ajji-2
फ़र॰ 2000 को शामिल हुए
नई प्रोफ़ाइल में आपका स्वागत है
हमारे अपडेट अभी भी डेवलप हो रहे हैं. हालांकि प्रोफ़ाइलका पिछला संस्करण अब उपलब्ध नहीं है, हम सक्रिय रूप से सुधारों पर काम कर रहे हैं, और कुछ अनुपलब्ध सुविधाएं जल्द ही वापस आ जाएंगी! उनकी वापसी के लिए हमारे साथ बने रहें। इस बीच, रेटिंग विश्लेषण अभी भी हमारे iOS और Android ऐप्स पर उपलब्ध है, जो प्रोफ़ाइल पेज पर पाया जाता है. वर्ष और शैली के अनुसार अपने रेटिंग वितरण (ओं) को देखने के लिए, कृपया हमारा नया हेल्प गाइड देखें.
बैज8
बैज कमाने का तरीका जानने के लिए, यहां बैज सहायता पेज जाएं.
समीक्षाएं60
ajji-2की रेटिंग
Rajinder Singh Bedi has a repute as one of the big guns of progressive Urdu/Hindi literature, so when I saw his name in the credits, I expected a much better film than what ultimately unfolded. Well, maybe as a writer he didn't have much say as compared to the director; then again, Bedi himself was the producer so he can't be acquitted of the blame entirely. In any case, this is certainly not in the league of 'Dastak' (1970), which Bedi directed himself. The storyline and subject matter are handled with competence, though the pace is a bit awkward and the numerous songs tend to dilute the dramatic intensity. The sudden mood swings and behavioral changes of the central character are at times mystifying and actors are often called on to perform hysterically. At other times, the performances are grounded and subtle, as per the milieu. I would have liked it better if the film didn't become so melodramatic as often as it does, but still, it is a decent enough effort. Nirupa Roy is excellent as the housewife and mother coping with poverty and strife.
I can't honestly say that I 'got' the film 100%, but it sure kept me glued to the screen it's 2+ hour running time. Starts off as a docudrama look at a serial killer and his exploits, which is fine but you've been there before. However, via fractured narrative and by focusing far more on the killer, his family, and the characters they interacts with, the film immediately breaks away from the tradition of giving equal (if not more) time to the investigation. But even the in-depth look at the past and present of the antagonist doesn't quite explain his motivations. Expecting a 'pat' resolve, and not finding it herein, would be my only gripe with the film, which otherwise is a strange and hypnotic beast of rare quality, hard to pigeon-hole or categorize by the end, even if I thought I had it pegged at the beginning. The director, Shohei Imamura, who had a pretty wild style in his feature films, had been doing documentaries for a decade before he returned to fiction with this film. Maybe the documentary set-up was a deliberate ploy to keep the audience off-balance as Imamura undermines and/or breaks away from the genre every so often. At least 2 scenes will immediately pop out of the film as if they belong to another film altogether, and yet it all combines to great, surreal and creepy effect, when you consider the breadth of the themes and subplots and undercurrents introduced and explored. Whew!
It was enough to make my head spin for a while (even so, I'm pumped to see it again).
It was enough to make my head spin for a while (even so, I'm pumped to see it again).
Ambitious, complex project from a guy infamous for his more slam-bang action epics of the extended (indeed, never-ending) shootouts variety. Fredianelli is not only improving his skill as a filmmaker with each new film, but also broadening his horizons, it seems. It could've all gone horribly wrong; a multi-character, multi-problem drama with all the elements that could easily push this into soap opera territory. Kudos to our guy for not letting that happen. Aside from a few missteps, this is powerful and intelligent material. The sex scene right at the beginning seems a bit gratuitous, but in light of the character arc we're following, it kinda fits in. The dialogue is mostly true-to-life, but at times veers towards corny. Performances are generally strong, with everyone doing justice to their roles, with a few standouts along the way (the face-off with Rust Meyers' agent being a delight). It is heartening to see more and more 'professional' actors appearing in WD films. Also, it was good to see some humour interspersed with the generally melancholy tone. However, a missed opportunity was when a bimbo starlet says to our Hollywood producer that she's "got an ass like Jessica Biel's. Can you do something with it?" while shoving her butt his way. That scene was begging for the guy to "do something" to/with her butt and add a witty remark!
Another memorable scene is the Shakespearian rehearsal. Mike really lets loose with the improv, but due to his inability to stretch his mouth to, say, Gerard Butler levels, he ends up lisping a lot (that must've been one spit-soaked set!), which makes the scene even more entertaining. Man, it reminded me of Bill the cat from Bloom County in all his "thpppppt!" vocabulary.
As for the much talked-about third act, I didn't really find it out of place, let alone out of left field (or at least a lot less so than the afore-mentioned excursion with Molinee Green). The ending of it all could've been better, though. Another thing I felt was that the gay character was too obviously so from the second he appeared. It seemed to be a stereotype out of a sketch from SNL or something. This would've been fine in Higgy & Puffs territory, but this otherwise accomplished drama demanded a bit more depth. And the scenes between his wife and her lover could've done with a bit more heat (especially in comparison to the first - and only - sex scene in the film), it was hard to imagine why these two would've got together. I could've also done without the excruciating songs, but maybe that was Mike's way of poking fun of those 'swishy' singer/songwriters of the mushy/romantic variety. And finally, a technical gaff: what's with the shadow of the boom mike where the two women are walking along the street? Surely, somebody must've noticed it? !?
Those minor criticisms aside, this is a solid piece of work from Mike Fredianelli, and I hope to see even better stuff from him in the future.
Another memorable scene is the Shakespearian rehearsal. Mike really lets loose with the improv, but due to his inability to stretch his mouth to, say, Gerard Butler levels, he ends up lisping a lot (that must've been one spit-soaked set!), which makes the scene even more entertaining. Man, it reminded me of Bill the cat from Bloom County in all his "thpppppt!" vocabulary.
As for the much talked-about third act, I didn't really find it out of place, let alone out of left field (or at least a lot less so than the afore-mentioned excursion with Molinee Green). The ending of it all could've been better, though. Another thing I felt was that the gay character was too obviously so from the second he appeared. It seemed to be a stereotype out of a sketch from SNL or something. This would've been fine in Higgy & Puffs territory, but this otherwise accomplished drama demanded a bit more depth. And the scenes between his wife and her lover could've done with a bit more heat (especially in comparison to the first - and only - sex scene in the film), it was hard to imagine why these two would've got together. I could've also done without the excruciating songs, but maybe that was Mike's way of poking fun of those 'swishy' singer/songwriters of the mushy/romantic variety. And finally, a technical gaff: what's with the shadow of the boom mike where the two women are walking along the street? Surely, somebody must've noticed it? !?
Those minor criticisms aside, this is a solid piece of work from Mike Fredianelli, and I hope to see even better stuff from him in the future.