THE OLD AND THE BEAUTIFUL
Amitabh Bachchan falls for a much-younger Tabu in an entertaining romance. Plus, a brainless action movie that pretends to be more.
MAY 27, 2007 – WHAT MAKES A 64-year-old man fall in love with a 34-year-old woman? Or, perhaps more relevantly, why would a 34-year-old woman fall for a 64-year-old man? As you grow older, you get pickier even about the friends you want to hang out with, so what could possibly draw together a man and a woman whoâve just met, who are nowhere close in age, and who appear to be quite comfortable leading their single lives? With an increasing number of people choosing to stay single â or unmindful of waiting beyond an accepted marriageable age (whatever that is) to find a suitable partner â thatâs a tough one to answer, and to its eternal credit, R Balkiâs Cheeni Kum doesnât try to explain the attraction between Buddhadev Gupta (Amitabh Bachchan) and Nina Verma (Tabu). The reason is out there somewhere â tucked away between the way these characters are drawn and what they say (either as dialogue or in the form of the lyrics behind Ilayarajaâs bouncy tunes) â but thereâs no defining âah!â? moment that tells us why.
But a movie critic wouldnât be a movie critic if he didnât get all deconstructionist and try to read between (sometimes, admittedly non-existent) lines, so hereâs my take: Buddhadev owns and runs Londonâs finest Indian restaurant. Heâs filled with contempt for those phony upstarts who think they have themselves an Indian-cuisine establishment just because they put up pictures of elephants and the Taj Mahal. Heâs cussedly intolerant when his chefs goof up, and he is â more than anything â a creature of habit. (Itâs been 22 years since he took a day off, and he always goes home for dinner, even though his mother â a marvellously batty Zohra Sehgal â is a terrible cook.) Everyone around seems mildly terrified of Buddhadev â and then in walks Nina, who not only has the gumption to send back his zafrani pulao (she orders it at the restaurant and declares itâs too sweet), she makes the dish the way it should be made and has it delivered to him. That, I think, is what starts it all â not the fact that she can whip up a mean pulao to his frighteningly-exacting standards, but that she can shove it in his face and coolly walk away. In other words, she has class and she has sass â and these are two qualities that Cheeni Kum shares abundantly with her.
Itâs been a while since watching two people being in love was so exhilarating â and one of the reasons is that these two people are brought to life by a pair of star-actors at the peak of their considerable charm. I have to admit, when I first heard of Tabu opposite Amitabh Bachchan, I thought it was bad casting. (I just couldnât see the two together.) But they are so wonderful â both on their own and, more importantly, as a couple â that even if that bit with the zafrani pulao hadnât happened, I wouldnât have had a problem believing they were in love. Tabu has become so identified by roles that require her to do all that dramatic heavy-lifting, we tend to forget there are other shades to her too â like the classy, sassy woman of the world she portrays here, so light on her feet. (Plus, she looks absolutely ravishing. The entire film, really, looks ravishing â PC Sreeram fills his frames with so much light, itâs as if the screen had been freshly laundered.) And a relaxed, impish Bachchan plays off his co-star beautifully. (The moment that made the movie for me is when he says âahamâ? and pauses, and you think heâs clearing his throat, but heâs actually getting ready to toss off a thought about aham, as in ego.) Nothing much happens till interval point â they meet, they talk, they meet, they talk some more â but I wouldnât have minded an entire second half that was exactly the same.
Unfortunately, Balki has other ideas. Perhaps realising that itâs not enough to have the ingredients, that heâs also got to toss them into the pot and set the stove to boil, he goes overboard with the drama around Buddhadev and Nina getting together. That wouldnât be a problem in a regular movie, but in something so delicate and so remarkably restrained, itâs jarring to have to empathise with â among other things â a child-with-cancer subplot. Swini Khara is very good (as this child) and her early conversations with Bachchan are quite charming, but sheâs made to mouth lines intended to make her seem wise beyond her age â and, after a point, her illness begins to feel shamelessly manipulative. Another subplot that feels absolutely wrong is the one about Ninaâs father (Paresh Rawal) and his satyagraha (to protest against his daughterâs love life), which plays like something written by Rajkumar Hirani on crack. The brittle, down-to-earth tone of this film simply cannot accommodate such whimsy. Nina wonders â when she learns her father has been rushed to the hospital â why bad things happen when the going is so good, and there were times I felt like asking Balki the same thing, especially when he devises a breakdown moment for Buddhadev thatâs so overblown and so out-of-nowhere, it ranks up there with Saifâs bringing down the wall during the climax of the otherwise genteel Parineeta.
