Shankar's Boys Viewers' comments.
Tamil Indian Movies
ravichandran. they are the true boys. from the day of opening of this
film i thought tamil audience should be prepard for something big. i
watched the film twice in the same day just to salute the technicians
and the one who ran them, none other than shankar. i even felt, y am i
not in india to work under shankar rather in canada striving to watch
the film. the film is inspiring, entertaining golden 6, for shankar.
the film itself was comical, emotional, every scenes are still
unforgettable. the background songs and the musics were just amazing.
the "time freeze" was the highlight for me. the plots were well
organized and well put together. i just can't say enought about this
film. the new faces were excellent choice, as of for harini, enakku
oru harini vendum. "its a film covering all the aspects of ourlives,
in particularly youths. shankar's team(boyz)! thank u!
More reviews at http://www.cinesouth.com/feedback
Cinesouth.com's Boys review
http://www.cinesouth.com/scopes/reviews/boys.shtml
senthil - hyd
movie has some vulgarity in the first half but second half is purely
shankars. "information is wealth" and the scene where the dead guy is
chucked out of chorus for not having a good voice and the super fun
climax are really a class of his own. loved the second half.
mythili, toronto
i was never a big fan of shanker's movies as they are all about how
grand it is and no scope to the story. even if there appears to be a
story it's done with such extravagance that i find myself watching
just a "movie". as to the content of the movie, i must say it is
nothing major except for the vulgarity in the actors' speeches which
was astounding and made me gape at times. however, the music of a.r.r.
is wonderful as always and the background and picturesque is
marvelous. also, the actors have performed their parts in a natural
way for which they deserve some credits. a job well done in those
three departments. i would ask that the tamil movie theatres starts
rating movies and give this one a "r".
More reviews at http://www.cinesouth.com/feedback
raj,canada
the movie really sucks!!!what a crap!!!no story...no moral...i never
expected this kind of movies from shankar.you cant go with family to
watch this x rated movie.
More reviews at http://www.cinesouth.com/feedback
Cinesouth.com's Boys review
http://www.cinesouth.com/scopes/reviews/boys.shtml
kumaran montreal
i never see a film like that.. good job shankar... thanks 4 shankar
and a.r.r
kathambari
b-o-y-s is a group of musicians.
yeah i can clearly see boys is afantasy.
boys you got me thinking all about u and i really want to know if u be
a hit willu let me know b'coz your songs are true boys when i hear
your music i want to be with you. i really do care &i will be your fan
and u can drag my heart everywhere hear to me &i let you show in my
heart you will be. boys is not a bourdom boys is not monotonous boys
is for youngsters watch it friend. boys is not for parents,boys is not
for aged. boys is for us so comment it friend. songs are beautiful,
songs are interesting mug up the songs and sing it everyday.
More reviews at http://www.cinesouth.com/feedback
pc ganesh chennai
the film is below average but film is a shame for shankar. 22 crores
of money is just wasted. i wonder whether shankar has directed the
film. shankar sir !! believing only on music and hitech scenes. beware
shankar !! tamil audience are not fools like other state audience.
they expect something different to view but nothing difficult to
digest.
kannan
a.r.r's music is great but shankar dissapoints
More reviews at http://www.cinesouth.com/feedback
Cinesouth.com's Boys review
http://www.cinesouth.com/scopes/reviews/boys.shtml
saravanan
film is excellent but cannot be enjoyed while watching with our family
More reviews at http://www.cinesouth.com/feedback
xyz, chennai
the movie is ok.though it does not have a great story line, it is
entertaining. it is true that it is hard to watch it with parents. of
all shankar's movie, i would rate it last(might be due to over
expectation). though songs are good, its picturisation are not upto
shankar's standard. siddharth and harini are cute. vivek, totally away
from from his original style and nakkal.
bhais
its one of the best teen movie made in india.for those who cry that
this film is giving bad image of teenagers...u ppl r the most idiotic
persons.when r u guys going to understand a film purpose is to portray
a story and give meaning messages for every scene.if u think that most
of scenes r blown out of prop...i hope u r kid(i mean paalam not
knowing whats happening around u).so as i said this film is a honest
film which shows how those 5 guys r disillusioned so if u cant
understand that pls keep the mouthshut....
ravindran
i never expected this from shankar. the most disgusting movie of the
year.nothing special in the movie except music. poor story &
screenplay by shankar.boys shoud flop!!!! lesson to tamil film
industri.
