Bombay Velvet

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.

"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.

A day before watching Bombay Velvet i saw Brazil 2nd time. First time watching it was like okay something is happening on big sets and the director is trying to show me some world of his imagination and in the end i thought it is pretentious, the first time i saw it i was not exposed to much of cinema. So i was getting bored and had nothing to do so i thought lets watch it. The second time i was blown away and was like this one of the best films ever made. The same fate it had when it was released as i have heard.

Now coming to Bombay Velvet, let me be clear its not the usual narrative which is seen in Kashyap's movies. The narrative to be honest is like Brazil but its Brazil with historical contexts of Bombay the city of dreams as it is called in India, what it was, how it came to its current shape. It doesn't have dream like or dream sequences like Brazil. I mean Brazil how the characters are detailed, how the story moves forward and how the background and atmosphere plays a big role in the film With the historical contexts the film shows a person who has dreams and aspirations and how the people in his life are introduced and how in the changing shape of the city his life also changes and problems he starts facing and what he gets involved with.

Its a dream project of director and he has invested a lot of time in the film. But when it finally got released it was not able to connect with the audience as they were not ready with the sudden change and the new form of narrative which is not for everybody as Brazil cannot be liked by everyone. It has to face a lot of thrashing on the Internet.

This film is not flawless as i feel Brazil was. There are some flaws and a bit of exaggeration at the end but it's OK as rest of the film overpowers it. The performances are great but the film really gets you into the world like Brazil does and keeps you holding if you know what you are watching and have an open mind.

Right now as of 17-05-15 this film turned out to be a disaster and people wont like me for this review but in future or someone who has discovered Anurag Kashyap or will do and look at this film and maybe feels a bit let down as you have created an image of Kashyap's style or the narration, re watch it with an open mind when you get time, you will love it. I guarantee! Also who hated it and felt it bored them to death try it again but with an open mind, you will understand that you misjudged and misunderstood the film

Spoiler free.

Remember back in 1999, when George Lucas (almost) completely missed out on what made his Star Wars films so great, with Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace?

As much as I'd hate to admit it, the same case applies for Anurag Kashyap and this movie. Sure, it is ambitious, the set pieces are huge and wonderful, the production values are pretty high, and the film never looks cheap visually. Kashyap has also injected some notable tricks of the director's trade into this film.

But Star Wars was never really about how great it looked, it was about the story that drove it through. I rest my case with Bombay Velvet. The film looks really, REALLY well-made, but the screenplay just doesn't add up. It's glaringly obvious how bad the film *sounds* at some points, due to the below-average writing.

Next time you make a 'studio movie for a commercial market', try on focusing on the 'studio script' more than of the commercial ambition. Until then, Kashyap will remain one of my favorite directors of Indian cinema without a doubt. This movie may not exactly embody that belief, but his other works do, and it's safe to say that A.K. simply took a misstep with this movie. A Phantom Menace, so as to say.

Just don't go into Attack of the Clones territory. Please.

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)