[Review] Namak Halaal -- Spoilers!
Muffy St. Bernard
http://www.dazzled.com/dangermuff/bollybob/index.html
There are huge numbers of screen shots there -- including a special
expose on the joys of "Disco Quawali!"}
Namak Halaal
(Hindi, 1982, 165 minutes)
Starring: Shashi Kapoor, Amitabh Bachchan,Parveen Babi, Smita Patil,
Ranjeet, Asha Lata, Chandrashekhar, Harish, Dev Kumar, Kamal Kapoor, Tun
Tun, Waheeda Rehman, Satyen Kappu, R S Chopra, Suresh Oberoi
Director: Prakash Mehra
Producer: Satyendra Pal
Music: Bappi Lahiri
Lyricist: Anjaan, Prakash Mehra
Playback Singer(s): Shashi Kapoor, Kishore Kumar, Asha Bhonsle, Bappi
Lahiri
I don't remember where I first heard it but some naive people have said
that watching a Bollywood film is very much like doing LSD. This is a
rash generalization (since, depending on the film, it can also be like
having your heart ripped out by a rakasha, or watching your grass grow,
or the closest thing to heaven you'll find in this life...sometimes all
three). But I would be remiss if I denied that this drug theory IS
sometimes applicable, and with NAMAK HALAAL I think we've found the
perfect example of the Bollywood LSD Experience.
The first 15 minutes are dull and confusing, which is sort of like that
period where you stand around wondering if you've actually done a drug
or are just sucking on a small piece of scrap paper...damnit, that
Mohawk guy who sold it to me is gonna pay for this! Then things turn
surreal and get gradually odder, funnier, and more insane during the
next two hours. This is the period of maximum Bollywood entertainment.
Finally the film crosses the border into LSD "comedown" territory, where
the trip has become sort of bad and you just can't wait for it to finish
so you can remember your name again (not to mention understand why the
heck Amitabh keeps speaking in that mushy voice). This is the most
unpleasant part of an otherwise good trip, and it is also the most
unpleasant part of NAMAK HALAAL.
This film consists of polar opposites, two different substances that the
filmmakers try to mix together. The first substance is exciting stuff
like comedy, thrills (referred to in the trailer as "Different Action"),
and music. The other substance -- the one they should have left out --
is crushing melodrama. The artistes responsible for NAMAK HALAAL threw
these two elements into a pan and watched them refuse to coalesce. They
tried to mix them up -- and believe me, they REALLY tried -- but they
realized eventually that there's no hope: the elements are too different
from each other. This didn't stop the NAMAK HALAAL cooks from resorting
to a series of transparent sleight-of-hand tricks to try to fool us into
thinking that the plotline is being explained and the melodrama is
really relevant to the movie.
When even this trickery fails they just walk away and let the whole mess
burn and stick to the bottom of the pan, leaving a terrible stinky smoke
that collects on the inside of your skull and leaves you with strange
dreams and a dull, confused look in your eyes.
Before I can illustrate this with an example, let me tell you a bit
about the film. The complicated setup during the first few minutes is
too confusing to explain in detail but the upshot is: Savetri (Waheeda
Rehman) has a son named Arjun (Amitabh Bachchan). For some reason her
husband made her promise to give Arjun away in order to raise another
child (Raja, played by Shashi Kapoor) who is the heir to a very rich
man's fortune who has just been murdered. Arjun's Grandpa (the
always-decrepit, always-devoted Om Prakash) ends up raising Arjun, but
Grandpa is just as confused and angry about this "give up your son to
raise an orphan" arrangement as BollyMike and I were, and he chastises
Savetri and makes her promise never to seek out Arjun, and he tells
Arjun that his mother is dead. As you'd expect this turns out to be a
major element in the second half of the film. Surprisingly, though, it
has no real relevance on anything that happens. But they put this plot
element in anyway.
You'll hear me say "they put this plot element in anyway" an awful lot
during this review.
It is NEVER explained why Savetri must give away Arjun in order to care
for another child...I suspect this has roots in the Mahabharata, because
(besides Arjun's name) there are frequent allusions that epic. I read a
condensed version of the Mahabharata but I must have missed the details
that are included in NAMAK HALAAL...I was so distracted by the woman who
gave birth to a cannonball-sized mass of undifferentiated flesh and the
fact that Bhima was a rotten low-down cheating scoundrel, I bet.
Likewise, during this introductory scene, Mike and I were distracted by
getting channa masala out of little styrofoam containers.
We were finished eating by the time little Arjun had grown up, and this
is when the film starts making sense again, which it continues to do --
more or less -- for another 2 hours.
Amitabh plays a bit of a simpleton in NAMAK HALAAL. My initial
impression of Amitabh, when I started watching Indian films, was that he
was the sort of actor who would only play dignified roles. I already
knew this wasn't true by the time we sat down to watch this movie, but
NAMAK HALAAL reinforces that Amitabh will gleefully throw himself into a
scary Jerry Lewis impersonation with no reservations whatsoever. His
range of characterization in this film rarely moves outside of the
"constant silliness" realm, and when it does -- during the
aforementioned misplaced scenes of melodrama -- you wish he'd hurry up
and start acting dumb again, because he's really pretty good at it. In
this movie Amitabh falls over things. He does goofy, awkward
dance-steps. He hits people a lot. He squeaks and burbles and makes
funny faces. What's even stranger than all this is that he sometimes
slips into a strange "I'm eating paan" sort of voice, even though he's
not eating paan. As BollyMike said, "the rickshaw-wallas must have LOVED
this."
Since Arjun is such a simpleton -- and routinely dreams about clutching
Om Prakash and screaming "DON'T EVER LEAVE ME, GRANDPA!" something any
therapist will tell you is A VERY BAD THING -- Grandpa decides to send
him off to the big city so he can meet some girls and learn
responsibility. Amitabh does some squeaking and burbling in protest, but
even this scene shies away from the melodrama which will so pollute the
film during the final hour.
Through a series of mishaps -- including an encounter with the sinister
"Mister Moustache" -- Amitabh ends up in a fancy hotel that seems to
have hired a bunch of P-Funk Bootsy Collins impersonators to be their
entertainment: six men with fake afro's, dark skin, little paunches and
superstar glasses stand on a stage and play funky guitars and horns. If
you didn't already know that Bappi Lahiri was the king of the
overproduced, extremely long, western-influenced 70's song sequences,
you'll learn it pretty fast in this wonderful hotel.
Amitabh -- after making friends with a drunk who owns a dwarf -- is
encouraged to sing a song, and he does so in what the film trailer
refers to as "Disco, Qawaali style!"
Backed up by dancers in African garb and the aforementioned fake P-Funk
all-stars, Amitabh does exactly this. Disco, yes. Qawaali, well...sure,
I guess so. Whatever it is, though, it's pretty wild, and -- in Bappi
Lahiri style -- it goes on and on through several different iterations,
changing to a more romantic number when he falls instantly in love with
Poonam (Smita Patil), a woman who works in the hotel. Amitabh creeps
everybody out by opening the front of his shirt and showing that he's
got a slightly transparent image of Poonam floating in front of his damp
chest hair.
On the basis of his stellar impromptu Disco Qawalli routine, Amitabh is
hired as a servant by the hotel manager who also happens to be the son
of a very nasty villain. Let me spell this out here because this is a
bit complicated. The nasty villain (Mehta) is really the brother of the
millionaire who was killed and left his son (Raja) in the care of
Savetri. Raja is the owner of the hotel. Raja doesn't know that Savetri
-- now a teacher in a primary school -- isn't really his mother, and
Arjun doesn't know that Savetri really IS his mother. The nasty villain
wants his son to kill Raja so that they can steal his hotel empire,
which consists of a lot of cheap models named "Rome," "Singapore," and
"New York" made out of cardboard with black windows painted on them.
As an added gag Amitabh impresses the hotel manager with his knowledge
of English, which is an interesting study in what happens when a
non-English speaker tries to write an extended Three Stooges sort of
dialogue in English for a non-English speaking audience: word confusion
that doesn't really make any sense, lots of stuff about Cricket, and a
very funny scene indeed (perhaps for the wrong reasons...but is there
such a thing as "the wrong reasons?")
Sending the "coincidence meter" into the red, Amitabh's boss at the
hotel turns out to be none other than Poonam, the woman whose image was
tangled up in his chest hair. She is at first a little cold to Amitabh,
but when he saves her and her blind brother from an attack by a nasty
upper-crust hotel patron (appropriately lodged in room 666) she decides
she really would like to date him. Once again, the evil wrong-doings of
horny Indians bring resistant lovers together.