More reviews at http://www.cinesouth.com/feedback
Cinesouth.com's Boys review
http://www.cinesouth.com/scopes/reviews/boys.shtml
subbu,guwahati
ppl livin abroad r highly ignorant of todays trendz.look at the
society realistically,the stuff supposed to have been shown is very
much true.we r all perverts in our own way. so go have fun and
comeback,those guys have toiled hard to make a good movie.we shall
appreciate it.
anonymous
very slick camerawork. very well paced and naturally flowing simple
storyline. the first half of the movie is hilarious...the tamil
version of american pie best describes it! great songs....overdoing
the matrix technology in the song ale ale would be my only complaint!
best movie this year without doubt.
rias,singapore
it is a superb film.i have never seen suuch a film before.it reflects
on real life basis.i mean nowdays youths.i mean......temptation.but
the sogs were cool, n the girls were hot..........but i advice parents
not to watch it.it is great n i love the film........i love the
actress..!
shan,malaysia
the B-est O-f Y-ou S-hanker,sir & co
ravishankar
worst move. perverted shankar, sujatha, this movie shoud be banned...
stupid music --sorry it is not music.. but souuunddd.. only sound..
this is equal to a "xxx" "aaa" adulty, vulgr, what not... shankar
should be punished for making such worst moview which is going to
spoil the youth.. i want to ask one question to shankar.. shakar dont
assume every person is like your boys (bad boys)
ashlover
i dnt no wt ppl say abt boys but 4me,d music is great!thou d movie is
more 4 younger generation,its nt a bad film,its very much d life of
curent youth.i like d movie,d music is d veri big pluspoint.shankar
has always kept d element of terrorism in his movie n again he did it
in boys..n alot of freshness in its castings.its a massive ht in
malaysia as far as im concern.bravo 2shankar for making a hit caled
boys...worth watching wif an open mind
More reviews at http://www.cinesouth.com/feedback
Cinesouth.com's Boys review
http://www.cinesouth.com/scopes/reviews/boys.shtml
arvind,chennai
the movie will run only bcoz of rahman and u have failed to mention
his name adequately!!!we had lots of expectation from boys but other
than technicalities, shankar has let us down.
sumi, malaysia
brilliant movie and music.
shankar/rehman combo great. i read people commenting on the
story..please note if u want to see lame stories watch priyamana
thozhi...boys are for the millenium filmgoers. shankar caters for the
millenium.
brilliant movie. i was overwhelmed with the picturisation, effects and
just everything.
karthick
the film is good congrats for shankar again he proved his metal in the
field.new comers do his job well. the backbone of all these are
sankar.so the all the credit goes to him.. nice movie for these
generation and the film is enthusistic to youngsters
mesh
shankar-a.r.rahman done it again.. what a movies...realy fantastic...
almost all theatre in malaysia viewing boys movie...the boys
performance excelent and the gals too... this movie will break the
rules
hussain alavi
in canada this film is making history in all the cinemas. housefull
every day . wow one of the best film i ever seen. thanks to shanker
and rahman combination
ilakiya, tamil nadu
brilliant!!! i enjoyed the movie, but thank god, i didn't watch it wid
my parents. the actors have seriously job well done!! it was wonderful
n da scenery was really superb for "alay alay" song. there wasn/t any
intimacy stuff- superb!! well done boys!!
More reviews at http://www.cinesouth.com/feedback
Cinesouth.com's Boys review
http://www.cinesouth.com/scopes/reviews/boys.shtml
More cinema news
http://media.cinesouth.com
http://www.cinesouth.com
http://tamil.cinesouth.com
http;//telugu.cinesouth.com
http://malayalam.cinesouth.com
Acid
littered with technical problems and not mention an absolute lack of logic.
If his cinematographer is good, god knows why the hell he gets the credit.
Trying so hard to be cool, and just not knowing how. I'd advise him to watch
first-timer Farhan Akhtar's Dil Chahta Hai on how to make a commercial yet
sensitive film that appeals to the contemporary youth and does not indulge
in vulgarity. Of course, I'd expect Ravi Chandran and Rahman to have done
great work again.
"Tamil Indian Movies" <ta...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:b59f433f.03090...@posting.google.com...
Shishir Yerramilli
I actually like Shankar and think he can be a good director like in
Gentleman and to a lesser degree Indian.However I agree with you about
his special effects or lack thereof.I also agree that he should not
write his own screenplays.He needs a strong executive producer to keep
him in check.Even Nayak/Mudhalvan had its strong points.
Dil Chahta Hai is a very different film from Boys.I dont know if Boys
makes any pretense to realism when catering to the youth like DCH
did.I think a movie like Boys is closer to Shankars sensibility than
Farhan Akhtars.If Shankar wouldve done Taal(which is somewhat similar
to Boys in its misensence),it wouldve been a far better movie
AR Rahmans music for this movie is nowhere close to Kaadhalan which is
not really saying a lot.
