IMDb-BEWERTUNG
5,5/10
6662
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuAn ordinary man goes against all odds and forges his destiny to become a 'Big Shot'.An ordinary man goes against all odds and forges his destiny to become a 'Big Shot'.An ordinary man goes against all odds and forges his destiny to become a 'Big Shot'.
- Auszeichnungen
- 5 Gewinne & 3 Nominierungen insgesamt
Siddhartha Basu
- Romi Mehta
- (as Siddartha Basu)
Atul Srivastava
- Rao Saheb Desai
- (as Atul Shrivastava)
Ashwinder Jandu Singh
- Japaani
- (as Shaanti Ashwinder)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
"Bombay Velvet", Anurag Kashyap's most ambitious project riding on 90 crores, based on the "Mumbai Fables" by Gyan Prakash. It starts just after the Indian independence and tells the story of how the seven islands become Bombay, the reclamation, corrupt politician, organized crime, Jazz cafés and love story of Johnny Balraj and Rosie.
Balraj comes to Bombay with his mother and wants to become "Big Shot" and he can go to any length to achieve his dreams.
We all admire Anurag Kashyap for the cinematic brilliance and he has taken the affliction of taking the Indian Cinema to the next level. We all have seen "Black Friday", "Dev D","Gulaal", "GOW 1&2" and "Ugly". He is a man with panache and his movies deal with burning issues and fantastic subjects. However, "Bombay Velvet" fell really short on all aspects, it never embraces you as a viewer and it never connects with you.
It has a world-class art direction, awesome sets of Bombay erected in Sri Lanka, fantastic cinematography and CGI. Every nuance of 60's Bombay has been put to the detail. The background score is mostly loud but some songs compliment the scenes. It runs for 150 delirious minutes.
However, the writing is never convincing, it tries to be "Godfather", "Goodfellas" and "Scarface" altogether. The culmination is pretty sour as we never understand the sudden changes. There are many subplots which do not add anything to the story and left open.
Ranbir's character is powerful but it is confused between a gangster and a lover. Anushka Sharma doesn't have much to do except lip sync and some exaggerated scenes. Karan Johar looks phony as a slick and stylish villain but he is flat throughout the movie. Why did he laugh so much on the word "Tender", it looked awful? Satyadeep Mishra has done a good job. Kay Kay impresses as always in a small role.
We could also see Varun Grover's stand-up comedy presentation in the café.
This could have been a way better film if some more time would have been invested in writing because it has some instances of being a masterpiece.
Balraj comes to Bombay with his mother and wants to become "Big Shot" and he can go to any length to achieve his dreams.
We all admire Anurag Kashyap for the cinematic brilliance and he has taken the affliction of taking the Indian Cinema to the next level. We all have seen "Black Friday", "Dev D","Gulaal", "GOW 1&2" and "Ugly". He is a man with panache and his movies deal with burning issues and fantastic subjects. However, "Bombay Velvet" fell really short on all aspects, it never embraces you as a viewer and it never connects with you.
It has a world-class art direction, awesome sets of Bombay erected in Sri Lanka, fantastic cinematography and CGI. Every nuance of 60's Bombay has been put to the detail. The background score is mostly loud but some songs compliment the scenes. It runs for 150 delirious minutes.
However, the writing is never convincing, it tries to be "Godfather", "Goodfellas" and "Scarface" altogether. The culmination is pretty sour as we never understand the sudden changes. There are many subplots which do not add anything to the story and left open.
Ranbir's character is powerful but it is confused between a gangster and a lover. Anushka Sharma doesn't have much to do except lip sync and some exaggerated scenes. Karan Johar looks phony as a slick and stylish villain but he is flat throughout the movie. Why did he laugh so much on the word "Tender", it looked awful? Satyadeep Mishra has done a good job. Kay Kay impresses as always in a small role.
We could also see Varun Grover's stand-up comedy presentation in the café.
This could have been a way better film if some more time would have been invested in writing because it has some instances of being a masterpiece.
