All time Top Ten Actors (Heros) of Hindi Cinema
Sandeep S Bajwa
Judged on three basic facts of being a good actor. Actors like Moti
Lal, Sohrab Modi, Pran, Randhir Kapoor, Amrish Puri, Om Puri, Rajit
Kapoor, etc are not being judged here. Only the popular actors (Heros)
of
Hindi cinema.
1. Dialogue Delivery (Diction, etc.).
2. Facial Expressions.
3. versatility (portraying different characters).
1. Dilip Kumar gets perfect A+ for great diction, great expressions
and versatility, he portrayed a prince in Mughl-e-Azam, a
uneducated politician in Sagina, a comedian in Ram Aur Shyam,
a jailor in Karma, a Police Inspector in Shakti, a mafia don in
Vidhaata. Thus each of these roles was different and his
acting and versatility prooves that we will probably never be able
to match up his potential.
2. Sangeev Kumar gets A for great expressions and versatility.
In diction he was not as good as Dilip but certainly much much
better than any others. He was also not as popular as Dilip Kumar.
His popular movies are Naya Din Nai Raat, Sholay, Vidhaata, Naukar,
Angoor (comedy), Anamika, Shatranj ke Khiladi(my favorite), etc.
3. Amitabh Bachchan gets A for diction, expressions but he was not
versatile enough, He did good, great movies like silent Jai of
Sholay, Proud singer of Jurmama?, A self made person of Mukaddar ka
Sikandar, comedian of "plagiarised" Namak Halal, etc. So in my opinion
where Sangeev Kumar was great in versatility Amitabh was not as good in
the same area.
4. Guru Dutt gets A. He did not acted in enough films, I am sure he
was better actor than Dilip Kumar. Judging from his classic movies like
Sahib Biwi aur Ghulam where he acts as a clerk, Mr and Mrs 55 which was
a satire on women lib movement, Pyaasa was a story of an urdu poet,
Kagaz ke Phool a story of film director, he was perfect just like Dilip
Kumar but not as popular, he acted in movies mostly made by himself.
5. Dharmendra gets A-. As an actor he was not enough versatile. He
did acted either in serious roles (Satyakam, Devar, etc.) or in action
movies (Sholay,pratigyaa, Mera Gaon Mera Desh, etc.) He was a great in
comedy, in Pratigyaa, Chupke Chupke, etc. Certainly he had much
potential if he had not been type casted into action/he man type of
movies. He has done all kind of movies. From total comedies to
artistic. Such as Satyakam, Phook Aur Paththar to Naukar Biwi kaa or
Chupke Chupke.
6. Nasiruddin gets B+. He has prooved that he is a good actor through
several movies. No questions about it. He lacks the charisma, good
looks or sense to be different. Thus he cannot become the top. In my
opinion he does not even come close to Amitabh, Dilip or Sangeev.
7. Raj Kapoor gets b+. As an actor he was not as versatile as others.
His expressions were also limited. He made great movies. His
contribution to Indian/Hindi cinema surpasses all the above and below.
His popular movies are Aah, Aag, Shri 420, Anari, Awaara, Barsaat,
Jaagte Raho(my favorite), etc.
8. Nana Patekar gets B-. In my opinion he has not changed a bit from
the Ankush days. He still acts sort of same. His diction for Hindi
movies is not good at all. His good movies are Ankush, Pratighaat,
Khamoshi (can't see what's good about this movie), etc.
9. Dev Anand as an actor probably will get a C+. He only showed a
glimpse of good acting when with great directors like Guru Dutt in
Baazi, Vijay Anand in Taxi Driver, Guide and Hum Dono (unofficially
directed by Vijay). But neverthless he was as popular as Dilip Kumar.
His popular movies are Hum Dono, Guide, Solvan Saal, Paying Guest, Tere
Ghar ke Samne, Johnny mera Naam, etc.
10. Raj Kumar as an actor also gets a C+. He acted in great movies like
Kajal (with Meena Kumari, Dharmendra), Mother India, Waqt, etc.
11. Any of the current lot in my opinion belongs here. Sunny deol,
Sanjay Dutt, Amir Khan, Salman Khan, etc all have same thing in common.
They are all star sons and were not brought up in common North Indian
Hindi belt environment and thus lack the sense of their fathers. They
do not, cannot speak as good as their parents, rarily they emote as
good. Thus, to me it looks like that the Hindi cinema has been hijacked
by the stars of 60's,70's and 80's be making their children as next
stars.
IT IS SAD!
Sandeep S Bajwa
--
For biography of Great Sikh warriors please visit
<a href="http://www.fyi.net/~punjab" > Great Sikh Warriors </a>
dee...@india.hp.com
Hi,
On Thu, 08 May 1997 18:47:51 -0400, Sandeep S Bajwa <sba...@fyi.net> wrote:
> Judged on three basic facts of being a good actor. Actors like Moti
> Lal, Sohrab Modi, Pran, Randhir Kapoor, Amrish Puri, Om Puri, Rajit
> Kapoor, etc are not being judged here. Only the popular actors (Heros)
> of
> Hindi cinema.
>
> 1. Dialogue Delivery (Diction, etc.).
> 2. Facial Expressions.
> 3. versatility (portraying different characters).
>
various roles.Especially in Koshish,Sholay and Khilona.He was also good
in comedy roles..Pati patni aur woh and Angoor.Like Dilip Kumar and Sanjeev
kumar AB did not take risk in experimenting with various roles.
His acting in Deewar,Trishul was superb.
Of present lot Sunny deol(with Santoshi) and Aamir are good.
---------
Deepak.B.Gothe
--
Posted using Reference.COM http://www.reference.com
Browse, Search and Post Usenet and Mailing list Archive and Catalog.
InReference, Inc. accepts no responsibility for the content of this posting.
vax2.concordia.ca
In article <337258...@fyi.net>, Sandeep S Bajwa <sba...@fyi.net> writes...
>Judged on three basic facts of being a good actor. Actors like Moti
>Lal, Sohrab Modi, Pran, Randhir Kapoor, Amrish Puri, Om Puri, Rajit
>Kapoor, etc are not being judged here. Only the popular actors (Heros)
>of
>Hindi cinema.
>
>1. Dialogue Delivery (Diction, etc.).
>2. Facial Expressions.