Baradwaj Rangan
> "Acid" <ar...@indiamail.com> wrote in message news:<bja5le$grii8$1...@ID-187636.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>
> I actually like Shankar and think he can be a good director like in
> Gentleman and to a lesser degree Indian.However I agree with you about
> his special effects or lack thereof.I also agree that he should not
> write his own screenplays.He needs a strong executive producer to keep
> him in check.Even Nayak/Mudhalvan had its strong points.
> Dil Chahta Hai is a very different film from Boys.I dont know if Boys
> makes any pretense to realism when catering to the youth like DCH
> did.I think a movie like Boys is closer to Shankars sensibility than
> Farhan Akhtars.If Shankar wouldve done Taal(which is somewhat similar
> to Boys in its misensence),it wouldve been a far better movie
> AR Rahmans music for this movie is nowhere close to Kaadhalan which is
> not really saying a lot.
I agree. shankar isn't a 'bad' director, he's brimming with ideas, but
gets carried away while executing them. I loike his odd-number films
-- Gentleman, Indian, Mudhalvan/Nayak. I think he does a decent
'masala' job when it comes to movies with a message/serious theme. But
in his even-number films -- Kaadhalan, Jeans, Boys -- he has no story
as such and just tries to fill up three hours with gimmick after
gimmick.
I didn't care for Boys much, it was full of let's-shock-the-public
sequences straight out of American Pie. It's nice to see a filmmaker
pull no punches in showing teen sexuality -- Balu Mahendra did a
decent job of it way, way back in the Summer of 42 inspired Azhiyaadha
Kolangal, where he had a bunch of curious boys blow up condoms like
balloons -- but in Boys, it isn't to show their lives, but just to
titillate the audience or derive cheap laughs. That's plain
irritating, especially when the main film isn't a sex comedy like
american Pie but a love story (along with the struggle of these youths
to succeed in their lives).
The whole films seems to have been made along while shooting. Or maybe
Shankar jotted down a list of things that he had to have in the film
-- POTA, masturbation, prison life, the Chennai earthquake -- and then
wove incidents around them to fill up his film. Quite a waste of money
IMO -- did they *really* spend 22 crores on this?
And as usual, he goes overboard with unecessary,
not-very-well-executed graphics and stunts.
>
>
> > Shankar is a retard. Pretending to be a tech whiz and all. His films are
> > littered with technical problems and not mention an absolute lack of logic.
> > If his cinematographer is good, god knows why the hell he gets the credit.
> > Trying so hard to be cool, and just not knowing how. I'd advise him to watch
> > first-timer Farhan Akhtar's Dil Chahta Hai on how to make a commercial yet
> > sensitive film that appeals to the contemporary youth and does not indulge
> > in vulgarity. Of course, I'd expect Ravi Chandran and Rahman to have done
> > great work again.
About this, Shankar and Farhan Akhtar are poles apart in sensibility.
Farhan is more of a multiplex kind of guy. Shankar is an interiors
kind of guy. It's like comparing Manmohan Desai with Shyam Benegal
(for lack of a better example).
Surprisingly, Ravi Chandran has shot most of the film in natural
light, while I expected him to go gonzo with style. This is really a
film that needed to go berserk in photography.
ARR's music is good -- 'Dating' is a great song -- and bang on target
for the youth audience (with plenety of English lyrics) which is
presumably weaned on current pop, but sometimes the abundance of beats
makes the album sound a bit monotonous.
Arjun Pandit
> yshi...@hotmail.com (Shishir Yerramilli) wrote in message news:<370a0b0.03090...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Acid" <ar...@indiamail.com> wrote in message news:<bja5le$grii8$1...@ID-187636.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> >
> > I actually like Shankar and think he can be a good director like in
> > Gentleman and to a lesser degree Indian.
I have found Shankar to be a brain dead director mostly. I have seen
just the trailor of Boys, but if that is anything to go by, it seems
to be a mixture of 100 odd things with a lot of irrelevant technology
thrown in. I heard about some song being shot in some garden where no
other song has been shot and some 100 odd cameras were used for the
song. When I read that, I found myself asking what for?
>> Even Nayak/Mudhalvan had its strong points.
It did. The riot scene (esp the one in Nayak assuming it was actually
shot in Flora Fountain in Mumbai) and the interview scene were very
well done. But it degenrated very fast into some fantasy with Anil
Kapoor/Arjun going around with a typewriter in tow.
>
> I loike his odd-number films
> -- Gentleman, Indian, Mudhalvan/Nayak. I think he does a decent
> 'masala' job when it comes to movies with a message/serious theme. But
> in his even-number films -- Kaadhalan, Jeans, Boys -- he has no story
> as such and just tries to fill up three hours with gimmick after
> gimmick.