Amitabh is a very popular guy at the hotel because he's LOYAL. When he
suspects one of Raja's girlfriends of stealing, he picks her up and
shakes her upside down, confirming his suspicions both about her and
what she had concealed in her "dare bare dress." While watching this
scene BollyMike had an epiphany about why NAMAK HALAAL is such a weird
film: it's like a cartoon! I mean, he actually picks a woman up, tips
her over, shakes her, and Raja's wallet falls out of her dress. Like
everything else in the movie you could just as easily see Bugs Bunny in
the place of Amitabh, and Porky Pig as Shashi isn't too big of a
stretch.
Even though Arjun is a "loyal servant" Raja still has a right to be
suspicious of people. During what seems to be Switzerland's "All Indian
Ski Match" the wonderful Bob Christo -- villain-lackey extraordinaire
and personal mascot of the BollyBob society -- shows up with a gun and a
leopard-print hat and tries to shoot Raja...which would be okay in a
biathalon or in Kashmir but not in this situation. It's obvious, though,
that whoever is masterminding this plot (no doubt the Nasty Villain) is
trying to convince Raja that his MOTHER is out to kill him. This is
because they find a letter inside the pocket of a dead villain's
coat...it's an order from Savetri to kill her son! The movie sort of
glosses over the possibility that Raja might recognize his mother's
handwriting and discount this letter as an attempt to frame her.
After failing to kill Raja during his ski match (which he won anyway, I
should point out), the Nasty Villain poisons Raja's birthday cake, which
proves that this Mehta guy is very nasty indeed...he doesn't seem to
care that EVERYBODY at the party could die. Fortunately for the Raja and
the guests, though, an unpleasant woman nobody knows brought her
Chihuahua to the party and left it on the banquet table, where it ate
the birthday cake and died. One less Chihuahua in the world, is all I
can say.
Amitabh -- namak halaal that he is -- declares that he will not leave
Raja's side until the killer is uncovered. This is all fine and good
until a millionaire arrives at the hotel looking exactly like Om Prakash
with a black wig. This leads to three endurance tests in the film: the
test of Amitabh's loyalty to his employer (because Grandpa wants him to
come back home with him now that he's dating Poonam), the test of
Grandpa's ability to pretend to be an amoral hedonist (as part of his
brilliant disguise), and the test of the viewer's tolerance for plot
twists that just don't make any sense.
Remember, earlier on in this review when I mentioned that the filmmakers
try ridiculous sleight-of-hand techniques to distract the viewer? Here's
an example:
ARJUN: Grandpa! Why did you come to the hotel in disguise, pretend to be
a totally different person, and not reveal yourself to me no matter how
many times I implored you?
GRANDPA: Oh, beta, it's easy to understand. Now that I'm here I want you
to come back to the village with me, and bring Poonam with you.
That's a bit subtle, but you see what I mean? Arjun asks "Why did you do
this," Grandpa replies "it's easy to understand" as though he's about to
answer the question, but he never actually does...he just says he wants
Amitabh to come home with him. This happens so often in NAMAK HALAAL
that it becomes a bit of a joke, though one which becomes less funny
over time.
You might be asking, "Why did the filmmakers put funny and ridiculous
scenes into this movie if they were unable to explain them?" Well, it's
easy to understand -- and I really AM going to answer your question this
time: they did it because they had lots of great scenes in mind, but
they had no idea how they'd fit them in. Rather than provide even the
thinnest rationales for these scenes (eg. "Grandpa ran over a sadhu in a
motorcar when he was young, and has since been cursed to do irrational
things for one day every three hundred years"), they just sidestep all
the explanations...probably because they know that anybody who loves
NAMAK HALAAL won't care that it makes no sense.
This is true, but this becomes a problem when they use melodrama to
distract you from the nonsense. The above exchange between Arjun and
Grandpa goes on for at least five minutes of "Why did you do this?"
"It's easy to understand" sort of dialogue, mixed with Amitabh's stoic
tears and Om Prakash's throat-cracky, phlegmy "somebody please stop that
old man from crying" delivery.
But even at this point in the NAMAK HALAAL experience the movie is still
a lot of fun. For instance, while trying to force his Grandpa to reveal
his identity Amitabh stages an elaborate ruse and dance number with four
minor (probably totally unknown) actresses, one of whom is at least six
feet tall. This is great, and -- like I may have mentioned -- makes no
damn sense at all. Though it does teach us a valuable courtship lesson:
amazon women don't like it when you spray alcohol on them.
Speaking of plots that don't make any sense the Nasty Villain has hired
Nisha (Parveen Babi) to kill Raja by seducing him. Nisha lives on a
barren island with her mother, and they appear compelled to kill men
even though they don't want to and would rather just kill themselves.
Maybe this is another Mahabharata thing -- like, Nisha is some sort of
Fata Morgana or snake-woman or something -- but even though I don't
understand her I'm glad she's in the film. Parveen Babi is sort of like
the special ingredient they mixed in to make sure this LSD trip is more
fun than it would be otherwise. She's cold and emotionless, reptilian
and weird, and of course Raja falls immediately in love with her.
And how could he not? Her first song is a dance spectacular in a room
with rotating spiky balls that look like the spaceship from SUPARMAN
(released around the same time as NAMAK HALAAL, I think). As she sings,
semi-transparent versions of herself arrive to do her backup vocals...we
think they are her avatars, but they appear to be made out of soap
bubbles or something. Sometimes these avatars glide beautifically across
the screen, and at other times they dance with her inside the curious
set piece we think of as "The Time Tunnel" (just about the only plot
element the filmmakers DIDN'T exploit to keep things interesting). The
first number that she performs is the only Donna Summers-inspired Hindi
hit I've ever heard, and I can only hope there were more.
Nisha doesn't want to kill Raja...she's in love with him. "Please don't
make me do this!" she implores to a floating, speaking ball of light.
This light only appears in one brief scene and it commands Nisha to do
things in a woman's voice. This plot hole is so big it could consume the
entire universe, since the villains in NAMAK HALAAL are all men...HEY,
WHAT KIND OF MOVIE IS THIS, ANYWAY? A SCI-FI FILM? HOW CAN THAT FLOATING
BALL OF LIGHT SPEAK, AND WHERE DID IT COME FROM?
Don't even try asking these questions...you're shouting into a void at
this point: the void of desperate, non-sensical entertainment. Here
we're beginning to fall into the final "bad trip" part of Bollywood Drug
Abuse. It's all downhill from here.
Nisha performs one more song, this time on a boat at a swanky party
where men with pantyhose on their heads walk around without anybody
noticing. The pantyhose men have set up a trap door to drop Raja into a
tank of water where a man in scuba gear is ready to kill him with a
knife. But Amitabh -- namak halaal -- falls in instead, and after
interrogating the would-be-killer ("Are you amphibious?") he escapes. It
turns out that all the villains REALLY care about is getting Raja to
sign a paper which will give all his property to the Nasty Villain and
his son. How could they have achieved this by killing Raja, which
they've been trying to do since they first shot at him and poisoned his
birthday cake? Well, they couldn't have. He would have been dead an
unable to sign anything. You see, it's easy to explain...ummmmm...
A hastily inserted scene ("We need some comedy!" yelled the producer)
involves Amitabh making a bunch of businessmen impersonate Raja, which
is annoying, then a lengthy routine where Amitabh talks to a fly which
lands on people's heads. Amitabh then vigorously attacks the
businessmen,. supposedly to kill the insect but mainly so we can see
people get beaten up in a funny context. Which is always good for a
laugh, I guess.
This is when the pan of NAMAK HALAAL ingredients really starts to burn
and melt, so it's hard to pick out individual elements from the mess.
Seriously, none of it makes any sense. Amitabh becomes a traitor for no
reason whatsoever. All of his loved ones -- and a few people he's never
even met -- get tied up and held for ransom. Amitabh gets shot, but he's
wearing a bulletproof vest ("Why don't you people ever aim for the
head?" he asks, which is an excellent question). Mothers become
step-mothers and dead mothers become live mothers. A fight scene goes on
forever, alternating between serious fighting and comedic fighting (I
guess this is what they meant by "Different Action" in the trailer) Of
course it all works out in the end, though in the last few seconds we're
treated to a scary sexual moment featuring Amitabh, Smita and Om
Prakash. Avoid this scene please.
Who was NAMAK HALAL made for? I'll make a handy list...see if you fall
in there somehow:
a) Crazy people
b) People with no short-term memory or experience with basic wordly
logic
c) People who just want to have fun without thinking about anything
d) Rickshaw-wallas (see a, b & c)
e) People who enjoy campiness and movies full of audacious, ridiculous
situations (that would be BollyMike and I).
f) People who would watch anything featuring Amitabh, even a short film
where he chews up live rats and then spits them on widows (which, sadly,
he doesn't do in NAMAK HALAAL -- that scene was probably cut).
