Agneepath (2012): A film caught between tribute and re-hash- inducing yawns

The entire 157 mins of Karan Johar's Agneepath made every minute, no every second count. Wait Wait. Dont get hopes jumping. It is not the illusion of excitement and twists and excellence of direction, that makes every moment worth of sitting through it. For the entire 157 mins I fought boredom, headache, fatigue, yawns, and seeking slightest indication of something interesting to happen in the plot.

The story was so filled with cliches of the typical early 90s films, that reminded me so much of Sunny Deol and Suniel Shetty times. The plot is so predictable, so are the 'so-called' twist. No, it's not predictable because certain points, the name of the film and characters, and the production house are same as 1990 Amitabh Bachchan starrer Agneepath. The film falls short of even being called the producer and director's tribute to the film, that I call a classic in its own way.


The film is a twisted tale of predictable lines.
Firstly the way in which Vijay Cauhan gets rid of Rauf Lal's son in hopes of gaining over his huge underbelly empire in Mumbai.
Secondly the part where 4 gun men open fire at Vijay and Kaali's wedding and gun down half of the party, and then Vijay single handed guns all 4 of them back, there and then.
Thirdly the part where Kaancha slams Vijay with swords and all in the climax drangs him and all, but still Vijay gets right back up for the last time to kill him and then die. Ok, this happened in the climax of old Agneepath as well, but believe me the way it is over exaggerated here its really reminds me of golden days, when an entire AK 47 was emptied yet he still gets up to kill the entire army of villains. The only hickup being that there hero would always survive.


There are a lot many twists in this story, but rarely did anything jolt me out of my state of somber fatigue. Come On Dude! I guess I would have been more happy if you would have even tried adapting the same story, should have done that one twist by twist, because no matter of shirtless Hrithik can make me forget the charisma of angry young man Amitabh from the old one.


Let's talk about the actors here. Hrithik Roshan seemed too cold as Vijay Deenanth Chauhan, Sunjay Dutt's look was something new and different but his acting was a bit too over the top, Om Puri lacked the convincing power of playing a police inspector/commissioner. Priyanka Chopra and rest of the female cast didnt have much to do and were completely props to fuel in more space for Hrithik. Rishi Kapoor's character was a new addition to the plot here, and he was the only one I found a bit okay. Though his look was too over the top and seeing Rishi as a villain doesnt naturally gets accepted by one's heart.


Ya that is one thing that I really found missing, the passion and anger of Vijay Deenanath Chauhan. Hrithik falls really really short in exuding the charm and magic of the character in the film. I dont know why but why has that 'angry young man' being done away with?? Why did K Jo not take chances at just dishing out the old script that was any time far more interesting and entertaining than this new 'so-called adaptation'. Even though you would have failed you would would have failed at matching that hit film, right now you just fail at 'paying a tribute' to that film, it's director and its script.


The dialogues of the film were a completely let down as mcuh as its screenplay. They were complete lackluster and too plain, for a film as powerful as this. The cinematography was not much impactful, and was fueled more by highly stylized sets that it failed to invoke any sense of connection to the places at all. 


I dont care if the film is a huge Box Office success or commercial critics praise it to the T, but I would stick by my review. Because the critics and box office even went on to declare Ready and Bodyguard, but does that make those a good film in any way.....I sure hope Not.


All I can say in the Vijay Deenanath Chauhan sirf ek hi tha aur ek hi raheka.....

Agneepath (2012)

Agneepath (1990)


Agneepath (2012)
Director: Karan Malhotra

Starring: Hrithik Roshan, Sanjay Dutt, Rishi Kapoor, Priyanka Chopra, Om Puri

Screenplay: Ila Dutta Bedi, Karan MAlhotra

Editor: Akiv Ali

Producer: Dharma Productions

Running time: 157mins

Best Scenes: since I couldnt find anything much praise worth in this film....i kept going back to the original Agneepath in my mind (and no that is no reason for my prejudice to this film, believe me). So here are two of my best scenes from the Orginal 1990 Agneepath, that I think should have been referred to at lest, if to see the power of dialogues and dialogue delivery by the team behind new 2012 Agneepath.