I had a similar thing about RGV. He used to follow a good movie with a
bad one. Shiva/Raat/Rangeela/Daud/Satya/Mast (Drohi somewhere there ..
Salim Ghouse single handedly ruined this movie). Bad one 'coz of the
expectations/market success though I quite enjoyed Raat, Daud, Drohi,
Mast etc.
> > > If his cinematographer is good, god knows why the hell he gets the credit.
He should. Who else would approve of shooting a song with 100 odd
cameras!
Shishir Yerramilli
> b_ra...@hotmail.com (Baradwaj Rangan) wrote in message news:<c04b79a9.03090...@posting.google.com>...
> > yshi...@hotmail.com (Shishir Yerramilli) wrote in message news:<370a0b0.03090...@posting.google.com>...
> > > "Acid" <ar...@indiamail.com> wrote in message news:<bja5le$grii8$1...@ID-187636.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > >
> > > I actually like Shankar and think he can be a good director like in
> > > Gentleman and to a lesser degree Indian.
>
> I have found Shankar to be a brain dead director mostly.
If Shankar the screenwriter is seperated from Shankar the director
,then it is not so bad.
I have seen
> just the trailor of Boys, but if that is anything to go by, it seems
> to be a mixture of 100 odd things with a lot of irrelevant technology
> thrown in.
That sounds like vintage Shankar actually.
I heard about some song being shot in some garden where no
> other song has been shot and some 100 odd cameras were used for the
> song. When I read that, I found myself asking what for?
I find myself asking questions like "what for" in practically every
Shankar movie!PrabhuDeva in Gentleman,"Muqabla" in Kaadhalan,every
special effect,comedy track in Indian,an extra Prashant in Jeans ,also
the title Jeans(??),special effects(snakes and ladders) in
Mudhalvan/Nayak.
I dont want to see Boys as I am sure this is a question filled movie
only!
>
>
>
> >> Even Nayak/Mudhalvan had its strong points.
>
> It did. The riot scene (esp the one in Nayak assuming it was actually
> shot in Flora Fountain in Mumbai) and the interview scene were very
> well done.
It also had a lot of other great shots,the crowd outside AKs house
asking him to comeback,the shot of AK speaking on a cell phone on a
terrace.
But it degenrated very fast into some fantasy with Anil
> Kapoor/Arjun going around with a typewriter in tow.
I can tolerate that as Naidu and Vladmir Putin have done something
similar but the ending where AK/Arjun goes personally to each of the
places where there was a bomb was supremely retarded.
>
> >
> > I loike his odd-number films
> > -- Gentleman, Indian, Mudhalvan/Nayak. I think he does a decent
> > 'masala' job when it comes to movies with a message/serious theme. But
> > in his even-number films -- Kaadhalan, Jeans, Boys -- he has no story
> > as such and just tries to fill up three hours with gimmick after
> > gimmick.
>
> I had a similar thing about RGV. He used to follow a good movie with a
> bad one. Shiva/Raat/Rangeela/Daud/Satya/Mast (Drohi somewhere there ..
> Salim Ghouse single handedly ruined this movie).
I agree ,Salim Ghouse hammed it up big time.Nagarjuna had an really
cool though.
Bad one 'coz of the
> expectations/market success though I quite enjoyed Raat, Daud, Drohi,
> Mast etc.
I saw Shiva recently ,has great sequences but was weak on
characterizations unlike his later films.Except Nagarjuna,everyone
else was one dimensional.
>
>
> > > > If his cinematographer is good, god knows why the hell he gets the credit.
>
> He should. Who else would approve of shooting a song with 100 odd
> cameras!
I would like to see this song though!
Bharadwaj's post
I didn't care for Boys much, it was full of let's-shock-the-public
sequences straight out of American Pie. It's nice to see a filmmaker
pull no punches in showing teen sexuality -- Balu Mahendra did a
decent job of it way, way back in the Summer of 42 inspired Azhiyaadha
Kolangal, where he had a bunch of curious boys blow up condoms like
balloons -- but in Boys, it isn't to show their lives, but just to
titillate the audience or derive cheap laughs. That's plain
irritating, especially when the main film isn't a sex comedy like
american Pie but a love story (along with the struggle of these youths
to succeed in their lives).
[ I heard Balu Mahendra is planning another May December(boy woman)
romance concerning distant relatives.]
The whole films seems to have been made along while shooting. Or maybe
Shankar jotted down a list of things that he had to have in the film
-- POTA, masturbation, prison life, the Chennai earthquake -- and then
wove incidents around them to fill up his film. Quite a waste of money
IMO -- did they *really* spend 22 crores on this?
[Well those 100 cameras dont come cheap :-)]
About this, Shankar and Farhan Akhtar are poles apart in sensibility.