But thereâs no doubt Cheeni Kum marks the arrival of a fresh voice â if only for how much of it feels like the work of a writer-director (and not merely a director), beginning with the fact that Buddhadev is called Buddha for short. This isnât merely ironic â a hothead like him named after one of the worldâs great pacifists â itâs also indicative of his being an old man, a… buddha. But itâs not all wordplay, even the rhythms of the conversations are so delightfully different, so un-filmi. (Have you ever seen a movie where teary eyes are referred to as âAansoo-behne-ke-liye-ready aankhen?â?) And Balki really knows how to subvert your expectations of a scene. I rolled my eyes when Zohra Sehgal is shown enjoying a WWF-style show on TV, but this isnât just another laugh-at-feisty-grandma bit; thereâs a butter-smooth segue to the fitness levels of the beefcakes on the programme. She keeps nagging her son to go to the gym, and this is as good a time as any to reiterate her point. You laugh at this â and yet thereâs more to this moment than mere fun. She knows her son isnât young anymore, and asking him to exercise is her way of reminding him of the importance of fitness in the later stages of oneâs life. This happy-sad (to borrow a phrase from the film) feel extends to the part where Nina informs her father that sheâs going ahead with her marriage plans regardless of his threats to kill himself. I didnât know whether to applaud her stance (for not buckling under emotional blackmail) or feel sad about why she wasnât trying harder to look at the situation from the viewpoint of this diabetic whoâs just returned from the hospital. For something thatâs so cheerful on the surface, thereâs a surprising amount of tartness in Cheeni Kum. It justifies its title.
THE PROMOS FOR Shootout at Lokhandwala featured a most intriguing line: âWhat everyone saw was real. What no one saw was the truth.â? And knowing that the story is about cops (Sanjay Dutt, Suniel Shetty, Arbaaz Khan) who surround a building occupied by criminals (Vivek Oberoi, Rohit Roy, a badly miscast Tusshar Kapoor) in order to flush them out, I thought I was in for something high-minded, a Rashomon-meets-Dog Day Afternoon. But that was just wishful thinking â for this is from Sanjay Gupta (he co-wrote and produced; Apoorva Lakhia directed), for whom moviemaking is merely another name for gunfire, lots and lots of it. Itâs probably no accident that the film opens with a sweeper clearing bullet shells from the road â for those bullets are the star of this show, which is essentially one action set piece after another (scored to a relentlessly thumping soundtrack that makes you feel youâre either in a porn movie or at the disco). So I guess your tolerance for Shootout would depend on how long you can watch people firing at one another in a slick â yet utterly impersonal â manner.
Instead of narrating a straightforward story, Lakhia keeps cutting back and forth between the present (where the cops give their side of what happened to their lawyer, played by Amitabh Bachchan at his hammiest) and the past (the gangsters and their dealings). This results in a series of vignettes that do not tell us anything about these people, so itâs hard to care about who lives and who dies. Arbaaz Khan, for instance, is shown advising his son to try for better marks at school, and he says the reason heâs merely a police officer (and not a doctor or engineer) is that he didnât do well at studies. But that one moment apart, we never see Arbaaz with any kind of self-doubt, which made me wonder why they bothered with that bit in the first place. I mean, whatâs the point of a character detail if youâre not going to use it to detail the character later? There are too many songs and too much redundant information. (âInformers police-waale ke teesre kaan hote hain,â? Sanjay Dutt intones, presumably for the benefit of anyone whoâs never opened a newspaper or watched a gangster movie.) But most galling of all may be the ending, when a television reporter locks eyes with the camera â and therefore with the audience â and asks us to think about whether the means these cops used justified their ends. Is there anything phonier than a shoot-âem-up that takes itself seriously enough to leave us with an existential conundrum?
Copyright ©2007 The New Sunday Express
Deepak Jeswal
May 27, 2007
Off topic, though not too much (Will come back to the reviews once I see the movies). It’s about Cheeni Kum’s music.
Like many North Indians, I don’t have too much knowledge of Illayaraja’s music. In fact, it’s next to zero. But whatever few songs I have heard (including a superb Tamil Lata-SPB duet from Sathya and a lesser known score Mahadev in Hindi, starring Vinod Khanna) I have always loved it.