For this reason I whole-heartedly endorse this movie to all those
looking for a bizarre experience. It's worth it just for the soundtrack
alone, but if you have an urge to see "Different Action,"
"Fun-Funny-Funnier" and "Disco Quawali" then this is the film for you.
It's more exciting than bungee jumping and even weirder than Navin
Nishchal in a dress. Just take a few days off work before you watch
it...this one is a DOOZY.
Muffy.
Gafoor
news:3C7BE929...@hotmail.com...
> Who was NAMAK HALAL made for? I'll make a handy list...see if you
fall
> in there somehow:
>
> a) Crazy people
> b) People with no short-term memory or experience with basic wordly
> logic
> c) People who just want to have fun without thinking about anything
> d) Rickshaw-wallas (see a, b & c)
> e) People who enjoy campiness and movies full of audacious,
ridiculous
> situations (that would be BollyMike and I).
> f) People who would watch anything featuring Amitabh, even a short
film
> where he chews up live rats and then spits them on widows (which,
sadly,
> he doesn't do in NAMAK HALAAL -- that scene was probably cut).
Blashphemy (it is blasphemy to criticise any pre-Coolie Amitabh movie
:-)
Namak Halaal is very very enjoyable movie. It was a big hit of those
times &
I think everybody enjoyed it - the masses & the classes - like a lot
of other
Amitabh movies. Though a lot of ridiculous sequences happen in the
movie,
Amitabh carries it off very well.
The "Disco Qawali" song - "Pag Ghungroo baand" is one of Kishore
Kumar's
legendary songs. Some scenes are copied from the movie "The Party" -
Peter Sellers
playing "Hrundi Bakshi".
Amitabh's English routine is also awfully funny - one of the legendary
comedy
routines of Hindi Cinema - "Vijay Merchant & Vijay Hazare", "Wasim
Bari &
Wasim Raja" - I doubt if there is anyone who doesn't recollect atleast
1/2 of
this routine byheart.
"Aaj Rapat Jaaye" song with Smita Patil - (the rain song) oozes sex
(atleast everybody
felt so at that time - I haven't seen this movie in the last 10
years).
I break out into a laugh everytime I hear Bappi Lahiri singing
"Deewane Parwane
marne se darte nahin".
Parveen looks stunning in the movie.
IIRC, this movie was Smita Patil's first commercial movie. Before this
Smita Patil
used to appear only in arty movies. She also did another movie with
Amitabh later
- Shakti.
Muffy St. Bernard
>
> Blashphemy (it is blasphemy to criticise any pre-Coolie Amitabh movie
> :-)
Well, I'm only criticizing the audacity it takes to COMPLETELY throw
logic out the window, which this film did. Regardless, though, I had a
fantastic time watching it, and it WAS very funny!
> Amitabh's English routine is also awfully funny - one of the legendary
> comedy
> routines of Hindi Cinema - "Vijay Merchant & Vijay Hazare", "Wasim
> Bari &
> Wasim Raja" - I doubt if there is anyone who doesn't recollect atleast
> 1/2 of
> this routine byheart.
We found it hilarious as well, though no doubt many of the references
went completely over our head, which made it a very surreal comic
routine indeed. Just thinking back to it makes my brain hurt a little
bit...
> "Aaj Rapat Jaaye" song with Smita Patil - (the rain song) oozes sex
> (atleast everybody
> felt so at that time - I haven't seen this movie in the last 10
> years).
It was pretty sexy, though in a different way than the Parveen Babi
cold sexuality.
> IIRC, this movie was Smita Patil's first commercial movie. Before this
> Smita Patil
> used to appear only in arty movies.
Aha! This would explain why, in the trailer, it says "Smita
Patil...in a NEW kind of role!" That confused us. My only other Smita
experience was "Nazrana."
Muffy.
Gafoor
>
> > Amitabh's English routine is also awfully funny - one of the
legendary
> > comedy
> > routines of Hindi Cinema - "Vijay Merchant & Vijay Hazare", "Wasim
> > Bari &
> > Wasim Raja" - I doubt if there is anyone who doesn't recollect
atleast
> > 1/2 of
> > this routine byheart.
>
> We found it hilarious as well, though no doubt many of the
references
> went completely over our head, which made it a very surreal comic
> routine indeed. Just thinking back to it makes my brain hurt a
little
> bit...
Here.
Ranji asks Amitabh - do you know English ?
Amitabh starts
Lo kallo baat. Are aisi angrezi ave hain ke I can leave angrez
behind (I know such English that I will leave the British behind)
I can talk english, I can walk english, I can laugh english,
because english is a funny language.
Bhairo becomes barren and barren becomes Bhairo because their
minds are very narrow. (this is a meaningless play of words)
In the year 1929 when India was playing Australia at the Melbourne
stadium
Vijay Hazare and Vijay Merchant were at the crease. Vijay Merchant
told Vijay Hazare. look Vijay Hazare Sir , this is a very prestigious
match and we must consider it very prestigiously. We must take this
into consideration, the consideration that this is an important match
and ultimately this consideration must end in a run.
In the year 1979 when Pakistan was playing against India at the
Wankhede stadium Wasim Raja and Wasim Bari were at the crease and
they took the same consideration. Wasim Raja told Wasim Bari, look
Wasim Bari, we must consider this consideration and considering that
this is an important match we must put this consideration into action
and ultimately score a run. And both of them considered the
consideration and ran and both of them got out.
Habshi
Its great of Muffy to share these hilarious reviews with us on
Ramli . Many web site owners eg Planet Bollywood , Sulekha become very
possesive of their reviews , as if anyone is ever going to make any
money from the net , we all do it for love , and put the reviews on
ramli where we can discuss and enjoy them .
full review on ramli
Amitabh is a very popular guy at the hotel because he's LOYAL. When he
suspects one of Raja's girlfriends of stealing, he picks her up and
shakes her upside down, confirming his suspicions both about her and
what she had concealed in her "dare bare dress." While watching this
scene BollyMike had an epiphany about why NAMAK HALAAL is such a weird
film: it's like a cartoon! I mean, he actually picks a woman up, tips
her over, shakes her, and Raja's wallet falls out of her dress. Like
everything else in the movie you could just as easily see Bugs Bunny
in
the place of Amitabh, and Porky Pig as Shashi isn't too big of a
stretch.
Who was NAMAK HALAL made for? I'll make a handy list...see if you fall
in there somehow:
a) Crazy people
b) People with no short-term memory or experience with basic wordly
logic
c) People who just want to have fun without thinking about anything
d) Rickshaw-wallas (see a, b & c)
e) People who enjoy campiness and movies full of audacious, ridiculous
situations (that would be BollyMike and I).
f) People who would watch anything featuring Amitabh, even a short
film
where he chews up live rats and then spits them on widows (which,
sadly,
he doesn't do in NAMAK HALAAL -- that scene was probably cut).
For this reason I whole-heartedly endorse this movie to all those
Girish Bhat
<Well, She wrote a lot ;-) >
Call me a rickshaw-wallah, but I loved the melodrama in this movie.
Maybe it was because this was only the 2nd Amitabh movie I ever saw,
but I was blown-away by both the comedy and what you called the
melodrama between Arjun and his Daddu. The mixture worked for ME. Your
milage may vary. ;-)
For me, the only cause for complaint was the unnecessary "twists" in
the climax. Apart from that. the entire movie was a blast! And in case
you haven't noticed. Amitabh never has had a "serious" fight in any
Prakash Mehra movie. ;-)
mamta.dhand
'excellent, great, wicked movie, good comedy' which of course, all this the
film was.
"Girish Bhat" <giris...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:670ce6f3.02022...@posting.google.com...
Girish Bhat
> always-decrepit, always-devoted Om Prakash) ends up raising Arjun, but
> Grandpa is just as confused and angry about this "give up your son to
> raise an orphan" arrangement as BollyMike and I were, and he chastises
Never question too much in a Bollywood movie. ;-)And I have never seen
the starting of this movie but here goes... Her husband (who too is a
Namk Halal)has asked her to take the place of Raja-beta's mother(who
presumably has died off-stage). Obviously she wants the whole world to
think she is the real mother of Shashi Kapoor. Therefore to fool the
world into thinking she is his real mother, she has to abandon her
real son. Plus obviously, if the mother is not present, the villains
will get to take over as trustees of the property till Shashi grows
up. Worse, they will bump him off there and then itself. There so
simple! (Now don't ask why Savetri Devi wasn't killed) ;-)
> It is NEVER explained why Savetri must give away Arjun in order to care
> for another child...I suspect this has roots in the Mahabharata, because
I hope I explained that!
>
> you didn't already know that Bappi Lahiri was the king of the
> overproduced, extremely long, western-influenced 70's song sequences,
> you'll learn it pretty fast in this wonderful hotel.