Farhan is more of a multiplex kind of guy. Shankar is an interiors
kind of guy. It's like comparing Manmohan Desai with Shyam Benegal
(for lack of a better example).
[Well that is bit of an extreme example!Shankar has a multiplex look
but often interior type execution!]
Surprisingly, Ravi Chandran has shot most of the film in natural
light, while I expected him to go gonzo with style. This is really a
film that needed to go berserk in photography.
[That is surprising!]
ARR's music is good -- 'Dating' is a great song -- and bang on target
for the youth audience (with plenety of English lyrics) which is
presumably weaned on current pop, but sometimes the abundance of beats
makes the album sound a bit monotonous.
[I stopped liking Rahmans youth oriented albums from Kadhal Desam
onwards,Kalluri Salai is quite possibly the most irritating thing he
has created.]
rkusenet
> I agree. shankar isn't a 'bad' director, he's brimming with ideas, but
> gets carried away while executing them. I loike his odd-number films
> -- Gentleman, Indian, Mudhalvan/Nayak. I think he does a decent
> 'masala' job when it comes to movies with a message/serious theme. But
> in his even-number films -- Kaadhalan, Jeans, Boys -- he has no story
> as such and just tries to fill up three hours with gimmick after
> gimmick.
I like his odd and even number business.
Films I liked:-
1. Gentleman
2. Indian (Hindustani in Hindi)
3. Mudalavan (Nayak in Hindi)
What is common in all the three? The protagonist in all the 3
movies mentioned above was some sort of anti establishment.
In Gentleman it was against higher education converted into an
money making industry with poor folks being the sufferers
and a robin hood type hero taking the cause. I believe that
was the reason why the movie was a superhit in tamil and a
flop in Hindi. I saw both the versions and there was hardly
any difference. The real difference was that the subject
appealed to south indians because it touched their heart,
where as for north indians there was nothing in that subject.
Indian: It was against corruption and well made too. Jaspal
Bhatti once mentioned that there are three things to unite
Indians:
(a) a war with pakistan
(b) a cricket match with pakistan
(c) corruption.
He assured that any movie/drama/TV serial made on corruption
will be a super hit because everyone will take it personally.
No wonder Hindustani was a hit in Hindi too.
Mudalavan: A comman man accidentally becomes a CM for a day
and brings about revolution. The tamil version had some nice dialogues
by Raguvaran. The fizz was missing in the Hindi version.
When Shankar tries other stuff, as in Kadhalan/Jeans and now Boys,
he falls flat. His forte is making Gentleman/Indian/Mudalavan type
of movies and he should stick to that. he is not prolific, so the
limitation of the topic should not be a problem.
BTW anyone noticed that the treatment of heroine in his films. He treats
them like glamour dolls fit for only songs and butt-shaking. Absolutely
no role they have (with the exception of Jeans). Shankar does not even
believe in taking tamil heroines for tamil movies. Madhu (Roja) is a
tamil. Kadhalan has Nagma. Indian had Manisha/Urmila. Jeans had Ash.
Mudalavan had again manisha. Kya farak padta hain. They have anyhow no
roles.
rk-
Acid
"rkusenet" <rkus...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:bjdf91$hr73h$1...@ID-75254.news.uni-berlin.de...
He is obviously just cashing in on gimmicks. He knows there is a point up to
which the Indian audience will lap any rubbish hungrily, as long as you've
got a good choreographer who will direct and package the songs, you've got
Rahman and some so-called 'high-tech wizardry' - specially for the southern
audience. Remember the CGI in Indian? I couldn't decide if it was laughable
or sad, but it was definitely embarassing. His films have cheap, gimmicky
sound design for the most part with absolutely no attention paid to lip
sync. DTS and Dolby Digital for the sake of DTS and Dolby Digital is the way
to describe most Indian films. Save for H. Sridhar and Nakul Kamte's work.
Indian also tried to pass of a television set as a computer. So much for the
image of computer experts from India. It has (like most southern films)
suspiciously un-Tamil looking actresses, who aside from looking ridiculously
silly in their high-pitched dubbed voices, riddle the film with lip sync
problems. And then just when you want to walk out of the cinema, he'll throw
in an excellently choreographed and executed item number shot by
'outsourced' technicians or the choreographer, e.g. Shakalaka. Seriously,
does anyone even know who really made that video?
As for Taal, it was a stupid movie made by Subhash Ghai, who is another
retard yet. I don't see the difference between the two. Give the same
technical crew to both 'directors', and you'll have similar crap.
