It is currently Mon Nov 17, 2025 2:02 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Others » Movie, TV, Music and Box-office

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 4
  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
shivrk
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2003 1:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 6:12 am
Posts: 91
well, i think the whole homosexual thing was hilarious in the movie. i mean, they are FINALLY catching on that an audience is able to accept and respect other kinds of people. homo or hetero. when you say you were fed up with the gay comments in the movie, did you mean karan's sexuality, or the humor used in the movie...because i think that even if he was exerting his own sexuality through film, go for it. audiences should learn to accept it.
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2003 5:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
Karan COMING OUT OF CLOSET!! ??? :sus:
Top
 Profile  
 
_rb_
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2003 6:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 5:22 pm
Posts: 128
DVD Collector wrote:
And by the way, the film measurably tries to pass parts of downtown Toronto as New York City. How shamefull of Bollywood?

[color=red]Rating: **1/2 (out of 5)

Image[/color]

:bangbang: :bangbang: that is because the it was suppose to be shot entirely in TO. They started in March 03 but with a few weeks they had financing problems so they went to New York to finish it off. :baaa: :baaa: :hmm:
Top
 Profile  
 
Aryan
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 06, 2003 4:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 12:45 pm
Posts: 500
Location: Singapore
Steven Spielberg tries to pass off Sri Lanka as India in The Temple of Doom. (With ppl speaking a non-Indian language in bits, if I recall right) :rolleyes:

In any case, this year we had films like The Hero insinuating hatred and violence. On the other extreme, we had to sit through holier-than-thou sermons in Baghban. Neither film received as much flak as Kal Ho Naa Ho has.

Kal Ho Naa Ho may be flawed, but it is light-hearted entertainment at its best. The film is technically almost flawless - except for minimal problems with the location sound (It's location sound - Bollywood catches on!). Editing and Anil Mehta's cinematography are up there with best of the genre.

Music by SEL is, IMO, their best work ever.

The screenplay goes somewhat over-the-top at some bits, but no more than many 'hit' and 'classic' Hindi films. The comedy too, lacks sophistication somewhat. ??? This film is definitely no Dil Chahta Hai or Saathiya (though technically better than both).

Box-office-wise, really who cares if the film sold well in C centres. Why even bother to market to the lowest common denominator. You'll merely be lowering standards then. I know this sounds elitist, but leave some room for the Mithuns and Govindas (and Amitabh Bachchans)...they've got their market - at their budget and their sensibility. :p

Jaya Bachchan gave an understated performance - which is more than I can say for her more expensive husband.

Priety and Saif had some good chemistry - not the best ever, but adequate. SRK, as usual, hammed his way through, ruining my overall enjoyment somewhat. :eek:

Should've been Aamir Khan. :devil:

My rating: 8.5/10



Edited By Aryan on 1070686451
Top
 Profile  
 
filmibuff
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2003 3:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 7:30 pm
Posts: 756
Location: canada
Just saw this movie this weekend...... and overall i was not dissapointed despite having such high expectations.... I thought the comic scenes were very well handled.... the music was the sore point... i think the best song of the lot was either the title song and mahi ve....the rest can be passed.. the karan johar effect is quite evident in the film..... the gay jokes were funny....
performance wise saif ali khan was excellent .... preity was brilliant in her role..... sadly shahrukh was the same as usual and tended to go over the top as always....
NYC has been beautifully captured.... so has toronto...
overall the movie didnt have anything new to offer but its lighthearted treatment made it very watchable.... i would recommend it..
Top
 Profile  
 
Veej
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2003 5:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 1:37 pm
Posts: 77
For those who complain about passing Toronto off as New York...Hell many Hollywood movies are made in Toronto and Vancouver,,and they always pass off..X-Files was mainly shot in Vancouver

These people are the ones who live in La La Land thinking that they are cheated with by bollywood... and talking about little stuff like if Prity lives in Queens why does she jog all the way to Manhatten..man get a life..you think hollywood has its shit in order? there are countless things like this in hollywood movies...

