Tanu Weds Manu Returns : The Bugle's Verdict

Tanu and Manu’s wedding didn’t need to return. This movie didn’t need to happen. Tanu Weds Manu had provided ample laughs and a genuine story that was self-sufficient and didn’t require a sequel in the first place. Nevertheless we don’t believe in judging a book by its cover, or for that matter its inherent predictability, and went ahead to watch this farce (Yes, farce). It turns out, sometimes the said judgment by the cover should be followed, just like you’d do with something like Ek Paheli Leela.

We shan’t be talking about the details of the story, as it is WAY too simple and obvious, and disclosing even one portion of the plot shall lead to revealing the entire story.

Imagine concluding a fairytale, for instance Cinderella, with all the ‘happily ever after’ magic but then immediately coming up with a side-story that talks about the character’s stupid marital problems and the equally stupid solutions that they come with towards the end, just to maintain the balance. A similar type of situation exists in TWMR, where the film is not able to decide who is the bad guy or who is the good guy, with story moving staggering slow towards a painfully predictable end.

Essentially, Tanu and Manu are not able to get their marriage to work. Tanu is acting all crazy (nothing new in that) and Manu decides to move on in life with her Haryanvi look-alike Kusum. You can construct the remainder of the storyline in your brain, and trust me when I say, you imagined correct.

TWMR may not be scoring high on the logic or story criteria, but trust me (again) when I say it is one of the most comic films you might see this year. All the memorable characters from the original film reprise their respective roles, however insignificant they may have become, and provide moments of rib-tickling laughter throughout the film. Deepak Dobriyal returns as Manu’s sidekick Pappiji, and yet again is the center of all the laughs. Jimmy Shergill is equally good, returning as Lakhnawi goon Raja Awasthi. Mohammed Zeeshan Ayyub plays a lawyer in love with Tanu. His role was highly insignificant and was an utter waste of the actor’s talents.

Kangana Ranaut deserves a standing ovation for her double performance as Tanu and Kusum Sangwan. She maintains the same aura of masculinity that is characteristic to Tanu, and breaks new ground as the softly firm-footed Jat girl Kusum Sangwan. Kangana’s work gave Deepika’s work in Piku a run for its money. After watching Queen, we believed that Kangana had delivered the performance of a lifetime, but with TWMR, it seems she isn’t done yet. She completely steals the show, and makes this morbidly slow film bearable.

The soundtrack is excellent, with hummable tracks like Banno Tera Swagger and Ghani Bawri. However we can't imagine why the song Old-School girl was inserted. Maybe they required something that was truly in rhythm with this film's pace.

VERDICT - If you do want to take the risk of watching Tanu Weds Manu Returns, do it only to watch an extremely enjoyable performance by Kangana Ranaut. Otherwise, save your money, save your sanity and stay away from this circus devoid of the simplest fibre of logic. 

Mad Max - Fury Road : The Bugle's Verdict

What a lovely day! The general reaction of the cinema crowd was in rhythm with the film’s subtitle. Mad Max re-awakens after 30 years, and how! This is one movie series that just keeps on getting better with the years. Seriously! George Miller has to be quite the twisted guy for dreaming up the plethora of even more twisted characters we got to witness in all his films but regardless, his visualisation of the vestiges of the human race in a desolate world has been raising brows and collecting gasps ever since the original film came out in 1979, for reasons we shall see below.

No other filmmaker has been able to capture and present dystopia in the manner Miller gave the world Mad Max. It has been the cinematic bible for apocalypse nerds globally, and it seems the trend shall continue with Fury Road which is madder, wilder and much more intense than all three previous films combined.

In the previous films, I never really got the idea behind the title ‘Mad’ attached to Max Rockatansky, the eponymous lead. Max (Tom Hardy) had always been a composed character. Sure, he was a loner, and much of his time is spent doing the same things the rest of his surrounding violent world is upto – looting, scavenging and fighting to find his way. His world as stated in the film, “is reduced to one instinct – survive.” Going by his circumstances and the people he is always pitted against, he must be one of the sanest people around. However, Fury Road finally provides some justice, and brings out the true colours of madness in Max, instances of which are seen in the initial scenes themselves.

