F...Faddy?

I'm not ashamed to say that I've never seen a Mohan Lal film. I'm not trying to insult him or his talent; I've just never heard of the guy. That said, I'm sure he's a "great actor," but that doesn't make Amitabh Bachchan "not great." Really, I hate when people "pit actors against one another," and hate (even more) when people try to "imagine another in someone's role" ("man, can you imagine what so-and-so could have done in this-guy's role in such-and-such movie?"). I'd love to name some films in which you should "check out Amitabh," to assure yourself of his talent, but "enjoy" has already done that. Of course, there are many others you could look to, for similar results (e.g., Deewaar [1975], Main Azaad Hoon, Agneepath), but I feel that the fact is that Amitabh Bachchan always does a great job (regardless of whether he is in a "great film" or not). Of course, a teriffic movie will make a phenomenal actor stand out that much more, but Bachchan often manages to shine even in sub-par films. People are free to like or dislike (or hate) whomever, but Amitabh Bachchan is just a really tough person to target as a "bad actor"; he's done so much (substantial) work, that no matter where you stand, you're likely to find at least a few examples of his work that you must admit are meritorious. As for us "fanboys," naturally we see him as more than just "adaquate" — .

He's not a bad actor, but he's not Olivier or anything. The hyperbole about this guy gets out of hand sometimes.

You must have seen Company?

Ali

Faddy, you are joking right?

Right, I've seen Company; I guess I should have said that I haven't seen Mohan lal in any "starring" role, or in any of his Malayalam films. I think — as concerning most matters — views regarding actors are altogether subjective. If you like someone, you like him; of you don't, you'll find him over-rated (if, in fact, he is highly regarded). Personally, I think Ram Gopal Varma is a good filmmaker, who is immensely over-rated; similarly, I think people go a bit nuts in declaring Marlon Brando perhaps the single greatest thing ever to happen to the clan of thespians. I feel that Jim Carrey, on the other hand, has a bad reputation as an actor, though he has turned out several more "good–great" films than a lot of the "beloveds" (e.g., De Niro, Pachino). I feel that Bachchan is simply the greatest, most versatile actor ever: he's my "favorite actor." Favoratism is something that you just can't refute.

If you want to see good actors, go and watch Rang De Basanti. It is excellent. I think Aamir Khan kicks any actor's ass anyday!

I do want to see Rang De Basanti (mainly because of the great job Rakesh OmPrakash Mehra did with Aks), but I don't think its yet out (at least, not anywhere near me). I think Aamir Khan is a good, talented actor, but think, too, that he sometimes gets a bit more credit than he deserves. This seems, perhaps, to be because he doesn't do very many films, and the ones he does are quite hyped. Personally, I think Shah Rukh Khan is very talented, but so called "true cinephiles" seem to always cast him aside as nothing more than a caricature "romantic actor." I don't really like the romantic genre, but I feel that Shah Rukh Khan is, indeed, a talented performer, who's actually improved greatly throughout his career. Of the "Khan Triad," I think Shah Rukh and Aamir are really too different (at the moment) from each other to be compared with each other, but — if forced to place one ahead of the other — I think I'd choose Shah Rukh. Both actors started off doing a lot of "fluff," and both have recently decided to do some less "fluffy" work, but Shah Rukh just seems, to me, more a bit..."better." That said, Salman Khan is just terrible. He's the only Khan who's gotten progressivley worse over the years, yet, inexplicably, his popularity has only grown. His films are generally bad, and I really can't recall, off the top of my head, when last he actually "acted" in a film.

I think it is ridiculuous to even compare Aamir Khan to SRK. Why? One strives to perform better on screen and the other to be just more popular. They have the same last name but they are world's apart in terms of acting.

No offence Commando303, but your fixation over AB is a little irritating.
Of course you have the right over your opinion and choice but it seems you need to expose yourself to different kinds of films...Bollywood has too much of AB & SRK nowadays

I don't think I have a "fixation," just a predilection, a preference. I actually had a habit of watching just about every Hindi movie that came my way, but no longer have the time to do so. I don't think Indian films have too much "Shah Rukh Khan" these days: He had only one release in 2005, and has had none yet this year (though, in all fairness, the year has just begun). In 2004, he did three film (plus Yeh Lamhe Judaai Ke, which, come on, doesn't count), and all were meritorious. Main Hoon Na was a great "entertainer," and Swades was a great film. I think Veer-Zaara got way more credit than it ever should have, but it wasn't altogether "crap," either.

Aamir Khan is a fine performer, but I think he gets a lot of credit just because he seems to indulge in some "off-beat" stuff. He wasn't even the best thing in Mangal Pandey: The Rising (his co-star, Toby Stephens, was). Again, he's a very talented performer, and does some very credible work, but he's not terribly productive (which isn't necessarily a bad thing [better a great film a year, than three pieces of shit per month]), which can make his "ratio of good-to-crap" seem impressive. Prior to Sarfarosh, I don't believe he was ever taken "seriously," and Dil Chahta Hai seems to have set him as the "best Khan" (like it or not, it was, for quite some time, a race between the three). I think Shah Rukh has done some really good work, especially recently (post-Mohabbatein), but that his popularity often makes "serious viewers of movie" cast him aside as a dancing-around-trees nobody. He's not Nana Patekar, but he's not Salman Khan, either.

Let's talk about some of the "really bad" actors out there:

Salman Khan
Emraan Hashmi
Fardeen Khan
...

Any more? I can't think of any at the moment.