The film, that's set in the era of 1949, welcomes the audiences with a track by Raveena Tandon Thadani (special appearance). On the other hand, while a young Balraj (Ranbir Kapoor) is busy taking his baby steps in this man-eat-man world, he also spends his time in the red light district nursing frustrations of seeing his mother getting slapped and abused. Youth throws him in the boxing ring of free-for-all fighting to earn some ready cash. He then comes across Chiman (Satyadeep Misra), who not just becomes his partner in crime, but also his friend for life. As they march ahead in life, they, gradually land up becoming the henchmen for Kaizad Khambata (Karan Johar), editor of the tabloid 'Torrent' and also a top wheeler-dealer. Impressed with his dare devil attitude, Kaizad appoints Balraj to manage his club named 'Bombay Velvet'. In addition to this, Kaizad also entrusts him with the task of wiping out the 'Communist's opposition to this 'Capitalist' plan. But he meets with a roadblock called Jimmy Mistry (Manish Chaudhury), editor of pro-labour class tabloid 'Glitz'. It is then, that the beautiful jazz singer Rosie (Anushka Sharma) is sent as a honey trap to lure Balraj by Jimmy. But the duo consummate their passionate romance and become inseparable. The henchman wants to have his share of the pie in the new money-order and that's when the drama turns bloody and what-happens-after. Meanwhile, Kaizad tries to adopt the policy of divide and rule between Balraj and Chiman. Does Rosie become successful in her role of a honey trap, does Kaizad become successful in separating the Balraj-Chiman duo and what ultimately happens to 'Bombay Velvet'... is what forms the rest of the story.
Pros - Film is visually stunning. The music and special effects are outstanding. One liners are outstanding and to be apllauded.
Cons - No matter how glamour or class you show in movies, it should have a script, screenplay and a climax which is important! BV's climax is just as awful as Roy. I was and always will be proud of Anurag K's films like Gangs of Wasseypur and Queen. I was proud to say that i'm his fan but this film has turned it down.
Last Words: *If you want to see for Ranbir, please go because his acting is outstanding. The way he delivers his role and dialogue - 5/5 stars! *If you are Anurag Kashyap fan and want to continue to have faith in him, go at your risk or please avoid!
Pros - Film is visually stunning. The music and special effects are outstanding. One liners are outstanding and to be apllauded.
Cons - No matter how glamour or class you show in movies, it should have a script, screenplay and a climax which is important! BV's climax is just as awful as Roy. I was and always will be proud of Anurag K's films like Gangs of Wasseypur and Queen. I was proud to say that i'm his fan but this film has turned it down.
Last Words: *If you want to see for Ranbir, please go because his acting is outstanding. The way he delivers his role and dialogue - 5/5 stars! *If you are Anurag Kashyap fan and want to continue to have faith in him, go at your risk or please avoid!
One feels slightly intimidated and/or browbeaten to review Anurag Kashyap's films. His films are like the songs of American rock band Coldplay - most of them don't make much sense and because they don't make much sense, they can mean anything. Bombay Velvet is one such product.
Set between the late 40s and the late 60s in Bombay, story of a migrant, Balraj (Kapoor), who lives his life to grow exponentially on his own terms is hardly convincing. He begins his life with the monies hauled through pickpocketing and starts living his puzzling dream when he falls into the clutches of a bootlegger called Khambata (Johar). The build-up is faint as the story picks up pace to set the theme, which is about greed for power and fame that fixates our little, glam-doll protagonist.
Fear of anachronism is visible from frame one, and the brutal attention to details - to recapture (one prefers "reinvent" though) 50s'-60s' Bombay - is the greatest highlight of the film. This means the story is absorbingly clichéd.
The history of Bombay is heavily dealt with as the plot carves itself out, ending the crime drama with an epilogue that has a punctuation error in it. The touch of politics that drives the crime genre in the film is a cooler depiction of the developments that led to a city now called Mumbai, which became of Bombay and, is where I sit now and write this review. Now, THAT is fun to watch. Few familiar twists and turns drive the screenplay to a highly cribbed climax. Humor, if you can detect it, is wicked and forced.