>3. versatility (portraying different characters).
>
>versatile enough, He did good, great movies like silent Jai of
>Sholay, Proud singer of Jurmama?, A self made person of Mukaddar ka
>Sikandar, comedian of "plagiarised" Namak Halal, etc.
Amitabh Bachchan was not versatile ? Many directors he has worked
with say that he could do any role. He played an obssesive lover in PARWANA,
a deaf/mute in RESHMA AUR SHERA, a sophisticated don in DON (a great
performance in a villains role), an uneducated villager in ADALAT, a rich
playboy who misleads Rakhee in JURMANA, a super-hero in TOOFAN, AJOOBA,
a romantic poet in SILSILA, a professor of botany in CHUPKE CHUPKE (excellent
comedy), an office clerk who others take advantage of in RAASTE KA PATHAR,
etc. I could go on with over 85 films not including special appearances.
Ashok Singh
r_kr...@hotmail.com
>Sandeep S Bajwa <sba...@fyi.net> wrote:-
>
First I disagree with you that only popular actors should be considered.
There are many excellent actors who were never popular.
>1. Dialogue Delivery (Diction, etc.).
>2. Facial Expressions.
>3. versatility (portraying different characters).
>
>1. Dilip Kumar gets perfect A+ for great diction, great expressions
>and versatility, he portrayed a prince in Mughl-e-Azam, a
>uneducated politician in Sagina, a comedian in Ram Aur Shyam,
>a jailor in Karma, a Police Inspector in Shakti, a mafia don in
>Vidhaata. Thus each of these roles was different and his
>acting and versatility prooves that we will probably never be able
>to match up his potential.
>
>2. Sangeev Kumar gets A for great expressions and versatility.
>In diction he was not as good as Dilip but certainly much much
>better than any others. He was also not as popular as Dilip Kumar.
>His popular movies are Naya Din Nai Raat, Sholay, Vidhaata, Naukar,
>Angoor (comedy), Anamika, Shatranj ke Khiladi(my favorite), etc.
Dilip Kumar above Sanjeev Kumar. That's bit too difficult to digest.
Sanjeev Kumar , IMHO was one of the finest actor in the world , capable of
beweldering variety. SK had very good voice modulation. He can act as
Thakur
in Sholay or a loving old father in Parichay. See biwi-o-biwi and see the
voice modulation in the two roles he played , that of retired Army person
and
that of a small time con man.
Dilip Kumar on the other hand was always DA , whatever role he played. He
was no doubt good but suffers in comparison to SA. Do you know that the
tamil version of Naya Din Nayi Raat came almost 10 years before the hindi
version. They didn't want to make the hindi version because they knew
that
no actor in Hindi could do 10 different roles the way Shivaji Ganesan did
it
in "navratri". The producers waited and waited and when they saw SK they
knew , here was an actor who could do those 9 roles. Indeed SK did it ,
as
well as Shivaji Ganesan. [ note - SK in an interview in once popular TV
program "Phool Khilan Hain Gulshan Gulshan told that Shivaji Ganeshan was
a
legend , an actor par excellence].
>Amitabh bachan ...
>versatile enough, He did good, great movies like silent Jai of
>Sholay, Proud singer of Jurmama?, A self made person of Mukaddar ka
>Sikandar, comedian of "plagiarised" Namak Halal, etc. So in my opinion
>where Sangeev Kumar was great in versatility Amitabh was not as good in
>the same area.
Amitabh Bachan also suffered from lack of variety. His fans always argue
that he also could have done this role , that role etc etc , but the point
is
that he did not do it. I find 90% of his roles to be same , with the same
set of expression of a angry young man. But he did show variety in other
10%
of his roles. I couldn't believe that he got national award for AngeePath
instead of Pankaj Kapoor did not get it for "Ek Doctor Ki Maut".
>4. Guru Dutt gets A. He did not acted in enough films, I am sure he
>was better actor than Dilip Kumar. Judging from his classic movies like
>Sahib Biwi aur Ghulam where he acts as a clerk, Mr and Mrs 55 which was
>a satire on women lib movement, Pyaasa was a story of an urdu poet,
>Kagaz ke Phool a story of film director, he was perfect just like Dilip
>Kumar but not as popular, he acted in movies mostly made by himself.
Guru Dutt was a great movie maker. As an actor he was very limited and
could
do very few type of roles.
>5. Dharmendra gets A-. As an actor he was not enough versatile. He
>did acted either in serious roles (Satyakam, Devar, etc.) or in action
>movies (Sholay,pratigyaa, Mera Gaon Mera Desh, etc.) He was a great in
>comedy, in Pratigyaa, Chupke Chupke, etc. Certainly he had much
>potential if he had not been type casted into action/he man type of
>movies. He has done all kind of movies. From total comedies to
>artistic. Such as Satyakam, Phook Aur Paththar to Naukar Biwi kaa or
>Chupke Chupke.
>
>6. Nasiruddin gets B+. He has prooved that he is a good actor through
>several movies. No questions about it. He lacks the charisma, good
>looks or sense to be different. Thus he cannot become the top. In my
>opinion he does not even come close to Amitabh, Dilip or Sangeev.
Dharmendra getting a ranking above Nasiruddin. That itself proves that
your
post should not be taken seriously. I know you are a great fan of Dharam
,
but this is too much. Go and see Sparsh,Aakrosh,Sir and a list of many
other
movies where he acted well. Heck even in Mohra where he acted as a blind
man
(villian) he was very good though the role was rotten. He brings an
amazing
naturality to acting. However he suffers from some limitations as he
tries
to be too intense in his role which makes him unfit for lighter roles as
in
Izzazat where he was misfit.
>7. Raj Kapoor gets b+. As an actor he was not as versatile as others.
>His expressions were also limited. He made great movies. His
>contribution to Indian/Hindi cinema surpasses all the above and below.
>His popular movies are Aah, Aag, Shri 420, Anari, Awaara, Barsaat,
>Jaagte Raho(my favorite), etc.
Agreed.
>
>8. Nana Patekar gets B-. In my opinion he has not changed a bit from
>the Ankush days. He still acts sort of same. His diction for Hindi
>movies is not good at all. His good movies are Ankush, Pratighaat,
>Khamoshi (can't see what's good about this movie), etc.
Agreed.
