosophical zones. This is more than an opportunity. A devotee turning into a hater and the God coming down to help him are themselves the points that can be a subject for an emotional experience. But sadly they are left unexplored. In the begining of the movie, when the voiceover and visuals show the end of the Rakshasa era, we identify the point behind the villan's burning longing for vengeance. But that is not taken to the next level, as we never get to see what he wants to do by gaining control over the five forces of nature. He just looks like another character who has his own set of plans.

The major flaw is the screenplay. After the tone of the story is set and we all are ready for thrills, the director throws comedy tracks at us, that do nothing better than watering down the pace. There the film had its first speed breaker. And then it struggles a lot to pick up again. Nagarjuna's  smiles, dialogues and fights ooze their magic, but that works only when backed by a  tighter screenplay. He is made doing the same thing many times that has made the editor's work harder. Till the interval block, the emphasis is on the bonds formed between Nagarjuna Anushka and Prakash Raj. Among these, Nagarjuna and Prakash raj's track tempts you to expect that their contrasting views on God and his purpose will provide a sub plot, but will disappoint you. We all know that at some point, Nagarjuna will realise that the person behind his family's tragic death is not Shiva. But that realisation is placed at the climax, and it comes as a part of a song. This is just a plot device to lead Nagarjuna to the climax fight but doesnt have the required philosophical depth it required. You may argue with me that this kind of fantasy flicks do not need to show spiritual realisations, but by merely knowing that Andhaka is the person who killed his family cannot turn Nagarjuna into a devotee. It is enough to turn him against the villan. But to re-turn Nagarjuna towards Shiva, a bigger answer is necessary that explains why all this family tragedy and his turning away from Shiva helped the bigger scheme of things, and how they all fit into an essential and purposeful destiny. Thats why when Shiva heals the hero's sister, you dont feel anything and will wonder why he didnt do that till then. Ofcourse that would have made this into a great film but those  untouched doesnt leave this as a bad film either. The only disappointment is that in stead of wasting a lot of time on useless comedy tracks, the film should have bent towards this.

"Dear Swaroop, This is just a popcorn movie. You are complaining too much" may be your answer. But if you come out of the theatre feeling that something is missing, this is it.

And the computer graphics. Much has been said about them, but they are just okay. Especially the climax fight reminds you of video games. When Jeeva says to Andhakasura "You won the first level" you wish there were Vithalacharya kind of obstacles in hero's way to the villan so that it could be fun watch him rise and fall through his way. But you are too much of a customer. The climax is all about a fight and head slicing. Thats it.

And Nagarjuna is fabulous. His perfect body, his smiles, dialogues, walking style, his chemistry with Anushka are top notch. You can watch this just for him.

CAMERAMAN GANGA THO RAMBABU REVIEW

Let me clear you something first. If you think that this film is about media and its role in society, you are wrong. Or you may hav thought that this film is about some Ganga and Rambabu. Nope. You cannot see much of Ganga in this film and you don;t bother about it. (Lets come to that later). This film is all about Pawan Kalyan and Pawan Kalyan.
Rambabu is a macho guy, who doesn't bother even to travel places to beat people who are unlucky enough to get their names on TV and newspapers for wrong doing. Wait...He stops you somewhere by the road and ask you what you do for a living. If you say "Nothing....chaltaa", boy you are done. He will beat you to pulp. Of all the super human abilities he has, the greatest one is to bear "Over acting". Thats why when Tamanna overacts all through this film, he silently bears and even smiles but never complains. Wish we all had that patience. Now to the story. After coming to know what a gutsy man Rambabu is, a channel offers him job. And there too he does the same. This time instead of beating normal brats, he beats politicians, Ex-CM etc. He rises to a star status in the state, because when the police are too lazy to arrest a murderer politician, he does it( The police's excuse is that they are not daring enough to do it). And as part of the script the politician should plan Rambabu's murder and he obeys. Yes he is the villan. While the first half of the film is proceeding, you want to give pawan Kalyan an idea. If he so much likes to use his punch power and karate skills, it would be better if he can join the police. The police in this film seem to be dying waiting for such a gutsy hero. What is the use of mike in his hand and camera behind him, when he wants to beat the evil out of everyone? There are very few scenes in this film where his brain functions like that of a journalist. Rambabu doesn't have a journalist inside him. He is the typical telugu cinema hero, who just cannot see injustice going on infront of him. Again to the story, he gets fired from the channel for being too aggressive. And then we come to see a stupid and brain less villan. Prakash Raj is such a headless chicken that when he murders his dad, he does it as if he is scratching his back. It gets recorded by his driver. And he takes the most foolish decisions at the most crucial situations in his life. Ex:- Murdering a journalist in a democratic country like India and expecting that the journalists would fear him thereafter. Ha ha ha.....Puri Jagannath seems to be obsessed with gangster flicks that he ripped off a gangster villan and placed him in a politician seat. Too illogical. The rest of the story is about how Rababu stopped this Satan from becoming the CM.
The only scene where Rambabu seems to have achieved something through media is the scene where he confronts Prakash Raj about "Telugu Udyamam" Its good. He talks sense there. And it worked actually. This is one of the few scenes where the wits of Puri set the fire on screen. but to come to such a point, Puri spends too much time dragging and its almost one and half hour by then. Too much pressure has been on Pawan Kalyan to make this film impressive. His star power comes to save at lots of places but it is brightly evident. As the film nears the climax, the entire point of media takes a back seat and Pawan Kalyan's ideology is highlighted. This scene would make his fans go crazy. Much has been done in this movie targetting his fans. Even the CM says that he is Rambabu's fan, and its all whistles in the theatre. A lot of cinematic liberties are taken all through the movie that we wish it had a tighter screenplay to make them invisible. Puri Jagannath seems to have forgotten the word screenplay long back.