Shishir Yerramilli
> "rkusenet" <rkus...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:bjdf91$hr73h$1...@ID-75254.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > "Baradwaj Rangan" <b_ra...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> >
> >
>
> which the Indian audience will lap any rubbish hungrily, as long as you've
> got a good choreographer who will direct and package the songs, you've got
> Rahman and some so-called 'high-tech wizardry' -
specially for the southern audience.
Remember the CGI in Indian? I couldn't decide if it was laughable
> or sad, but it was definitely embarassing. His films have cheap, gimmicky
> sound design for the most part with absolutely no attention paid to lip
> sync. DTS and Dolby Digital for the sake of DTS and Dolby Digital is the way
> to describe most Indian films. Save for H. Sridhar and Nakul Kamte's work.
>
> Indian also tried to pass of a television set as a computer. So much for the
> image of computer experts from India. It has (like most southern films)
> suspiciously un-Tamil looking actresses, who aside from looking ridiculously
> silly in their high-pitched dubbed voices, riddle the film with lip sync
> problems.
Now do us a favor and respond to the post again minus your
occasional regional bigotry!You may have noticed I am not always this
gentle in such situations!
yeskay
Acid wrote:
>
>
> He is obviously just cashing in on gimmicks. He knows there is a point up to
> which the Indian audience will lap any rubbish hungrily, as long as you've
> got a good choreographer who will direct and package the songs, you've got
> Rahman and some so-called 'high-tech wizardry' - specially for the southern
> audience. Remember the CGI in Indian? I couldn't decide if it was laughable
> or sad, but it was definitely embarassing. His films have cheap, gimmicky
> sound design for the most part with absolutely no attention paid to lip
> sync. DTS and Dolby Digital for the sake of DTS and Dolby Digital is the way
> to describe most Indian films. Save for H. Sridhar and Nakul Kamte's work.
>
> Indian also tried to pass of a television set as a computer. So much for the
> image of computer experts from India. It has (like most southern films)
> suspiciously un-Tamil looking actresses, who aside from looking ridiculously
> silly in their high-pitched dubbed voices, riddle the film with lip sync
> problems. And then just when you want to walk out of the cinema, he'll throw
> in an excellently choreographed and executed item number shot by
> 'outsourced' technicians or the choreographer, e.g. Shakalaka. Seriously,
> does anyone even know who really made that video?
>
> As for Taal, it was a stupid movie made by Subhash Ghai, who is another
> retard yet. I don't see the difference between the two. Give the same
> technical crew to both 'directors', and you'll have similar crap.
It was kind of 'cool' in Gentleman/Kadhalan. But I guess overdrew from that
gimmick to the point that it was totally unnecessary in a movie like Nayak.
Besides, it is getting tackier. His 100 cameras gimmick is also not worth
the hype.
But Shankar is >>>>> Ghai and his movies are much more entertaining than
a technically perfect Armaan.
Acid
"Shishir Yerramilli" <yshi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:370a0b0.03090...@posting.google.com...
It was not my intention to sound like a bigot. My apologies. But because
this post was in regards to a bad southern director, my comments pertained
to the south. If we were talking about Hollywood or Punjabi films, I would
have made comments pertaining to them, and not about south Indian films.
NetSurfer
I read in rediff review that there is a "nude" chase seen shot in
Mount Road. Is it true?
Acid
"NetSurfer" <s_u...@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:4280891f.03090...@posting.google.com...
That's Shakar's cheap trick for you. The only reason why the film is
creating a buzz.
Arjun Pandit
Cool in Muqabla song. The other song where Prabhu Deva and Nagma fly
and go and land in some snow capped mountains was very laughable.
>
> But Shankar is >>>>> Ghai and his movies are much more entertaining than
> a technically perfect Armaan.
Armaan kidhar se aa gaya idhar? :)
yeskay
Armaan is hailed as a technically perfect movie by some.
Baradwaj Rangan
>
> I read in rediff review that there is a "nude" chase seen shot in
> Mount Road. Is it true?
Yes, one of the boys agrees to streak across mount road to prove his
love. (Ah, true love :-)) It was obvious in some segments that he was
wearing a skin-coloured thingee.
Aditya Basrur
"Baradwaj Rangan" <b_ra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c04b79a9.0309...@posting.google.com...
Thingees are usually skin-coloured, I thought, being made of skin and all.
Aditya
Acid
aspects of Indian life, someone is bound to screw up:)
"yeskay" <yes...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3F5DE2ED...@nowhere.com...
Sydney Assbasket
I knew going into the film that Shankar has disappointed me in the past.
Mudhalvan had an interesting premise, but a stupid subplot with Manisha
Koirala. All of Jeans was idiotic. Indian had some stupid SFX (well, all his
films do).
But I thought he would do something different with Boys. And at first its
seemed like he would. The opening of the film is very funny and lively, though
I think the prostitute scene was lifted from Porky's.
