-
3rd September 2009, 07:59 PM
#701
Moderator
Platinum Hubber
I guess you-two was written for the likes of me
I found the ruthless villain kinda odd - it didn't work as a joke and couldn't be taken seriously either. Lobo and Lele were impressive in straddling the two different reactions.
The scene were the villain and co enter Bhope's havEli and beat a hasty retreat as Priyanka sprays bullets on them
Unlike anything ever shown before on screen.
மூவா? முதல்வா! இனியெம்மைச் சோரேலே
-
3rd September 2009 07:59 PM
# ADS
Circuit advertisement
-
3rd September 2009, 08:03 PM
#702
Senior Member
Diamond Hubber

Originally Posted by
equanimus

Originally Posted by
kid-glove
After a point, it was tiring. Brangan got it right about excessive wordplay, and 'dog'play. I was expecting verboseness, but it got overtly recurring.
I agree, kid-glove, that the wordplay was quite overdrawn at times (like the "you two" line which was very cheesy), a bit underwhelming coming from Vishal Bhardwaj who's such a crackling dialogue-writer. But overall, I thought the dialogue is indeed one of the strong points of the film.
A light nitpick, but at no point, it felt 'manufactured' or out of place. I loved the seamless technique, and the fact it did bring out laughs from the crowd without being mind-numbingly stupid, like other Bolly comedies. And yes, he is probably the best dialogue-writer in Hindi cinema (apart from Abbas Tyrewala, maybe). After watching the film, it felt the 'loudest' VB film, I've never felt this way about some of his intense works like Omkara and Maqbool (humour seamlessly infused in these works too).
...an artist without an art.
-
3rd September 2009, 08:06 PM
#703
Senior Member
Seasoned Hubber
PR,
But the thing is, even as you (adhAvadhu nAn!) boo in response to the wordplay, you reconcile a bit because Lele delivers it pretty well, with the right amount of earnestness and emergency.
-
3rd September 2009, 08:06 PM
#704
Moderator
Platinum Hubber
Okay...one thing the early reviews were saying was something like: the movie doesn't stop to explain, you connect the dots yourself etc.
When I watched the movie I was
There weren't any "oh-yeah" moments, were there ?
What were they possibly referring to ?
மூவா? முதல்வா! இனியெம்மைச் சோரேலே
-
3rd September 2009, 08:13 PM
#705
Senior Member
Seasoned Hubber

Originally Posted by
Prabhu Ram
Okay...one thing the early reviews were saying was something like: the movie doesn't stop to explain, you connect the dots yourself etc.
When I watched the movie I was

There weren't any "oh-yeah" moments, were there ?
What were they possibly referring to ?
Ditto, PR. I was also more than a bit perplexed when I read those reviews (but it was after watching the film in my case). There wasn't much interlocking between different strands/parts of the narrative at all. And another thing I found really off the mark was the suggestion that the film moves at a frenetic pace.
-
3rd September 2009, 08:20 PM
#706
Moderator
Platinum Hubber
The end of the first half is frenetic.
The hotel, who is killing whom, whose escaping...things happening in two rooms and getting mixed up. That happened faster than average.
மூவா? முதல்வா! இனியெம்மைச் சோரேலே
-
3rd September 2009, 08:21 PM
#707
Senior Member
Platinum Hubber
ada critics-na apdi ipdi udhaar-A ezhudharadhu dhaan. makkaL adha padichitti, coffee machine kitta kadhai vudaradhu dhaan. ("do you know that swine flu kills less people in a day than ordinary flu" apdinnu sollittu oru mystic smile vuduvAngaLE, same pieces will quote such "frenetic pace", "connect the dots" etc)
-
3rd September 2009, 08:27 PM
#708
Senior Member
Diamond Hubber
There's no hassle to connect the dots. It's a simple film, chronological for most part, and the flashback/dream sequences are moments where the movie actually "stops to explain".
Personally, the only 'oh-yeah' (more of a 'oh-yeah, it could be') moment was speculative. Moments after watching the film, I had a reason to believe Charlie had stolen the watch, and father got wrongly convicted. I felt this way because at one point, Charlie's dream has a shot of Mikhail instead of father's cadaver. And I inferred what I did, because Charlie feels responsible for death of Mikhail, the split second decision to loot the guitar and the drug had got into Mikhail. Placing this side-by-side with (my imaginary) scenario of Charlie stealing the watch, and therein Father's death. It's put in place! :P At the end of it all, I felt silly for reading too much into this.
...an artist without an art.
-
3rd September 2009, 08:27 PM
#709
Senior Member
Diamond Hubber

Originally Posted by
Prabhu Ram
The end of the first half is frenetic.
The hotel, who is killing whom, whose escaping...things happening in two rooms and getting mixed up. That happened faster than average.
Exactly this piece put me off. Onniyum puriyalai
-
3rd September 2009, 08:32 PM
#710
Senior Member
Diamond Hubber

Originally Posted by
Prabhu Ram
The hotel, who is killing whom, whose escaping...things happening in two rooms and getting mixed up. That happened faster than average.
I agree. Right until the salute at check-post, it was frenetic. Then everything is clear, no?
...an artist without an art.
Bookmarks