The climax is well done. Its where Puri gives a kick to all Pawan devotees. Pawan Kalyan has never before been glorified like this on screen. I liked Gabbar Singh because it is a film which considers its only business is to reveal, mystify, glorify and squeeze the image of Pawan Kalyan. The charismatic character that is created in that film can get away doing anything because we allow him to do anything to entertain us. Thats why even if he treats his policemen as slaves, we laughed but never complained.  This is primarily because the film doesn't intend to take itself too serious. But "Rambabu" is not like that. It comes up with some social message but neglects its own loop holes in the plot. It takes itself serious, and then we obviously ask logical questions. This film claims that itself is not a song dance routine, but it does discuss serious problems in the society. Then why the characters are far from reality? Why a cardboard villan? Why mockery of itself? 

And then about Pawan Kalyan. If there is an actor in this industry who has the most genuine and the most cut throat following, its undeniably Pawan Kalyan. He is the best of all when it comes to oozing charm all over. He rocks the screen with his bare presence, talks fire, fights the hell and appears sincere in whatever he does. Its solely for him that you can watch it once.

Rambabu doesnt discuss about media and its role, it doesnt mess with intelligent questions, Its not a shankar's kind of film that discusses contemporary problems. The issues that it addresses are vague. The message it delivers is simple. Repair yourself. The country gets repaired. The film is a show of Pawan Kalyan's offscreen persona. You will not feel sorry for watching it, but you dont miss anything if you miss this.  A tighter screenplay and an intelligent characterisation would have made this a good watch. Pawanists may like it due to glorification of their hero's image and his speeches. But if you expect something sensible and engaging, its your wish if you want to watch it.

As a final say, its FANS THO PAWAN KALYAN

PS:- As a Pawan fan, I enjoyed watching him talking, walking, dancing and fighting. But the reason I am disappointed is that there is nothing more than that. Puri is the culprit. I am interested to see how general audience and critics would respond to this film. Lets wait!!!!!!

PS 2:- Shame on Manisharma. The background score is directly lifted from THe Dark Knight Rises.

BROTHERS REVIEW (MATRRANN)

K.V.Anand's films always hold a surprise somewhere. In every movie of his (Veedokkade, Rangam, Brothers), there would be some character that misleads you into believing that it is good. In Veedokkade, its the hero's friend, in Rangam, its the CM guy, and here its the Russian lady. (She makes you think she is the potential villan, but turns out to be a do-gooder) . And this time, the film is misleading as well. When you are told that a film is about conjoined twins, you expect the story revolving around their emotions or atleast to throw light into their inner selves. But what you get is a scientific thriller. I am not disappointed with it, but to say.

Sachin Khedekar plays a scientist whose experiment to create a superhuman misfires into conjoined twins(The heroes ofcourse). He struggles to get recognition as a successful genetic Engineer, but ends up as a businessman, whose product "Energion" claims to bring instant growth in children. His product becomes a big success and everyone is happy along with the twins. His two sons, though twins have nothing in common except looks. One is a shy introvert and decent guy, while the other is a fun freak. (We agree that it is the norm that the twins should be radically different otherwise there is no point of a double role!). okay, so they love the same girl, and because they love each other too, one of them should sacrifice. And then the story takes some interesting twists and turns. Something is wrong with Energion. It is revealed in the first half itself that Sachin Khadekar is the culprit and he knows that his product could erase an entire generation. If there is something else to be revealed that could thrill us or shock us, this movie could have become a very good film to watch. But thats the end of the game, and the end of life for one of the twins. The dead guy knows everything, tells us everything and passes away, leaving the rest of the screenplay to get restricted to a semi-boring second half.

For a film that aims to be an entertaining scientific thriller without so much of visual thrills, it is bound to depend on a screenplay packaged with twists and turns that are unexpected. It should hold your interest till the end, and you should be bothered with a lot of questions and you should enjoy being bothered. But what mistake the film does is that it reveals the most riveting twist in the first half itself, crippling the screenplay in the second half. For a film to emotionally connect with the audience, it should have fully developed characters. The behavioral traits of the twins are shown but the characters are poorly explored. This is a film where a havoc is caused by one man, just because of his pure love of science and disregard to human emotions. it obviously is visible that the character of villan is as much important as the hero. But where do we see what his thoughts are about? Where do we see him taking a vow to kick the world's ass for ignoring him? In the climax, he bursts out that no one cared for him as long as he tried to get a break as a scientist, and thats why he turned the society around him as his research lab. Good. But merely by uttering those words he cannot make us feel sympathetic towards him or gnash our teeth against him. Because we do not get a chance to travel along with him, to see him fall and rise. Remember the "Doc Oc" in Spiderman 2? We get to see how he started with a noble cause, how and why he lost control and how he turned a monster. That made him the most menacing villan, and hence endeared spidey to us. For a plotline that depends on the villan as much on the hero, its a blunder that villan's character is left unexplored. In that case the havoc he causes, should provide the visual thrills for us to get engaged. But that too doesnt happen as it is a medical scam. Even the unveiling of the mystery didnt help, as the plot ran out of surprises post the interval. Thats why whatever is revealed in the second half , fails to connect with the audience. The shock factor missing in the second half, worsens it further.

The reason I took much space to point out what the film lacks, is because I liked to like it. It is a potentially entertaining film, that missed the target due to simple mistakes. Picking up a line like this for a film is a commendable attempt. But the execution is where it has gone wrong. The film has that endearing factor that makes us overlook all the cinematic liberties it takes, but the faulty screenplay irritates you and makes you turn towards them. This is not a bad film. We cannot miss to mention the technical finese with which K.V. makes his films. The way he mixes entertainment with out of the box story lines is remarkable. But when a movie fails, its obvious that we talk more about why it failed than about whats good in it. Isn't it?

