Raja Hindustani- a review
ANWAR SADAT
I just got back from watching Raja Hindustani. On the whole, it is an
average film. Aamir gives a good performance. Karishma surprised me a
bit with her performance... I think she's improved. Her voice didn't
annoy me, as usual. I've always liked the girl... just not too
fond of her acting. Unfortunately, she still hasn't set some decent
standards for herself. She was doing her usual cheap scenes, hopping
around in a mini-skirt, etc.
One of the major lows of the film, in my opinion, was the rather vulgar
and unnecessarily lengthy kissing scene between Aamir and Karishma. I
mean, this kiss was LONG, even by Hollywood standards! Perhaps I'm
exaggerating... It was easily under two minutes... but it seemed to last
for two hours, because I was with my family. This made me extremely
uncomfortable, especially since I wasn't expecting such a scene. It made
the Aamir-Pooja kiss in JJWS look like a small peck. All this from an
actor who supposedly makes "clean" films. Sorry Aamir fans, I won't let
this one go easily. I mean, does Aamir do these vulgar (by Indian
standards, anyways) scenes for money or for his own personal enjoyment?
I'm really curious to know. Because I'll tell you, it's difficult to
watch this kissing scene and believe that this is a married Indian man...
The fallacy of Aamir making "clean" movies should finally be exposed by
now. He is the only Khan that I remember who agrees to doing these cheap
scenes. Yes, it was only a kiss. But it was far more lengthy than was
necessary. The editor must have been sleeping through this one. I
wonder if Aamir demanded a dozen re-takes for this scene like he did for his
kissing scene in JJWS... ;)
Aside from the kissing scene (which probably set some type of new record
for Hindi films), the movie at times resembled a cheap Govinda masala
film. There are a couple of hijirah/transvestite comedians in the film
that make me wanna throw up. I don't understand why every Indian film
seems to have a transvestite/cross-dresser comedian in it. If it was
ever funny or cute, it has been WAY overdone by now! Please stop! It
is disgusting and repulsive. Besides, the shock value is long gone!
Unfortunately, I think the kissing scene and the cross-dresser comedians
serve as a good example to illustrate the "declining standards" of
today's films that Anand was talking about earlier. Not that I agree
with him OVERALL, but that's another discussion....
Aamir definitely tried to imitate Shah Rukh in the action scenes. I am
not trying to add fire to the SRK-Aamir thing again. I am telling you
the truth. Look at Aamir's facial expression at the intermission. Look
at his style during the fight scenes. It seems different than usual for
him. He is trying to add a "psycho touch" to his anger. It is obvious.
On a good note, he does a pretty good job, but his intensity during the
action scenes cannot match that of SRK's.
Overall, my analysis of the film is this:
Rangeela + AHAT = Raja Hindustani.
I trust that some Aamirites may agree on this point. I don't
necessarily mean it in a negative way.
To end on a positive note, here are some positive comments:
The direction of the film is decent. Karishma's acting is good, for the
most part. There are a couple of nice songs, and they are picturized well.
Most of all, Aamir gives a very good performance. Admittedly, he is the
best thing about the film. Although the story has nothing new to offer
(Rangeela + AHAT) and it is not as good as his last two films, I think
that Aamir fans will enjoy it. Once again, Aamir proves that he is a
great actor... in the usual soft, romantic role.
Peeyush Ranjan
ANWAR SADAT (e0fp...@erin.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: now. He is the only Khan that I remember who agrees to doing these cheap
: scenes. Yes, it was only a kiss. But it was far more lengthy than was
Feroz Khan?? :)
I will let rest of your post pass since I havent seen the movie yet. But still,
kiss or no kiss, Aamir is better (no doubt SRK is the ideal husband for girls,
after me ofcourse :) , so far, as far as decency in such matters is concerned..so I wont challenge what you are saying.. but calling it cheap is bad. You dont
drop a movie just because the front row wants some masala.. SRK had a sex scene
with topless Maya memsahab.. looking at it that scene was also not required..
but that doesnt characterize him)
: film. There are a couple of hijirah/transvestite comedians in the film
: that make me wanna throw up. I don't understand why every Indian film
: seems to have a transvestite/cross-dresser comedian in it. If it was
Yuk..