>9. Dev Anand as an actor probably will get a C+. He only showed a
>glimpse of good acting when with great directors like Guru Dutt in
>Baazi, Vijay Anand in Taxi Driver, Guide and Hum Dono (unofficially
>directed by Vijay). But neverthless he was as popular as Dilip Kumar.
>His popular movies are Hum Dono, Guide, Solvan Saal, Paying Guest, Tere
>Ghar ke Samne, Johnny mera Naam, etc.
Agreed.
>10. Raj Kumar as an actor also gets a C+. He acted in great movies like
>Kajal (with Meena Kumari, Dharmendra), Mother India, Waqt, etc.
Agreed.
>
>11. Any of the current lot in my opinion belongs here. Sunny deol,
>Sanjay Dutt, Amir Khan, Salman Khan, etc all have same thing in common.
>They are all star sons and were not brought up in common North Indian
>Hindi belt environment and thus lack the sense of their fathers. They
>do not, cannot speak as good as their parents, rarily they emote as
>good. Thus, to me it looks like that the Hindi cinema has been hijacked
>by the stars of 60's,70's and 80's be making their children as next
>stars.
What's your problem with current stars. I think Aamir Khan is good.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Meenakshi Abbi
> >6. Nasiruddin gets B+. He has prooved that he is a good actor through
> >several movies. No questions about it. He lacks the charisma, good
> >looks or sense to be different. Thus he cannot become the top. In my
> >opinion he does not even come close to Amitabh, Dilip or Sangeev.
>
> Dharmendra getting a ranking above Nasiruddin. That itself proves that
> your post should not be taken seriously. I know you are a great fan of Dharam
> but this is too much. Go and see Sparsh,Aakrosh,Sir and a list of many
> other movies where he acted well. Heck even in Mohra where he acted as a blind
> man (villian) he was very good though the role was rotten. He brings an
> amazing naturality to acting. However he suffers from some limitations as he
> tries to be too intense in his role which makes him unfit for lighter roles as
> in Izzazat where he was misfit.
I loved Nasirudin in Bejubaan.. where he blackmails
his wife's best friend. He was great in it.
Woh Saat Din and Masoom are also some of my favs
with him in it.
Meenakshi
nobody
Nitin Sharma wrote:
>
> Sandeep S Bajwa (sba...@fyi.net) wrote:
> : Judged on three basic facts of being a good actor. Actors like Moti
> : Lal, Sohrab Modi, Pran, Randhir Kapoor, Amrish Puri, Om Puri, Rajit
> : Kapoor, etc are not being judged here. Only the popular actors (Heros)
OOPS!!My mistake
Randhir Kapoor should be actually his Grand father Prithvi Raj Kapoor.
>
> Am I the only one who thinks randhir kapoor seems an odd man out here?
>
> : 3. Amitabh Bachchan gets A for diction, expressions but he was not
> : versatile enough, He did good, great movies like silent Jai of
> : Sholay, Proud singer of Jurmama?, A self made person of Mukaddar ka
>
> i think you are being harsh to amitabh. That he didn't appear in a
> variety of roles does not mean he couldn't have done them. he may not
> have performed the range of roles of a Naseeruddin or even Dilip
> Kumar, he was certainly quite competent in whatever he did in the
> earlier phase of his career.
> :
> : 5. Dharmendra gets A-. As an actor he was not enough versatile. He
>
> : 6. Nasiruddin gets B+. He has prooved that he is a good actor through
> : several movies. No questions about it. He lacks the charisma, good
> : looks or sense to be different. Thus he cannot become the top. In my
> : opinion he does not even come close to Amitabh, Dilip or Sangeev.
>
> You know what, Sandeep? That you would rate Dharmendra above Naseer
> and Raj Kapoor makes me doubt about the seriousness of your post.
And why exactly is that? Dharmendra was indeed better! Look at the
wide range of characters he had played.
an unemployed youth of Shola Aur Shabnam, A young progressive engineer
of
Satyakam, A military officer in Haqiqat, An oppressed shudra in Ghulami
where
he and Nasir acted together and Dharmendra excelled in performance, A
Thief in Sholay along with Amitabh and Sanjeev, There was another movie
with
Sharmila tagore in which he played as a poet a song is 'ya dil ki suno
duniya
walo, ya mujkho abhi kuuchh kahno do, main gham koo khushi kaise keh
dooN, jo
kehta haiN unko kehne do' in Hemant Kumar's voice, a Thief of Phool Aur
Paththar
who takes care of a plague patient, A fugitive truck driver of Pratigyaa
who goes
into a distant village and organize them to protect themselves from
dacoits, A professor of
Chupke-2 who acts as a Taxi Driver, a Sanskrit Professor in Dillagi, A
Police
officer in Charas, A CID officer in Aankhen, Dream Girl, Devar,
DHARMENDRA
HAS ACTED IN MORE MOVIES THAN NASIR. Raj kapoor was not as versatile he
always acted as a loser poor 'faqir' romeo, sort of like Shakesperean
character, in
Shri 420, in Awaara, In Anari, in Aah, in Aag, his all characters were
same!
Except in Jaagte Raho, which was also similar to some extent, it was
reversed to that
effect that a poor person from a village comes to city and he faces
what?
Dharmendra has always been underrated! Don't know why?
He speaks better than Nasir (may be not better than Raj kapoor).
He emotes equally with Raj and Nasir.
Nasir cannot carry a movie on his own, Dharmendra Can.
> If Dharamendra could emote, wood can act too! Dharmendra could
> never match the intensity of Raj Kapoor, no not even in his dreams.
> And I guess, nor in yours.
Raj Kapoor, probably could never do roles like Chupke-2 or Sholay or
Pratigyaa!
Cna you imagine? I guess not!
Raj Kapoor was limited and not versatile enough! Even in his movie in
which he
played as a villager "Teesri Kasam" he was not GOOD AT ALL. It was the
excellent
plot and songs of the movie and Waheeda Rehman which made it classic and
the usual
pathos to the drama. 'oh what a poor boy, will be ever get his love'.
No doubt that
Raj Kapoor has given much more to Hindi cinema than Dharm or Nasir. He
was a good
producer and Director but not a GOOD HERO ACTOR. His all movies has one
thing in
common 'a loser lover'. From Aag, Shri 420, Anari to Mera Naam Joker,
he acted
only as a lost lover. While Dharmendra acted as a thief, police
officer, professor,
truck driver, military officer, lover, etc. etc. HOPE YOU GET MY POINT.