>
Hey, Kishore Da won 3-5 Filmfare awards on the strength of Bappi-da's
compositions! Don't deride one of his finest works.
> wants his son to kill Raja so that they can steal his hotel empire,
> which consists of a lot of cheap models named "Rome," "Singapore," and
> "New York" made out of cardboard with black windows painted on them.
In the climax of the film, Arjun makes them take a tour of the world.
This is "Rome" <Dishoom> "Singapore" <Dishoom> "New York" <Dishoom>
"and finally Bombay" <Vicious Kick instead of a punch>.
>
> As an added gag Amitabh impresses the hotel manager with his knowledge
> of English, which is an interesting study in what happens when a
> non-English speaker tries to write an extended Three Stooges sort of
> dialogue in English for a non-English speaking audience: word confusion
> that doesn't really make any sense, lots of stuff about Cricket, and a
> very funny scene indeed (perhaps for the wrong reasons...but is there
> such a thing as "the wrong reasons?")
>
The dialogue was made-up extempore by Amitabh. However he insisted
that only the director and the cameraman remain in the room while this
scene was shot. They of course needed only a single take. ;-)
> Sending the "coincidence meter" into the red, Amitabh's boss at the
> hotel turns out to be none other than Poonam, the woman whose image was
But then they met at the hotel itself! So, no coincidence!
> tangled up in his chest hair. She is at first a little cold to Amitabh,
> but when he saves her and her blind brother from an attack by a nasty
> upper-crust hotel patron (appropriately lodged in room 666) she decides
Or teen chakke. Chakke is 9-type of fellow. Fellow without mooche if
you know what I mean. Nudge, Nudge, Wink Wink.
> film: it's like a cartoon! I mean, he actually picks a woman up, tips
> her over, shakes her, and Raja's wallet falls out of her dress. Like
Not the only time he has done this. He does this in Hum too. To the
heroine though.
>
> Remember, earlier on in this review when I mentioned that the filmmakers
> try ridiculous sleight-of-hand techniques to distract the viewer? Here's
> an example:
>
> ARJUN: Grandpa! Why did you come to the hotel in disguise, pretend to be
> a totally different person, and not reveal yourself to me no matter how
> many times I implored you?
> GRANDPA: Oh, beta, it's easy to understand. Now that I'm here I want you
> to come back to the village with me, and bring Poonam with you.
>
Again, this WAS a running gag! 3-4 times they pretend as if they will
explain this plot twist, but everytime Daddu gets distracted by
something or the other.
It's a JOKE!
> You might be asking, "Why did the filmmakers put funny and ridiculous
> scenes into this movie if they were unable to explain them?" Well, it's
But they explained them! The only problem for you is that the
explaination is that there is no explaination. ;-)
> A hastily inserted scene ("We need some comedy!" yelled the producer)
> involves Amitabh making a bunch of businessmen impersonate Raja, which
> is annoying,
Agreeded.
> This is when the pan of NAMAK HALAAL ingredients really starts to burn
> and melt, so it's hard to pick out individual elements from the mess.
> Seriously, none of it makes any sense. Amitabh becomes a traitor for no
> reason whatsoever. All of his loved ones -- and a few people he's never
To remain true to the salt that he has eaten!
> course it all works out in the end, though in the last few seconds we're
> treated to a scary sexual moment featuring Amitabh, Smita and Om
> Prakash. Avoid this scene please.
>
The mein tumhe nahi chodduga scene? What's not to like? From clutching
his Daddu and saying mein tumhe nahi chodduga, he has
> Who was NAMAK HALAL made for? I'll make a handy list...see if you fall
> in there somehow:
>
> a) Crazy people
Check
> b) People with no short-term memory or experience with basic wordly
> logic
I don't understand this line. Could you, er what was I saying?
> e) People who enjoy campiness and movies full of audacious, ridiculous
> situations (that would be BollyMike and I).
Hey, I love Loony Tunes too!
> f) People who would watch anything featuring Amitabh, even a short film
> where he chews up live rats and then spits them on widows (which, sadly,
> he doesn't do in NAMAK HALAAL -- that scene was probably cut).
>
Check.
> For this reason I whole-heartedly endorse this movie to all those
> looking for a bizarre experience. It's worth it just for the soundtrack
I really can't see where the bizarre experience comes into play here,
though.
It's a wild ride, but unquestionably a FUN ride. And it was always
intended to be so.
Enjoyed your imagary and analogies immensely! Thanks for sharing!
Muffy St. Bernard
After posting the review I got all paranoid that in my "list of people
who might like NAMAK HALAAL" I might have offended anybody who DOES like
it. Fortunately, I included:
"people who like to just watch a film and enjoy it without thinking
about it" (or something like that)
which is not an insulting category, and it includes me most of the
time. So don't worry, liking NAMAK HALAAL doesn't necessarily make you
a rickshaw-wallah! :) I liked it too, but I just could NOT get past the
wild plot inconsistencies...they were too huge. And this kept me from
taking it seriously.
That, and Poonam's face superimposed on Arjun's chest, of course!
Muffy.
Muffy St. Bernard
>
> "Muffy St. Bernard" <muffys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3C7BE929...@hotmail.com>...
>
> > always-decrepit, always-devoted Om Prakash) ends up raising Arjun, but
> > Grandpa is just as confused and angry about this "give up your son to
> > raise an orphan" arrangement as BollyMike and I were, and he chastises
>
> Never question too much in a Bollywood movie. ;-)And I have never seen
> the starting of this movie but here goes... Her husband (who too is a
> Namk Halal)has asked her to take the place of Raja-beta's mother(who
> presumably has died off-stage). Obviously she wants the whole world to
> think she is the real mother of Shashi Kapoor. Therefore to fool the
> world into thinking she is his real mother, she has to abandon her
> real son. Plus obviously, if the mother is not present, the villains
> will get to take over as trustees of the property till Shashi grows
> up. Worse, they will bump him off there and then itself. There so
> simple! (Now don't ask why Savetri Devi wasn't killed) ;-)
This isn't a BAD explanation...I think it depends on a person's
ability to believe that somebody would actually give away their own son
in order to honour a promise made to a dead husband's dead employer. As
you've said, we shouldn't question too much (we should just enjoy!) but
it seems to me the mother really COULD have raised BOTH children...or
perhaps the employer, husband, or Savetri could have found a better
solution: putting Raja in the care of a childless family, instead of
Raja being the cuckoo that kicks Arjun out of the nest.
I suppose this is meant to outline how incredibly loyal these people
are, but...wow...!
> > you didn't already know that Bappi Lahiri was the king of the
> > overproduced, extremely long, western-influenced 70's song sequences,
> > you'll learn it pretty fast in this wonderful hotel.
>
> Hey, Kishore Da won 3-5 Filmfare awards on the strength of Bappi-da's
> compositions! Don't deride one of his finest works.
I think you got me wrong there, I LOVE the music in NAMAK HALAAL (and
most other Bappi films I've seen). The songs ARE extremely long and
western-influenced, and they are also overproduced (which I don't
consider to be a bad thing at all -- "Electric Light Orchestra" is one
of my favourite bands -- when I say "overproduced" I mean full of crazy
effects and sounds and fiddly studio touches, which just about all these
songs are...and wonderfully so!)
> > Sending the "coincidence meter" into the red, Amitabh's boss at the
> > hotel turns out to be none other than Poonam, the woman whose image was
>
> But then they met at the hotel itself! So, no coincidence!
Touche! :)
> > film: it's like a cartoon! I mean, he actually picks a woman up, tips
> > her over, shakes her, and Raja's wallet falls out of her dress. Like
>
> Not the only time he has done this. He does this in Hum too. To the
> heroine though.
I absolutely MUST see more movies where Amitabh picks up women and
shakes them upside down. This should be available as a search-engine
option on DVD websites!
> > Remember, earlier on in this review when I mentioned that the filmmakers
> > try ridiculous sleight-of-hand techniques to distract the viewer? Here's
> > an example:
>
> Again, this WAS a running gag! 3-4 times they pretend as if they will
> explain this plot twist, but everytime Daddu gets distracted by
> something or the other.
> It's a JOKE!
You're serious? :)
Well, this being an intentional joke totally went over my head,
especially since all of these "distraction scenes" were so
melodramatic. I'll need to watch this another time (which I intended to
do anyway)
> > course it all works out in the end, though in the last few seconds we're
> > treated to a scary sexual moment featuring Amitabh, Smita and Om
> > Prakash. Avoid this scene please.
> >
> The mein tumhe nahi chodduga scene? What's not to like? From clutching
> his Daddu and saying mein tumhe nahi chodduga, he has
Well, that comment was a joke on my part. Amitabh's whole attraction
to Grandpa is pretty extreme, and early on a cynical person could see it
as somewhat sexual (totally unintended, of course...who knows WHAT these
cynical people might see in an innocent film! Ha ha) Then at the end,
for Grandpa to come doddering in and find Amitabh and Smita cavorting
around under a blanket...yikes! All sorts of possibilities here.