: Aamir definitely tried to imitate Shah Rukh in the action scenes. I am
O O .... please!!!!!! You are beyond idolizing now.. you see Shahrukh
everywhere.
: not trying to add fire to the SRK-Aamir thing again. I am telling you
: the truth. Look at Aamir's facial expression at the intermission. Look
: at his style during the fight scenes. It seems different than usual for
: him. He is trying to add a "psycho touch" to his anger. It is obvious.
: On a good note, he does a pretty good job, but his intensity during the
: action scenes cannot match that of SRK's.
Yeah.. since Aamir acts and Shahrukh OVERacts.
: Overall, my analysis of the film is this:
: Rangeela + AHAT = Raja Hindustani.
: I trust that some Aamirites may agree on this point. I don't
: necessarily mean it in a negative way.
: To end on a positive note, here are some positive comments:
: The direction of the film is decent. Karishma's acting is good, for the
: most part. There are a couple of nice songs, and they are picturized well.
: Most of all, Aamir gives a very good performance. Admittedly, he is the
: best thing about the film. Although the story has nothing new to offer
: (Rangeela + AHAT) and it is not as good as his last two films, I think
: that Aamir fans will enjoy it. Once again, Aamir proves that he is a
: great actor... in the usual soft, romantic role.
I will see (despite the transvestites!!).
-Peeyush
ANWAR SADAT
In article <56vkfd$8...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>,
Peeyush Ranjan <pee...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
>ANWAR SADAT (e0fp...@erin.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>
>: now. He is the only Khan that I remember who agrees to doing these cheap
>: scenes. Yes, it was only a kiss. But it was far more lengthy than was
>
>Feroz Khan?? :)
Sorry yaar, I meant a Khan from THIS century..! :)
>I will let rest of your post pass since I havent seen the movie yet. But still,
>kiss or no kiss, Aamir is better (no doubt SRK is the ideal husband for girls,
>after me ofcourse :) , so far, as far as decency in such matters is concerned..so I wont challenge what you are saying.. but calling it cheap is bad. You dont
>drop a movie just because the front row wants some masala.. SRK had a sex scene
>with topless Maya memsahab.. looking at it that scene was also not required..
>but that doesnt characterize him)
I was in no way trying to write off the film. As I said, I enjoyed it
overall. I was just making the point that this entire idea of Aamir
making "clean" films is really a fallacy. The only thing is, we don't
see people getting shot down in his films, but that is because he does
not do action films. Otherwise, some of his films like JJWS have
contained a higher number of swear words than your average Hindi film.
And in the case of Raja Hindustani, it contains a more explicit and
longer kissing scene than your average Hindi film... hell, probably more
than your average HOLLYWOOD film..! :)
>: Aamir definitely tried to imitate Shah Rukh in the action scenes. I am
>
>O O .... please!!!!!! You are beyond idolizing now.. you see Shahrukh
>everywhere.
Hey, it's true, man. Aamir had a different style in his fight scenes.
He was obviously adding a psychotic "I'm out of control" touch to his
anger. His facial expression during the Intermission scene is a good
example. And if you still don't believe me, Peeyush, than watch the film
and pay close attention to the scene where Aamir is about to accidentally
raise his hand against Karishma's father. Watch that scene, Peeyush, and
then tell me honestly that he is not trying to imitate the scene in DDLJ
in which Shah Rukh is about to accidentally raise his hand against Amrish
Puri (at the end, by the train station). And then go one step further
and tell me that Aamir's facial expressions were as intense and explosive
as Shah Rukh's. But hey, I'm not making fun of Aamir. As I said, he did
a good job.
>Yeah.. since Aamir acts and Shahrukh OVERacts.
You know, I'm gonna prove that I am an objective person and I will go
down on record on RAMLI and state that Aamir probably did a better job in
this film than SRK could have. Mind you, SRK could have done it too...
but Aamir did such a good job that I can't really imagine anyone else
doing the role (although it is very possible). Furthermore, although
Aamir's role and performance come nowhere close to Nana's in Agnisakshi
and Khamoshi, I will still say that Aamir's performance in this film was
the second best performance of the year. Yes, I think Aamir was better
in Raja Hindustani than Shah Rukh was in Chaahat or Army. Of course,
that's partly because SRK's roles in the aforementioned films weren't
great anyways. Overall, SRK is still better. But dammit, I'll be a fair
guy and compromise... Aamir did a damn good job.