The audience is jolted out of their 30-year long slumber by a really fast-moving, really violent sequence where Max gets captured in order that his blood may be harvested for the soldiers of a god-king, Immortan Joe. For almost half an hour of the film, Max’s face remains hidden in a metal mask, and this entire time he is ‘madly’ trying to escape from the clutches of his captors, who are out to retrieve Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron), a rogue soldier who has escaped with the god-king’s collection of premium breeding Wives.

The fundamental premise of the film follows the same routine as the previous instalments. Max, through a random turn of events, finds himself smack in the middle of Furiosa’s sticky situation, and out of the inherent goodness of his heart, helps her turn things around, being ‘The Maximum Force of The Future’ and leaves after the job is done, for further misadventures in the Australian wasteland (The films’ are set in Australia, for the uninitiated), and possibly another sequel. BUT make no mistake, this movie isn’t about Max.

For once the epicentre is someone else, and that is the female lead, Furiosa. Tom Hardy’s presence is reduced to that of a supporting character in the face of Charlize Theron’s Furiosa, who robs most of the show and acts as the lead action source. Her portrayal of a hardened woman, out on a life-or-death mission (in their world, everything is life-or-death) is genuine, and as was expected from Theron, even though her accent is completely un-Australian, and with the one-liners, she seems like the quintessential Hollywood action hero. Even her native South African accent could have lent some authenticity to the role. Apart from this chink, the rest of her show is fine.

Somehow, Tom Hardy is not someone I could visualise in the role of Max. Agreed, Max is a hard man, testosterone flowing out of his ears, but Tom Hardy seems WAY too rough and rugged for the part. For those who have seen the previous films with Mel Gibson, he was a softer personality. He was like a chocolate boy with the added traits of a highway motorcyclist. Hardy gives off the impression of a figure such as a mercenary, one who has seen way too much war in his life, and has been shaped and moulded by it accordingly, which would have been fine, but if you compare Gibson in Beyond the Thunderdome (1985) with Hardy, the latter seems comparatively younger. And when you’re following a linear chronology, ignoring something like that just doesn’t fly.

Getting back to the story, the film holds firm both in terms of its adrenaline as well as the sociological and philosophical quotient. Like its predecessors, Fury Road explores into the awry condition of humans, and the changes and burdens and scarcities society would face post a global war over the most precious resource of the modern world – fuel.

Noting down the idea of something such is one thing, and getting an entire team of actors to pull it off for you, is another and director George Miller just doesn’t get tired of extending the benchmark. The sets and costumes too are extraordinary, and in concurrence with the crazy facets of the remaining tribal humans.

In terms of action, the film is one of the most satisfactory experiences I’ve had recently, with almost 1 and a half hour worth of explosive vehicular action out of its length of 2 hours, and keeping true to his name, Miller presents some of the most realistic and sincerely chilling action sequences one can witness. Add to that the heavy thumping war music and the immersive drums, and you yourself are lost in the madness and the chaos.

VERDICT – George Miller reclaims his territory in chaos and dystopia, upping the gore, the explosions as well as the heart, ensuring that Mad Max: Fury Road provides a notch more than the regular expectations of the adrenaline junkies, and caters to the seasoned viewers as well. Go take a drive down Fury Road and take a plunge into madness.

Bombay Velvet : The Bugle's Verdict

Jazz, Vintage cars, lust for power and crime - Anurag Kashyap takes the essential elements from a typical Martin Scorcese film, and presents a chronicle of the Bombay crime syndicates in their infancy, circling around the classic tale of the underdog aspiring to be the top guy. The film presents us with a lot of parameters to be judged upon, and is quite an intricate subject, considering the Phantom films name tag attached to it.

The Anurag Kashyap groupies might feel a little disappointed with this one. Just a little, mind you.

The story is adapted from Gyan Prakash’s book, Mumbai Fables. Balraj (Ranbir Kapoor) is an orphan from Sialkot, who came over to India after the partition. Growing up in the underbelly of the seven islands of Bombay, he aspires to live the good life, and longs to be ‘the big shot’. Kaizad Khambatta (Karan Johar), a media mogul and crime lord, takes him under his wing, nicknaming him Johnny. Rosie Noronha (Anushka Sharma), is a Goan jazz singer with her own troubled past, and Johnny’s love interest.