If I haven't already said this (I should put this in as a bit of a
disclaimer at the top of my reviews) I'm writing intentionally funny,
frivolous, and slightly obnoxious reviews. They DO reflect what I
really think, but only the funny, frivolous, slightly obnoxious side of
me. So for that reason I can deliberately misunderstand or joke about
things that were not meant to be seen in the way I'm describing them.
To be funny.
I mean, I KNOW there is nothing sexual happening between the three at
the end of the film. But taken out of context (or viewed by a person
WANTING to see something sexual there) it could be argued that there
is. I know there isn't. But to be funny, frivolous, and obnoxious, I'm
saying there is, and hoping that the people reading understand that I'm
joking and get a laugh out of it.
That all would make a very long disclaimer, wouldn't it... :)
> > e) People who enjoy campiness and movies full of audacious, ridiculous
> > situations (that would be BollyMike and I).
>
> Hey, I love Loony Tunes too!
I like the idea of Raja as Porky Pig!
> > For this reason I whole-heartedly endorse this movie to all those
> > looking for a bizarre experience. It's worth it just for the soundtrack
>
> I really can't see where the bizarre experience comes into play here,
> though.
> It's a wild ride, but unquestionably a FUN ride. And it was always
> intended to be so.
Oh, it is DEFINITELY fun. But you don't understand what I mean by
bizarre experiences? A floating ball of sentient light commands Nisha
to kill Raja (in a woman's voice, no less)? Arjun, Raja and Nisha go to
a party where four men mingling in the crowd are wearing pantyhose on
their heads and holding guns...and nobody notices? And their plan for
killing Raja isn't just handing Nisha a gun and telling her to shoot
Raja in the head...no, this is their plan:
STEP ONE: Sing a song to lull Raja into a trusting state.
STEP TWO: Lead him up a stairway.
STEP THREE: Make sure he's standing on the bullseye marker at the top
of the stairs.
STEP FOUR: We (the pantyhose men) will turn out the lights.
STEP FIVE: Our trapdoor will drop Raja into a tank of water hidden
inside the boat...
STEP SIX: ...where he will be stabbed to death by a scuba diver.
Now, that's pretty bizarre. :) Fun, definitely, but it's bizarre! I
would also call James Bond films bizarre too...but not nearly as bizarre
as this sort of film. I think I'll coin a new phrase for describing
films like this: "This movie is bizarre like SHAAN!" :)
Muffy.
yeskay
> This isn't a BAD explanation...I think it depends on a person's
> ability to believe that somebody would actually give away their own
> son in order to honour a promise made to a dead husband's dead
> employer. As you've said, we shouldn't question too much (we should
> just enjoy!) but it seems to me the mother really COULD have raised
> BOTH children...or perhaps the employer, husband, or Savetri could
> have found a better solution: putting Raja in the care of a childless
> family, instead of Raja being the cuckoo that kicks Arjun out of the
> nest.
No. There has been such gestures by certain persons in recorded Indian
history. I had read this Amar Chitra Katha comic book about a Rajput
woman, (a servant), I think her name is Pannah, who lets the royal
enemies kill her own child to protect the prince. So, some Indians can
relate to that kind of sacrifice. OK, Arjun doesn't get killed here, but
the part about Savithri sacrificing her own child's care for the sake
of her master's son is quite believable.
>
> STEP ONE: Sing a song to lull Raja into a trusting state.
> STEP TWO: Lead him up a stairway.
> STEP THREE: Make sure he's standing on the bullseye marker at the top
> of the stairs.
> STEP FOUR: We (the pantyhose men) will turn out the lights.
> STEP FIVE: Our trapdoor will drop Raja into a tank of water hidden
> inside the boat...
> STEP SIX: ...where he will be stabbed to death by a scuba diver.
>
> Now, that's pretty bizarre. :) Fun, definitely, but it's bizarre! I
> would also call James Bond films bizarre too...but not nearly as bizarre
> as this sort of film. I think I'll coin a new phrase for describing
> films like this: "This movie is bizarre like SHAAN!" :)
LOL! Pantyhose men! Now, that's funny. Not bizzare. This one's for the
masses to show sophisticated villany, but for the classes it's pure
unadulterated fun! Why! Even in a james bond movie, the bad guy kills
everybody using a gun, but not Mr. Bond. He tries to use a shark or
croc whom the hero overcomes easily.
Girish Bhat
> Girish Bhat wrote:
> >
> This isn't a BAD explanation...I think it depends on a person's
> ability to believe that somebody would actually give away their own son
> in order to honour a promise made to a dead husband's dead employer. As
As Yeskay said, this is a well-known theme in Indian legend/history.
>
> I think you got me wrong there, I LOVE the music in NAMAK HALAAL (and
> most other Bappi films I've seen). The songs ARE extremely long and
> western-influenced, and they are also overproduced (which I don't
> consider to be a bad thing at all -- "Electric Light Orchestra" is one
> of my favourite bands -- when I say "overproduced" I mean full of crazy
> effects and sounds and fiddly studio touches, which just about all these
> songs are...and wonderfully so!)
>
Okay, I knows what I likes but I not analyses what I likes.
> > >
> > The mein tumhe nahi chodduga scene? What's not to like? From clutching
> > his Daddu and saying mein tumhe nahi chodduga, he has
> cynical people might see in an innocent film! Ha ha) Then at the end,
> for Grandpa to come doddering in and find Amitabh and Smita cavorting
> around under a blanket...yikes! All sorts of possibilities here.
It is meant as sexual humor - no two ways about it. Just commentating
on your joke about the sexual attraction between Daddu and Arjun. This
scene is proof that Arjun is no longer sexually deviant. ;-)
> If I haven't already said this (I should put this in as a bit of a
> disclaimer at the top of my reviews) I'm writing intentionally funny,
> frivolous, and slightly obnoxious reviews. They DO reflect what I
> really think, but only the funny, frivolous, slightly obnoxious side of
> me. So for that reason I can deliberately misunderstand or joke about
> things that were not meant to be seen in the way I'm describing them.
> To be funny.
> I mean, I KNOW there is nothing sexual happening between the three at
> the end of the film. But taken out of context (or viewed by a person
> WANTING to see something sexual there) it could be argued that there
> is. I know there isn't. But to be funny, frivolous, and obnoxious, I'm
> saying there is, and hoping that the people reading understand that I'm
> joking and get a laugh out of it.
> That all would make a very long disclaimer, wouldn't it... :)
>
And if you start putting such long-winded, boring, "I am not trying to
offend anybody here", "I am just a fan" type disclaimers in your
reviews, I promise to stop reading them. If people are too dumb to
figure out what your reviews are all about, you shouldn't care what
THEIR opinion is.
> Oh, it is DEFINITELY fun. But you don't understand what I mean by
> bizarre experiences? A floating ball of sentient light commands Nisha
> to kill Raja (in a woman's voice, no less)? Arjun, Raja and Nisha go to
How did I miss that? I really don't remember that scene. ;-)
> a party where four men mingling in the crowd are wearing pantyhose on
> their heads and holding guns...and nobody notices? And their plan for
> killing Raja isn't just handing Nisha a gun and telling her to shoot
> Raja in the head...no, this is their plan:
> STEP ONE: Sing a song to lull Raja into a trusting state.
> STEP TWO: Lead him up a stairway.
> STEP THREE: Make sure he's standing on the bullseye marker at the top
> of the stairs.
> STEP FOUR: We (the pantyhose men) will turn out the lights.
> STEP FIVE: Our trapdoor will drop Raja into a tank of water hidden
> inside the boat...
> STEP SIX: ...where he will be stabbed to death by a scuba diver.
>
> Now, that's pretty bizarre. :) Fun, definitely, but it's bizarre! I
> would also call James Bond films bizarre too...but not nearly as bizarre
> as this sort of film. I think I'll coin a new phrase for describing
> films like this: "This movie is bizarre like SHAAN!" :)
>
But that's James Bond bizzare! Very much par for the course. So
ordinary that
it's not even worth commenting on! ;-)
IIRC, the pary was explicitly hosted by the bad guys and ALL the
guests were bad guys. Even Raja knew these were the BAD GUYS. He was
out to cut a deal with them ,IIRC. ;-) So you except "four men
mingling in the crowd are wearing pantyhose on their heads and holding
guns" and nobody finding it in the least remarkable. ;-)
> Muffy.
Girish Bhat
> Girish Bhat wrote:
> >
> > "Muffy St. Bernard" <muffys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3C7BE929...@hotmail.com>...