>
> And comparing Naseer and dharam borders on the sacrilege. Nishant,
> Junoon, Manthan, Paar, Sparsh, Jaane bhi do yaaron, Mirch Masala,
> Masoom, Mandi, Hero Hiralal, Drohkaal, Aakrosh, Pestonjee, Anantyatra,
> Albert Pinto ko gussa kyon ata hai, Rihaaee, Godhuli.....
Jaane Bhi Do yaaro! Dharmendra can do equally or better than Nasir! If
he was
given a Chance so are other movies! Dharm never worked with GREAT
DIRECTORS
of his time, he never worked with Guru Dutt, Chetan Anand, I think he
worked
with Bimal Roy in one movie, and few movies with Hrishikesh Mukkherji,
he
was a popular Hero Actor who acted with any director, while Nasir only
with
directors like Ghautama Ghosh, Mrinal Sen, etc. Directors who can make
a
donkey act. SO NOT PUTTING NASIR DOWN, I THINK THAT EVEN YOU CAN DO
BETTER
JOB OF ACTING IF ARE WORKING WITH GREAT DIRECTORS! NASIR HAD NOTHING
SPECIAL, only a degree in Urdu from Aligarh University.
>
> Armed with such a breathtaking array of films, I guess even a Dilip
> Kumar could be challenged. As for dharmendra, any 3 of the above
> naseer films would outweigh the entire output by Dharmendra.
YEAH RIGHT! You are simply not getting my point!
How many of Dharmendra movies have you seen?
>
> Your summary dismissal of Naseer ("lacked charisma, good looks
> or sense to be different" ) seems most unfair to one of the most
> talented actors Indian cinema has seen. (and i hope i'm not using
> my words lightly..)
Dharmendra is a Pure Hero Actor. Nasir is not an Hero Actor.
>
> I dont know what you mean by "sense to be different" (perhaps you
> could elaborate?) But good looks? Are we talking of cinema stage or
> modelling ramps? Was Sanjeev Kumar, with his 40' waist, a handsome
> man? I'd suspect even your idol Dilip Kumar couldn't launch a single
> ship just with his looks. Does it make him any inferior actor to the
> dashing Dev who could launch a thousand?
Sanjeev Kumar was indeed a true versatile actor! His portrayal of
nawaab in Sharranj
ke Khilari could not be matched. I think even Sayyed Jafri is better
than
Nasir!
>
> Do Om Puri's less than handsome looks make him any worse actor?
> Perhaps Raghubir Yadav's short height makes him a below avg actor?
> And may be Smita Patil's dark looks get her C+ in acting?
>
NO! RAghubir Yadav, and Om puri have not prooved themselves yet!
Raghuvir Yadav has potential! HE CAN! I liked his movies like Massey
Memsahib,
and a movie with Nana Patekar directed by Sai Paranjpe about villagers
going
to cities to work.
> Judge an actor by his performances, not the colour of his trousers!
NO I AIN'T juding by colour of his dress!
>
> I agree with your opinion about the current crowd of heroes
> though. (except for Aamir Khan, who could get a B-)
>
> -nitin
NO! I don't think so! He is average! probably a C-.
Again! today movies are going back to Directors!
HAHK, DDLJ, etc were not hit because of Shahrukh Khan, or
Salman Khan but because of Aditya Chopra and Sooraj Barjatya.
Same way! Today stars are not actors any more! cause audience
look for their dances, martial arts, etc. While 80's and before that
mostly a Hero/Actor was judged on his acting, emoting and speaking
abilities.
--
For biography of Great Sikh warriors please visit
<a href="http://www.fyi.net/~punjab" > Great Sikh Warriors </a>
Sandeep S bajwa
Ikram Ahmed Khan
>
> : 6. Nasiruddin gets B+.
> and Raj Kapoor makes me doubt about the seriousness of your post.
Actually, it made me believe in the seriousness of his post.
Honest, no kidding!! {See- no smilies}
Sandeep really admires Dharam. It has come out on numerous posts of his.
His willingness to put him below a couple of actors amazes me and
convinces me that he was being as serious as he could get..
> Your summary dismissal of Naseer ("lacked charisma, good looks
> or sense to be different" ) seems most unfair to one of the most
> talented actors Indian cinema has seen. (and i hope i'm not using
> my words lightly..)
Actually that was a very short'n sweet way of telling it like it
is, I thought!!
Again, I am being honest and not kidding around....
Lemme explain - SandeepSB's post clearly details what he is listing
"All time Top Ten Actors (Heros) of Hindi Cinema"
~~~~~
Taking the Heros to mean males as opposed to heroines(females) might
be erroneous. He means "Heros" which I take to be characters who
portray heroic deeds (like singing around trees :) :) - what?? I
didn't say I wouldn't joke in the *entire* post, did I?? :) ).
Tho' people say Naseer did well in 'Oye Oye', I didn't think so...
> Do Om Puri's less than handsome looks make him any worse actor?
> Perhaps Raghubir Yadav's short height makes him a below avg actor?
> And may be Smita Patil's dark looks get her C+ in acting?
So, the whole point is that he is not considering Actors in general,
but actors who are also "Heros".
As for DilipK, you might have seen him in Karma :) :)
no, actually I meant Sagina and Ram Aur Shyam to determine that he
wasn't really handsome, but in films like Amar, Andaz, Tarana....
that dude "rocked", to use a slang.. He definitely looked great in
his 40-early50s movies... Dress him in a nice suit and watch him....:)
Disclaimer: Beauty lies in the 'aankh' of the beholder... :)
I think he was handsome. Nitin may disagree.......
Later,
Ikram.
ps. Of course, this list is SandeepSB's list... I don't necessarily
agree with it or call it my list...:)
Faez Nasrudin Kaiser
: Lal, Sohrab Modi, Pran, Randhir Kapoor, Amrish Puri, Om Puri, Rajit
: Kapoor, etc are not being judged here. Only the popular actors (Heros)
: Hindi cinema.
Don't quite agree with this criteria but let's go on.
: 1. Dialogue Delivery (Diction, etc.).