Agneepath (1990)

A personal attempt to understand Films vis-à-vis the Catharsis Theory

I find the theory of cathartic effect quite interesting to explore. Catharsis is the sense of purging of one's emotions and inner held feelings. I first learnt this term when I was studying about classical literature and Aristotle. The term catharsis had first made an appearance in Aristotle Poetics, the term literally means ‘purging or cleansing of one’s emotion’. Aristotle taught that viewing tragic plays gave people emotional release (katharsis) from negative feelings such as pity, fear, and anger. By watching the characters in the play experience tragic events, the negative feelings of the viewer were presumably purged and cleansed. This emotional cleansing was believed to be beneficial to both the individual and society.

For example, in the most layman terms I will put it as I understand it, say if you are currently facing a problem such as say Corruption or price rise or legal injustice, etc; and then you see a film where this topic is taken up, explored and then it all ends with a happy note where everyone who were at fault were punished and greater good triumphs, so you would leave the theater feeling a sense of personal let go. You will feel as if you have just seen your problems being solved and your inner emotions are all cleansed with that feeling of personal content in the end.

That is what Aristotle said about theatre. Theatre, the only medium of mass entertainment and communication back then, was used as a medium by the government to induce the sort of catharsis’ amongst the people at that time, so that once people are purged out of their inner feelings such as dissatisfaction, violence, hatred, etc then a status quo is again established back where no one questions anyone or anything.

The most recent example where I found a society effectively using this theory to purge the emotions of its people, rather than letting them free to explore a subject or issue was when I saw Pakistani director Shoaib Mansoor's acclaimed film 'Bol'. Bol is very good film, it is sensitive portrayal of plight of women in a Pakistani society. It is feminist in its issues and it is contemporary in its age. Such a film that criticizes a society while being very much a part of a conservative society such as the one in Pakistan is an uplifting and brave attempt not just for its director but also for the Pakistan's film industry. But one thing that didn't quite please me while I was watching this film was its end. The film ended in, well how to put it, somewhat utopian state of being, where in the end everything is perfect, hope and good rejoice and government and society understand not just their faults but also their true responsibilities.

This sort of semi-utopian ending was also a part of Shoaib Mansoor's directorial debut, Khuda Ke Liye (KKL). KKL was another bold and heartfelt attempt to cleanse a society from inside. It was based on the backdrop of 9/11 attack on world trade center and its aftereffects as in the racial profiling, and the American-Afghan war, etc. I personally loved that film as well, it came way before Bol and was being a well circulated and talked about film in film festivals and all. It was a great social drama.

But in that too the end of the film doesn't leave more to be demanded as in the end, as the film ends with everything getting solved in the end. I don't know that where I find both the lack a bit when it comes towards an end the film, the society and people portrayed in the film do change for a betterment but it is too much of betterment too soon, so that's why I call it a semi- utopian state.

I'm a sucker for open endings in film, personally speaking. But not like that any film and every film with opening ending, the film needs to be good and strong script and good direction and all. I feel a strong social sensitive script supported by a good direction and good actors go a long way to stay in your mind and perplex you with the issues it throws up at you. And an open ending makes it just a sort of icing on the cake, for me on a personal level.

So yes, coming to films and cathartic effect they induce in the viewers. I feel that in movies like Wanted and Bodyguard, when people see violence on screen it relieves them of their own inner feeling and emotions of violence and anger and rage. Catharsis Theory suggests that rather than being harmful, the violence portrayed in Mass Media, may actually have positive effects as well on a society. The central assumption of the Catharsis Theory is that people in the course of daily life, often build up a lot of frustrations and inner feelings of anger, that often fall short of getting any positive vent to release it self. In such a situation being vicarious participants in others’ aggression often helps in releasing those personal inner feelings of tension and rage.