> > <Well, She wrote a lot ;-) >
> >
> who might like NAMAK HALAAL" I might have offended anybody who DOES like
> it. Fortunately, I included:
> "people who like to just watch a film and enjoy it without thinking
> about it" (or something like that)
>
You specifically included people who have no experience in worldly
logic. Believe it or not, this is one of the best plotted movies in
Bollywood. Far superior in its plotting to - for instance - Lagaan.
;-)
> which is not an insulting category, and it includes me most of the
> time. So don't worry, liking NAMAK HALAAL doesn't necessarily make you
> a rickshaw-wallah! :)
NOW I am offended. ;-) Why should I care whether you consider me a
richshaw-wallah or not?
I liked it too, but I just could NOT get past the
> wild plot inconsistencies...they were too huge. And this kept me from
> taking it seriously.
> That, and Poonam's face superimposed on Arjun's chest, of course!
>
;-) ;-) I can't wipe the grin on my face every time I see this. And I
know where Prakash Mehra is coming from in this case. You see, in the
Ramayana, the monkey god Hanuman shows who is in his heart by
literally ripping open his chest to reveal the picture of Lord Ram
dwells there.
Muffy St. Bernard
>
> "Muffy St. Bernard" <muffys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3C7CE1E9...@hotmail.com>...
> > Girish Bhat wrote:
> > >
> > This isn't a BAD explanation...I think it depends on a person's
> > ability to believe that somebody would actually give away their own son
> > in order to honour a promise made to a dead husband's dead employer. As
>
> As Yeskay said, this is a well-known theme in Indian legend/history.
That is sort of what I figured when I first saw the film.
> > cynical people might see in an innocent film! Ha ha) Then at the end,
> > for Grandpa to come doddering in and find Amitabh and Smita cavorting
> > around under a blanket...yikes! All sorts of possibilities here.
>
> It is meant as sexual humor - no two ways about it. Just commentating
> on your joke about the sexual attraction between Daddu and Arjun. This
> scene is proof that Arjun is no longer sexually deviant. ;-)
So grandpa's "Go to the big city and find a girl" cure really worked!
> And if you start putting such long-winded, boring, "I am not trying to
> offend anybody here", "I am just a fan" type disclaimers in your
> reviews, I promise to stop reading them. If people are too dumb to
> figure out what your reviews are all about, you shouldn't care what
> THEIR opinion is.
Well, I put that sort of disclaimer in the early reviews, but nobody
seemed to care so I dropped them. Now I noticed that, for whatever
reason, the more recent reviews have picked up a sort of nasty edge to
them (which is weird, since I'm reviewing films I really enjoy), so I
thought I'd better point it out again.
I like to hope that if I REALLY HATE a film and all it stands for --
and there have been a few -- it will come across in the review, possibly
by me saying "I really HATE this movie" in the first line.
> > Oh, it is DEFINITELY fun. But you don't understand what I mean by
> > bizarre experiences? A floating ball of sentient light commands Nisha
> > to kill Raja (in a woman's voice, no less)? Arjun, Raja and Nisha go to
>
> How did I miss that? I really don't remember that scene. ;-)
It's very strange, that scene. Nisha implores to the ball of light,
"Why don't you come out in the open? Who are you?" and it says
something like "It doesn't matter who I am. You must kill Raja. He
must be killed with your own hands and you will be held responsible for
his murder. Or we'll kill your mother."
And that's it...half a minute of a scene introducing a ball of light
that speaks in a woman's voice and commands Nisha to do something.
Later, Nisha comments to Raja that it was a woman telling her to kill
him, which drives him back to his "mom's trying to kill me" way of
thinking.
Like the "kill that fly" scene, I have a feeling it was inserted
later. Or, that it was part of the plot that was dropped due to a lack
of special effects budget or something, but they kept that scene in
because it was interesting and it both gave Nisha some motivation and
added to the "mom wants to kill Raja" red herring.
> But that's James Bond bizzare! Very much par for the course. So
> ordinary that
> it's not even worth commenting on! ;-)
>
> IIRC, the pary was explicitly hosted by the bad guys and ALL the
> guests were bad guys. Even Raja knew these were the BAD GUYS. He was
> out to cut a deal with them ,IIRC. ;-) So you except "four men
> mingling in the crowd are wearing pantyhose on their heads and holding
> guns" and nobody finding it in the least remarkable. ;-)
Well...hmmmm. Okay, I'll give you that as well. :) At a party hosted
by bad guys, I suppose you can wear whatever you want and carry whatever
weapons you want, and nobody will chastise you for your fashion sense.
I suppose that in many ways this IS all simply "James Bond bizarre."
And let me tell you right off the bat that I never watched James Bond,
except for small clips that I never enjoyed and didn't inspire me to see
the whole film. I only saw one Bond movie and I understand it's the
most "un-Bond James Bond film ever made."
So maybe NAMAK HALAAL and SHAAN are no weirder than a James Bond
movie, and I can't say for sure since I don't have much Bond exposure.
Could you recommend the CRAZIEST James Bond film out there, so I can sit
and watch it and decide for myself which is stranger? I could write a
comparative review.
Muffy.
Muffy St. Bernard
> > wild plot inconsistencies...they were too huge. And this kept me from
> > taking it seriously.
> > That, and Poonam's face superimposed on Arjun's chest, of course!
> >
>
> ;-) ;-) I can't wipe the grin on my face every time I see this. And I
> know where Prakash Mehra is coming from in this case. You see, in the
> Ramayana, the monkey god Hanuman shows who is in his heart by
> literally ripping open his chest to reveal the picture of Lord Ram
> dwells there.
This would make a FANTASTIC advertisement for chocolate in India:
"Stop that, you silly monkey! You don't need to rip your chest open to
show how much you care...just send chocolates!" and then shots of a lot
of relieved-looking men buttoning their shirts back up.
The thing that always creeps me out about the Ramayana is the demon
without legs or a head...that sort of gross deformity always disturbs
me. But then, I've never managed to track down a version that wasn't
vastly condensed.
Muffy.
Girish Bhat
> Girish Bhat wrote:
> >
> > "Muffy St. Bernard" <muffys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3C7CE1E9...@hotmail.com>...
> > > Girish Bhat wrote:
> > As Yeskay said, this is a well-known theme in Indian legend/history.
>
> That is sort of what I figured when I first saw the film.
And we have tried to convince you it's plausible. ;-)
> Well...hmmmm. Okay, I'll give you that as well. :) At a party hosted
> by bad guys, I suppose you can wear whatever you want and carry whatever
> weapons you want, and nobody will chastise you for your fashion sense.
LOL! You do have a way with words. But you know that, don't u? ;-)
> Could you recommend the CRAZIEST James Bond film out there, so I can sit
> and watch it and decide for myself which is stranger? I could write a
Hmm, I have never cared to see his movies. They take themselves too
seriously if you know what I mean. Two goofy, pretty under-rated
Hollywood action-adventure movies that I can recommend:
1) King's Solomon's Mines - the one with a young Sharon Stone - not
the classic one
2) The Shadow - with Alec Baldwin - nice CG and stuff.
> comparative review.
>
> Muffy.
Ritu
> > Could you recommend the CRAZIEST James Bond film out there, so I can sit
> > and watch it and decide for myself which is stranger? I could write a
>
> Hmm, I have never cared to see his movies. They take themselves too
> seriously if you know what I mean. Two goofy, pretty under-rated
> Hollywood action-adventure movies that I can recommend:
Really? I pretty much enjoy James Bond films. Recently there was this
whole series of them on HBO. They ofcourse cater to the 15 year old
boy out there(or should I say all men as men rarely progress from the
mental age of 15 :-) !!).
Jokes aside they are quite funny. But your brains aside and enjoy the
mindlessness. The fact that they take themselves seriously makes them
even funnier.
Muffy I'm bad at names but a couple of Roger Moore ones were nice and
senseless. There was one I think that was based in India. You had a
load of beautiful and skimpily clad(pre-requisite for a Bond film)
blondes wrapped in sarees.. pretty interesting. You also had Kabir
Bedi and Vijay Amritraj in these sidey roles feeling really pleased
with themselves.. a must watch.
Cheers
Ritu
Muffy St. Bernard
>
> Muffy I'm bad at names but a couple of Roger Moore ones were nice and
> senseless. There was one I think that was based in India. You had a
> load of beautiful and skimpily clad(pre-requisite for a Bond film)
> blondes wrapped in sarees.. pretty interesting. You also had Kabir
> Bedi and Vijay Amritraj in these sidey roles feeling really pleased
> with themselves.. a must watch.
That would be "Octopussy," it turns out. That's it...this weekend I
will watch Octopussy and decide: "Is a James Bond film set in India
weirder than an Indianization of James Bond?"
Thanks for the recommendation, Ritu!