The things one should look at in a movie is: story, editing, pace..I think Kal Ho na Ho did drag on for some time after the interval but thats it this film is great its refreshing like DCH. Like another person on this post said its not about Happy rich NRI's its about the majority of us NRI's that do not have the most perfect life and all.

I gotta give it to dharma productions by taking a refreshing look, like DCH

IF you want reality just watch a documentry (hell you may feel cheated with their editing stlye).

Hollywood movies like: American Beauty, Glen Gary Glen Ross, Fight Club, Pulp Fiction, these are some of the best Hollywood has made (and my favourites) but they also have bloopers in them, but thats not what you need to look at...Movies are made to escape from reality for a while..just sit a escape don't worry about Prity jogging all the way to Trebeca, (maybe she wanted DeNiro's autograph :) )



Edited By Veej on 1070905547
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2003 6:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6146
Veej wrote:
For those who complain about passing Toronto off as New York...Hell many Hollywood movies are made in Toronto and Vancouver,,and they always pass off..X-Files was mainly shot in Vancouver

It should make difference where a film is shot. Main thing is if the plot describes the scene to be in New York, it should appear similar to New York. It can be in any other city or it can be half inch by half inch painting or a card board set. How else can they film "Women from Mars"?? :D

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
Sanjay
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2003 10:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 1:14 pm
Posts: 2256
Location: National Capital Region (India)
Aryan wrote:
Steven Spielberg tries to pass off Sri Lanka as India in The Temple of Doom. (With ppl speaking a non-Indian language in bits, if I recall right) :rolleyes:

The reason for that is the stupid Indian government, stupid because it's not like they were able to stop the film from being made anyhow, refused to let Spielberg shoot in India. There is a law here that requires the script be approved by the Indian government before a foreign production can be shot in India. Since Spielberg refused to make changes in the script regarding the portrayol of Kali worshippers, the Indian government refused permission. By the way 'Indiana Jones and The Temple Of Doom' is till today banned (more like it has not been given a censor certificate) in India.

As for the language spoken in the film, it was Sinhalese being passed of as Hindi. The only person who actually spoke Hindi in the film was Amrish Puri. Also, the fact that the film was shot in India rather than India is not the problem, what is the problem, is that no care was taken to amke it look authentic. I mean come on, elephants and palm trees in the Himalayas, give me a break.

By the way, personally I also do not agree with the films depiction of India and Indians since it only creates very wrong stereotypes about Indian.



Edited By Sanjay on 1070927419
Top
 Profile  
 
Sanjay
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2003 11:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 1:14 pm
Posts: 2256
Location: National Capital Region (India)
Aryan wrote:
Box-office-wise, really who cares if the film sold well in C centres. Why even bother to market to the lowest common denominator. You'll merely be lowering standards then. I know this sounds elitist, but leave some room for the Mithuns and Govindas (and Amitabh Bachchans)...they've got their market - at their budget and their sensibility. :p

I agree totally with that and I also don't think there is anything elitist about this. When will Bollywood learn the concept of niche marketing and the fact that there is absolutely no reason to try and cater to all & sundry. Those days are over if you ask me since the divide between the urban and rural/small town values and lifestyles has increased a great deal over the last 10 - 15 yrs. As I see it, the problem stems from the way Indian films are sold territory wise and therefore even the box office is tracked accordingly. Personally as a consumer or even from the producers viewpoint what should matter is the worldwide collections of the film rather than the territorial break up. Hollywood after all does not track the business of it's films based on different states. I am sure there are a lot of films that do very different amounts of business in different parts of the country and this is inspite of the fact that the cultural divide between different parts of the country in the US is far less than it is in India. Why does every film need to get released all over India? As long as a film can make money from it's targetted audience and/or geographical area, why care about the rest? Actually what Bollywood needs to learn better is how to budget their films based on the script and target audience. In other words if a certain script requires an X investment but the targetted audience does not have the potential to provide x+y business, which includes all sources of revenue, i.e. music rights, broadcast rights, home video rights etc.) then it should not be made
By the way these thoughts of mine are not new and have been around long before Subhash Ghai discovered that he could make money by just targeting the film at the overseas market and made lots of money from Pardes and Taal by doing so. Ofcourse when you make as awful a film as Yaadein, then all bets are off.
Top
 Profile  
 
spike86
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2003 11:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 4:29 pm
Posts: 672
Location: NY
Sanjay wrote:
Personally I do not agree with the films depiction of India and Indians since it only creates very wrong stereotypes about Indians.