Films often induce emotions in people that led them to vent their own internal tensions and trapped feelings. It is like crying, crying is said often said to be good for a person both in physical and psychological ways. Crying is good for eyes (or so I’ve heard) and it leads you to purge yourself of your pent up feelings as well, that otherwise might have found some other negative ways to be vented, who knows, may be something like rage, aggression, or even a nervous breakdown.

So even though I believe crying is good at times, and so is the purging of one’s emotions by being passively involved in the actions of social media, but still there is a part of me that believes that not all purging of emotions is a good thing on the whole. I remember this research paper that I came across, during the semester when I had Film Studies as a part of my Master’s course. This one was about the films of Amitabh Bachhan and his image of angry young man in the 80s and early 90s. (Sorry can’t remember anything about the exact names of the topic or the author, right now, will certainly look it up again). This particular writer pointed out how the society of 80s was going through a sense of personal and social dissatisfaction, most of which was directed towards the Government and its other wings. So Amitabh’s angry young man character portrayed general emotions of anger and discontent with present social systems and all. But this was a careful plot, keeping in mind the theory of Catharsis. The Angry Young Man did expose the emotions, but then it provided a definitive ending of all the troubles and dissatisfaction within itself. Simply put, problems where taken up, exposed, fought over and very conveniently solved with the victory of good over evil. So when someone left the theater after watching such a film they left with a feeling of satisfaction that even in their lives everything will come back to essential betterment, thus leaving behind all their emotions of discontent with the present system back at their seats itself.

So well yes it seems like a clever plan, general public discontent, watches film, releases it’s pent up emotions in a passive manner and everything goes back to a status quo as all the emotions are purged so nothing left to now work on or build up on. Seems and sounds too simple to believe, but well power of visual medium and in particular the power of films is something I truly believe in, on a personal front.

So well if Catharsis Theory is infact true, then I would say that there is a time when we should not let it to numb our senses in a negative way, as in my most laymen used language we shouldn’t let it dumb us back into a state of contentment in  status quo in the personal and social front. If Films are a mirror of our society and are meant to be an effective medium of communication and a toll of positive social change, then why use it to make people purge of their emotions that can actually induce a positive effect. Yes, rage anger and violence are few emotions that when released or cleansed through being a passive witness to a violent act is a good thing; but one should not turn so passive in their actual social scenario as well. When the hero is thrashing up the villain in a film and the audience viewing it is clapping and feeling as if a part of the action and themselves relieving their anger; this doesn’t go on to mean that if you see someone thrashing up someone in real life (no matter how wrong or right that must be) you take the passive stance of an audience there as well, and let someone else take law in their hands.

Movies are supposed to be an empowering tool, as it has a far more reach and wider connect to a whole lot of common audience. It is something that should take up people’s issues, problems and general life woes and transform it into something entertaining, yet something so helpful as it induces a solution that makes people empowered enough to tackle these issues in real life as well, instead of just believing that like in the movies, come what may, in the end everything will end up being Happy positive and all evil will be punished. That is Hope for sure one should work towards, and I mean Work Towards.

End of an Era of Romance for Film Industry and me, an ardent fan of Cinema and Dev Saab remembers

I can’t think of any song to dedicate to him and his memory...every song he did was as if a part of his personality and attitude to life.

'Main zindagi ka saath nibhata chala gay....' something that the actor truly lived by. 'Abhi na jaao chodd ke ki dil abhi bhara nahi....' something that every one always said for him. 'yaad kiya dil nein kahaan ho tum...' something we would say for him from now on. 'Jeevan ke safar mein rahi milte hain bichhar jaane ko....' is something the heart knows is the truth of life but the heart still refuses to believe...the list is never ending, as is the understanding of him and his life and work.

I can’t believe he is no more.....of two people I truly ever fell in love with...I thought I still had chance to meet at lest one of them in this lifetime. But no that dream too is now all packed up and has a quite place in my heart, for now. 

