Aaj Ka Ravan Hindi Picture Film

[Catherin Bergan]

Thiswas a movie where everything could have gone right. A great director, arguably the best music director, interesting story, An epic to base it upon etc but EVERYTHING WENT WRONG IN THIS ONE.

I was thinking about this movie as PATHETIC till intermission. But after 2nd half I guess POOR would be correct word.

45 Min into the movie when you start looking at your watch you know something went wrong somewhere.

Agreed with your review but a little suggestion-

Maybe you can write "spoilers ahead" if you decide to give the whole story in the review. I read it after watching the movie but those who havent watched and read it would lose all the interest and suspense (if there is even little bit in the movie.)

But you may have guessed by now that I am not usually interested in writing about the story of the movie in my review cause a reviewer's job is to write ABOUT the movie but NOT THE STORY. But here I mentioned it due to two reasons :

@ bobby

Completely agreed with you. IMO it would be a shame to call it an adaptation of Ramayana. It seems like some elements of the epic were desperately inserted into the movie to get some free publicity by promoting it as a modern adaptation of Ramayana.

Govinda who could have been a show stopper here shockingly doesn\'t even have a role to talk about. Mani Ratnam should really explain to people why he wrote such a poor character for someone who was supposed to play "Hanuman" in the adaptation!

I liked the film. I don\'t think it\'s possible for anyone to give each character of Ramayan equal importance when you are targeting Raavan\'s POV. I found Raavan\'s character well defined. We can call it a Southern version of Ramayan. Raavan is worshiped there and I think, that should be the reason for MR to take this project in hand. I really liked the well portrayed version of Raavan, especially in the last scene when he says, "DIKHA DE DUNIYA KO BHAGVAN KAUN HAI AUR RAKSHAS KAUN?!"

As you said, Vikram\'s character was underwritten. It could have been better. Aishwarya was stunning as ever.

It\'s got plenty of things to learn on the technical front. And definitely a visual treat to have. :)

Hi All,

What was publicized was that this story is based on Ramayan. While I myself am a worshipper of Rama and Hanuman, expecting this movie to be based on Ramayana character by character is not just reasonable.

One thing MR could/ should have done is to make two movies, one for North Indian audience and one for South Indian audience. I have seen his \'Thalapathi\' which is a loose adaptation of Mahabharata and there are only 3 main characters in that movie namely Karna, Duruyodhana and Arjuna. You know Krishna is missing from the plot.

We have to give director some liberty in scripting the screenplay. I think Raavanan will do well with Tamil audience which is more critical of epics Ramayana and Mahabharata and seem to hero worship negative characters like Karna and Raavana,

I am still looking forward to see Raavanan for Vikram and other cast in Tamil version inspite of reading very negative views of Raavan. Tamil and Hindi audience have two different if not diametrically opposite views.

Bobby,

It\'s MR\'s style. I have watched his earlier adaptation of Mahabharata, namely Dhalapathi. As I said earlier, there was no Krishna in that plot. That\'s why I am able to enjoy the movie free of guilt of associating a movie with an epic. Let\'s not be purists when it comes to watching movies. Long gone are the days when they used to make historical movies. Raavan is not a historical movie, not a Shakespeare in Love or Macbeth.

BTW, I think to review a movie, we need to put on our thinking hats, because the director does have an idea. If you really want to know what that idea is, please read the blog here. It\'s not mine, but I thought, the blogger had tried to fathom the director\'s mind.

-movie-review-hindi-maniratnam/

But my only concern is that if you are not following an epic truly then Why you are naming it on the character of that epic...Why dont name it "BEERA" and make it clear to everyone that its not an adaptation in a true sense, thats it.

And for reviewing a movie, we really dont need to put our thinking hats in the literal sense, because that will entirely take away all the essence of a movie watching experience. And that will be very sad for a true movie lover.

In other words, If a reviewer is going to watch a movie with the only motive to write about it then it will be like declaring that you are more intelligent than the makers........and I think no reviewer can ever declare this kind of thing only sitting on his computer writing a few parahgraphs about the movie. Because even the worst film released also has got a lot of effort, time and money put in by its makers.

The only way a reviewer can prove his worth is to make a movie of his own if given a chance and show his expertise.........But unfortunately not every one gets that chance in his life.

