BOMBAY VELVET BO collections and REVIEWS - Page 100

Posted: 8 years ago
Originally posted by -mistyeyed-


Bad films with actors having real star power have done very well before.Almost every film of SRK and Salman are proof that they can make average to poor films into a super-hit.So to say that a bad filmwill not do well is logical is an illogical statement on its own. Anyway a film is acomposit of many things, including the lead actor. So if BV is being criticised, a lot of the blame should rest on the lead actors too.


To be honest, that kind of star power is earned over several years, atleast a decade or so, to get good initial irrespective of how good or bad a film is.

Otherwise in the first 7-8 years of career, even Khans couldn't make bad or experimental films work at the BO or get great opening. Anjaam, Raakh, Akele Hum Akele Tum etc are flops despite good performances, as are Love Love Love, Daulat ki jung, Tum Mere Ho, Aatank hi Aatank, Chand ka tukda, Dil Tera Aashiq, Suryavanshi, Oh Darling Yeh Hai India, Guddu, Chaahat etc., which are poor films.

Though yes they had better record overall than Ranbir (in terms of number of hits), because to their luck, senior stars had announced retirement back then due to their failing health and no other ways to look younger except a wig.

RK might be a good actor but his choice of films isn't great particularly in recent times, his PR tried to overhype him too soon, comparing him to Khans or his own legendary grandfather, hailing him as legend in making. His personal life makes more news than his work. The level of hype is greater compared to actual substance.

Ranbir and others have a long way to go before their name alone can guarantee a solid initial.

He has to build that fanbase and credibility through his work (not just hype).

And these young guys have to offer something to audience which is both fresh yet entertaining at the same time.

They should play to their strengths than try to be something else, while they are still establishing themselves.

BV trailers never looked good to me. I don't think it's been well marketed either. It has no such appeal that would make a regular viewer eager to watch it as soon as possible.
Posted: 8 years ago
The review I like most..

.

It's more like Bombay velcroed

May 15, 2015 - Suparna Sharma


Movie name: 
Bombay Velvet (U/A) 152 min
Cast: 
Ranbir Kapoor, Anushka Sharma, Karan Johar, Satyadeep Mishra, Manish Choudhary, Kay Kay Menon, Siddharth Basu
Director: 
Anurag Kashyap
Rating: 

It's not everyday that an epic bore is mounted on so grand and spectacular a scale. There have been deluded attempts before, but few have been as self-satisfied and bombastic about their ambition as Anurag Kashyap about Bombay Velvet.

Fox Star Studios spared no cost to fund Kashyap's determination to tell the "story of a city", and his creative team spared no effort on their part.
There were diligent readings of Gyan Prakash's Mumbai Fables to glean mota-mota factoids about Bombay; production designer Sonal Sawant spent 10 months creating vintage Bombay of the writer-director's imagination in Tissamahrama, Sri Lanka. Complete with roads, Art Deco buildings, restaurants, hoardings, its centrepiece was the club, Bombay Velvet, an opulent replica of Bombay's Eros Cinema.
Music director Amit Trivedi worked on the film's music for two years and used musicians from England, Prague, Chennai and Mumbai to induce the "vibe" of '50s and '60s jazz into the film; costume designer Niharika Bhasin Khan's luscious gowns with feathers and pearls, sequins and gold, beads and elaborate head-gear promised drama around club crooners; and the lighting department lovingly bathed every scene in the glorious glow of halogen.
A stylish, filmy Bombay look, impressive and seductive, was all there, poised for dramatic effect. But Kashyap's Bombay Velvet is lost in a maze of his own making.
Bombay Velvet, based on a confused, haphazard screenplay, has been directed in a whimsical and erratic way that falls woefully short of the world it inhabits. A simple story has been convoluted beyond our caring and all the coolness of the sets, music, costumes, lighting, cinematography gets drowned in the dullness that the actors and story generate.
Bombay Velvet's stars and actors look the part, but they don't act or speak it. The film neither has the tone of the time it is set in, nor the cadence of its setting.
Apparently, Rs 100 crore (not counting the marketing cost) have been spent on the film. I wish some sensible soul from Fox-Star had called Kashyap over for drinks during the shoot and said exactly what Vidyapati said to Bhola in Padosan, "Bhole, sur ko pakad."
Sadly, no one did.