Its still a truth, that will take time to dawn on me....for when I met him for 5 mins, about four years back, as a chance encounter at a film screening, I had a chance to see someone I loved in front of my eyes for real. But sadly the event that he was going for was only for invitees and media, so I it was just 5 mintues of ogling from my end, as he said ‘hello’ to me. That time I had thought that one day I will meet you with my name, but not just 5 minutes; and who knows maybe even work with you or be interviewing you....I lost my path in the way thereon...and now I have lost him...No, We have lost him.

A salute to the undying spirit and undying and forever young heart....Dev Saab


When I understood the mean of cinema and the place it went on to hold in my heart...I understood true love. This true love was not just for Cinema, but for two personalities. Two extremely different dynamic Indian or shall I say specifically Bollywood Personalities. These two were not just contemporaries of each other but also shared an exemplary friendship that however didn't last long. These were Guru Dutt and Dev Anand.

Guru Dutt and Dev Anand met when Dev Saab was shooting for his first film, Hum Ek Hain, and from there on a chance meeting turned into a sweet friendship, that sadly didn’t lost long, as the focus of film career and life in general drifted the two apart.

I feel in love with Guru Dutt after I understood Pyaasa and Kaaghaz Ke Phool. I fell in love with the brooding image of the poet that he portrayed. The hurt and pained expressions, a man troubled by life's ups and downs, I fell in love with it all. I feel in love with his sensibility in films, which arose out of his own personal experiences, understanding and thought. I feel in love with the man he portrayed on screen and feel in love with the man off screen. The more I saw, the more I read, the more I felt an intense emotion of connection with him, which was beyond any comprehension, even my own. Guru Dutt died at a fairly early age, after 2 unsuccessful attempts to end his life, sadly the third time it was unlucky strike for all those who loved him and wished him to recover out of his depression and don back his place in the film industry.

Dev Anand was an exact opposite of all that that Guru Dutt was. Dev Anand had a boyish charm about him always. He always donned a smiling face, whether you see it in his films, or in the stories of his friends. All his images on screen and off screen presented a young man full of life, for which age was just about increasing numbers to liveliness and a few wrinkled lines on face. Dev Anand was the romantic hero, who made hearts of everyone swoon, and had a bounciness of spirit and heart always.

I don't know, rather I don't remember, when I fell in love with Dev Anand. It must have started when I was 13-14 years old and saw a number of his films, and when I compared them to the romantic films by other actors, whether his contemporaries or newbie, I realized the romantic image of Dev Anand was more appealing due to the gentleman side that I saw in his characters. There was a gentle calming effect of seeing Dev Saab on screen, which bought a slight smile on lips and always stars in eyes.

Dev Anand took failures and success with same strife, an attitude that nothing changes as he moved on effortlessly from one role to another and climbing a steady ladder of success and love. Dev Anand was known for his smile and friendship. Whenever I heard any celebrity, his contemporaries especially, always talked about his dying attitude in life and his young at heart image.

It is now truly an end of era, a romantic era. Earlier on in the year another star of Romance and joviality had passed away, Shammi Kapoor; and now Dev Saab. The hero who belonged to the youthful times of our grandparents and parents, but his stories and film transcended every sense of time for me. For me he will be the ‘hero’ from my ‘romantic love stories’, something akin to what adolescent youngsters feel for the ‘heroes’ of Mills & Boon; maybe that is bad allegory to explain it, but ya will get the point bit across.

Yes, I do have my own array of heroes, on which I grew up. There are the Khans and Kapoors and more of my time as well. And yes definitely the star of all SRK. But what I feel for Guru Dutt and Dev Anand and their timelessness, surpasses any excitement I would ever feel for seeing any these on any screen.

And now even though the memories and the art of both dynamic personalities (Dutt and Dev Saab) survive, they both have now taken a departure from the physical existence. I had made a list of people whom I would like to meet for sure after I die, and that list was topped by Guru Dutt's name, and now even Dev Saab joins him there.

