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.

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)

While a lot of reviews have talked about Bombay Velvet being a disappointment (it is considering Anurag Kashyap's stellar filmography), I want to discuss what it could have done to have fared better. The biggest problem - Romance, easily the weakest aspect of the film, the story of Bombay Velvet is overambitious and tries to do a lot of things and romance spoils the entire dish. There is good in Bombay Velvet, the story of a small time crook trying to rise up the ranks to become a "bigshot" is endearing but what's irritating is that while Johnny Balraj wants to be a bigshot he is illogical, falls in love with wrong woman and doesn't realize that it's bigshot or the girl. Romance plot between the wrong woman and the young crook rising up the ranks is so clichéd and badly done it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, you can't help but think that AK could have done better because HE HAS DONE BETTER. AK has done better gangster films than this (Gangs Of Wasseypur) and even better romance films (Dev D) how can such a master of both the genres fall so flat on his face while integrating romance into the gangster genre? Crime aspect often gets clumsy too but the romance is dead weight and should have been a side story not the entire film. I liked the corporate-crime aspect of the film it was interesting, I would like to mention that Johnny Balraj's awe while watching with the classic Roaring Twenties was easily the best scene of the film, the sets are gorgeous, JB's frustration at being nothing more than a hired goon is also well done, Karan Johar's gay villain would have been better if there was no Anushka Sharma and he was more blatant towards his attraction towards Blaraj that would have made him the romantic tension and the villain which would have led to a far better film. The actors are all decent, all do well but are let down by a messy almost borderline 1980's cheesy plot which was not too bad till the interval and then it takes a big nosedive in quality. This could have been a bigshot so much failed potential because there are scenes which are well done and show the brilliance of AK but the ludicrous and predictable plot let it down, while better than most Hindi movies it's not bad but it's still a disappointment. I think AK is more suited to non commercial cinema with smaller names I think there was pressure on him to turn BV into a romantic film first and a gangster film second which ultimately led to it's demise. Second Hindi period film after Detective Byomkesh Bakshy which was a letdown as far as I am concerned. P.S.- I was very angry with how they wasted Kay Kay Menon, easily the best actor in the entire cast and one of the best actors in the country and he gets such a small role.

I read a lot of negative reviews and jokes about this movie.Saw it just to see how bad it really is.I am shocked! This was one of the best movies I have ever watched. From the sets, cinematography to amazing performances from all actors this movie was a treat to watch.

I loved everything including Karan Johar as a badass gangster!

This movie is way better that usual brainless garbage that comes out of Bollywood and deserves to appreciated not ridiculed the way it has been.

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!