Kapoor is phenomenal as the hero of the film, but my heart hardly ached for the lad as he went about gun-wielding to rip off men who denied his own way of maddeningly narcissistic life. The whole cast, including Sharma, Menon, and Basu do a beautiful job by staying in their characters. Debutante (that's what the intro credit says) Johar seems to have borrowed his natural effeminacy into the screen as he puts up a rather bad show at being a cool tycoon. His character is like a headless chicken who flounders (sic) after having pecked for cereals with other characters of the film. Pardon me for using a dialog from the film. If the makers can plagiarize (sorry, the right phrase is "be inspired"), why can't I?
I am tired of watching rip offs of that Godfather gun-in-the- flushbin idea, and that is when the film starts to fumble. With a soundtrack for the climax that reminds you of the Oscar Best Picture Birdman (2014) and FX TV show Fargo (2014), one can confirm the imagination quotient of the film. But do watch out for the mildest anti-smoking statutory warning in the history of Bollywood.
All said and done and having used few superlatives to describe the film's richness, I cannot use the word "original." And at a time when people go and die by originality, and partake in copyright fights, does a film made from ripping off old cult classics and popular ideas work? The audience have to decide. And boxing, if you wonder, from the trailers and the posters, is a gimmick. Apart from that, it is exhaustive at 150 long minutes.
BOTTOM LINE: Bombay Velvet, as an ambition, can be lauded for its art setup, which it never fails to brag about. But, with a phony villain and an over-smart hero, their joint saga is as raw as the blood that glimmers off the bodies of the men they kill. 5/10 - average.
Can be watched with a typical Indian family? NO
This review was sponsored by ProdNote (www.prodnote.com)
Set between the late 40s and the late 60s in Bombay, story of a migrant, Balraj (Kapoor), who lives his life to grow exponentially on his own terms is hardly convincing. He begins his life with the monies hauled through pickpocketing and starts living his puzzling dream when he falls into the clutches of a bootlegger called Khambata (Johar). The build-up is faint as the story picks up pace to set the theme, which is about greed for power and fame that fixates our little, glam-doll protagonist.
Fear of anachronism is visible from frame one, and the brutal attention to details - to recapture (one prefers "reinvent" though) 50s'-60s' Bombay - is the greatest highlight of the film. This means the story is absorbingly clichéd.
The history of Bombay is heavily dealt with as the plot carves itself out, ending the crime drama with an epilogue that has a punctuation error in it. The touch of politics that drives the crime genre in the film is a cooler depiction of the developments that led to a city now called Mumbai, which became of Bombay and, is where I sit now and write this review. Now, THAT is fun to watch. Few familiar twists and turns drive the screenplay to a highly cribbed climax. Humor, if you can detect it, is wicked and forced.
Kapoor is phenomenal as the hero of the film, but my heart hardly ached for the lad as he went about gun-wielding to rip off men who denied his own way of maddeningly narcissistic life. The whole cast, including Sharma, Menon, and Basu do a beautiful job by staying in their characters. Debutante (that's what the intro credit says) Johar seems to have borrowed his natural effeminacy into the screen as he puts up a rather bad show at being a cool tycoon. His character is like a headless chicken who flounders (sic) after having pecked for cereals with other characters of the film. Pardon me for using a dialog from the film. If the makers can plagiarize (sorry, the right phrase is "be inspired"), why can't I?
I am tired of watching rip offs of that Godfather gun-in-the- flushbin idea, and that is when the film starts to fumble. With a soundtrack for the climax that reminds you of the Oscar Best Picture Birdman (2014) and FX TV show Fargo (2014), one can confirm the imagination quotient of the film. But do watch out for the mildest anti-smoking statutory warning in the history of Bollywood.