The film opens with instructive text on the screen to inform us that the story Bombay Velvet wants to tell harks back to 1949, when Godse was to hang and prohibition was making Bombay swing to the docks and back.
It was at this historic juncture that little Chiman and littler Balraj became friends, living by their wits, jeering at the law.
At the same time, in Goa, little Rosie (Anushka Sharma) was being abused by her creepy music teacher.
They all soon grow up.
Chiman (Satyadeep Mishra) and Balraj (Ranbir Kapoor) are still partners, but now Balraj is the dominant one, and Chiman his loyal flunkey.
Balraj wants to become a "big shot", so he gets hired by a smuggler. He also wants to release his frustration over mommy vanishing with his gold, so he lands in the boxing ring.
Soon he is hired by Kaizad Khambata (Karan Johar), the editor of Torrent, a tabloid, and a wheeling-dealing land shark, and starts doing his bidding, including murders which he takes to rather easily. Pleased, Kaizad gives him a name, Johnny.
Rosie, meanwhile, decides to smash her teacher-abuser's head and lands up in Bombay, on the couch of another editor, Jimmy Mistry (Manish Choudhary). His Glitz is Torrent's rival.
There is talk about Bombay, made up of seven islands, being turned into one seamless piece of land out of reclamation and selling of mill lands. We are not in on the details and that's partly because this is a pastiche of Bombay's story in the 1920s about reclamation, and 1960s about the mills, and it hasn't been strung together properly. We get the sense of it all, though. It's a big game with big trade-offs and the key player are Khambata and Mistry, and Khambata's Bombay Velvet club is where deals are made and celebrated.
The story runs helter-skelter between everybody trying to acquire a negative of a key official in a compromising position, an angry mill union threatening to jeopardise all plans and a romance.
In between all this, politics makes appearances in a kiddish way " there's a passing parade of headlines, a sarcastic stand-up comedian " while Rosie croons at the club, golden liquid is poured out of decanters, and the hero in rags tastes riches and wants more. This leads to the evil businessman-mentor turning murderous, and a crime branch cop begins to keep track of the bodies stacking up in the sea.

The film hops, skips and jumps from one thing and one character to the other, without explanation. Many things happen, but how or why they happen is irrelevant to Bombay Velvet. The film is tracing the footsteps of its many, many predecessors and picking bits and baubles it likes on the way, things that fancy Kashyap even if they have nothing to do with the story or add any dimension to the characters, like physical-sexual abuse. It must make an appearance in all of Kashyap's films, and it duly does. But here because it involves an A-grade actress, the sexual abuse is left ambiguous, in Goa and Mumbai. There's no rubbing our face in it and dirtying the actress. It's non-commital, and so is the character to its backstory.
Though some characters carry hints of real people, all are operating on fleeting references to characters who are standard-issue curios of a genre of the 1960s, Navketan's city thrillers and their Hollywood mentors " the skulking, smoking cop; the crooner at the club; random, fedora-flaunting slender men with shadows falling on their faces.
Kashyap is good with small people in intimate settings. Grittier the setting, grimier the situation, the better he is. Here he's in an imposing world. Everything is larger, better than life. He feels lost. So he goes silly.
So chuffed is he to have its two leads called Rosie and Johnny that he gets all his characters to say their names, repeatedly. His camera pauses for banal dialogue, gestures and lingers on antique curios to reiterate how cool it all is. All men smoke and give smouldering looks and the film is often in conspiracy close-up with them, but it never amounts to anything. It's just a cutaway that gives the film the pretence of noir.
Despite the simulated razzle-dazzle of shinny vintage cars and a cool fight scene with Tommy Gun, Kashyap's Bombay Velvet just doesn't take off. He's not able to catch the zeitgeist of its time, and his film has no moxie. In a velvet setting sits a sloppy, rough ball of velcro that's lost its ability to, well, velcro.
The one inspired intervention is the fun we have at the expense of Karan Johar. KJo is a terrible actor, and that's perhaps why Kashyap made his character so camp that Johar has to play himself, only in exaggeration.
Though he grits his teeth to project villainy, the real KJo always peeps out and winks at us. These scenes are interactive almost, and fun, though the last scene is simply bonkers. Dying, Khambata's mouth is open wide and very close to Johnny's, as if he wants one lick before he passes.
Understandable, because Ranbir Kapoor, with his Gemini Ganesan head of bouncing curls, looks adorable. And in some scenes he bursts out, making the screen crackle, showing us that he could have very easily carried this film on his shoulders if he were allowed to. But he has been given a skeletal character, mingy scenes and dialogue so burdened with tapori Bambaiya that there's little space for anything substantive.
Anushka Sharma has put in a lot of effort to be Rosie. But, despite all the drama of the gowns, hairdos and the husky, sexy songs she is lip-syncing, her glamour quotient is zero. And so is her character Rosie's fun quotient. Rosie is so sulky off stage that the spirit of a crooner she tries to conjure on stage just doesn't oblige. So what we remain focused on instead are Anushka's Daffy Duck lips working overtime.
You just have to watch the club songs of Howrah Bridge (1958) or Taxi Driver (1954) to know how much fun club outings were and can be.
If it weren't for the inadvertent hysterical bits, the briefest possible chemistry Anushka and Ranbir try to generate, I would have kept my eyes closed throughout Bombay Velvet, happy to only listen to Amit Trivedi's fantastic music and his cool crooners, Neeti Mohan and Shefali Alvares. These three are the real stars of Bombay Velvet.