I absolutely agree with you. I never actually sat and watched the movie as whole but from what I have seen from the network broadcasts, I was disgusted.


Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2003 11:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
The problem with the Aseem Chhabra article is that Indians in India don't have any better taste than NRIs. Sure, they flocked to films like K3G and Yaadein, but people in India aren't exactly watching Shyam Benegal films 24/7. People in India AND NRIs (and people all over the world) watch a lot of junk. For NRIs it is SRK movies and for Indians in India it is movies like Gadar and Andaaz and Janasheen.

Baghban has done very well at a local theater, but they often show films that they should have known would be poor sellers. They recently showed Out of Control and Raja Bhaiyya, for example. I guess the Baghbans and the Kal Ho Na Hos make up for the duds.
Top
 Profile  
 
Sanjay
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2003 11:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 1:14 pm
Posts: 2256
Location: National Capital Region (India)
Aryan wrote:
Should've been Aamir Khan. :devil:

As much as I like and respect Aamir Khan, I think he is a little over rated. Atleast when it comes to his versitality as an actor. Personally I don't think he could have carried of this role without going overboard ala Shahrukh, remember his loud over the top performance in Raja Hindustani? If anyone amongst the current generation of actors could have carried of this role, it has got to be Saif Ali Khan. He is easily one of the most under rated actors in Bollywood and he would have, in my opinion, done the most justice to the lead role in 'Kal Ho Na Ho'. Of course even he could not have reached the dizzying heights of the role immortalized and portrayed by Rajesh Khanna in and as 'Anand'.
Top
 Profile  
 
Sanjay
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2003 11:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 1:14 pm
Posts: 2256
Location: National Capital Region (India)
rana wrote:
It should make no difference where a film is shot. Main thing is if the plot describes the scene to be in New York, it should appear similar to New York. It can be in any other city or it can be half inch by half inch painting or a card board set. How else can they film "Women from Mars"?? :D

Rana

Well said, after all these are commercial films and not documentary films. Although even in documentary films one has to use special effects and alternate locales to depict the film makers vision. After all how else would one make a documentary on Dinosaurs for eg. Also can you imagine film making without sets and studios? In my opinion it is perfectly alright to shoot in alternate locations, but only as long as care is taken to maintain the authencity of the script. As long as major landmarks are avoided and care is taken to make the shots look real and one cannot tell that it is a different locale then there is no problem. My problem is with Indian films wherein even an idiot can tell that the location used for the shooting is not what the script suggests. This is the most common in song picturizations.
Top
 Profile  
 
SnakeEye
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2002 10:03 pm
Posts: 246
Location: Dordrecht, Netherlands
What about this ???

/*****
Kal Ho Naa Ho to enter the Oscar library

Karan Johar has one more reason to celebrate. Apart from the fact that Kal Ho Naa Ho has turned out to be the blockbuster hit of 2003 and has even acquired the sixth position in the UK and US Top Ten charts in just third week, the script of the movie is now in demand.

The film's script will now be a part of the Oscar Academy's Margaret Herrick Library. Johar has received a letter from the librarian of the Library of Motion Pictures, Arts and Science, asking for a copy of the screenplay of Kal Ho Naa Ho for permanent script collection. The scripts in the library are used for research by filmmakers and related personalities.

Meanwhile the film has already been selected for the Berlin and several other international film festivals

*****/
Source

SnakeEye
Top
 Profile  
 
Aryan
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 12:45 pm
Posts: 500
Location: Singapore
Ok...I like the film and all that...but its certainly not any major award material...least not the Oscars!
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 4
  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Board index » Others » Movie, TV, Music and Box-office

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group