It would be wrong to place Bombay Velvet in the crime genre alone, as it contains various elements of Neo-Noir too. You have the lead character, Johnny, his love story with the femme fatale, Rosie, and the big, bad, crime-driven world ready to smash their individual dreams with the baton of reality. Essentially, the film in its basic idea presents nothing different from the stereotypical gangster film. It is the story of a man whose circumstances induced him into pursuing a life of crime, and the lavish, flamboyant lifestyle that was characteristic of 1960’s Bombay, which was the hub of business, fashion and entertainment in the post-independance era.

The movie stands apart in its depiction of Bombay, with the incredible eye for detail that Kashyap is renowned for, which reflects in even the most minute stuff like newspaper articles, paintings, the slangs and nicknames used by the Bombayites, the make-up work with the bold depiction of blood and injury,  and in Rosie’s back-story, the depiction of Portuguese occupied Goa. The light yellow colour palette used in the film throughout, goes perfectly with the era and character of the film, giving it a feel of a story being told about a long lost time of wealth, class and organised crime. The story, though covering most of the underlying elements of the Bombay crime syndicate, was largely ordinary. Apart from that, the film dragged in several parts, with many unnecessarily long scenes, which is quite unlike Kashyap, who is known to provide incredible conversational detail without wasting important screen time.

One thing that drives the film at its centre was the chemistry between Anushka and Ranbir. They play all-out lovers, whose feelings and passion for each other is pure, uninhibited and child-like, which can be seen in their random kisses, the physical fights and abuses, and their possessiveness for each other. Both are tied to each other by the fact that they have been used by the world throughout their lives, and their mutual dream of a more fulfilling life. Ranbir neatly pulls off the role of Johnny Balraj, the street fighter turned gangster, effectively portraying the innocence, the testosterone, the unpolished, brash attitude and hunger for the good life that was essential to the character. Anushka too looks innocently cute as the jazz singer, Rosie Noronha.

It was quite a surprise when Kashyap didn’t opt to cast his regular team of actors frequently appearing in most of his films, and chose to go with a much more mainstream line-up. Nevertheless, the film boasts of some really efficient casting. Karan Johar makes his first full-time screen appearance as Khambatta, the film’s antagonist, and we have nothing but praises for him. We saw him before in DDLJ, in quite an insignificant role. As Khambatta, Johar fit the bill perfectly, implementing much of his real life flamboyance and style into the role of a calm, calculative mastermind, which results in quite a memorable performance from the National Award winning director.

We felt disappointed by Kay Kay Menon’s casting. His role was immensely insignificant, and we think his skills could have been used in a much better manner. Other stars include Vivaan Shah, and cameos by Remo Fernandes, and Raveena Tandon as a jazz singer.

VERDICT – Watch Bombay Velvet for some great cinematography, for the trip to the Bombay of old and the classic black-and-white era in rich life-like colour, to experience the stylish, gangland gun-toting action in the Anurag Kashyap fashion, and appreciable performances by Ranbir Kapoor and Karan Johar. Don't try to look too much at the watch, and you might have a good time.

Piku : The Bugle's Verdict

Let’s be straight – this movie is full of shit! Literally, not figuratively. If it was up to us, we’d rather name the film ‘Stool’, but let’s proceed with the existing title and get to know Piku a little better.

Amitabh Bachchan plays Bhaskor Banerjee, a senile, 70-year-old Bengali man, who lives with his daughter Piku. Like most people at his age, his primary time-pass is being concerned about imaginary medical ailments, and troubling everyone else; family, friends or strangers, with knowledge regarding the same, the various colors and the state of his faeces in particular. Like the stereotypical Bengali babu, he is stubborn, argumentative, and has the last word in every discussion. Despite these traits, he holds a very modern, and gender empowering view towards life and society. Deepika is the titular character Piku, a short-tempered woman, who has to deal with her possessive daddy’s shit the entire day. Irrfan is the owner of a taxi service which Piku uses regularly, and dealing with his own family problems with a nagging mother and sister. To escape this atmosphere, he agrees to drive Piku’s even weirder family, 1500 kms away to their family estate in Kolkata.

All the people whose parents fall above the age of 65 years, must bring them along to watch Piku. The film talks very humorously about the problems old-age poses for the seniors themselves, as well as their confused children, who try their best to deal with, and solve the problems without feeling frustrated or irritated due to their general helplessness. Piku breaks the negative idea propagated by popular films like Baghban that most children abandon or neglect their parents in their time of distress. Through her extremely commendable depiction of Piku, Padukone shows the psychological struggles the modern family person goes through, in trying to manage both their professional and personal spheres, especially when they are supposed to manage someone as difficult as the man-child that is Bhaskor Banerjee (Big B). At one time, the viewer feels irritated by the tantrums of the angry Piku, but then at another point, one understands the reasons behind her perpetual temper and irritated personality.