All said and done and having used few superlatives to describe the film's richness, I cannot use the word "original." And at a time when people go and die by originality, and partake in copyright fights, does a film made from ripping off old cult classics and popular ideas work? The audience have to decide. And boxing, if you wonder, from the trailers and the posters, is a gimmick. Apart from that, it is exhaustive at 150 long minutes.
BOTTOM LINE: Bombay Velvet, as an ambition, can be lauded for its art setup, which it never fails to brag about. But, with a phony villain and an over-smart hero, their joint saga is as raw as the blood that glimmers off the bodies of the men they kill. 5/10 - average.
Can be watched with a typical Indian family? NO
This review was sponsored by ProdNote (www.prodnote.com)
Although Bombay Velvet has not been doing well, it is a movie that you must watch. The story is very interesting; you keep anticipating what will happen next. The movie is made extremely well; the characters are believable, and the sets make you feel you are in the '60s. The storyline is a bit slow in the first half, but the second half picks up speed. The love story between Anushka Sharma and Ranbir Kapoor is one of my favorite elements of the story. I was a little hesistant to watch this movie based on the reviews, but I do not regret watching it at all. This movie makes up for Ranbir Kapoor's last two flop movies, Besharam and Roy. Overall, this movie is a must watch and you will regret it if you do not watch it.
If I try to draw comparisons between Martin Scorsese's 1990-blockbuster Goodfellas and our very own Kashyapish Bombay Velvet, they will look like twins, though born in different eras. While the former has already proved itself a masterpiece, the latter simply looks like a wanna-be to that classic.
No wonder that Director Anurag Kashyap credits Mr. Scorsese during the initial credits. He seriously attempts to replicate the master's magic in order to weave out a rather clichéd film. The 60's era looks spectacular; the jazz music (wonderfully composed by Amit Trivedi) throws in an indispensable nostalgia; the Italian costume designs nudge us back to the good-old mobster classics -- everything looks gorgeous in this fantastical post independence Bombay.
But how long you could stare at something beautiful without being talked back to. Bombay Velvet lays itself somewhere in that category, where a beautiful art fails to form a viable communication with its spectator.
The problem lies within the screenplay, oddly written and interweaved with no complex empathy towards the characters. The First Act seems to be the only good asset, where characters are build impressively; wonderfully focusing on traits and motives that build up the next act.
But it is where the narrative loses its pace. Writers -- Vasan Bala, Anurag Kashyap, Gyan Prakash and Thani -- fails to live up to our expectations of genuine conflicts (something Kashyap spectacularly created in the Gangs of Wasseypur duo-logy). We therefore face a regular Bollywood-clichéd tale, where twins arrive out of no where, murders get overdone, songs take over the impressions, and suspenses are injected for the sake of injecting.
Even the ride seems slow and boring at places, the actors make sure to impress us whenever they are allowed to. Ranbir Kapoor (as Johnny "Big Shot" Balraj) conveys madness with style, never losing the grip of the character and giving us a memorable performance. Anushka Sharma (as Rosie) plays a perfect eye-candy amid the distasteful mafia wars. Watch her emoting a sad song with such conviction that it might have reminded Ranbir of his Jordan act in Rockstar. She owns the voice of her playback singer, literally.
Among the supporting actors, only Satyadeep Mishra (as Balraj's childhood friend Chimman) makes a long lasting impact. While other talents (Kay Kay Menon, Manish Chaudhary, and Vivaan Shah) amply justify their skills in their limited screen time. A special mention for Karan Johar for pulling out a calm and restraint act. The script however doesn't allow his Kaizad Khambatta to emote further than a relaxed homosexual mobster.
On whole, I do not want to call Bombay Velvet a bad movie; in fact it is far better than the regular nonsense we are served on most of the Fridays. But being a true Kashyap fan, I believe Bombay Velvet to be only an iota of his previous works, created to prey further on the mainstream audience, with only style but no substance.