As a final say, it doesnt make you regret watching it.
PS 2:- Surya's previous flick "7th Sense" made me think twice before deciding to watch this movie. "7th Sense" is such a crap that it made me laugh at all its serious moments and cry at all its jokes. Compared to that disaster, this is way better.

STARBUCK

Note to my regular visitors:- This article is written for a special purpose. My regular blog visitors may wonder why I am talking about some french movie. And you can understand this review only if you watch the film. This is not my regular article, and you are welcome if you want to give it a shot though. --Swaroop

The kind of planet we are living on, challenges your decision to be a father. Because its we who are bringing into existence, a living being and hence the reason in the first place, for all the sweat and tears it sheds. And if our children are optimistic enough to consider this life a gift, they would love us and be thankful to us. When the hero in this film finds out that one of his sons is seriously disabled, we can see a set of questions in his face along with a pinch of guilt and helplessness. "Is it me who is responsible for his condition? I can do nothing to revert this." may be what he says to himself when we can see a bitter expression in his face.Given supernatural powers, he would heal him then and there and would hug him warmly. But as a mortal, he is not left with any choice but to stare like that. When he himself is struggling with his life, he came across people who came into this world because of him, and facing the same reality. How do their failures ans successes affect him as if they are his? Why can't he abstain himself from meeting them? "Starbuck" is a film that toys with the above kind of ideas but not as seriously as I presented them in this article, but uses comedy as a vehicle to carry all the burden.

David Wozniak is a not-so-lucky guy who is indebted to people who drown you in your bath tub to say hello. And he has a girlfriend who is highly and deeply disappointed with him. His life, defined and destined to be inside the family butcher business is sapless and messed up, to cut short a long story. And the most interesting thing is that some twenty years ago he "donated" sperm that resulted in hundreds of successful pregnancies. To his dismay, all those "children"(now twenty-somethings) sue him to reveal his true identity. They want to know who their biological father is, but it makes David restless as he doesn't want to get public. But he gets the photographs and addresses of his children and decides them to visit them as a stranger.

We can see flashes of happiness in him when his son rocks the soccer court, a father's concern when he visits his daughter, and the funnier scene is where he follows his son who kisses his boyfriend on his lips! The scenes where he helps them as a complete stranger are so sweet, but they are to be followed by sweeter ones towards the climax. Its surprising to ourselves that even when the film refuses to let go even one opportunity to get melodramatic, we find it still sweet and loving. (The peak point of sentiment is the group hug scene in the climax but it will not let you take your eyes off the screen as its simply beautiful). The courtroom scenes doesn't get tempted to discuss David's choice to remain anonymous and it helped the film a lot from getting serious. Because a film that starts on this kind of a plot has the danger of becoming a laughing stock if it takes itself too serious. The film rightly sails on wit and humor.

Paternity or fatherhood is not just a relation or responsibility but comes as a package of many feelings and emotions. Psychology says that parents see their children as an extension of themselves and hence the showering of love. May be true but sometimes they get partial towards the "extensions" and thats where we get to see fathers taking bullets for their daughters and mothers cutting the bread into two for their two children and she is OK with a glass of water. Of course this film doesnt crave for this level of melodrama, but all the feelings flow as tangents to the story. It is obviously implied that the new people in his life, and the experiences he went through have made him a better person. May be through helping them and being with them, he learnt how to help himself and start life again. "Simple emotions kept simple" is the principle it follows. Its amazing how film makers often miss this simple logic.

The film has its own share of flaws like "All-positive" characterization, tilting towards melodrama a bit more than enough etc. But what makes you overlook those is the sweetness it offers, the wit with which it presents itself and good acting. The magic is that the film, throughout its length, seems to be grazing on the surface but when we finish watching, we realize that it has transcended the deepest depths it can. But as said before, its a bit thicker coating of goodness.  All the characters are as good as they can be, and that would make the critics sharpen their pencils perhaps. But lets analyse the film on what it is, rather than on what it can be.   It aimed to stream through cute moments, warm hugs and simple guitar music, and that doesn't bother you much. I am waiting for the English version of the film, as I didn't understand most of the dialogues in this French language. Despite language being a barrier, I enjoyed this movie.

P.S:- The scene where David sees his new born child summarizes what this film intends to show from his inside, but that scene cannot be described. Its to be watched. May be thats what film making is about!

LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL REVIEW

       A director makes only one film in his life.    Then he breaks it into pieces and makes it again.-   Jean Renoir
"Growing up " is the stage in life that has its own contents of excitements. Not always pleasant and positive, but life does throw at you whatever it can. Sometimes you find it interesting, sometimes you wonder why the hell is it happening to you. To hear and digest that your mother has cancer is not easy. But that may bring a lot of changes to your attitude, your way of life, and your relationship with your family and the people around you. All the things that come across in your life seem to have a purpose behind them, if you wish to agree with the fact. Life is beautiful when you have dinner(made by your mother) with your family, when you fight with your sister, when you go out playing cricket with your friends, when your "dil ki dhadkan" proposes you. But when things alter and you find yourself out of the comfort zone, where there are adjustments, sacrifices, responsibilities and situations where you can do nothing but hope for good....then can you say that "Life is beautiful"? Sekhar Kammula's latest film is about the above, but not entirely.


The film starts with Amala insisting her kids to leave her and move to Hyd.(If you watch a lot of Telugu movies, you can guess that she has some cancer). So, our hero and his two sisters move from their city to the world of Sekhar Kammula, where there are meek middle class people and proud rich people. The rest of the film is about the teenage infatuations, friendships, relationships, hardships, girls dancing in rain, and all other typical Sekhar Kammula stuff. The film is about a bunch of youngsters who live in a colony called "Sunshine colony"(To remind you that it is a happy place). I dont need them to introduce to you if you have seen Happy days.  They are cloned from there. Welcome to the happy happy world of Sekhar Kammula where middle class people are sensible, know the meaning of life, friendship and stuff, whereas the rich are always evil minded, corrupt, deceptive, manipulative and ruthless. They are always seen calling the "poor" guys "B-Phase dogs". That comes a million times. And the rich people in this film seem to have High BP, piles and alarming levels of short temper that makes you pity them most of the time. "Oh Sekhar......we understood that you hate the rich. But you are spoiling your own film with your prejudice". Those characters just look like vessels that carry bad, but never look human. We all know that there is no black and white in this world. Everything is gray. Thats why it seems as if Sekhar has taken his audience for granted. Keeping in mind the amount of maturity the director has displayed in his previous films, its hard to believe that this kind of characterisation came out of Sekhar's mind. And then there is Anjala Javeri who dances whenever it rains and makes expressions as if she had never seen it raining in her life. And there are always a lot of fights between the good(innocent middle class) and the bad(spoilt rich guys). There is a guy who loves a woman(Shriya) older than him, who is a computer geek, who is weak and intelligent. Does it remind you of "Tyson" in Happy Days? Its not your mistake. Oh yes...Shriya has a boyfriend who is so possessive of her. By this time you are completely convinced that this is a remake of Happy Days.

Sekhar started this movie with a noble intention to convey his version of optimism and his nostalgia. But he chose an easy way of doing this by trying to fit this into the template of his previous flick "Happy Days". The film assumes to be the journey of a youngster who suddenly falls out of his comfort zone and has to face the reality of life.(But this "reality" is Sekhar's fantasy after all). He isn't completely mature but has to act mature. He comes across a lot of things like teenage infatuations, ego clashes, aims, responsibilities and of-course love, which will not let him roam above those but pull him to their level and demand a decision from him. And there are several parallel threads in the film that too are dealt with care.( Nag raj-Lakshmi track is quite entertaining.) The film would have been refreshing if the director had chosen to stay true to the concept. But what bothers you is the artificiality that pops up uncomfortably in the film.  Shriya's story almost looks like a fairy tale.  Some of the characters in the film look too scripted and lack an appeal of reality. Do the rich always try to make fun of the poor? I don't think so. And there are cliches that are thrown disgustingly. When Shriya gets out of her car and boards the van of our heroes, you are forced to agree that the good always receive good. Too cinematic to be a Sekhar's film. Sekhar's world has always its share of optimism and positivity. In any other film of his, you can see it glaringly evident. But what saved them from being preachy and boring is their realistic and simplistic portrayal, equipped with down to earth dialogue that made it believable. But here, he too has traded off art for drama. He just sliced off his characters from Happy Days and stitched them here and wanted us to believe its a new film. It seems he planned the begining and the climax and filled the rest of the movie with "his" regular stuff. Not a very good idea Sekhar.

That being said, this is not a bad film. Its worth watching especially for the way the sentiment is worked out. No dramatic dialogues, no melodramatic music...simply as in real world. The Amala track moves you. You cant disagree when the hero says that his mother's cancer and the consequences changed his attitude towards his life. Thats what the film is supposed to portray, but somehow missed its target. The rest of the film wont make you glued to your seat, but it doesnt mean that it makes you fret with boredom. The only problem is that it gives you a feel that you have seen every scene before. You can guess everything. In that case the unfolding should be gripping enough. The film is partially successful in that department.The music is apt, but not haunting. The set is believable. The costumes are true to the characters. The actors  are fine. Kudos to Amala Akkineni. She excelled. The photography in the second half is brilliant. At the end of the movie, it says that All is well and life is beautiful. That seems to be the opinion of Sekhar Kammula. Is it? What is life.....depends on how you view it. And that forms a different philosophical discussion. Let it not be here in this review of this simple film. we can do it somewhere else. 

As a final say, its not great, but not bad. We like you Sekhar for your storytelling. But please tell us a different story each time.

PS:- Anjala Javeri is still stiff and beautiful. Shriya looked gorgeous. It seems Sekhar too is becoming conscious of the fact that girls can be exploited with camera without looking vulgar. I liked Shriya's two big...................................................................................................................eyes. Really yaar. You spoilt mind. I know what you thought. I am not like you. A good boy.

PS 2:- When the scene in which Mahesh Babu appears came, the audience expected the next photo to be Pawan Kalyan's. They began shouting "Power star Power star". But the scene ended with the hero's photo and Pawan kalyan's fans seemed to be disappointed.

SHIRDI SAI REVIEW

The words "God", "Life" and "death" may be the words that we use everyday, but the questions they arise are innumerable. They can throw you mercilessly into frozen philosophical zones where the answer always seduces you but never lends you its warmth. Is there a God who is responsible for all this? It seems to be the right question to ask if you ever meet a man like Shirdi sai baba. Director Ragahvendra Rao introduces you the Godman but never lets his hero get deeper beyond the surface of "Religious tolerance". Here is my complete review of the film.