The movie is immensely entertaining. The dialogues are simple and relatable. Big B’s incessant obsession with his faeces keeps people entertained in a rib-tickling manner, but the point is: for how long? After a point, the potty and motion references get way too frequent and tiring, and the audience too was having difficulty in gulping down their popcorn. Other than that, the scenes are light, and a neat depiction of the typical drawing-room discussion about your older family members, and their misadventures with senility.

Irrfan Khan makes no additional effort in playing the driver, Rana Chaudhary, and none was required. His performance is extremely free-flowing and natural, and nothing exceptional to the quintessential Irrfan Khan experience. Both Khan and Padukone feel very easy in their respective shoes, and show no difficulty in rubbing shoulders with a figure like Bachchan. Mr. Bachchan on the other hand, had to put in much more of an effort for his role, and we’re still not sure if the final result was befitting his calibre. His performance is jovial enough to keep the viewers hooked in rib-tickling laughter, but it was loud and quite over-expressive at particular points. His accent too was excessively stressed upon, and rather than doing justice to the personality of a Bengali figure, was more slap-stick in nature.

Side performances include stars like Raghubir Yadav, and Jisshu Sengupta.

One thing we would like to point out is that director Shoojit Sircar seems to be quite in love with his Bengali heritage, which seems to be an important factor in all of his films. Just an observation.

VERDICT – Do not miss out this Bengali family treat for anything. Though the film has its holes, and follows the "Motion se hi Emotion" subtitle rather seriously, it covers up for much of them through the work of its cast, and with the very acclaimed Shoojit Sircar at the helm, it turns out to be as sweet as Mishti Doi.
*Note of Caution– Avoid the popcorn or even the trip to the cafeteria, and you should be just fine.* 

Gabbar is Back : The Bugle's Verdict

Gabbar asked – “Kitne aadmi the?” In reply a roar was heard . A house-full theatre caused it. Why the film was named ‘Gabbar is Back’, couldn’t be fathomed by either me or that theatre full of people. Whether or not it was worthwhile, is an entirely different discussion. Let’s get into it.

Akshay Kumar is Professor Aditya (No surname). He teaches Class Xth physics in Degree College, using local goons as examples for Newtonian theories and shakes his P.W.D. (Power Waala Danda) as a side-hobby. Shruti Haasan plays the stereotypical dumb lass, who is a lawyer, as well as the ambassador for IIN, quoting Google for silly facts in random situations. After a great personal loss, Prof. He-man adopts the alter-ego of Gabbar, wreaking havoc on corruption and bureaucracy.

The issue of corruption and its social effects has been stressed upon way too much, and has been beaten to a pulp. This has become quite the problem with Bollywood; someone comes up with a new riveting subject for a film, it becomes successful, and then all other producers shall drag on with the same themes and concepts until the idea loses any remaining profitability.

Essentially, GIB gives vision to the daydreams of every common man, facing the brunt of the vices of the government, who just wants to roll up his sleeves to beat someone up. This vision is the only thing that makes this film considerably enjoyable and at the same time, juvenile. The film continuously loses focus over the topic of right and wrong, leaving the audiences beating on the same old drum left by the likes of ‘Jai Ho!’ without still choosing a side. Story consistently moves ahead supercharged on emotions rather than logic, and that is probably why the general Indian masses shall enjoy GIB unlike anything, because it talks about a sensible issue in the most nonsensical, stereotypical way possible. The plot has been spruced up using typical over-the-top action sequences, music from 'The Dark Knight', corny dialogues and iconic lines from Sholay playing in the background, that hold no relevance whatsoever to the movie.

Sunil Grover, better known as Gutthi from ‘Comedy Nights with Kapil’ makes his attempt at dramatic acting, which was satisfactory. A much better performance was expected from Shruti Hassan.  Akshay Kumar was... well, Akshay Kumar.

Verdict – Watch ‘Gabbar is Back’ for the trip down Righteous lane, and social dramatics combined with mind-numbing action, the perfect Friday throwback recipe. If mental enrichment and upliftment is your general purpose in life, proceed with caution.