So here's my ratings of the performances in 1996:
1. Nana Patekar - Khamoshi
2. Nana Patekar - Agnisakshi
3. Aamir Khan - Raja Hindustani
4. Shah Rukh Khan - Chaahat
I don't know about number 5. I haven't seen Saajan Chale Sasural
(Govinda) or Ghatak (Sunny Deol). They are possible contenders.
Possibly even for 4th place...
amar joshi
A great musical love story playing this Sunday at 12pm and next Tues
in Derby UCI - Meteor Center on the big screen 01332 295010 - probably
destined to be a megahit like HAHK.
The admission ticket is worth it just to see Karisma model some
stunning outfits. Outstanding performance by Aamir Khan , one of
India's most talented actors. It is time that mothers were shown in
their true form and the glamourous scheming step mother is a visual
treat and a refreshing change from the usual helpless ones that Indian
cinema stereotypes.
Do not watch this movie on video - the photography is excellent and
should be sen on the big screen . Interestingly according to the
Censor certificate it was released in India on Nov 6 , probably with
the kissing scene cut a little and it is good that these new films are
screened at the same time all over the world.
Peeyush Ranjan
ANWAR SADAT (e0fp...@erin.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: Hey, it's true, man. Aamir had a different style in his fight scenes.
: He was obviously adding a psychotic "I'm out of control" touch to his
: anger. His facial expression during the Intermission scene is a good
: example. And if you still don't believe me, Peeyush, than watch the film
: and pay close attention to the scene where Aamir is about to accidentally
: raise his hand against Karishma's father. Watch that scene, Peeyush, and
: then tell me honestly that he is not trying to imitate the scene in DDLJ
: in which Shah Rukh is about to accidentally raise his hand against Amrish
: Puri (at the end, by the train station). And then go one step further
: and tell me that Aamir's facial expressions were as intense and explosive
: as Shah Rukh's. But hey, I'm not making fun of Aamir. As I said, he did
: a good job.
Sure Sadat, I *will* watch the film.. (maybe I will watch Pardes and tell you
SRK imitated Aamir there.. just kidding :) ).
: >Yeah.. since Aamir acts and Shahrukh OVERacts.
: You know, I'm gonna prove that I am an objective person and I will go
: down on record on RAMLI and state that Aamir probably did a better job in
: this film than SRK could have. Mind you, SRK could have done it too...
Phew.. finally!
: but Aamir did such a good job that I can't really imagine anyone else
: doing the role (although it is very possible). Furthermore, although
: Aamir's role and performance come nowhere close to Nana's in Agnisakshi
: and Khamoshi, I will still say that Aamir's performance in this film was
: the second best performance of the year. Yes, I think Aamir was better
: in Raja Hindustani than Shah Rukh was in Chaahat or Army. Of course,
: that's partly because SRK's roles in the aforementioned films weren't
: great anyways. Overall, SRK is still better. But dammit, I'll be a fair
: guy and compromise... Aamir did a damn good job.
: So here's my ratings of the performances in 1996:
: 1. Nana Patekar - Khamoshi
: 2. Nana Patekar - Agnisakshi
: 3. Aamir Khan - Raja Hindustani
: 4. Shah Rukh Khan - Chaahat
Yeah I agree Nana's job would be better ("would be" since I havent seen RH) but
I personally like Nana's acting in Agnisakshi more.. though I liked his acting
in Khamoshi.. esp when he is running on the beach and Salman is running with him
to explain to him.. his acting there (and many other places) was so natural!
: I don't know about number 5. I haven't seen Saajan Chale Sasural
Thats a hilarious movie..
: (Govinda) or Ghatak (Sunny Deol). They are possible contenders.
: Possibly even for 4th place...
I have heard Sunny Deol did a really good job in Jeet..