Muffy.
rk_u...@yahoo.com
> Really? I pretty much enjoy James Bond films. Recently there was this
> whole series of them on HBO. They ofcourse cater to the 15 year old
> boy out there(or should I say all men as men rarely progress from the
> mental age of 15 :-) !!).
I agree. JB movies are good timepass. I specially love the
one liners from Bond.
> Muffy I'm bad at names but a couple of Roger Moore ones were nice and
> senseless. There was one I think that was based in India. You had a
> load of beautiful and skimpily clad(pre-requisite for a Bond film)
> blondes wrapped in sarees.. pretty interesting. You also had Kabir
> Bedi and Vijay Amritraj in these sidey roles feeling really pleased
> with themselves.. a must watch.
Octopussy.
RK-
yeskay
>
> "Ritu" <rc0...@rediffmail.com> wrote:-
>
> > Really? I pretty much enjoy James Bond films. Recently there was this
> > whole series of them on HBO. They ofcourse cater to the 15 year old
> > boy out there(or should I say all men as men rarely progress from the
> > mental age of 15 :-) !!).
>
> I agree. JB movies are good timepass. I specially love the
> one liners from Bond.
>
Yes James Bond. Add Die Hard, Lethal weapon (Till the 3rd one
came out), Terminator, Predator series of movies, you have a grand
weekend. The Rambo/Rocky series, I don't like as much compared to these.
All are Logically weak, but a good timepass. I've seen each movie in
the series multiple times spaced over years, each time I notice
something I wouldn't hv done it already.
David Chute
Take it from a guy who was the president of his school's James Bond Fan
Club at the tender age of 13; who only saw a A Hard Day's Night because it
was playing on a double bill with Dr. No; and who in his youth (and perhaps
still, on some level) wanted to BE Sean Connery:
The only Bond films that really hold up are the first three: Dr. No, From
Russia With Love, and Goldfinger.
However:
On Her Majesty's Secret Service has great action and one of John Barry's
best scores. Unfortunately is also has George Lazenby as Bond.
The best of the Roger Moore Bond's by a large margin, in fact the only the
only that remains even marginally watchable, is The Spy Who Loved Me.
Timothy Dalton was and remains the best of the post-Connery Bonds.
Muffy St. Bernard
>
> Re. James Bond.
>
> Take it from a guy who was the president of his school's James Bond Fan
> Club at the tender age of 13; who only saw a A Hard Day's Night because it
> was playing on a double bill with Dr. No; and who in his youth (and perhaps
> still, on some level) wanted to BE Sean Connery:
>
> The only Bond films that really hold up are the first three: Dr. No, From
> Russia With Love, and Goldfinger.
Who knows, after all this viewing I may turn into a regular Bond fan.
> However:
>
> On Her Majesty's Secret Service has great action and one of John Barry's
> best scores. Unfortunately is also has George Lazenby as Bond.
That is the only one I've ever seen, and I only watched it because I
knew Joanna Lumly was in it...and she is, for about 3 seconds, speaking
3 words (which I think were, "Yes, Mr. Bond")
The movie didn't endear me to Bond very much, though I was shocked by
the unconventional ending.
Muffy.
Gafoor
news:B8A52454.BD7A%dcc...@earthlink.net...
> Re. James Bond.
>
> Take it from a guy who was the president of his school's James Bond
Fan
> Club at the tender age of 13; who only saw a A Hard Day's Night
because it
> was playing on a double bill with Dr. No; and who in his youth (and
perhaps
> still, on some level) wanted to BE Sean Connery:
>
> The only Bond films that really hold up are the first three: Dr. No,
From
> Russia With Love, and Goldfinger.
Just an irrelevant FYI - From Russia with Love was first released as
"From 007 with Love" in India because they didn't want to upset the
Russians.
>
> However:
>
> On Her Majesty's Secret Service has great action and one of John
Barry's
> best scores. Unfortunately is also has George Lazenby as Bond.
>
> The best of the Roger Moore Bond's by a large margin, in fact the
only the
> only that remains even marginally watchable, is The Spy Who Loved
Me.
>
> Timothy Dalton was and remains the best of the post-Connery Bonds.
Why was Timothy Dalton replaced by Pierce Brosnan ? Was
it because the Dalton Bond movies were unsuccessful or was it only
because Brosnan was chosen before Dalton & couldn't do the movies
because of some existing contracts.
BTW, has anyone seen the Indian Bond movies ?
Mithun playing Agent Gopi (Gunmaster G-9) in the 2 movies
Suraksha & Wardat. Suraksha was a big hit (and a OK movie - atleast
I liked it when I saw it 15 years back) &
IIRC, Suraksha was the movie which launched Mithun commercially. Both
movies had good music from Bappi Lahiri.
Both Suraksha & Wardat are almost identical movies.
There was also a Rajshri Bond movie some 20 years back, called
"Agent Vinod" with Mahendra Sandhu playing the agent.
rk_u...@yahoo.com
"Gafoor" <rro...@bigfoot.com> wrote
> Why was Timothy Dalton replaced by Pierce Brosnan ? Was
> it because the Dalton Bond movies were unsuccessful or was it only
> because Brosnan was chosen before Dalton & couldn't do the movies
> because of some existing contracts.
sometimes actors themselves chose not to play bond.
Sean Connery chose to retire from Bond Movies as he
felt that it was turning out to be an impediment to
his image as a fine actor.
Roger Moore retired bcos he was getting too old.
Both movies of Timothy Dalton (Living Daylights and
License to Kill) were good.
>
> BTW, has anyone seen the Indian Bond movies ?
> Mithun playing Agent Gopi (Gunmaster G-9) in the 2 movies
> Suraksha & Wardat. Suraksha was a big hit (and a OK movie - atleast
> I liked it when I saw it 15 years back) &
> IIRC, Suraksha was the movie which launched Mithun commercially. Both
> movies had good music from Bappi Lahiri.
>
> Both Suraksha & Wardat are almost identical movies.
>
> There was also a Rajshri Bond movie some 20 years back, called
> "Agent Vinod" with Mahendra Sandhu playing the agent.
I have seen all of them :-)
Wardat had a song "tu mujhe jaan se bhee pyara hain".
Sung by Usha Uthup and Bappi Lahiri. To this date
I can't make out who sings which lines. They both
sounded exactly the same in that duet :-)
IIRC Agent Vinod was the first movie of music
director Raam Laxman, who later on gave big
hits in Maine Pyaar Kiya and Hum Aap Ke Hain Kaun.
RK-
David Chute
> That is the only one I've ever seen, and I only watched it because I
> knew Joanna Lumly was in it...and she is, for about 3 seconds, speaking
> 3 words (which I think were, "Yes, Mr. Bond")
> The movie didn't endear me to Bond very much, though I was shocked by
> the unconventional ending.
A friend of my youth spoke for many of us when he said, "I would chew
through concrete for Diana Rigg."
yeskay
>
> Re. James Bond.
>
> Take it from a guy who was the president of his school's James Bond Fan
> Club at the tender age of 13; who only saw a A Hard Day's Night because it
> was playing on a double bill with Dr. No; and who in his youth (and perhaps
> still, on some level) wanted to BE Sean Connery:
>
> The only Bond films that really hold up are the first three: Dr. No, From
> Russia With Love, and Goldfinger.
>
Please don't top post.
You talk like my dad who was a big-time Bond fan. I've seen almost all
of Bond movies except for Her Majesty's, Gold Finger and a couple of
awful Roger Moore's early 70s bond films. Agreed that the three
films you mention are good. But there have been better Bond movies
than these three. I liked Roger Moore's 'FYIs only' better than
all of his other movies. His last, with that Sheena lady, Tanya Roberts
(getting nostalgic thinking about those hot looking 80s babes!),
"A view to a kill" was good too. Especially the young Christopher
Walken outshone the Bond.
> Timothy Dalton was and remains the best of the post-Connery Bonds.
He'll go down as the worst Bond. Worse than George Lazenby. Pierce
Brosnan seems better than Roger Moore.
Having said all this, I can't wait for Autin Powers next Bond spoof,
'Gold Member'!!!
yeskay
>
> BTW, has anyone seen the Indian Bond movies ?
> Mithun playing Agent Gopi (Gunmaster G-9) in the 2 movies
> Suraksha & Wardat. Suraksha was a big hit (and a OK movie - atleast
> I liked it when I saw it 15 years back) &
> IIRC, Suraksha was the movie which launched Mithun commercially. Both
> movies had good music from Bappi Lahiri.
>
Is Bhappi Lahiri's, 'Pyaar Chaahiye, mujhe jeene ke liye' from
Suraksha? Whenever he sings, he sounds so comical!
> Both Suraksha & Wardat are almost identical movies.
>
> There was also a Rajshri Bond movie some 20 years back, called
> "Agent Vinod" with Mahendra Sandhu playing the agent.