: 2. Facial Expressions.
: 3. versatility (portraying different characters).
: 1. Dilip Kumar gets perfect A+ for great diction, great expressions
: and versatility, he portrayed a prince in Mughl-e-Azam, a
: uneducated politician in Sagina, a comedian in Ram Aur Shyam,
: a jailor in Karma, a Police Inspector in Shakti, a mafia don in
: Vidhaata. Thus each of these roles was different and his
: acting and versatility prooves that we will probably never be able
: to match up his potential.
Strongly agree. The man had an almost bewildering variety from comedy all
the way through to the depths of tragedy.
: 2. Sangeev Kumar gets A for great expressions and versatility.
: In diction he was not as good as Dilip but certainly much much
: better than any others. He was also not as popular as Dilip Kumar.
: His popular movies are Naya Din Nai Raat, Sholay, Vidhaata, Naukar,
: Angoor (comedy), Anamika, Shatranj ke Khiladi(my favorite), etc.
Somehow I feel Sanjeev K is underrated by the general public, which may be
due to his lack of mass-appeal. However, in movies like Namkeen and
Aandhi, he is truly awesome.
: 3. Amitabh Bachchan gets A for diction, expressions but he was not
: versatile enough, He did good, great movies like silent Jai of
: Sholay, Proud singer of Jurmama?, A self made person of Mukaddar ka
: Sikandar, comedian of "plagiarised" Namak Halal, etc. So in my opinion
: where Sangeev Kumar was great in versatility Amitabh was not as good in
: the same area.
I honestly feel Amitabh is overrated as an actor. Many people mistake his
persona and mass appeal for acting talent. While he was capable of good
and even great performances, he tended to play the same type of role in
most of his films. He rarely took risks, and this lack of variety has
caused him to stagnate as an actor. I would definitely take Dilip or
Naseer's best performances over Amitabh's. There is simply no comparison.
: 4. Guru Dutt gets A. He did not acted in enough films, I am sure he
: was better actor than Dilip Kumar. Judging from his classic movies like
: Sahib Biwi aur Ghulam where he acts as a clerk, Mr and Mrs 55 which was
: a satire on women lib movement, Pyaasa was a story of an urdu poet,
: Kagaz ke Phool a story of film director, he was perfect just like Dilip
: Kumar but not as popular, he acted in movies mostly made by himself.
Guru Dutt was no great actor.
: 5. Dharmendra gets A-. As an actor he was not enough versatile. He
: did acted either in serious roles (Satyakam, Devar, etc.) or in action
: movies (Sholay,pratigyaa, Mera Gaon Mera Desh, etc.) He was a great in
: comedy, in Pratigyaa, Chupke Chupke, etc. Certainly he had much
: potential if he had not been type casted into action/he man type of
: movies. He has done all kind of movies. From total comedies to
: artistic. Such as Satyakam, Phook Aur Paththar to Naukar Biwi kaa or
: Chupke Chupke.
You can't be serious !! Dharam above Naseer and Nana ?? Dharam was and
never will be a good actor. He was amusing in some of his roles, but by
and large he never took on challenging roles.
: 6. Nasiruddin gets B+. He has prooved that he is a good actor through
: several movies. No questions about it. He lacks the charisma, good
: looks or sense to be different. Thus he cannot become the top. In my
: opinion he does not even come close to Amitabh, Dilip or Sangeev.
I would put Naseer after Dilip and Sanjeev on sheer acting talent. Pick up
almost any Naseer movie from the 80's and he will mesmerise you with his
performance. Sparsh, Masoom, Ijaazat ... need I go on ? He lacks the
conventional good looks to make it big in commercial films, but he is the
best actor of his generation even though he isn't the biggest star.
: 7. Raj Kapoor gets b+. As an actor he was not as versatile as others.
: His expressions were also limited. He made great movies. His
: contribution to Indian/Hindi cinema surpasses all the above and below.
: His popular movies are Aah, Aag, Shri 420, Anari, Awaara, Barsaat,
: Jaagte Raho(my favorite), etc.
RK typecast himself as the happy-go-lucky tramp, so I agree that his
roles lack versatility. I never thought of him as anything great as an
actor, but he had a certain feel for the pulse of the masses. This shows
in the enduring popularity of his films.
: 9. Dev Anand as an actor probably will get a C+. He only showed a
: glimpse of good acting when with great directors like Guru Dutt in
: Baazi, Vijay Anand in Taxi Driver, Guide and Hum Dono (unofficially
: directed by Vijay). But neverthless he was as popular as Dilip Kumar.
: His popular movies are Hum Dono, Guide, Solvan Saal, Paying Guest, Tere
: Ghar ke Samne, Johnny mera Naam, etc.
Dev was a hopeless actor but a great star. While Dilip was admired as a
great actor, he never generated the mass hysteria or personality cult that
followed Dev Anand. Dev paved the way for the soft romantic heroes of the
60's, Shammi, Rajendra Kumar, Biswajeet etc.
: 11. Any of the current lot in my opinion belongs here. Sunny deol,
: Sanjay Dutt, Amir Khan, Salman Khan, etc all have same thing in common.
: They are all star sons and were not brought up in common North Indian
: Hindi belt environment and thus lack the sense of their fathers. They
: do not, cannot speak as good as their parents, rarily they emote as
: good. Thus, to me it looks like that the Hindi cinema has been hijacked
: by the stars of 60's,70's and 80's be making their children as next
: stars.
Nepotism is a poison that is killing Hindi cinema. I am surprised there
hasn't been a worthwhile discussion on RAMLI about this topic.
Regards,
Faez
--
Faez Kaiser nasr...@glue.umd.edu
Electrical Engineering http://www.ee.umd.edu/~nasrudin
University of Maryland at College Park
Nitin Sharma
Sandeep S Bajwa (sba...@fyi.net) wrote:
: Judged on three basic facts of being a good actor. Actors like Moti
: Lal, Sohrab Modi, Pran, Randhir Kapoor, Amrish Puri, Om Puri, Rajit
: Kapoor, etc are not being judged here. Only the popular actors (Heros)
Am I the only one who thinks randhir kapoor seems an odd man out here?