So In reply to your comment I would only like to say that I dont watch a movie with a motive to review it. I simply first watch a new movie as a pure cinema buff excited every Friday morning to see something new and then simply write what I feel about it as a normal person who spends both his time and money on those 3 hours in the theater.

Bobby,

Well, I didn\'t mean to offend your sentiments when I said we need to put our thinking hats on. I meant, the director has wanted to convey something that we should be asking what. It may be director\'s perception of jow injustice was meted out to Ravana. His sister may have been an unsuccessful temptress, but she did not deserve to have her nose cut off by Lakshmana. Even during Sita\'s captivity, Ravana could not consummate her, let alone touch her because of Ravana\'s curse. Mani Rathnam has capitalized on the less well known points of Ramayana and has tried to highlight them in an attempt to tell Ravana\'s side of the story. I think he aptly named it Raavan/an. He would be at fault if he had named it Ramayana.

Cheers!

Bharath, the point Bobby is trying to make is crystal clear to others except you (maybe because of the "thinking cap"or "some other cap" you have put on your head ) i.e had he not named it on an epic people would have gone in with an unbiased mind and maybe would have perceived it differently...

Btw the verdict is that it was an ordinary movie....and all these stubborn justifications of "putting on your thinking hat" simply SMACKS of Regional Chauvinism found in a particular state of the country (the director is often flaunted as an icon of supremacy by the chauvinists who just cant accept fair criticism of his work as that would be tantamount to poking at their delusional notion of supremacy)...

I think its time some people took off their "chauvinistic hats" and called a spade a spade, unreasonable stubbornness doesn\'t equate to "different perception".... don\'t mean to offend anyone\'s sentiments but at times one needs to call a spade a spade and a "chauvinistic rant" a "chauvinistic rant"!

@Bobby..kudos to you, your opinions are genuine and unbiased IMO

I watched the tamil version. Even though i didn\'t like the movie somehow i enjoyed the movie.

First thing is this is a PROPAGANDA movie. This movie is made for southern audience. If i\'m right they worship Ravana. But the ramayana is only about Ram.

So this is their answer.

First half is POOR and after that movie is starting to build. lot of people didn\'t like the ending.But I liked it. People didn\'t like it because of that ending Ram becomes the bad one. But if i were the director i would give an ending like HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS.(All 3 dead, yeah)

Lot of people think technicality in the movie is best. But i think KITES is better. In cinematography Santhosh has done better job in TERRORIST and ASHOKA.(same tropical view)

I think MANI should do only southern movies. He is good at that.

The reason for box office failure is they didn\'t understand Nothern indian sentiments.NOT THE BAD STORY. Story is the case then how HOUSEFULL, IHLS, KAMBAKTH ISHQ, ALL THE BEST or even the WAKE UP SID can be successful.

I think VIKRAM has done good job for his role(RAAVAN). Other roles are bad because they tried to build complex characters but it comes out nothing.

In here Sri Lanka people enjoyed the RAAVANA movie because they didn\'t like the RAMAYAN story because an indian defeated lankan.

North indian only know about sexuality.They cannot understand spirituality. Bollywood destroys that their own nature of north indian peoples.

Raavan is is a spiritual film which is made for this contemporary period and not related in any case with old mythology ramayan. This film proves that our society of india still cannot understand the artistic sense of the contemporary indians. North indians hiding themselves as raavan in the mask of ram.That\'s natural.

Why are u not accepting this simple thing. If anybody judge raavan then they only going to become a raavan.

This shows the ugly side of india. No journalists and no television media could not able to grasp the artistic sense.

Dear Ramji,

At Bobby Talks Cinema, there is neither any North Indian Film nor any South Indian film...........cause here I like to call any film made in India as an Indian Film.

So I think that should explain how painful it is to read your comment.

Secondly a film is judged on many basis, out of which the major two are Novelty and Entertainment which was not there in Raavan.

And almost every film shows the triumph of Truth over Evil or The Victory of Love.

So if seen from that angle then each and every film is Spiritual too.

I hope you would be able to understand the point here.

Keep Visiting and Writing in,

Cheers!

HIS BLESSINGS

3a8082e126