-Peeyush
Vrajesh Amin
On 20 Nov 1996, Peeyush Ranjan wrote:
> Date: 20 Nov 1996 18:59:57 GMT
> From: Peeyush Ranjan <pee...@expert.cc.purdue.edu>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.local.indian
> Subject: Re: Raja Hindustani- a review
>
> ANWAR SADAT (e0fp...@erin.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>
> : now. He is the only Khan that I remember who agrees to doing these cheap
> : scenes. Yes, it was only a kiss. But it was far more lengthy than was
>
> Feroz Khan?? :)
>
> I will let rest of your post pass since I havent seen the movie yet. But still,
> kiss or no kiss, Aamir is better (no doubt SRK is the ideal husband for girls,
> after me ofcourse :) , so far, as far as decency in such matters is concerned..so I wont challenge what you are saying.. but calling it cheap is bad. You dont
> drop a movie just because the front row wants some masala.. SRK had a sex scene
> with topless Maya memsahab.. looking at it that scene was also not required..
> but that doesnt characterize him)
Maya Memsaab Was a India rated 'A' film and was not meant for a regular
film like RH.
******************************************************************************
From The Console of Vrajesh Amin
Email address :va...@menger.eecs.stevens-tech.edu OR va...@bigfoot.com
Homepage address :http://menger.eecs.stevens-tech.edu/~vamin
******************************************************************************
ANWAR SADAT
In article <572rb4$9...@mapperley.innotts.co.uk>,
amar joshi <uki...@innotts.co.uk> wrote:
> A great musical love story playing this Sunday at 12pm and next Tues
>in Derby UCI - Meteor Center on the big screen 01332 295010 - probably
>destined to be a megahit like HAHK.
Uh... no, I don't think so. HIGHLY unlikely, friend. :)
>It is time that mothers were shown in
>their true form and the glamourous scheming step mother is a visual
>treat and a refreshing change from the usual helpless ones that Indian
>cinema stereotypes.
I don't see how the portrayal of Karishma's step-mother goes against
stereotypes. Remember, she is shown as an evil scheming person who
doesn't care for her step-daughter's life one bit. She only married
Karishma's dad for the money. I would think that this *reinforces* the
stereotype that people have of step-mothers being evil and heartless.
Rahul Rana
In article <571g6n$n...@tuzo.erin>,
ANWAR SADAT <e0fp...@erin.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> You know, I'm gonna prove that I am an objective person and I will go
>down on record on RAMLI and state that Aamir probably did a better job in
>this film than SRK could have. Mind you, SRK could have done it too...
>but Aamir did such a good job that I can't really imagine anyone else
>doing the role (although it is very possible). Furthermore, although
>Aamir's role and performance come nowhere close to Nana's in Agnisakshi
>and Khamoshi, I will still say that Aamir's performance in this film was
>the second best performance of the year. Yes, I think Aamir was better
>in Raja Hindustani than Shah Rukh was in Chaahat or Army. Of course,
>that's partly because SRK's roles in the aforementioned films weren't
>great anyways. Overall, SRK is still better. But dammit, I'll be a fair
>guy and compromise... Aamir did a damn good job.
>
:-)
I have a feeling that this guy is REALLY confused! He is in TOTAL turmoil
seeing Aamir act so well and honestly realizing that no one could've acted
better than Aamir (in this particular movie) ...
Oh yes, above is MHO of course.
-Rahul
d...@acsu.buffalo.edu
Hi Rahul
If u call this guy confused , believe me ( by that logic ) u are
disillusioned. No one could hv acted better than Aamir in this movie ???.
You must be kidding. The movie was not an AK spectacular , he is a much
better actor than this movie portrays. Yes u couldnt help thinking about
SRK in some of his scenes. I agree with Anwar. Come on nothing to be
ashamed of. SRK is a superstar. Its Okay if fellow actors ape him.
Also people accuse SRK of overacting , going over-board , being
over-terrefic. Perhaps in a way u guys are correct. Nevertheless he is
accepted and the audience seem to love this weakness ( if at all ). The
Indian audience has given SRK the * license * to overact. No other actor
can over-act and get away with it. But SRK does it.
I would like to quote Sunil Shetty " If I or any other actor does these
things, we will be damn artificial and laughed at. But not SRK. Even if he
overacts , he does a damn good job at it . He is successful. Even
Bachchan didnt
enjoy these liberties from the crowd "
Over-acting is an art , too. If u do it and are not ridiculed but instead
are successful , that tells something about yr stardom and yr dominance in
the industry.