: 3. Amitabh Bachchan gets A for diction, expressions but he was not
: versatile enough, He did good, great movies like silent Jai of
: Sholay, Proud singer of Jurmama?, A self made person of Mukaddar ka
i think you are being harsh to amitabh. That he didn't appear in a
variety of roles does not mean he couldn't have done them. he may not
have performed the range of roles of a Naseeruddin or even Dilip
Kumar, he was certainly quite competent in whatever he did in the
earlier phase of his career.
:
: 5. Dharmendra gets A-. As an actor he was not enough versatile. He
: 6. Nasiruddin gets B+. He has prooved that he is a good actor through
: several movies. No questions about it. He lacks the charisma, good
: looks or sense to be different. Thus he cannot become the top. In my
: opinion he does not even come close to Amitabh, Dilip or Sangeev.
You know what, Sandeep? That you would rate Dharmendra above Naseer
and Raj Kapoor makes me doubt about the seriousness of your post.
If Dharamendra could emote, wood can act too! Dharmendra could
never match the intensity of Raj Kapoor, no not even in his dreams.
And I guess, nor in yours.
And comparing Naseer and dharam borders on the sacrilege. Nishant,
Junoon, Manthan, Paar, Sparsh, Jaane bhi do yaaron, Mirch Masala,
Masoom, Mandi, Hero Hiralal, Drohkaal, Aakrosh, Pestonjee, Anantyatra,
Albert Pinto ko gussa kyon ata hai, Rihaaee, Godhuli.....
Armed with such a breathtaking array of films, I guess even a Dilip
Kumar could be challenged. As for dharmendra, any 3 of the above
naseer films would outweigh the entire output by Dharmendra.
Your summary dismissal of Naseer ("lacked charisma, good looks
or sense to be different" ) seems most unfair to one of the most
talented actors Indian cinema has seen. (and i hope i'm not using
my words lightly..)
I dont know what you mean by "sense to be different" (perhaps you
could elaborate?) But good looks? Are we talking of cinema stage or
modelling ramps? Was Sanjeev Kumar, with his 40' waist, a handsome
man? I'd suspect even your idol Dilip Kumar couldn't launch a single
ship just with his looks. Does it make him any inferior actor to the
dashing Dev who could launch a thousand?
Do Om Puri's less than handsome looks make him any worse actor?
Perhaps Raghubir Yadav's short height makes him a below avg actor?
And may be Smita Patil's dark looks get her C+ in acting?
Judge an actor by his performances, not the colour of his trousers!
I agree with your opinion about the current crowd of heroes
nobody
r_kr...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Dilip Kumar above Sanjeev Kumar. That's bit too difficult to digest.
> Sanjeev Kumar , IMHO was one of the finest actor in the world , capable of
> beweldering variety. SK had very good voice modulation. He can act as
> Thakur
> in Sholay or a loving old father in Parichay. See biwi-o-biwi and see the
> voice modulation in the two roles he played , that of retired Army person
> and
> that of a small time con man.
I think Dilip Kumar started much before Sanjeev Kumar and acted in more
movies.
His fan base was also strong. Going by consensus Dilip Kumar wins the
vote :)
BUT.. When they were both matched in Vidhaata, a movie directed by
Subhash Ghai,
an era when he was good (before his Khalnayak and Trimurti days),
Sanjeev Kumar
stole the show from Dilip kumar.
>
> Dharmendra getting a ranking above Nasiruddin. That itself proves that
> your
> post should not be taken seriously. I know you are a great fan of Dharam
> ,
> but this is too much. Go and see Sparsh,Aakrosh,Sir and a list of many
> other
> movies where he acted well. Heck even in Mohra where he acted as a blind
> man
> (villian) he was very good though the role was rotten. He brings an
> amazing
> naturality to acting. However he suffers from some limitations as he
> tries
> to be too intense in his role which makes him unfit for lighter roles as
> in
> Izzazat where he was misfit.
>
Please read my another post where I have explained why Nasir is not as
good as
Dharmendra! Can't figure why Dharmendra is probably the most underrated
actor in the
history of indian cinema. Nasir acted with great directors like Shyam
Benegal,
Mrinal Sen, Ghautama Ghoush, Govind Nihalani, etc. These directors are
THE
BEST IN INDIA and they can make even a donkey act! :) We people when
judging
actors leave directors and umpteen people working behind them out of
scene.
There is no doubt that Nasir got the oppurtunity and played it great!
But
in my opinion if Raghubir Yadav, Sayyid Jafri, Madan Jain, Rajat kapoor,
or anyone had the same team, same script, they will shine as much as
Nasir.
Nasir overacted badly in a movie directed by one of the popular
directors in which
Sunny Deol, etc. were also there, movie has all plagiarised tunes from
Gloria Estefan's Miami Sound Machine. Forgot the name! Nasir in
commercial
movies has so far OVERACTED AND THAT BLOWS OUT THE HYPE.
He cannot act as a thief, police officers, professor, etc.etc. he can
only
act as a student, or a lover.
I think you saw the point now!
I recently saw a movie called "Sardari Begum" directed by Shyam Benegal,
a
great movie. I will recommend this to any one! It was made for Star Tv
only
though!
>
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
--
r_kr...@hotmail.com
In article <3373AB...@nowhere.gov>, nobody says...
>I think Dilip Kumar started much before Sanjeev Kumar and acted in more
>movies.
>His fan base was also strong. Going by consensus Dilip Kumar wins the
>vote :)
>BUT.. When they were both matched in Vidhaata, a movie directed by
>Subhash Ghai,
>an era when he was good (before his Khalnayak and Trimurti days),
>Sanjeev Kumar
>stole the show from Dilip kumar.
So you agree that Sanjeev Kumar was better than DK.
>Please read my another post where I have explained why Nasir is not as
>good as
>Dharmendra! Can't figure why Dharmendra is probably the most underrated
>actor in the
>history of indian cinema. Nasir acted with great directors like Shyam
>Benegal,
>Mrinal Sen, Ghautama Ghoush, Govind Nihalani, etc. These directors are
>THE
>BEST IN INDIA and they can make even a donkey act! :) We people when
>judging
>actors leave directors and umpteen people working behind them out of
>scene.
>There is no doubt that Nasir got the oppurtunity and played it great!
>But
>in my opinion if Raghubir Yadav, Sayyid Jafri, Madan Jain, Rajat kapoor,
>or anyone had the same team, same script, they will shine as much as
>Nasir.