Post new comment

Your name: *
E-Mail Address: *
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment: *
Input format CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Pull The Gear Backward




Posted: 8 years ago


A Slumdog making a film with millions of dollars will not necessarily make a Slumdog Millionaire

Posted: 8 years ago
^^ RGV is so petty and annoying. He needs to STFU and remember his countless failures. -_- It's disgusting how he is after Anurag's life. 
Posted: 8 years ago
Originally posted by Star_girl


^^ RGV is so petty and annoying. He needs to STFU and remember his countless failures. -_- It's disgusting how he is after Anurag's life. 

he has dedicated nearly 7-8 tweets to BV's failure. ðŸ˜†
Posted: 8 years ago
Originally posted by jibber-jabber



A Slumdog making a film with millions of dollars will not necessarily make a Slumdog Millionaire


Not that I care but just out of curiosity...why is RGV mad at Kashyap??😆
Posted: 8 years ago
Originally posted by jibber-jabber


he has dedicated nearly 7-8 tweets to BV's failure. ðŸ˜†
 
Lol yeah I saw, that's why I am annoyed. Matlab we all know his actual problem is with KJO but the coward doesn't say anything to him instead of going all out on Anurag.
😆
Posted: 8 years ago
Originally posted by blue-ice



Not that I care but just out of curiosity...why is RGV mad at Kashyap??😆

I think his bhadaas is directed towards KJo but he can't openly criticise the actors. So he is bullshitting about the director (who seems to be an easy target). ðŸ˜†
Or maybe they have a history of which I'm not aware. ðŸ˜•
Posted: 8 years ago
Originally posted by blue-ice



Not that I care but just out of curiosity...why is RGV mad at Kashyap??😆

Anurag used to write for RGV in his glory days (he wrote Satya among others) and he has been vocal about RGV's career downfall since. RGV probably didn't like that one of his minions ke par aa gaye or something.

It is true that RGV gave Anurag his first break.
Edited by hedwig_fawkes - 8 years ago

Related Topics

doc-text Topics pencil Author stackexchange Replies eye Views clock Last Post Reply
Yodha Monday Box Office Collections

pencil Debbira   stackexchange 10   eye 436

Debbira 10 436 21 days ago VimalPanMasala
Fake 2nd weekend collections of fighter- EXPOSED!

pencil cougarTown   stackexchange 75   eye 3973

cougarTown 75 3973 25 days ago Maroonporsche
Dunki Overseas And Worldwide Collections

pencil TommyZenny   stackexchange 0   eye 159

TommyZenny 0 159 3 months ago TommyZenny
Dunki Fourteen Day Box Office Collections

pencil TommyZenny   stackexchange 5   eye 367

TommyZenny 5 367 3 months ago RaniPreityAish
My Observation of DUNKI's box office: WOM and lifetime collections!

pencil srkat   stackexchange 62   eye 3508

srkat 62 3508 3 months ago cherry_fan

Topic Info

159 Participants 1145 Replies 68835Views

Topic started by Meherbaan

Last replied by atominis

loader
loader
up-open TOP