Bombay Velvet

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)

"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.

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.

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!

Bombay Velvet, with a whopping budged of INR 80 crore (800 million), marks a departure for Kashyap who over the last decade has succeeded in carving a niche for himself in Hindi cinema with low budget, highly unconventional and genre-transcending films like Dev D, Gulaal, and Gangs of Wasseypur. Based on historian Gyan Prakash's book "Mumbai Fables," Bombay Velvet stars Ranbir Kapoor, Anushka Sharma, Karan Johar, Kay Kay Menon, and Manish Chaudhary in major roles. The movie presents the larger-than-life tale of a small-time but ambitious gangster Johnny Balraj, who would stop at nothing in a bid to realize his dream of becoming a "big shot" in the elite social circles of the 1960s Bombay, and his lady-love Rosieâ€"an aspiring Jazz singer with a heart of gold.

While it would be a bit far-fetched to describe Bombay Velvet as a cinematic success, it would also be unfair to deem it a failure. Yes, it's a mess of a film but a mess that's way more alluring than the trash that Bollywood churns out day in and day out. Then why complain? Well, because we expect better from Kashyap! This critic for one is devastated by the very thought of what it could have been had a filmmaker of Kashyap's caliber brought his a-game to the table. Kashyap's love for cinema and his ear for music are praiseworthy. The tone of Bombay Velvet is set from the word go: it opens up with some stock footage showing the early days of the city of Bombay (now Mumbai) which is immediately followed a jazz number featuring Raveena Tandon donning the '60s retro look. In the view of this critic, the movie touches it highest point during the early scene that shows a young Rosie, in Goa, hum a melodious song in Portuguese. The combined effect of the very song and the mystical background music (reminiscent of Krzysztof Kieslowski's films) created a sense of magic for a few fleeting moments that, alas, couldn't be recreated in the latter scenes.

Bombay Velvet features several exceptional shots but there are as many bad ones as well. Perhaps, Kashyap seems to have forgotten about the legendary American filmmaker Howard Hawks' saying that "a good movie is three good shots and no bad ones." In order to truly appreciate Bombay Velvet, one needs to be madly in love with movies, for it pays endless tributes to yesteryear films and stars with Film Noir and Classic Hollywood influences abound. Kashyap's fascination for all things cinema is evident in each and every frame.

Ranbir Kapoor looks daring and a bit over-the-top as Johnny Balraj. But, if it were Cagney he was trying to imitate then he certainly got it spot on. Of all the actors from the Hollywood's golden age, Cagney is the most unique mainly because of his over-the-top acting style. It's something that the great Stanley Kubrick took a note of when he made Jack Nicholson essay the role of Jack Torrance in his psychological horror masterpiece The Shining (1980). It certainly caught Kashyap's attention as well. Anushka Sharma is a natural when it comes to playing bold feministic roles and in Bombay Velvet she plays a jazz singer to a tee (she seems to have perfected the act of lip syncing). As Rosie she is a treat for the sore eyes and those responsible for her wardrobe certainly need to be commended. While Karan Johar's menacing portrayal of the business magnate Kaizad Khambatta is the movie's real highlight, Kay Kay Menon is solid as ever in the role of a no-nonsense cop.

Overall, Bombay Velvet is a sprawling period piece with an excess of style over substance. The film suffers from poor market segmentation and targeting for it may prove to be a bit too overwhelming for the masses and at the same time the aficionados may not find it too appealing to their palates, despite all its merits. The movie captures the period detail with painstaking accuracy. Kashyap's morbid obsession for the grotesque and the macabre just doesn't seem to let go of him. The movie gives us glimpses of the evolution of Bombay into the financial capital it is today and the scandalous roles bureaucrats, politicians and businessmen played in shaping up its map. Bombay Velvet is far from being a quintessential Anurag Kashyap but given its commercial scope it will certainly be able to reach a wider audience than most Kashyap films. The music, sets and costumes ooze with a hitherto unattained degree of resplendence, especially in the context of India cinema. Bombay Velvet is not an easy film to appreciate for the masses, mainly because of its excesses. It would take a die-hard cinema enthusiast to truly enjoy it. The movie is quite high on violence quotient and those with weak hearts would find certain sequences quite disturbing. Nonetheless, as a mere exercise in style, Bombay Velvet is a commendable attempt but its prospects at the box office appear to be rather bleak. Recommended only for cinema enthusiasts!

(This review was first published at A Potpourri of Vestiges)