Read that article where you claimed Dharam to be a great versatile actor.
All you listed is different characters played by Dharam. Dharam did not
bring any change in his acting. His voice and dialog delivery is pathetic.
I dunno how you said that Nasir can't speak as well as Dharam. Listen to
Nasir's powerful dialog delivery in "baazar".
Anyone who wants to see a great comedy of Dharam should see "yaadon ki baraat".
The scene where Dharam looks at the shoes (no 8 and no 9) of Ajit and comes to
know that he is the killer of his parents. Watch his expression. Whenever I
see it it gives me a hearty laugh. To put it crudely he looked like a
constipated man having great difficulty .... ( rest deleted ). As Ikram
rightly said he was a ham of worst order. Dharam lacks any expression.
But there is no doubt that Dharam was one of the most handsome star of Hindi
films and you can see his movies just for his presence. But acting .. no way.
Could you give me one reason that why Dharam was never taken seriously by
the Hindi film industry ( by serious I mean giving him some real good roles).
Very few films like Satyakam. Hindi film industry knew very well that Dharam
was fit for only "kameena kutta " kinda roles and they never attempted giving
him any good role.
Regarding your statement that great directors can make anybody act , can
they make Sunny Deol / Chunky Pandey / Akshay Kumar act. Give some credit
to actors also. Nasir is very good. By the way if Dharam was so good then
why didn't great directors you names did not take him. Surely they must have
seen the potential in him.
>Nasir overacted badly in a movie directed by one of the popular
>directors in which
>Sunny Deol, etc. were also there, movie has all plagiarised tunes from
>Gloria Estefan's Miami Sound Machine. Forgot the name! Nasir in
>commercial
>movies has so far OVERACTED AND THAT BLOWS OUT THE HYPE.
The movie you are referring is Tridev.
Yes you are right that Nasir overacts in some commercial movie but then what
else can you do with such stupid roles. Anupam Kher overacts in most of the
movies,but when he acts well is few movies , he acts excellently. Will you
call him bad actor.
>> What's your problem with current stars. I think Aamir Khan is good.
>
>He cannot act as a thief, police officers, professor, etc.etc. he can
>only act as a student, or a lover.
And you think Dharam can act (??) different roles. I didn't see any change
in Dharam's acting in any role he did. The one role he acted excellently and
very convincingly was in "Jeevan Mriytu". He acted very well as "Sardar". But
since Dharam himself is a Sikh it is natural for him to act. He should act as
tamilian , Bihari , Marathi , Bengali. Heck he can't even change his accent
in any role.
>
>I recently saw a movie called "Sardari Begum" directed by Shyam Benegal,
>a
>great movie. I will recommend this to any one! It was made for Star Tv
>only
>though!
Thanks. Will see this movie.
Arnab Gupta
nobody wrote:
>
> r_kr...@hotmail.com wrote:
..[deleted]..
> > Dharmendra getting a ranking above Nasiruddin. That itself proves that
> > your
> > post should not be taken seriously. I know you are a great fan of Dharam
> > ,
> > but this is too much. Go and see Sparsh,Aakrosh,Sir and a list of many
> > other
> > movies where he acted well. Heck even in Mohra where he acted as a blind
> > man
> > (villian) he was very good though the role was rotten. He brings an
> > amazing
> > naturality to acting. However he suffers from some limitations as he
> > tries
> > to be too intense in his role which makes him unfit for lighter roles as
> > in
> > Izzazat where he was misfit.
> >
>
> Please read my another post where I have explained why Nasir is not as
> good as
> Dharmendra! Can't figure why Dharmendra is probably the most underrated
> actor in the
> history of indian cinema. Nasir acted with great directors like Shyam
> Benegal,
> Mrinal Sen, Ghautama Ghoush, Govind Nihalani, etc. These directors are
> THE
> BEST IN INDIA and they can make even a donkey act! :)
Exactly, just as any donkey could come out with flying colors playing
one of those innumerable donkey-roles that Dharamendra played. :-)
Thanks,
Arnab.
Peeyush
Anyone placing Dilip Kr over Sanjeev Kumar should know that the role SK
did in Naya Din Nayi Raat was first offered to dilip Kr but he couldn't do
it (tried but couldnt.. then turned it down).. and thats when they
approached Sanjeev Kr.
-Peeyush
pai...@rocketmail.com
In article <3373A4...@nowhere.gov>,
nobody <nob...@nowhere.gov> wrote:
> > Sandeep S Bajwa (sba...@fyi.net) wrote:
> > : Judged on three basic facts of being a good actor. Actors like Moti
> > : Lal, Sohrab Modi, Pran, Randhir Kapoor, Amrish Puri, Om Puri, Rajit
> > : Kapoor, etc are not being judged here. Only the popular actors (Heros)
>
> OOPS!!My mistake
> Randhir Kapoor should be actually his Grand father Prithvi Raj Kapoor.
Sandeep,
You have just extricated yourself from a potentially emabarassing
situation. I was bout to launch a no holds barred criticism about your
choice of Randhir Kappor, alas!! I hope you give me a chance in future
:-).
As far as Randhir Kappor's movies I can think of only two, I ever liked
that cast him. 'Haath Ki Safai' (Vinod Khanna, Simi excellent song 'Vada
karle saajna'), and Jawani Diwani (Jaya Bhaduri, 'Jaane ja dhhondh tha
phir raha..').
He was not much of an actor.
Muqudar
I believe Shashi Kapoor is the best looking of all the actors from Day one
of movies...But I have no clue as to which is the most talented in acting
Dipendra Sinha
Dharmendra is probably one of the most handsome actors in Hindi
movies. But he really fails in emotional scenes. He portrays anger
well. He is ok with comedy. But he can hardly portray sadness.
As an actor, he is nowhere near Dilip Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar,
Om Puri, Naseeruddin Shah, Amitabh Bachchan and Nana
Patekar. Dev Anand has almost no acting talent!
Sunny Doel lacks acting ability and simply copies his dad, Dharmendra!
Dipendra
Ikram Ahmed Khan
r_kr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hindi film industry knew very well that Dharam
> was fit for only "kameena kutta " kinda roles and they never attempted giving
> him any good role.