The tune of Cheeni kum hai has been playing in my mind for long. And I thought it had a familiar ring to it. If I m not too mistaken I think Anand Milind have already filched it earlier (like many other that they regularly did). Do you remember it? Somehow listening to the number I am constantly reminded of “Aage aage tum peechhe peeche hum, no problem’ from Ab Insaaf Hoga!
LikeLike
Badri
May 27, 2007
Good reviews – I am with you on both the films, though I think I liked Chenni Kum more than you did and disliked SOAL more.
There is so much originality in Chenni Kum, which in itself in todays movies can such a large attractive force, thats its hard to dislike it.
Balki has many influences from Priyan (foremost Tabu) – for e.g. buck toothed waiter is a typical Priyan kinda character.
21 years after Mouna Ragam, Raja’s tunes still haunts…
SOAL to me was a pointless film, worse than even a Risk or a Ab Tak Chappan. Sorry Gupta seems to lose his brain everytime he writes, and Dia Mirza’s performance as qualify as the worst ever journalist on screen.
LikeLike
brangan
May 27, 2007
Deepak: Mahadev was once again a rehash of his Tamil songs. And do you mean Aage aage tum CHALO…? Yes, that does sound similar, now that you point it out.
Badri: You’ve already seen both? I thought only critics did that sort of thing 🙂 CK has originality – yes – but its second half is all over the place, and it was a letdown especially after that wonderful first half.
LikeLike
Deepak Jeswal
May 28, 2007
Yep that song…coming from Anand Milind, its quite possible.
Saw CK today evening show. Loved it. Though I don’t know why you mention Paresh’s satyagrah thing as “sub-plot”, IMO, it was the main plot for the second half, wasn’t it?
Two three things that jarred in the tight screenplay – the use of the crowd in front of Paresh’s house, and then abandoning them midway. Sort of seemed half baked, as if the writer had sth in mind, but just left it in a few vague shots. Just the way the ‘friend’ Shalini is as conveniently dropped as in any other regular Bollywood fare. As was Tabu’s actual reason for being in London, not that it matters, but sth concrete would have helped than just a flimsy ‘touristy’ line, coz she hardly looked like one. Also, since the setting is Delhi, and I belong there, Balki could have worked on the geography a bit. Not *all* routes in Delhi *have* to pass India Gate or Rashtrapati Bhawan. Almost reminded me of KASAK, where Neelam is shown driving to the station, passing Connaught Place, and *then* driving in front of India Gate, whereas CP is just a coupla km from New Delhi Railway Station.
Finally, I fully agree, scene where AB runs trying to hold the Ashok Pillar in the climax is ludicrous!!
(BTW, why this strong connection in proving what is nothing but a superstition – that if you hold the pillar with your hands backward stretch, you get your wish fulfilled – though I m not complaining much, maybe it will now get the crowds to visit the almost forgotten Qutub Minar!)
LikeLike
Sid
May 28, 2007
I want to point out a paradox, you review a lot of hindi movies. Now, anyone who watches a lot of hindi movies can only be a retard. So the words “movie critic” don’t apply to hindi movies , maybe “movie retard” or something to that effect.
LikeLike
Raja Sen
May 28, 2007
Dude, nice review. Enjoyed reading it. Cheeni Kum for me worked cause of the moments, and while I agree Tabu is magnificent, Bachchan rocked the joint for me. But hey, we seem kinda on the same page on this one.
Shootout I won’t even dare to watch 🙂
LikeLike
raj
May 28, 2007
Sid, wicked. Very wicked. Surely, Baradwaj is more to be pitied than censured 🙂
LikeLike
Manish
May 28, 2007
Baradwaj, I liked CK as much as you…but you forgot to mention the (relative) oddity of at least some of the kitchen-humour scenes. Surely they overused the ‘long-tooth’ jokes, no? And btw, I, for one, felt Tabu become someone, after a looong time, to outperform AB – especially when AB wasn’t in his auto-pilot mode.
As for SOAL, wouldn’t bother watching but on your last line “Is there anything phonier than a shoot-‘em-up that takes itself seriously enough to leave us with an existential conundrum?” – I would like to remind you of a ‘shootout’ film that does force you to ponder – the one done by Naseer 3-4 years back (Encounter or some such name?) – that one didn’t even register at box-office and yet was a terrific movie on the topic. I think Naseer got a few awards also?