Even before the intermission, however, the film takes this ridiculously
melodramatic turn. Take the streaking scene. This was pretty funny at first.
It would have been great if the kid escaped the police, but then he gets
arrested for it, thrown in jail for a while, and his parents see his picture in
the paper and the parents of the kids forbid them to see each other. Typical
teary melodrama, though there are a few funny moments, such as Senthil's scene.
Now for the stop-time effect in the "Ale Ale" song. It is not done well. The
movement is somewhat stuttery. To add insult to injury, it is overused in the
film. Every time the hero and heroine jump in the air, you know we'll see
another one of those shots. There's even a shot of them throwing a bucket of
water on each other for no reason whatsoever.
"Boom Boom" features crappy CGI boys made of old Horlicks bottles and other
trash. It looks bad, but even worse are the clinking bottle sounds added. I
did like the set made of trash.
Shankar just hits you with a sledgehammer in his films. I wouldn't hate Jeans
quite so much if it wasn't so self-important. It's a silly farce about Aish
pretending to be twins. Should be a light entertainer, right? No. Nasser
wants his twin sons only to marry twin girls. We go to this flashback of his
wife dying...ALL BECAUSE HE AND HIS TWIN DIDN'T MARRY TWIN GIRLS. One of the
twins played by Prashant finds out there is no other twin girl and off we go
with Prashant to some rocks in the sea while he finishes off bottle after
bottle of alcohol. Heavy handed or what?
Spoiler for Boys coming...
One of the boys is hit by a bus and dies towards the end. This casts a
depressing pall on the rest of the film. How am I supposed to enjoy the rest
knowing that one of the boys is dead? This film isn't handled maturely enough
to kill off one of the protagonists.
Remove "moc" to reply.
Whoever says "Nothing is impossible" has never tried to slam a
revolving door.
- Willy Walker
Acid
rubbish. And there is something I notice about many Tamil films and south
remakes into Hindi. The line between light-heartedness and melodrama is
unfathomable to someone who doesn't watch their films. An outright cheap
comedy scene can get 'all' serious and ridiculously violent within a minute.
I don't know what to make out of it. I feel sick when scenes like that
happen. And as you said, the brand of exploitative violence is not
redeemable with the inane stories and stupid gags in the rest of the film.
It's not like the rest of the film is Stanley Kubricksque.
"Sydney Assbasket " <drag...@aol.commoc> wrote in message
news:20030911181430...@mb-m13.aol.com...
satyathetruth
job.BUT the vulgarity is definitely a demerit of this movie.family
audience won't love 2 see this kind of a movie.youth will like it.it's
their film.but directors,story writers et al.,should have some
moral,social resposibility 2 the society which they lack and this is
evident frm the dialogues,actions etc. in the 1st half.
the new actors have done a great job.AR Rehman is back 2 his early
days.simply superb.adnan sami's tamil is 2 gd.the lead girl (dunno her
name)is real good.she's fresh,promising.camera work,special fx etc. r
okay.
those frm chennai can see the big hoarding of the BOYS movie at 1000
lights bus stop in the movie.i liked it.
-satya
Sydney Assbasket
>job.BUT the vulgarity is definitely a demerit of this movie.family
>audience won't love 2 see this kind of a movie.youth will like it.it's
>their film.but directors,story writers et al.,should have some
>moral,social resposibility 2 the society which they lack and this is
>evident frm the dialogues,actions etc. in the 1st half.
This movie is not that vulgar compared to some of the American teen films. The
scene in which they hire a prostitute is not vulgar. National Lampoon's Van
Wilder is vulgar. People eating pastries filled with dog semen is vulgar. A
guy having diarrhea in a trashcan is vulgar. Boys is a Disney film compared to
VW, and Indian audiences should stop being so prudish.
>special fx etc. r
>okay.
I don't see why reviewers in India have gone ga-ga over the SFX in this film.
Surely they have seen countless Hollywood films?
>those frm chennai can see the big hoarding of the BOYS movie at 1000
>lights bus stop in the movie.i liked it.
One thing I did like in the film was the self-referential scene where they show
the CDs of Boys being pressed and the billboards for it around the city. That
comes after the boys get a record contract.
Baradwaj Rangan
>
> This movie is not that vulgar compared to some of the American teen films. The
> scene in which they hire a prostitute is not vulgar. National Lampoon's Van
> Wilder is vulgar. People eating pastries filled with dog semen is vulgar. A
> guy having diarrhea in a trashcan is vulgar. Boys is a Disney film compared to
> VW, and Indian audiences should stop being so prudish.