Being aware of what a philosophical and emotional depths a film can transcend if it is about a man who is conceived a God by two different religions, its hard to appreciate this film. None of the characters around Sai Baba asks him a tough question. Its not very interesting to see a Godman confronted by people who wait for the most ground level logic to be sermonised to fall for any phakir. Even if it is a film, its hard to imagine that people are such dumbos to get convinced with surface level answers and a pinch of Viboothi. When I was half way through the film, I felt like standing and yelling at the screen "Ask Baba tougher questions". For example, the film shows Baba always talking to some imaginary or mysterious people who are invisible to normal devotees. Is it God, with whom he is talking? If he can talk to God  with that much ease and freedom, why should he go for a three day trip to all the "lokams" of Gods? What difference does that make to his devotees? That forms a question right? But when he wakes up, the britisher never asks this question but instead poses a dumb question like "How did you come to life again?"  And again he gets convinced with the simple logic Baba explains. Doesnt he know that the body and the soul are different? Poor man.Am I trying to dig too deep into something that is layer thin? May be. "Shirdi Sai" doesnt aim to be great. It aims to be a safe commercial project, that can pass off as a typical Raghavendra Rao "Bhakti flick". Thats why when Nagarjuna delivers the dialogue "Ee gaali pilichindi, ee nela rammandi, vachanu", no one takes it serious. Audience didnt seem even to bother about why a man who preaches non attachment to earthly things is so much attached to the air and earth of Shirdi. I am tempted everytime a character enters disliking Sai, expecting  the character to have atleast some brains to ask Sai a deeper philosophical question. When Sai Baba says that man can be happy aonly after death, why doesnt Sai Kumar ask "Then what is the purpose of life, if all is a suffering? What is the ultimate fruit that we get by going through all this mess?" Oh my God....Swaroop, you are expecting too much out of a telugu film.

I have nothing about Baba or his devotees. I dont know whether all this story is true or not. My comments are not about Sai Baba. They are about the film. Is it that Baba's life doesnt have enough masala? Christ's life has the epic "Crucifixion" that provides enough drama for a film. But here, no one lifts a hand against Baba. Is it the reason that we find no conflict in this film?. Yes. The director' s sole aim is to just make a film on Sai. Thats it. But he doesnt have the heart or interest to use this as a vehicle to his display of artistry. Thats why this film appears just like a wikipedia article on Sai. No implications, no enlightenment, no philosophy, no drama.When Sai claims to bear the suffering of his nephew, it doesnt look like a divine compassion towards humankind but just as a human emotion towards a relative. Thats why we just dont get the feel that this man has the wisdom of worlds in his head. He looks like just another old man who prefers to use his retirement money for his daughter's marriage instead of his heart surgery. If it is true that man can be happy only after death, why cant Baba let Taatya die? Oh Again I am going too deep? Sorry. Lets talk about the film again.

The review doesnt end if I dont mention Nagarjuna, who has just given a world class performance. He is completely believable and effortlessly likeable. Undoubtedly, he is the one and only actor on Earth who could do this character. The way he suppressed himself and let the character take him over is commendable. His eyes speak  whatever has been missing in the dialogue. I dont know how Sai Baba spoke or walk. If it is not like Nagarjuna, I can bet that Sai Baba was not as divine looking as Nag. He is sure to bag a number of awards and this is one of the best performances of Nag in his career.

Coming to other technicalities, the sets are pathetic for the reason that they shout that it is a film. Keeravani's music tries to drive the Telugus into "Bhakti" mode and I dont know whether its successful or not because I am immune to such tunes. Srikanth also did well. Sai Kumar is OK. The others overacted. Its no use commenting on the taking of a director who has been making films way past his expiry date.

As a final say, this film is for Sai Baba devotees and Nag devotees.

PS:- If you are a Sai devotee, please dont misunderstand me.  My comments are about the film's mediocrity. I state again that I know nothing about Sai Baba.

PS 2:- Beside me, three middle aged women sat to watch the movie. While I am looking at sides, getting bored, they all are in tears watching Nagarjuna's acting in the climax.

JULAYI REVIEW

Scene 1:- Trivikram is thinking in his room about writing a screenplay for his film with Allu Arjun. The story is aleady framed. It should convey a message so direct in the face that the Telugus who according to the film makers have no such thing as brain, can understand. Hours passed, a mug of coffee is consumed, but Trivikram couldn't write even one page of screenplay. Then a flash of idea crossed his mind. He went to his bedroom, came out with CDs of THE DARK KNIGHT, THE ITALIAN JOB  and some other hollywood movies. Ctrl+C, Ctrl +V. A telugu cinema ready.

Scene 2:- The audience while coming out of the theatre are talking with each other. "Trivikram has such an amazing talent that we Telugus should feel proud of"!!!!!!!!!!!

Tired of all this? Okay. Let me review the movie as if it is original.


When the first 15 minutes of the film establish the hero as a super smart macho who can outsmart both the Police and the goons with an ease and intensity that is beyond your imagination, what would you expect from the rest of the film? You would love to put tougher characters and obstacles in his way and watch how he deals with them. Trivikram seems to know this very well, but forgot it midway.

Ravi (Allu Arjun) is a smartass guy who is too lazy even to think of doing a job, and keeps waiting for that one wave of luck that would permanently resign him from middle class life. He has such an IQ that even the Police look like rats before his giantly smartness. In an attempt to earn money the easy way, he runs into a robber Bintu(Sonu Sood), who is as smart as Ravi. Thats where the movie sets high expectations for its audiences, who want to see a Tom and Jerry game between the two. But there arises the problem. Sonu Sood's character may be a perfect match to Bunny, because he presents some challenges to the hero, which could provide a gripping plot. But our hero falls in love, with a brainless heroine who blindly believes whatever he says. There is no challenge there, and hence no interest. Give him a smarter girl, maintain her at a high point and let him woo her. Else, tell us the story of Raviu and Bittu, but why this half baked love story Mr. Trivikram?  Whenever Ileana appeared on screen, I felt that looking at a white wall for 3456789234 hours might be more entertaining. Ileana's character might be suitable for Sanjay Sahu(Pawan Kalyan in Jalsa) but not for Ravi in this story. The love track, which the director thought is damn essential for the film, actually served as a side track that distracted the film's main plot and made the loop holes in the screenplay visible, even to the most common audience. This is the main drawback of the film.