No wonder that Director Anurag Kashyap credits Mr. Scorsese during the initial credits. He seriously attempts to replicate the master's magic in order to weave out a rather clichéd film. The 60's era looks spectacular; the jazz music (wonderfully composed by Amit Trivedi) throws in an indispensable nostalgia; the Italian costume designs nudge us back to the good-old mobster classics -- everything looks gorgeous in this fantastical post independence Bombay.
But how long you could stare at something beautiful without being talked back to. Bombay Velvet lays itself somewhere in that category, where a beautiful art fails to form a viable communication with its spectator.
The problem lies within the screenplay, oddly written and interweaved with no complex empathy towards the characters. The First Act seems to be the only good asset, where characters are build impressively; wonderfully focusing on traits and motives that build up the next act.
But it is where the narrative loses its pace. Writers -- Vasan Bala, Anurag Kashyap, Gyan Prakash and Thani -- fails to live up to our expectations of genuine conflicts (something Kashyap spectacularly created in the Gangs of Wasseypur duo-logy). We therefore face a regular Bollywood-clichéd tale, where twins arrive out of no where, murders get overdone, songs take over the impressions, and suspenses are injected for the sake of injecting.
Even the ride seems slow and boring at places, the actors make sure to impress us whenever they are allowed to. Ranbir Kapoor (as Johnny "Big Shot" Balraj) conveys madness with style, never losing the grip of the character and giving us a memorable performance. Anushka Sharma (as Rosie) plays a perfect eye-candy amid the distasteful mafia wars. Watch her emoting a sad song with such conviction that it might have reminded Ranbir of his Jordan act in Rockstar. She owns the voice of her playback singer, literally.
Among the supporting actors, only Satyadeep Mishra (as Balraj's childhood friend Chimman) makes a long lasting impact. While other talents (Kay Kay Menon, Manish Chaudhary, and Vivaan Shah) amply justify their skills in their limited screen time. A special mention for Karan Johar for pulling out a calm and restraint act. The script however doesn't allow his Kaizad Khambatta to emote further than a relaxed homosexual mobster.
On whole, I do not want to call Bombay Velvet a bad movie; in fact it is far better than the regular nonsense we are served on most of the Fridays. But being a true Kashyap fan, I believe Bombay Velvet to be only an iota of his previous works, created to prey further on the mainstream audience, with only style but no substance.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesThe film was planned as a trilogy in 2009. It was going to be produced by Danny Boyle. The first part would star John Abraham. This part would be the 1960's ( Ranbir Kapoor's role). The second part would star Aamir Khan. This would be the 1970's. The final part of the trilogy would star Shah Rukh Khan. This would be the 1980's. When Danny Boyle left the project, Anurag decided to scrap part 2 and 3.
- PatzerYou see a sign-board for Falkland Road in the first few minutes with the PIN code on it. Well, PIN codes did not appear in India until 1972, but the scene is of 1949.
- Zitate
Johnny Balraj: When a movie becomes housefull, then the only one who knows the manager gets a ticket...
- Alternative VersionenThere was an earlier director's cut, in length of 188 minutes, which was earlier to be the theatrical version of the film...but because of producer's concern it was cut down to 149 minutes.
- VerbindungenFeatures Die wilden Zwanziger (1939)
- SoundtracksFifi
(a remake of the Hindi song "Jaata Kahaan Hai Deewane", from the 1956 film C.I.D. (1956))
Original Lyrics by Majrooh Sultanpuri
Original Music by O.P. Nayyar
Re-created by: Mikey McCleary
Vocals by Suman Sridhar
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Offizielle Standorte
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Бомбейский бархат
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Budget
- 800.000.000 ₹ (geschätzt)
- Bruttoertrag in den USA und Kanada
- 450.692 $
- Eröffnungswochenende in den USA und in Kanada
- 390.774 $
- 17. Mai 2015
- Weltweiter Bruttoertrag
- 758.478 $
- Laufzeit
- 2 Std. 29 Min.(149 min)
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen