Change Your Image
aniket_md
Reviews
Waqt (1965)
Typical Bollywood gibberish, yet acceptable
What can I say!
- An extremely poor Shashi Kapoor struggling to raise money for his eternally sick mom flaunts fashionable designer clothes. Impeccable hair cut, clean-shaven look, amazing branded sweaters and trousers...one can hardly imagine the plight of the young "driver" when he has such fancy clothes to wear.
To top it off, he appears in a suit in the party leading to the climax when all other drivers appear in their uniforms. Wow!
- Why do all family members have to get separated like that just defines my sense of logic. Let's say that you have a big family living in a big house, and earthquake strikes. Either you all get killed God-forbid, or some of you survive. Now would the survivors be separated light-years away from each other? You were in the same place, why would you wander off to a God forsaken place rather than sticking by for the authorities and make sure that your family is safe? I have to clap for the incredible stupidity of Bollywood film-makers.
- The way Raj Kumar is all over Sadhana making no secret of his love would make any sane girl know his true intentions. Sadhana is not shown as a flirtatious type; yet she is the last person to know of his motives?!?! Can you say Bollywood knows its subtlety. Let us imagine for the moment that Sadhana is indeed the statue of infinite innocence and has no idea that Raj Kumar pines for her. But then in a complete contradiction, she is scared when Raj Kumar asks her "his gift" for winning the race...clearly showing that she expects him to ask her hand. Can you say Bollywood has got it straight.
- The lesser said about the Court case, the better. For a Perry Mason enthusiast like me, Bollywood courts could not be farther from reality.
Why did this movie become a hit? 1. They added color stupid. 2. They put 3 heroes in the same picture. 3. The always successful "lost and found" formula in those days.
Sunit Datt is unarguably the saving grace of this movie. Now here is an actor, who is good looking, natural and quite talented. Now we got Shashi kapoor, who got the looks, but could indeed struggle to be a driver in the real life was he not one of the Kapoor Klan. I haven't seen an actor who is as close to being a stone as possible. Raj Kumar does try to get funny, but fails. Now he got no looks either...it's a mystery how he ever became a star and whatever people found in his many now-famous dialogues.
I like to watch most Bollywood movies for fun...this was fun indeed.
Charade (1963)
classic and impeccable
Charade is one of the better movies I have ever seen. It has an excellent suspense plot, great romance played by Audrey and Cary Grant, crisp and witty dialogs, excellent background music and simply superb finish.
The plot revolves around Regina Lampert (Audrey), widow of a recently deceased American Charles Lampert, who is killed on a train and has supposedly left behind a fortune of a quarter million dollars. Only trouble is, no one seems to find the money. Regina is chased by 3 thugs; add in the mix the mysterious Peter Joshua/Alexander Dyle/Adam Canfield/Brain Cruikshank (Cary Grant), who seems to change his names like everyday clothes, but is still enchanting enough to gain trust from Regina. The money supposedly belongs to the CIA (and not the CIO...ha ha!) and Mr. Barthalomew wants to recover it for the American government. Needless to say, he wants that money as badly as the thug gang and the mysterious Peter Joshua.
The story has great twists in the plot and the on suspense rating, it is at least 9 of 10. The motives of Peter Joshua are very suspect throughout the movie and the end is pure Hitchcock style double somersault.
OK, now the great bits. This is the only movie to pair Audrey and Cary Grant, 2 of the most beloved and captivating leads together. Though Grant is 25 years older than Audrey, their romance is not only believable, it is electric!! Audrey has a successful stint of acting opposite men much older than her and this is the best example. Crisp dialog, excellent situational comedy embedded within a great suspect plot and Audrey's enchanting innocence paired with Grant's urbane sophisticated connivery adds a great flair to this movie. This movie can also pass as one of the best classic comedies. Though the movie is a suspense, it is not a thriller. Your heart won't race at incredible pace with anxiety keeping you on the edge throughout. Instead, you can only sit back and enjoy a great romance on the backdrops of a worthy suspense story. A full 10 points to Audrey and Carey as one of the best romantic couples of all time.
This movie has the taste of a cultured wine. At no point does it touch vulgarity even once. Even when Audrey asks Grant to use her shower (which would arouse too many amorous hormones in todays cinema), the scene is turned tastefully into one of the best comic sequences of the movie. According to me, this movie demonstrates clearly Audrey has an incredible sex appeal...maybe the best of all time...and she has done it without a single vulgar gesture. Todays female leads need to take some lessons! Finally, "Truth about Charlie" is the recent remake of this movie. Frankly, it was not as bad as I expected...but it comes nowhere close to this original gem. I highly recommend this movie to everyone and dare them not to love Audrey and Cary Grant after viewing it. One important hint: You can have both the movies in one single DVD. Get the DVD of "Truth about Charlie" and be delighted to find Charade on the other side!
Funny Face (1957)
disappointed
Having seen almost every other movie of Audrey and enjoyed thoroughly each one of it, I was left disappointed with this one. This is "my-fair-lady-superlight".
So the story is similar to most of Audrey movies. She is supposed to be a modest, "bookish", intellectual librarian girl, who has a funny face. Now 2 things: However hard they tried to convince me Audrey was not attractive as a librarian, they did a poor job. I wasn't convinced of it even in Sabrina, but at least they put some shoe polish on her face to make it dirty. Here, well she looks damn too beautiful to believe she is not a model material. ha ha! Second thing that hit me about this film is it's sexist. I am a male but I like to see intellectual women. This movie tells women should only "think pink" (what a cliché for modern age) and tries as many cheap tricks as possible to make fun of intellectualism by making Audrey say "empathicasm" (can't remember that word) zillion number of times. Poor taste! I don't know much about Fred Astaire honestly, only know that he is supposed to be a Gene Kelly twin. I however enjoyed Kelly's movies far better. Fred's dancing looks very childish and pointless and the chemistry between him and Audrey is average at best. However I understand it's not one of his better movies either, so no pun intended to him.
In most of the Audrey's movies, she has similar themes: transformations from caterpillar to a butterfly, helpless lady harassed by goons, only to be saved by her pampering hero, male leads of the age of her father...all the elements are here in this film as well, but even the gorgeous Audrey could not save me from yawning from time to time and completing this film in 3 rounds finally. The reason this film fails is because I see absolutely no transformation. She was an attractive Audrey in the beginning and she is an attractive Audrey in the end. No physical or emotional change has taken place. In movies like Sabrina, Roman Holiday, Breakfast at Tiffanys, My Fair Lady etc, you could see the transformation lucidly and "empathize" with Audrey a lot better. This movie just doesn't cut it.
Unless you are a die hard Audrey fan like me, pass on this one and you won't miss anything (well OK, maybe you will miss Audrey's dance in the café...that 1 scene is unforgettable).