"Wit and humour" combo is what Trivikram is gifted with, and it is evident from every dialogue in the movie. But Trivikram is not a very good narrator here. Especialy in the second half, the dialogue writer overtakes the director and screenplay writer. He divided the film into slices where the hero-villan scene comes after hero-heroine scene and thats how the film goes till the end. The first hour of the movie promises you many things, but all of them are left to the winds by the second half. Trivikram seems to have started the movie with great interest, but midway lost his interest in his characters(or exhausted by the task of driving two supersmart characters with his intelligence and seems to resort to typical Telugu-hero-ideas). He has taken enough cinematic liberties as well. In the climax, the ideas Bunny uses to divert the route of the Container vehicle are in no match to what brilliance he exhibits in the begining of the movie. At one point, the hero's smartness irritates you. I badly wish Trivikram could use atleast 20% of his brain he uses to write dialogue, to etch a gripping screenplay. Except Ileana's irritating expressions and the forced humour, I could recall nothing from the second half. During some of the scenes in second half, you would like to yell at the projector "Enough with this...Show us the climax." Instead of simply terming the film as "mediocrity", I am shooting one by one because, I am dissapointed seeing a potentially entertaining movie ending up just as an average film.It could have become a perfect entertainer (for the Telugus) but distanced itself by its own errors. It is not a bad film, but has paralleled itself with the idea. If I give a 60/100 to the direction department, I give a zero to the screenplay.


Allu Arjun has proved with Vedam that he has a very good actor inside him, and is willing to unleash him on us if the director comes with a suitable character for him. His unnecessary craving for a mass image made him a laughing stock in Varudu and Badrinath, where we even doubted on his acting calibre. This time he has chosen a character that allowed him to enjoy doing it, which helped us enjoy it. Rajendra Prasad is a delight to watch.I dont think Sonu Sood has the slightest difficulty playing the role because he might be used to it by now. Ileana is.......not attractive.

The first 30 minutes of the film is both the strength and weakness of the film. Strength because it is excellent, and weakness because it has set too high expectations, which the rest of the film fell flat trying to achieve. The film has the slickness that we rarely see in Telugu movies, but has been let down by a weak screenplay.

A final say:- Its not a crime to watch. Watch it for Trivikram and Bunny.

PS:- Whenever there is a dialogue from Bunny, the theatre broke into whistles and cries so loud that I had a very tough time following what he is saying. I watched it in Arjun, Kukatpally.

UKODATHARA ULIKKIPADATHARA REVIEW

Have you watched the trailer of this movie? Well then. Dont expect the movie to be as exciting as the trailer, because the trailer is a complete misguiding, misleading and a shameless cover of a lacklustre film that is zero in content. When a movie is full of sets, designer costumes, and looks like high-budget-personified but doesnt have even a single character that is well developed, its not your fault if you sleep in the theatre.

UKUP is a movie that assumes itself to be thrilling and creative. When the desperation of the director to touch every cliche and the self assumed eccentricity of the actor who wants to score a hit with offbeat picture doesnt match, we are doomed to find ourselves sitting helpless in the theatres like this. Well, coming to the story, there is a grandly erected set( Oh..there they have shown all their creativity..What else do you want you greedy man?) that has some ghosts and people who have one thing in common. They dont pay rent. Our hero arrives on a bike, with a hairstyle that is desperate to display his self proclamed negativity(Oh my God...these guys are killing me with creativity) and then the good deeds of this bad boy begin, much to our dismay. With a big sword(Hope its not plastic), he scares the hell out of the comedy less comedians and the audiences as well. Till Balakrishna arrives on scree, its boring. When he takes the movie on his shoulder, its again boring. Somewhere in the middle, we find Suhasini with the same expression we have saw her a zillion times. Manchu Laxmi, except in the climax episode is a matter of jokes, with her getup.

The dialogues are borrowed from the mookie dramas of the 90s. In the second half, the director realises that the only way to complete a socio fantasy picture is to copy something from the previous films in that genre. And then we are served with Sonu Sood plucked away from Arundhati minus his solid characterisation. (Creativity again). The songs that drop out of nowhere do their job(make you more sleepy). And then the climax. The only one thing about the movie that I liked is the fact that it ended.

When the title of the film itself assumes that it is a fairy tale that shocks you at times, and the trailer is shown to be promising, and there is an expectation on the hero, and in the background of a heavy marketing hype, it is the job of the director to design the film to be thrilling enough to make the audiences glued to their seats.  But what happened here? A creative bankrupt director is showered with an efficient starcast and a juicy budget, just to dole out a disgusting and half boiled picture. All cliches and all stereotypes.

Manoj is an actor aho has a fanbase independent of caste and family status. He is reputed to have a good creative choice, and an eccentricity to pick up innovative subjects despite failures. But this time, you cant forgive him. As an actor he needs to realise that a solid script can do more than a tremendous budget and innovative-only-to-hear lines. And Balakrshna is okay in his role as a man that sells clothes......sorry distributes clothes. Than God the set doesnt have a railway track nearby, otherwise they would have planned a "slap your thigh--make train go back" episode.

As a final say, I would advice you not to waste your money on this film, and not to expect any telugu film based on its trailers.