LikeLike
Nina
May 28, 2007
Baradwaj Rangan, I usually find your film reviews bang on, but I was horrified to find you giving Cheeni Kum an enthusiastic thumbs-up!! I had to paste my review of CK, also shared on another blog:
“I watched Cheeni Kum last night and I thought it was dreadful. In fact, my husband and I walked out in the 2nd half which we had stayed back for in the hope that Paresh Rawal would inject some life into a dead slow, awfully self-conscious, trying-too-hard-to-be-different film. We finally left after a particularly unbearable dialogue mouthed by the terminally ill child. Thinking back, I think it was the child that did us in. To hear such wisdoms on life and love coming out of the mouth of a 6 year old was almost too much to bear. And the ‘Sexy’? Don’t even get me started on the inappropriateness, the utter tastelessness of that.
AB is patently uncomfortable in his role and tries to disguise his discomfort with (what he imagines is) biting sarcasm and witty repartee. I say, spare us. The deadpan delivery of clever one-liners (?) is getting old, Mr. Bachchan.
My point is – we can’t make films like this with any degree of honesty because, lets face it, a relationship like this does not fall within our cultural references. And before anyone reacts in outrage, I must add here that I have no objection to the basic premise of the film. Older man-younger woman in love, fine. I think its great. What I don’t think is ok is the immature way in which a potentially interesting story has been handled. What could have been a lovely relationship blossoming between 2 mature adults is instead tacky, gimmicky, and pretentious, all in the desperate attempt to be “hatke”.
What’s even stranger is how we Indians lap up and even laud anything that is even mildly different from the conventional Bollywood fare. A discerning audience, we are not.
Some random cribs before I end:
1. Was AB trying to do a Gordon Ramsay? Perhaps he watched back-to-back episodes of “Hell’s Kitchen” for inspiration?
2. Do all Brits understand Hindi? Evidently.
3. Will we ever get to see a film about Indians living in India? Can we stop with the ubiquitous shots of Tower Bridge and Brooklyn Bridge already?
4. And last of all, a plea from the heart to film makers – spare us the precocious earth-mother style children spilling over with wisdom beyond their years!!!
LikeLike
brangan
May 28, 2007
Raja Sen: Thanks. But you should watch Shootout 🙂
Manish: The first time, a Colgate joke was amusing. But after a while, they grew old. Why didn’t I mention this? Simply because it slipped my mind while I was writing the review. Yeah, and Tabu stood up to AB really well. About SOAL, waht I meant is that this is a generic action film and so the attempt at profundity was galling. Encounter was certainly not a Generic action film. It had brains.
Nina: What can I say? One man’s meat, another woman’s poison… Incidentally, I don’t think this is an “enthusiastic” thumbs-up. I had quite a few reservations. But overall, yes, it worked for me.
LikeLike
Shruti
May 28, 2007
Hello Baddy!! I still read your reviews every week though I no longer have the honour of proofing them…I must say, though, that I watched Lokhandwala (office freebie) and think you could have delivered a harsher judgment!! it offended me on many levels…politically, feministically, aesthetically, aurally and cinematically! how it glorified the police – who kill the poor fat hostage and the wounded guy who wants to surrender (the audience applauded at this point, to my horror!!) and the gangsters, too, who fling people off buildings, explode their skulls on pavements etc. ick!! plus: shake your ass, ma?!?
LikeLike
Nina
May 28, 2007
But of course:) For my part, I found CK contrived and overly self-conscious and the constant barrage of ‘witty’ repartee we were subjected to got annoying very quickly. But one man’s meat etc is totally true. That said, I shall trust your review of Shootout and give it a wide berth.
LikeLike
brangan
May 28, 2007
Shruti: To misquote Casablanca… of all the films in all the theatres in all the world, *this* is what you watched? 🙂 Read a couple of your pieces in Outlook. Good stuff.
Nina: Reg, the “constant barrage of ‘witty’ repartee”, that was one of the things I dug the most. (But then, maybe it’s because I was a ad copywriter in a past life.) It was too bad that the dialogues in the second half became “normal”
we were subjected to got annoying very quickly.