Dinesh
Mili
In article <575h19$h...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu> rr...@acsu.buffalo.edu (Rahul Rana) writes:
>From: rr...@acsu.buffalo.edu (Rahul Rana)
>Subject: Re: Raja Hindustani- a review
>In article <571g6n$n...@tuzo.erin>,
>ANWAR SADAT <e0fp...@erin.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> You know, I'm gonna prove that I am an objective person and I will go
>>down on record on RAMLI and state that Aamir probably did a better job in
>>this film than SRK could have. Mind you, SRK could have done it too...
>>but Aamir did such a good job that I can't really imagine anyone else
>>doing the role (although it is very possible). Furthermore, although
>>Aamir's role and performance come nowhere close to Nana's in Agnisakshi
>>and Khamoshi, I will still say that Aamir's performance in this film was
>>the second best performance of the year. Yes, I think Aamir was better
>>in Raja Hindustani than Shah Rukh was in Chaahat or Army. Of course,
>>that's partly because SRK's roles in the aforementioned films weren't
>>great anyways. Overall, SRK is still better. But dammit, I'll be a fair
>>guy and compromise... Aamir did a damn good job.
>>
> :-)
>I have a feeling that this guy is REALLY confused! He is in TOTAL turmoil
>seeing Aamir act so well and honestly realizing that no one could've acted
>better than Aamir (in this particular movie) ...
>Oh yes, above is MHO of course.
>-Rahul
u are not the only one who has felt that after reading sadat's mail u know...;)
The FRIENDLY netter
In <3297a7f8....@news.innotts.co.uk> uki...@innotts.co.uk (amar
joshi) writes:
>e0fp...@erin.utoronto.ca (ANWAR SADAT) wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I don't see how the portrayal of Karishma's step-mother goes
against
>>stereotypes. Remember, she is shown as an evil scheming person who
>>doesn't care for her step-daughter's life one bit. She only married
>>Karishma's dad for the money. I would think that this *reinforces*
the
>>stereotype that people have of step-mothers being evil and heartless.
>>
>outdazzles Karishma in many scenes. Its good that Indian cinema
>producers are starting to protray mothers as glamorous thinking
>figures rather than the usual helpless ones dependent on a doting son.
> These messages can have a big impact on society , hopefully
>mothers will now copy her and look after themselves.
>
Actually hindi movies like Raja Hindustani, are the movies that are
really helping to spread the message of indian ness. My observatin of
the the messages carried by the movies about the ideal of women is
following.
" The women who copies western dresses and thinking is villainish
and the women who is real heroine material who deserved to be loved and
adored is theone who cares about the indian model of women" This is
not jsut this movie that has spread this message. I will like to list
following moves that were released in recent past.
1. Angrazi Babu Deshi mem
2. Akale Hum Akala Tum
3. Rangilaa
etc. The message is clear-Howsoever westernized a women may become,
she always sticks to the roles excepted in indian model.
The role of danceres, sluts, concubines and many times office
secerataries are reserved for women with western outlook with scant
regard for traditional roled.
The opposition to beauty contest and the circumstances under which
it was held only underlines that it is only the india that gives
special value to women. After all movies cannot loose touch with indian
realities, or else who will watch hindi movies, because they cannot
fulfill desire of audience, to see sex, better than english movies.
Wethere or not people accept hindi as national language, hindi
movies are still largest seen movies, not only in India, but also in
foreign counties. All this happens becuase to the common theme of
movies. Hindi movies normally move around the following messages.
1.Struggles are common part of people
2.God and bad exist in the world and it is the truth that wins inspite
of all odds.
3. The ideal man is one who is a good son, brother, father and
husband.
4. The ideal women is one who is good daugher,sister,mother and wife.
5. Ideal families stick to indian culture, values and systed. The
spoilt families-often the families of the villains- are alienated from
their roots who more westernized.
The issue of conflict between modern (ie the western ideals of
indivdualism , consumersim ) and indian ( characterized by austiarity,
hardwork, and strong familiy orientation) has been central to hindi
movies. Whether it was movie Kal Aaaj Aur Kal ( 1971) or Raja
Hindustani, the message was that the indian system does work and the
western system brings conflicts and takes away peace of mind in ones
life.
The merefact that the indian culture is distinct from the
western culture is the reason that inspite of all the odds, the hindi
movies have a distinct place in the world of movies. I have seen many
people who make mocekry of hindi movies ( on the grounds that they
epmhasize emotions and are often unrealistic) but still they watch
hindi movies.