Anyone familiar with Animal House or National Lampoon series goes to
these films because they expect gross-out humour. shankar's films,
otoh, are seen as general entertainers, and when he includes scenes of
premature ejaculation and masturbation, the general audiences find it
hard to take.
I'm not denying that India's a hypocritical country when it comes to
matters of sex, but in this case, the film turned out to be something
other than expected. aalavandhan/ abhay had the scene of Manisha
peeing with the door open, but that didn't casue so much of a ruckus
because that film was publicise as a psycho film and the family
audiences didn't really think it was for them.
>
> >special fx etc. r
> >okay.
>
> I don't see why reviewers in India have gone ga-ga over the SFX in this film.
> Surely they have seen countless Hollywood films?
Agreed. the sfx are pretty bad. As if stopping the frames for the 'ale
ale' song a dozen times wasn't bad enough, he had to include some
tinkling 'fairy dust' music each time that happened, as in 'look, I'm
showing you this gret technological innovation'. Terrible!
>
> >those frm chennai can see the big hoarding of the BOYS movie at 1000
> >lights bus stop in the movie.i liked it.
>
> One thing I did like in the film was the self-referential scene where they show
> the CDs of Boys being pressed and the billboards for it around the city. That
> comes after the boys get a record contract.
I also like the detail in some passages. As in, instead of showing
them becoming an overnight success, they are shown to do an ayyappan
song first, then a stadium song... even their pursuit of the sony
chief was kinda nice, with that songlet filled with harmonising.
Sydney Assbasket
>these films because they expect gross-out humour. shankar's films,
>otoh, are seen as general entertainers, and when he includes scenes of
>premature ejaculation and masturbation, the general audiences find it
>hard to take.
>
But look at the amount of violence in Shankar's films. That's okay for kids?
I seem to remember one scene in Gentleman where we see guts and organs on the
ground. Correct me if I'm wrong, since I saw the film over 10 years ago. And
of course, in Indian and Mudhalvan, we have copious amounts of violence.
Remember Arjun's mother's thaali and his father's watch dripping with blood?
>I'm not denying that India's a hypocritical country when it comes to
>matters of sex, but in this case, the film turned out to be something
>other than expected. aalavandhan/ abhay had the scene of Manisha
>peeing with the door open, but that didn't casue so much of a ruckus
>because that film was publicise as a psycho film and the family
>audiences didn't really think it was for them.
I didn't see that scene, as the DVD of Abhay I rented started freezing during
the Manisha scene. Boys also has a scene of one of the boys on the toilet, as
well as a scene in which another is trying to, er, wash himself, with a bowl
that has a hole in it. First the shot of the guy peeing in Mudhalvan, now
this. Maybe Shankar's next film will be Latrine? He might as well call his
production house Latrine Films, since that's where his films belong :-)
Shishir Yerramilli
I feel many scenes in Shankars movies are quite unsuitable for
children or those with good taste.Just a few off the top of my head
Gentleman:When Vineeth gets killed ,Arjun picks up his brains and
weeps over them
When the young student blows up the corrupt politician in a suicide
bombing,we see the entire entrails of the boy and his heart beating
and eventually stopping.Shankar later admitted this was in bad taste.
Kadhalan:Nagma is almost subjected to a chastity test.
<Something really disgusting coming up>....
Prabhudeva is almost treated to a dish of cockroaches and rice.
Indian:Kamalahaasan is forced to buy feminine hygeine products for
Urmila and family.In the B/W pre 1947 scenes ,the female protestors
are stripped naked by the British.
Jeans:Poor Aishwarya Rai is the victim of PMS jokes thanks to Shankar!
Gentleman also had some female genitalia related humor,dont remember
what it was!
Mudhalvan:You stated above plus there was shots of latrines!
Boys: I dont think I want to see this.
As I mentioned before I like Shankar,he is quite creative but he
needs to clean up his act!
Shishir Yerramilli
> Exactly why hate Shankar's films. Full of pomp and self-importance about
> rubbish. And there is something I notice about many Tamil films and south
> remakes into Hindi. The line between light-heartedness and melodrama is
> unfathomable to someone who doesn't watch their films. An outright cheap
> comedy scene can get 'all' serious and ridiculously violent within a minute.
Actually you are correct.The most whackiest and funniest of scenes
and characters often have some real melodramatic story behind that you
get to know after the intermission.The general practice when watching
a Tamil/Telugu romantic comedy type film would be too walk out during
the intermission.You have enjoyed the first half ,then why spoil it by
watching the second half?
Loony Tunes
>
> Armaan is hailed as a technically perfect movie by some.
What does Oi think about it?
-k
Shishir Yerramilli
Who is Oi?
>
> -k
yeskay
Oi is a common friend who also thinks Armaan is boring chick flick.