LikeLike
Nina
May 28, 2007
Hmm. I’m a copywriter too, although not in advertising, and it irritated the hell out of me. Perhaps because ordinary mortals don’t go around firing sharp one liners at each other in real life?? 🙂 (Rajeev Masand had some good things to say about this in his review – doubtless you won’t agree)I don’t know, maybe its me getting old, I just yearn for some good ol fashioned conversation, some exchange of ideas and thoughts without it turning into a lets-see-whos-wittier contest.
LikeLike
Rahul J
May 28, 2007
Hi, its a pity that all the credit for the film is being given to the Director while the real star for those in the know of how the industry functions is Manoj Tapedia – the man behind the dialogues and the script. Balki is a south indian whose Hindi is barely passable. Tapedia incidentally has been credited with the lyrics alone.
LikeLike
sakthin
May 29, 2007
Hi,
Though I watch less Hindi movies , more tamil movies, I used to read all your reviews. I used to get a feel like you were saying what I thought at some places espically the care you give to read between the lines in story plot and thats the reason i think i get back to your reviews interviews etc.. I too felt the second of cheenikum is half baked like i am still wondering is he trying to show amitab’s survivors guilt or something..
LikeLike
Dipika
May 29, 2007
Delhi did seem less real than London, despite the fact that the sky was never dark when Tabu and Bachchan were walking about. Its unnatural to see the Qutb complex so empty..
And did anyone find Tabu calling Bachhan ‘ghaas-phoos’ throughout the second half more irritating than endearing?
LikeLike
ludwig
May 29, 2007
Baradwaj
First off, we like your reviews very much at the Choultry. It all started with Darwaaza Bandh Rakhna, where you said that if one could get the idhar-main-bol-rahaa-hoon-idhar-bhi-main-bol-rahaa-hoon thing, one would enjoy the movie. And we said to ourselves, there goes a kindred soul.
Recently, we’ve starting reviewing (mostly Telugu, but some Hindi and one English) movies for a web site which will remain unnamed. It has been exhausting, and frustrating and so on.
“a movie critic wouldn’t be a movie critic”
So, this is a fundamental question. Is one a “movie critic” or a “movie reviewer”? What’s the difference? Does it matter? For example, one goes and sees some movie. The inner critic finds it repugnant, is tempted to completely pan the thing and so on. But what is the reviewer’s duty? Should she not gag the Inner Critic and think of what aam aadmi is going to feel about the movie?
And so on. You see, we’re quite sleepless 😛 Anyway, jolly good reviews and all. Keep ’em coming.
LikeLike
brangan
May 29, 2007
sakthin: Thank you. And I didn’t get “survivor’s guit” at all from that scene, though you may be on to something.
Dipika: I think you’re in good company about the dialogues (See Nina above)
ludwig: Thank you, but why the anonymity about the web site? Regarding “Is one a âmovie criticâ? or a âmovie reviewerâ??”, sid above would say the answer is (c) none of the above 🙂 But accusations of retardation (retard-ness? retard-ity?) aside, I think the only thing one can (and should) be called is “someone with a viewpoint about a movie”. Incidentally, how can anyone know what the “aam aadmi” thinks? And reg. “Should *she* not gag the”… A section of my readers will be so happy to read this, considering how gender-insensitive they think I am.
LikeLike
ludwig
May 30, 2007
Why the anonymity indeed? One aspires to this, but one ends up with this and worse. The excuses are many (editorial demands included!), but ultimate responsibility lies with oneself, neh?
You are surely aware of this, but Philip Lutgendorf we always thought manages to strike a nice balance between enjoying and critiquing Bollywood.
I just read Sid’s comment. He may have more or less hit the thingumabob on the whatzitzname. And *sigh*, it would be wonderful to just be “someone with a viewpoint about a movie”!
Ah, you noted the *she*. Anything for the greater glory of the Blogical Conclusion.
Onward, Christian soldiers…
LikeLike
sid
May 30, 2007
I thought CK was pretty damn good. The kid sub-plot bothered me too but I didn’t mind it until the very end really. Ab and Tabu deserve all the love — making something like this believable in a culture like ours is not an easy job to do. But full marks to the director as well.
LikeLike
Sangeeta
May 31, 2007
Great review – I loved this movie.
LikeLike
Shuchi
May 31, 2007
I liked the premise of the movie and I think it started off very well, but went steadily downhill from there. The saucy dialogues were fun to start with but got grating after a while, with everyone talking in that same style all the time.
And I just couldn’t digest how Nina’s dad had a change of heart after that awfully rude lecture from Amitabh. If anything it should have hardened his resolve to keep his daughter away from such a disrespectful man!