Jitendra has acted in one Bond film called 'Bond 303'. Akshay Kumar
in 'The Bond' in the 90s. Aankhen (60s) was a spy thriller with garam
dharam playing a spy. Watch it, it is so phunny!
David Chute
Habshi
On Fri, 01 Mar 2002 23:06:41 GMT, David Chute <dcc...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Cricfan
<snipped>
>I liked Roger Moore's 'FYIs only' better than
> all of his other movies. His last, with that Sheena lady, Tanya Roberts
> (getting nostalgic thinking about those hot looking 80s babes!),
> "A view to a kill" was good too. Especially the young Christopher
> Walken outshone the Bond.
>
Walken was already famous by then. He had a big role in the classic
'The Deer Hunter'.
Cheers
Arun
yes kay
to know to whom is the last post in response to. Why am i telling this
to a guy to thinks cross-posting is the next best invention after a
contraceptive!
David Chute
considered more polite to force people to scroll down through a lengthy
series of screeds to get to the "LOL" that some comedian has tacked on at
the end?
Somebody
>>>
>>
> to know to whom is the last post in response to. Why am i telling this
> to a guy to thinks cross-posting is the next best invention after a
> contraceptive!
And *please*, if you ask someone not to top-post, at least you follow
your own advice!
A
Somebody
> I have to go with Habshi on this one. I much prefer top posts. Why is it
> considered more polite to force people to scroll down through a lengthy
> series of screeds to get to the "LOL" that some comedian has tacked on at
> the end?
The idea is that one quotes a relevant part of the previous post, and
then the reply below it, so that the people reading it know the context.
Thus:
-----------------------
>> Context A
>>
> X said something about A
>
My reply about X's comment on A.
>> Context B
>>
> Some reply to B
>
My reply on the context B
-----------------------
This is much more readable than the top-posts.
And if someone only has to say "LOL", maybe it is not worth posting on
the usenet. Post only if you have something constructive to add.
A
Gafoor
"Somebody" <abc@s.t> wrote in message
news:slrna82cf...@serpico.astro.Virginia.EDU...
Yeskay didn't top-post. Do check his post again.
Gafoor
> I have to go with Habshi on this one. I much prefer top posts. Why is it
> considered more polite to force people to scroll down through a lengthy
> series of screeds to get to the "LOL" that some comedian has tacked on at
> the end?
Those who do tack a LOL at the end of lengthy post are themselves not
following the right usenetiquette.
Read on top posting vs correct posting.
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html
Search google for more links.
These are not rules made by somebody's whim or fancy. These are
guidelines made by people who were long time usenetiquette & figures
out what works best.
If a particular follow-up is such that you feel that you are saving someone
the trouble of scrolling down, then in that case don't quote what the other
person quoted if it's not at all relevant to you what you posted. If that
was
relevant, then quote only what is relevant (Snip off the rest) & post your
follow-up below.
check this for a satire on usenetiquette.
http://www.templetons.com/brad/emily.html
Somebody
I attach the post by yeskay
Though I see that the email address and the name formatting is a bit
different in each case. Maybe This "yes kay" is not the same one as the
"yeskay"
Alok
----------------
From: yes kay <new_...@nospamthis.yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.local.indian
Subject: Re: [OT: BOND]
It is usenet ethics, you dumb fool. It is convenient for the reader
to know to whom is the last post in response to. Why am i telling this
to a guy to thinks cross-posting is the next best invention after a
contraceptive!
Habshi wrote:
>
> Always top post , who wants to read all the requotes again and again ?
>
> On Fri, 01 Mar 2002 23:06:41 GMT, David Chute <dcc...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> I promise never to do it ever again.
>
> > From: yeskay <new_jee...@yahooNOSPAM.com>
>
> > Please don't top post.
----------------
--
Alok Singhal * *
PhD Student * * *
University of Virginia
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~as8ca/ * *
Gafoor
"Somebody" <abc@s.t> wrote in message
> I attach the post by yeskay
>
> Though I see that the email address and the name formatting is a bit
> different in each case. Maybe This "yes kay" is not the same one as the
> "yeskay"
You are right. I was referring to a diff post of yeskay, the post where
he flamed David, not Mo.
Gafoor
news:3C80D09A...@nospamthis.yahoo.com...
> It is usenet ethics, you dumb fool. It is convenient for the reader
> to know to whom is the last post in response to. Why am i telling this
> to a guy to thinks cross-posting is the next best invention after a
> contraceptive!
Actually speaking, there is nothing inherently wrong with X-posting.
Usenetiquette recommends X-posting.
Posting 2 identical articles separately to 2 newsgroups wastes more
diskspace at each each server as compared to x-posting. Of course,
the main thing is that it should be relavant to both the NG's.
David Chute
> From: "Gafoor" <rro...@bigfoot.com>
> Read on top posting vs correct posting.
> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html
A good discussion of what the writer presumptuously calls "the preferred way
of quoting." This seems to be way too much commotion over a really, really
minor point. Not "time pass" but "time waste."
Gafoor
Maybe it really doesn't matter in a low volume NG like RAMLI, but in a very
high
volume NG's, the no of posts in 1 hr exceed what Ramli gets in a fortnight.
Here these things do really matter. And the writer isn't presumptous,
it isn't his invention. These conventions are agreed upon as the best
practise
by regular usenetters.
yes kay
Where do you think I top-posted in this thread? It was Habshi who
replied top-posting his junk about advising David to top-post.
Karen Lofstrom
> Actually speaking, there is nothing inherently wrong with X-posting.
> Usenetiquette recommends X-posting.
> Posting 2 identical articles separately to 2 newsgroups wastes more
> diskspace at each each server as compared to x-posting. Of course,
> the main thing is that it should be relavant to both the NG's.
Yes, but they should be two groups that you read, and you should be darn
sure that the folks in the two groups share much the same views and
customs, because a crosspost can touch off a horrible cross-newsgroup
flame war.
--
Karen Lofstrom SCIENTOLOGIST BAIT lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OT7-48 1. Find some plants, trees, etc., and communicate to them
individually until you know they received your communication.
Somebody
>> And *please*, if you ask someone not to top-post, at least you follow
>> your own advice!
>>
>> A
>
> Where do you think I top-posted in this thread? It was Habshi who
> replied top-posting his junk about advising David to top-post.
news:3C80D09A...@nospamthis.yahoo.com
It is this thread though not the same sub-thread.
Alok
Somebody
Sorry to be following up again, but here is your original post, which I
had reformatted to look like above.
As an aside, I have Habshi in my killfile and don't see his articles at
all unless someone replies to them.
-------------
It is usenet ethics, you dumb fool. It is convenient for the reader
to know to whom is the last post in response to. Why am i telling this
to a guy to thinks cross-posting is the next best invention after a
contraceptive!
Habshi wrote:
>
> Always top post , who wants to read all the requotes again and again ?
>
> On Fri, 01 Mar 2002 23:06:41 GMT, David Chute <dcc...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
-------------
Alok
Girish Bhat
> Jitendra has acted in one Bond film called 'Bond 303'. Akshay Kumar
How can you forget that the first "jumping jack" film Farz was a Bond
film?
Even Gehri Chaal (With a flawless perfomance by Amitabh ;-) was in
many ways a Bond film.
Girish Bhat
>
> IIRC Agent Vinod was the first movie of music
Is Agent Vinod the film where Bond's red car
1)starts flying over the streets of Bombay
2) becomes a submarine as it lands in the water?
3) Agent Vinod is a pehelwan in a suit who expectedly can't act? ;-)
habshi
Muffy St. Bernard
I'm with you here. I prefer to put my comments under a block of text
from a message I'm replying to, but if somebody top-posts my brain
quickly adapts. Surely more important things are going on to object to.
Muffy.
Gafoor
news:3C8372E4...@hotmail.com...
As I said, it isn't really a problem with a small volume NG like
Ramli.
But when I am alternating between Ramli & a very high volume NG
like clc++ (which I don't nowadays), it sometimes becomes very
irritating.
And it's not just top-posting. It's lots of stuff. Different people
disobey different
usenetiquette rules, so overall it becomes painful. IMHO, these are
some
basic stuff which every one should follow
1) Do not top-post.
2) Quote
3) Do not overquote. Snip irrelevant stuff
4) Do not post HTML or any rich text
5) Do not have a signature more than 4 lines long
6) Precede the signature which a "-- "
7) Your newsreader should automatically strip anything below the
"-- " when replying(quoting).
Unfortunately even commonly used newsreaders like Outlook
Express do not follow 1) & 7).
It offers top-posting as the default.
Hopefully future versions of all newsreaders will follow all the
conventions (Mozilla pre-release does (7) but it's otherwise too
buggy to use).