Hello ENJOY, and COMMANDO....... I am not saying Mohan lal is better just because I like him more than Amithab Bachan. I am only defending this comment of urs 'AMITHABH IS THE BEST EVER HAPPENED TO MOVIES IN INDIA/EARTH'. Commando never seen a Mohan lal film so it doesn't make any sense for us to argue I saw Black and Thanmathra, both deal with the same disease but Mohan Lal just killed amithabh bachan with his performance. This is my recommendation to people who wants to compare mohan lal and amithabh bachan. Yes amithab Bachan is a legend, a media created legend and amithab is also a hero to many people who wants to learn from failure. I admire amithab as an actor and as a person. But when it comes to acting comparison, sorry guys there are much better actors in India. Amithab bachan gives a special screen presence to his movies and is a superstar in Hindi, but when it comes to an all India superstar I Have to say its Rajani Kanth from Tamil. I don't think any other movie star could make hits like him in India and gets around 20 crores per movie.

Guys wassup with the comparison between SRK and AMIR KHAN?? When we are talking about legends like AB and Mohan lal its insulting to them when we bring SRK and Amir into it

Again, I just hate the practice of "pitting actors against one another." Admitted, I've not seen Thanmathra, but I very much doubt that it would be fair to compare Mohal Lal's work in it with Amitabh Bachchan's in Black, unless the former film, too, is directed by Sanjay Leela Bhansali, shot by Ravi Chandran, scored by..., etc. Also, again, acting is not something made of "bits and pieces and parts," allowing one to gauge the quality of ingredients, and the method by which they are put together, and finally suggest that one product is "superior" to the other. Acting is two parts: what the actor does, and what the audience sees. Whenever a person says so-and-so is the "greatest actor on earth," he or she does so out of a personal bias — a preference for how the "so-and-so" performs, and the film that the "so-and-so" has done.

Now, of course, one can go to far with this, and claim that anyone could be correctly construed as "great." Technically, this may be all right, but it just doesn't "feel" OK. It just seems strange to accept that Jeetendra could be the "world'd finest actor." I guess, then, that so long as "enough" people feel that a particular person has a credible body of work to his or her name, that person is "qualified" to be considered the "greatest."

I actually have seen one or two of Rajnikant's "South" films (e.g., Chandramukhi), and several of his "North"/"Bumbaiya" ones (Geraftaar, Hum, Andhaa Kaanoon). I have to say, the guy's a good actor, but I might feel about him the way some people feel about Amitabh Bachchan: I think he's a good actor, but is unfairly crowned one of the "greats." He's talented, but little more. Hell, in all three of the aforementioned Hindi films, he barely even impresses; rather, I feel that it actually is Amitabh Bachchan (he, too, is in all of them) who "steals the show." Now, someone who's grown up watching Rajnikant, and puts him on a pedestal, may well disagree with me, but I think that that only goes to show that "objectivity" is only so much an actual concept when it comes to "critiquing" actors.

I brought Shah Rukh Khan and Aamir Khan into it just as two "modern" examples of "comparison." I think it really was a "race" between the "Teen Khan," some years ago, and feel it's interesting, now, to see how different people say that different Khans have "won."

Extra, extra: Mohal Lal to play "Thakur" in Ram Gopal Varma's "Sholay":




Mumbai, Jan 30 (IANS) Mohanlal, one of the finest actors of this country, is all set to return to Hindi cinema in Ram Gopal Varma's remake of the classic "Sholay".

"I am all set to play a cop," Mohanlal told IANS.

And how excited is the versatile actor about playing the seething Thakur with the amputated hands in "Sholay", originally played by Sanjeev Kumar in Ramesh Sippy's blockbuster?

"Ramu (the director) is a man of many ideas. When he called me up to offer the role of the Thakur in 'Sholay' I wasn't very sure of how to react. 'Sholay' is a film that I have seen more than once.

"Every character is so deeply embedded in the audience's mind. I wonder what Ramu will do!"

Mohanlal is also aware that Gabbar Singh, his antagonist in the film, will be played by Amitabh Bachchan.

"Bachchanji as Gabbar Singh is really a thought that charges all my batteries. I have worked with the four greatest southern stalwarts - Sivaji Ganesan, Prem Nazir, Raj Kumar and Nageswara Rao. Bachchanji is like all four rolled into one, and more.

"It will be a truly exceptional experience to work with him in 'Sholay'."

Is he looking at bettering Sanjeev Kumar's performance in the original?

"Not really. I don't know what Ramu has in mind. I do know he is shifting the backdrop to the city. So there will be inbuilt changes. My interpretation of the cop's role will be my own."

Varma said: "After deciding on Mr. Bachchan for Gabbar Singh, I needed someone with a lot of understated self-confidence and a quality of the hero in his personality.

"In Mohanlal I saw the same qualities that made Sanjeev Kumar so memorable in 'Sholay'. Of course, he will play the role in his own way. This is Varma Ka Sholay, remember?"

Mohanlal's Hindi-film appearance as the cerebral and intriguing police commissioner in Varma's "Company" was widely appreciated. But it didn't really translate into a flood of opportunities in Hindi cinema for the self-effacing actor.

"I wasn't really offered anything exciting. And if I work in a language with which I am not fully at home, I need to work with directors like Priyadarshan with whom I did 'Kala Pani' in Hindi and Ramu whom I am comfortable with."

In his latest Malayalam film "Naren", the soft-spoken actor plays a 73-year-old man.

"Funnily enough my last film was 'Oyudon', which means God. And now 'Naren' means human. So that is quite a wide spectrum of characterisations. I am more than happy with the opportunities I get in the south."



Well, this might be cool to see. Still, I maintain that
Sholay should not be re-made (especially not by Varma), but that doesn't mean that I can't get excited announcements — !