By the way I had read your review before I went to see the movie, and waited eagerly for AB’s throat-clearing “aham”. I might have missed that moment had you not pointed it out 🙂
LikeLike
brangan
June 14, 2007
sid: The kid subplot didn’t bother me too – for the most part. It’s just when the going got heavy that I began to switch off.
Sangeeta: Thanks.
Shuchi: aham 🙂
LikeLike
g
June 24, 2007
Saw Cheeni Kum with the wife yesterday.
> it’s jarring to have to empathise with – among other things – a child-with-cancer subplot.
I disagree. Like I was telling my wife, the whole moment when Buddha Amit gets Tabu at the Qutub and then gets the bombshell phonecall(minus the overblown melodrama) – was wonderfully real. Here is Buddha pursueing his very personal internal desires with his heart and soul, he achieves it and then he realizes that there was time enough for only one goal of his to be achieved and he spent it in getting Tabu. And by the time he realizes he might have spent that cosmic goodwill on saving “Sexy”, it is too late. 🙂
LikeLike
g
June 24, 2007
Shuchi Says:
>efore I went to see the movie, and waited eagerly for ABâs throat-clearing âahamâ?. I might have missed that moment had you not pointed it out
Hey Shuchi, brangan sometimes sees things that are not really there in the movie but he writes so well, we think it must be there. 🙂
LikeLike
brangan
June 24, 2007
g: Oh, that’s a fine accusation from someone who read “cosmic goodwill” as being part of the climax of Cheeni Kum 😀
LikeLike
g
June 24, 2007
In the office on a Sunday and instead of finishing work, what do I do? 🙂
See, I am sure Balki put in some kind of symbolism in there. You have to look at it from Buddha’s point of view. HE is convinced that the gods have smiled on him. Balki the director is very clear that no supernatural mumbo-jumbo has or COULD have taken place in an alternate what-if scenario. It is BUDDHA who believes in the “cosmic goodwill” of encircling the iron pillar. So his guilt on realizing it is too late to do anything more for Sexy is personal. (If rationally unjustified) But it is precisely the irrational which resonates with us. 🙂 Buddha feels guilty about his ardently wished for desires.
Heck my wife saw even more in the scene: She felt sure that Balki meant Sexy to be a methaphor for the spiritual side and that all that melodrama and Amit acting as a kid was because he realizes he needs that platonic relation more. 🙂 See, “Buddha” for a hot-tempered guy and “Sexy” for a platonic relationship? See, see, see? 🙂
She asks, (and I have no answer to that), if that is not what Balki meant, why did he make Tabu mouth the lines, “I wish I was Sexy”? eh?
LikeLike
g
June 24, 2007
> Buddha feels guilty about his ardently wished for desires
To wit: His wish to marry Tabu when he could have wished that Sexy was saved.
LikeLike
iVue
June 25, 2007
Hi BRangan. I recently saw Cheeni Kum, tried to write my own view of it, wouldnt call it a Movie Review really though. Do check it out if you have time.
LikeLike
Poorvi
July 2, 2007
Hi Bharadwaj,
With all the detailed talk about music in some of your reviews, I thought its worth a mention that he recycled some of his old tunes.
The title track Cheeni Kam is the old Ilayaraja tune ‘Mandram vandha’ from Mouna Ragam … and Baatein Hawa is ‘Kuzhal oodhum kannan’ from Mella Therandadhu Kadavu.
I love the older Tamil versions so am unable to like them in Hindi 😉
LikeLike
Poorvi
July 2, 2007
Oops… I seem to have missed reading your music review of Cheeni Kam.
LikeLike
Ari
July 20, 2007
better late than never…. but i recently watched “shootout…”. Within the first 20 minutes i knew that lakhia & guptawere trying to do a jerry bruckhiemer with this movie. they failed miserably. terrible terrible movie. I’m going to kick gupta on his behind if i meet him.
LikeLike
Jahan Bakshi
December 25, 2007
Have spent all day reading your older reviews with simultaneous delight and awe- Baradwaj Bhai- you are truly matchless. I may not always agree with you- Apna Asmaan being a glaring case in point- but reading your reviews makes me appreciate movies and the art of critiquing so much more. Thanks, and hope to acquire atleast some percentage of your verbal flourish and minute observation some day.
LikeLike