This sentence had me in fits. :) :) What RaviK meant was, of course,
those roles in which one is supposed to shout out dialogues like
'kameene kutte, maiN teri boTi-boTi kar dooNga' :) :)
>
> Regarding your statement that great directors can make anybody act , can
> they make Sunny Deol / Chunky Pandey / Akshay Kumar act.
Whoa!! Hold on!! SunnyDelight with Chunky and Akshay??
SunnyD could act rings around 'em. He was superb in 'Kshatriya' where
he portrayed an unwilling opponent to SunjayD {until of course the
last few reels where everything got hokey to be saved by the women,
which bring back the Pakistan-India motif... Btw, that was a first
of a kind, y'know.... Normally, we have one 'Mother India' with two
fighting sons, now we had two mothers with their sons fighting each
other...}, and same goes for Ghayal and so on.......
> Yes you are right that Nasir overacts in some commercial movie but then what
'some' is right. I thought he was superb as 'Sikandar' in Lootere.
Btw, anybody see any shades of resemblance between 'Sikandar' in
Lootere and 'Shankar' in Koyla.... Hmmm... must be a figment of my....
:) :)
> And you think Dharam can act (??) different roles. I didn't see any change
> in Dharam's acting in any role he did. The one role he acted excellently and
> very convincingly was in "Jeevan Mriytu". He acted very well as "Sardar". But
> since Dharam himself is a Sikh it is natural for him to act.
Dharam is not a 'Sikh'. He is a 'Jat'.....
Later,
Ikram.
Anil Hingorani
nobody wrote:
>
<snip>
> I recently saw a movie called "Sardari Begum" directed by Shyam Benegal,
> a
> great movie. I will recommend this to any one! It was made for Star Tv
> only
> though!
>
best, but is quite good. His direction is impressive for the way he
narrates the story out of sync and the fact that he makes sure all the
loose ends are tied up neatly. However, the main highlights are the
MUSIC and the performances by both Kiron Kher and Smriti Mishra playing
the eponymous character.
The main thing that bothered me was that there was not enough substance
to the story to make it a really great film. It is a character study of
a thumri singer - but besides being fiesty in a male dominated society,
nothing much about the character comes across. Also, Rajit Kapoor who
won a National award for Banegal's previous film is quite horrible here
and totally miscast.
However, it is still a well made film and I do recommend it.
Cheers.
Anil
Amarjit Singh Marjara
Date: 13 May 1997 17:04:03 +0200
From: Amarjit Singh Marjara <am...@idt.unit.no>
To: what <d...@nowhere.gov>
Subject: Re: Dharmendra (Holi)
The movie you are referring to is PHAGUN, and it does not have
Sharmila, but Waheeda Rehman.
It is a nice movie, written & directed by the famous Punjabi writer
Rajender
Singh Bedi. Another movie based on his books his Ek Chader Maili Si
with Hema and Rishi.
Amarjit
what <d...@nowhere.gov> writes:
> This movie with Sharmila Tagore and Dharmendra based on a social plot.
> Dharm is a poor simple working guy he marries a rich Girl (Sharmila, who
> else). One day on Holi, Dharm pours some water on his wife and she in
> front of everyone scolds him that " IfHe can't even buy her a good saree
> and he has no right to spoil it", Dharm leaves house and starts
> collecting sarees and became rich but in the end, his house with all the
> sarees burns down and is left with nothing! on the other hand his wife
> Sharmila is raising their daughter Jaya Bhaduri who is suppose to get
> married! A GREAT DRAMA!
>
>
> A MUST SEE FOR ANYONE!! Those who believe that Dharm cannot act
> emotionally! He did acted in lot of movies! Like Satyakam, etc. but
> people only wanted him to be either a comedian(chupke-2) or a
> He-man(various movies) or both (sholay). That's why most people labels
> him as a good comedian and action hero!
>
>
> WATCH HIS BLACK AND WHITE ERA MOVIES WITH SHARMILA, etc. His very first
> movie Shola Aur Shabnam is itself a good movie.
>
>
> Sandeep S Bajwa
Mirza Jutt
Amarjit Singh Marjara wrote:
>
> The movie you are referring to is PHAGUN, and it does not have
> Sharmila, but Waheeda Rehman.
>
> It is a nice movie, written & directed by the famous Punjabi writer
> Rajender
> Singh Bedi. Another movie based on his books his Ek Chader Maili Si
> with Hema and Rishi.
>
> Amarjit
OOPS!! You are right
That movie is indeed Phagun! Good movie!
Also Rajender Singh Bedi was not a Punjabi writer but Urdu Writer. :)
Sandeep S Bajwa
Raj
Hold on !!!! You are forgetting the baddies ...... They are great actors
too....like Amzad Khan, Paresh Rawal, Amrish Puri, Nana Patekar, etc..
Peeyush Ranjan
Mo wrote:
>
> Sanjeev has to be one of the top ones. In one movie he did 9 roles !
> havent seen it except for excerpts. What was the name of it ?
--
Naya din nayi raat. Not a great movie but SK was good.. as good as he
always was in all his movies.
- Peeyush
Thought for the mail:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
While your friend holds you affectionately by both your hands you are
safe, for you can watch both of his.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mo
Ikram Ahmed Khan
Peeyush Ranjan wrote:
> Naya din nayi raat. Not a great movie but SK was good.. as good as he
> always was in all his movies.
Not picking on you, Peeyush... but it was the last straw... :)
So, Sanjeev was *that* good, huh?? Anybody seen 'Baadal'?? B/W film
of his? He was pathetic in it... In quite a few of his earlier films
he hammed way too much.... The *always* tag is a bit too much...
Later,
Ikram.
Nishi
'Ik chadar...' but did not get it that year because it was in Urdu and
he was not a muslim. He then wrote it in Punjabi and got the award. He
then received the Padma Shri and also got fame for Dastak. He actually
wrote/directed and produced Phagun because he had got a lot of flak for
makin ga BW film (Dastak). I think it was a very sensitive film but did
not do well at all. He had just made and finished a film called 'Ankhan
Dekhi' which was made tax free, but it was about the time he had a
stroke and then was diagnosed with cancer. This film never did see the
light.
n
--
The World Bank, 1818 H St. NW, Washington DC 20433, U.S.A.
http://www.worldbank.org +1(202)477-1234