EEGA-THE POWER OF FLY

There is an unsigned contract between the audience and Rajamouli, even before we enter the theatre. "Well, my dear audience, I told you the story of this film even before starting the movie. I showed you what it looks like in the trailer. I too know that a house-fly cannot do all the things that are shown here. This is just the outcome of a funny thought presented in a manner that could excite the telugu audience. So, dont complain that it is out of reality, or an absurd point." Okay Mr. Rajamouli...We got your point.

Eega is a technically brilliant film, to start with. The special effects are of top notch, if you donot watch hollywood films. The story doesnt have any twists or turns. The taking doesnt have any feel to it. But what saves your day is the fact that the film is not boring. Esecially the second half, which is a continuous tom and jerry show. If you can afford to switch off your brain for a while, you can pass the movie. The film starts on a dull note, showing Sudeep's lustful expressions, and a heroine with typical telugu heroine makeup. Till Nani goes off screen, it is like any other telugu romance. Once the fly enters the scene, the CG magic begins. The fly goes on rage, in the second half, getting on the nerves of the villan, and strikes creative heights at places. This is the first film that brought the creative levels of Rajamouli to the full extent. I hated all his earlier films, for their overdose of heroism, gravity defying fight sequences, and one man killing hundreds-kind of ideas. This one is bearable, with its funny line shown seriously.

Rajamouli is always succesful in catching the pulse of the Telugus. They even rated a over sentimental "Chatrapati" as a hit. Then its not a onder that this film, which has genuine creative stuff will get attention. What stands out is the direction and presentation of the movie. But the narration is very flat, which  is the reason for a poor first half. The take off is too simple and plain, that it failed to generate excitement in the audience, as everyone knows whats gonna happen. Though it is successful in making us have multiple creative orgasms, it failed to strike an emotional chord. We dont feel sad when Nani gets killed, or when Samantha turns into tears. There is nothing that the film conveys, except that it is a story well told.
But we cant blame the director for this. A movie should be reviewed on what it has promised and what it has delivered. In that case, Eega is successful.

Its not a small task for a director to visualise a film that almost runs on Graphics, write a power packed screenplay and execute it to the most minute of detail. Rajamouli deserves a standing ovation, for that. But I am quite angry on him, that he has decided to brand the film as a sheer technical experience rather than an emotional story told in a technical manner. End of the day, people liked it. No issues. Eega may not be a perfect film, but far better than most Telugu duds.
GGGGGGGGuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN REVIEW

The obvious question tht arises when a film's title declared itself "amazing" is "Does the film Justify the title?". Honestly, what do we expect out of a Spiderman movie.....or for any super hero flick for that matter? Mind boggling visual effects, breath taking action sequences, charishma oozing stars and a witty presentation, ofcourse backed by a gripping plot and point( as far as the Indian audiences are concerned). The amazing spiderman, appeals to different audiences in different ways. Depends on what you expect before stepping into the theatre. If you felt nauseated with the too-many-villans-make-heroism-stronger-obsessed third part of Sam Raimi's trilogy, then this might come as a relief for you(The action is easy to follow).

Marc Webb's verson of spidey, doesnt go overboard in his display of his superhero powers but stands still to allow the audiences have a look at his emotional side, as Webb throws light on it. Here the audiences would get an insight into why Peter Parker has become what he is. The film intends to end on a sympathetic note towards the superhero, who has traded off his heart, for his responsibilities. Ofcourse the first three movies have visited this zone, but this part emphasises it. We see the same story how Peter is bitten by a spider, how he coped up with the changes in him, how he became a superhero. But the question is, are we really interested to see the same story once again, that too after ten years? Well...The answer is that this time he is different, if you are not. Spidey's point is...It takes pain to be a man who fights crime. It demands your personal life, if you intend to serve the public. I dont feel that this is a new point, atleast for spiderman. Christopher Nolan set a new benchmark, by rebooting The Batman series, by dealing it in a philosophical light. There is a great depth of thought, in the ethical puzzles thrown by the joker. That made The Dark Knight, a dark and gritty, but entertaining superhero tale. But the problem with AMS is that we are still in the THE AVENGERS hangover, where it is proved that we are still in a mood to enjoy Superhero movies that ooze fun and destruction. While the audience are all expecting Spiderman to go on with mad adventures, what he does there on screen is shedding tears and romancing. I dont mean its a mistake, as we know its a reboot.

If we view the film as it is, but not what it could be, then AMS is a well told story, well acted and well directed. Andrew Garfield brought a new charm to spiderman with his talent, but I cant resist the temptation of mentioning the glow brought to screen by the gorgeous Emma Stone. She is amazing. Even the climax is not that of a big bang. It replicates the same old formula what Raimi has set in his earlier trilogy. A scientist, a research, went wrong, turns monster, destruction, fight, good wins over the evil. But it would have provided a great excitement if the Visual effects are stunning. No doubt they are top notch, but just not enough, especially after THE AVENGERS, Marvel's previous superhit.

Finally, THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN serves its purpose. Redefined Peter Parker, set a nice background for a sequel. Watch it in IMAX, coz if you are bored with the film, atleast you could pass time watching the hot chicks immersed in watching the movie.

A REVIEW OF REVIEWS

If you have reminded the scene in which Shiyaji Shindey goes on a rage against reviews in the film NENINTHE, immediately after reading my heading and seeing this image, means you have understood what I am going to say. Dont think I am going to support or oppose Puri's dialogues. Since I too have been writing reviews, in my blog and on FB and a few of my friends decide whether to watch it or not based on my reviews( The highest number of views for my blog are for film reviews), I thought I should explain, on what basis I rate films.