Two such different people, such different life, such different body of work, such different approaches to life. But for me, my love for their on-screen and off-screen personas, and dedication to never stop in my attempts to get to know them and understand them as much as possible; shall never exist.

RIP Dev Saab :(

Puss In Boots (2011): Watch it for swashbuckling charm of Puss, seductive voices of Banderas and Hayek, the innocence of script and chaotic mix of characters.

Well I personally love the character of 'Puss In Boots' from Shrek franchise. A spunky feline voiced by Antonio Banderas...is a lovable yet feisty outlaw. He is a lover and a leaver. The movie 'Puss In Boots' takes a look into the origin and story of this cheerful feline outlaw, before he is introduced in the second of the Shrek franchise.

Movie is somewhat a chaotic mix of a number of nursery rhyme characters in an old feel Spanish village setting, yet it is an enjoyable film. But the film mixes up too much too follow at times. You have the story of how innocent lovable Puss becomes Swashbuckler outlaw Puss in Boots, and goes on his ways of crime with characteristics of Zorro. And the story begins to bring in an array of familiar names such as Humpty Dumpty, Jack and Jill (who are a married couple here, and here I was thinking always they were brother and sister), and Jack and the bean stalk, and then Golden Goose and Mother Goose. Then there is the love angle with the seductive and sassy Kitty Softpaws (voiced by Salma Hayek).

The plot is interesting as well, it is about Puss's quest for the magic beanstalk, in order to reach the magic castle beyond clouds and steal the Golden Goose that lays golden eggs. He is joined in his plan by two sidekicks; an estranged friend Humpty and Kitty Softpaws; and pursued by villionous duo Jack and Jill. But as it turns out eventually not everyone as what they seem to be. But I won’t reveal this part much as the movie has just released and is for sure worth catching atlest once, if for nothing else then sexy voices of Antonio Bandares and Salma Hayek.

It is a story of adventure, friendship, love, betrayal, revenge and reunion. But yes I found the film lacking the charm of Shrek films and the usual suaveness of Puss. The film on the whole becomes a bit complex, with a whole array of Spanish folks and Folklore characters being mashed up together, and there are too many ‘change of heart’ moments in the story, which make it not so smooth. As a character Puss has just one angle, the swashbuckling, charming, sword dueling, with self delusional Spanish vainglory; and well after a few starting scene that charm seems to be loosing interest for me. For me I think the character of Humpty Dumpty (the egghead, voiced by Zach Galifianakis) was much more interesting and multi dimensional. Yet I really did enjoy those particular bits in the story where sword handling swashbuckling Puss uses big innocent cat eyes to disarm his enemies. And the Spanish dance of Puss and Kitty Softpaws.

The film is wonderful in terms of colorful visuals, and 3D works well in adding on to the spectacular animation. Puss as character and Antonio as its voice is a match made in heaven. And so Salma’s voice to the suave Kitty Soft paws.

I would rate the film as a good 3 out of 5. Even though often at times the mix of characters becomes chaotic, yet the child-like innocence of the story makes me smile even though on the most lamest and silliest of jokes and clichés. And yes the film is thankfully no sequel or prequel or anywhere attached to the memory of Shrek (which I’m sorry but has totally lost all appeal to me after so many sequels of its own). The Puss did took a share of my attention away from Shrek and the Donkey when it was introduced in the second Shrek series, but here, on its own, the Puss in Boots stands tall for itself.

Puss In Boots 3D (2011)

Director: Chris Miller;

Voices Of: Antonio Banderas (Puss in Boots), Salma Hayek (Kitty Softpaws), Zach Galifianakis (Humpty Dumpty), Billy Bob Thornton (Jack) and Amy Sedaris (Jill).

Writer: Tom Wheeler,

Based on a story by Brian Lynch, Will Davies and Mr. Wheeler;

Editor: Eric Dapkewicz;

Producer: Joe M. Aguilar and Latifa Ouaou;

Released by DreamWorks Animation.

Running time: 1 hour 30 minutes.