Being a critic (Till the end of this article, I call myself as a critic, irrespective of whether you cry or laugh) is a very easy and tough task at the same time.

Why is it easy?
"In that particular scene where the camel is wounded in the desert, it is dressed with a white color cloth. But it would have been better if the director had chosen a red color cloth". The above comment may seem to have a factual analysis, but what the critic has done there is a dreaming of enhancement of a scene which is a result of the director's imagination. The director has imagined a desert, placed a camel there, created a scene in which it would be wounded and then made a character clean the wound and dress it. It requires a lot of imagination, analysis, convincing, and a lot of back breaking effort to capture his idea in a camera. Whereas for the critic, all is ready made for him to comment on. He doesnt need to understand the director's toil He may have a particular agenda behind it, which sometimes is understood by the audience directly or which may remain in the dark(if the audience doesnt have the level of sensibility/ if the director fails to portray it properly). A film is basically a communication that goes on between the story teller(director) and the audience. Any film maker, while making his film would add whatever the ingredients he can add, hoping that the audience will appreciate the taste besides digesting it. He visualises something in his mind, before presenting it and it will depend on his skill as a technician, whether he delivers what he wants to deliver or not. But the critic is in the dark about what the director wanted to convey. He simply sees the final outcome and comments on it. And the creator cannot argue that commenting on his creation is quite easy and imagining and executing is difficult. When he chose to release a product into public, he should be ready to face the verdict the public passes, whatever it may be. He cannot complain that people doesnt have the level of sensibility he has and that it is their problem if they dont like it. Its rubbish.

Huh....a lot of analysis? But the above lines doesnt mean that the critic is wrong.
 Why it is a tough job?
 Because watching a movie and having an opinion on is not all that is required to be a critic. I thought that films like TRANSFORMERS, XXX, GHOST RIDER etc are good movies, only till I watched great movies like CITIZEN KANE, GODFATHER, TERMINATOR, JAWS,AVATAR, GONE WITH THE WIND, INCEPTION,  KILL BILL, LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL, SPIDER MAN 2, MEMENTO, VERTIGO, GOODFELLAS and a lot too more in number to be described here. We develop a taste, when we try different tastes. A normal cinegoer just likes or dislikes a film, based on his level of sensibility, his taste, his mindset, his mood at the time of viewing, his opinions on different things, and also the content of the film. But everytime he likes or dislikes something he may not know why he liked it, and doesnt care either. The critic knows the reason. Because he knows what a good cinema is, and how well it is possible to carve out a good film(being very generic here). Also, review is different from criticism. A review analyses the film to judge whether the film is worth your money or not. Its point of view is from  the consumer's. Whereas a criticism would like to comment on the artistic elements and is more interesting.
On what basis do I rate movies?

I rate a movie based on what it is, but not on what it could be. What it has promised and what it has delivered? is the question on which I give my reviews. The poster, the trailor and the publicity of the movie should made it clear, what the film is supposed to be. Then based on their aspirations, we decide whether it has reached them or not. We cannot compare "Shivaji" with "Shiva" and say that "Shivaji" is unrealistic. "Shivaji" is made, based on the star charishma of Rajinikanth and it met what it has promised. We love to watch "Rajini" as a larger than life hero, and the makers of the film portrayed him in the same light. So, now it would be a blunder if I say that the hollywood has made a zero gravity fight in Inception believable and that Rajini is still flyng with ropes. Here the promises and performances matter. But if Shivaji is publicised to be a realistic portrayal of Indian economic crimes and the solutions, we have to pan it down saying that the solutions are unrealistic and that it is a piece of crap.

Hope you understood my point.

GABBAR KING

REVIEW:-
Pawan Kalyan is back, to the delight of his fans, and box office as well. Gabbar Singh came with huge expectations and delivers a success, more huge than the hype. In one sense, Gabbar Singh is bigger than Pawan Kalyan.

To talk about the story is not a point here, because the characterisation of the hero swallowed almost the entire story. The hero is not placed in some story, but the story revolves around the hero. It sounds a bit negative, but that is what it made Gabbar Singh a blockbuster. Comments like 'The story is routine', 'Too much heroism', 'no creativity', come into light when the picture cannot hold our interest. When we lose our interest on what is happening on screen, we search for loop holes, flaws, and logical mistakes. But Gabbar Singh will not give you that chance. From the word go, it makes you lose yourself in the grandeur of the star. It makes you forget whatever flaw is there in the film, just to rejoice in the mania, he creates. Pawan Kalyan dances, fights, delivers punches in a style that would become iconic for many years, acts, and does all that you want him to do. What else do we want?

After a spate of flops, its surprising to see the energy levels in the actor.  A special mention should be given to Harish Shankar. His witty dialogues, edgy camera angles, and more than all, his capability to catch the pulse of Pawan Kalyan fans made this film a festival. This film is a perfect example of what you can achieve , if you make use of  star power in a right manner. Many directors are stumbling here, by going overboard. Here, even if Pawan Kalyan praises himself, it is lovable because of his different characterisation. (BUt in RACHCHA, it is non sensical). You have no problem with the story heading in random directions because the narration arrests you, and entertains you to the core.

Coming to the flip side, Shrti Hassan is a big let down. She cant attract, cant emote. And as said before, the hero's character swallowed all other characters. I have a special love for the scene in DABANGG, where Salman uses his Rayban to cover his tear filled eyes, walks in his style with the trademark background score. In Gabbar Singh, the scene is too simple and without any emotional impact. The climax is abrupt, and sumos fly in the air. And the much talked about item song is not upto the mark. Malaika didnt suit the song.

But the flaws dont bother you as long as you dont think too much. And finally, this is the best commercial entertainer of recent times.