In concluding lines, I would say that english movies are at the best
accessories to hindi moves that are core part.
Regards,
TFN
ANWAR SADAT
In article <Pine.GSO.3.93.961123...@destrier.acsu.buffalo.edu>,
<d...@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>Also people accuse SRK of overacting , going over-board , being
>over-terrefic. Perhaps in a way u guys are correct. Nevertheless he is
>accepted and the audience seem to love this weakness ( if at all ). The
>Indian audience has given SRK the * license * to overact. No other actor
>can over-act and get away with it. But SRK does it.
>
>I would like to quote Sunil Shetty " If I or any other actor does these
>things, we will be damn artificial and laughed at. But not SRK. Even if he
>overacts , he does a damn good job at it . He is successful. Even
>Bachchan didnt
>enjoy these liberties from the crowd "
>
>Over-acting is an art , too. If u do it and are not ridiculed but instead
>are successful , that tells something about yr stardom and yr dominance in
>the industry.
Those are very intelligent words, Dinesh. I agree with you 100%. The
thing is, acting is acting, and it will never be 100% true to life. Some
people may like to believe that Aamir's acting is true to life, but I
would disagree. I have never met someone in real life who acts like
Aamir Khan. For that matter, I have never met anyone who has ever acted
like Amitabh, Dilip, Sanjeev, Nana, or any other actor! Remember, these
actors are all portraying FICTIONAL characters, and thus it would make
sense that the characters they portray are not always 100% believable.
The fault does not necessarily lie in the actor. The characters
themselves are fictional. For example, most people would agree that
Amitabh did a terrific job in Agneepath and Khuda Gawah. But don't tell
me that you've actually met a gangster who talks like Amitabh in
Agneepath. Also, I have come across many "pathans" from Pakistan and
Afghanistan, and none of them talked like Amitabh in Khuda Gawah. But
realize this, I am not trying to criticize Amitabh here. Number one, he
is portraying a fictional character who has purposely been
"over-inflated". Number two, even if the
characters were not "over-inflated" in the
script, the actor has to overact/"overportray"
the character in order to give an effective
performance. No one wants to see what a REAL
tapori talks like, because that would be
boring. No one wants to see what a real poor
person talks like, because that would probably
not attract the audiences. So I think the
actors purposely don't portray the characters
exactly as they would appear in real life.
I admit that, recently, Shah Rukh has
overacted in some scenes in Ram Jaane, EBDM,
and Chaahat. But once again, you have to
think about this clearly. Shah Rukh's
character in Ram Jaane and Chaahat are not
meant to be taken for real. They are not
meant to be real-to-life characters! This is
what makes the difference between real life
and cinema. People from real life watch
cinema because they want to get away from real
life! I don't see what some people don't
understand this. Every actor from Amitabh to
Sanjeev overacts. Shah Rukh has tendancy to
go overact even more than is sometimes
necessary, but in most cases, his roles demand
a bit of overacting (Darr, Baazigar, Ram
Jaane). In other roles, overacting is not
necessary, but it is enjoyable to watch
nonetheless (DDLJ, Kabhi Haan Kabhi Naa). The
ONLY case in which I think Shah Rukh went too
much overboard and his overacting was not
justified was in EBDM. But overall, the
bottom line is that the audience enjoys
watching SRK act. As Dinesh says, the
audience has given him the "license" to do
so. And remember, the actors only do what the
audience demands from them. Amitabh played
the avenging son a million times because the
audience didn't get sick of it. Akshay Kumar
has been playing "Inspector Vijay Kumar" in
his past 20 films because the audience likes
it. Govinda dances around like a joker in
every film because the audience likes it.
Similarly, SRK tends to go a bit overboard
with his acting because the audience is still
going for it. And if the audience does get
bored of it, which some people probably are, I
am sure that SRK is intelligent and versatile
enough an actor to sit back, re-analyze his
strategy, and give us different performances.
In Koyla, this is exactly what he will be
doing. He won't be jumping around like a
teenager singing cute songs. He will give a
very different and mature performance. And
knowing SRK's track record, I will bet
anything that he will do an amazing job of it.
ANWAR SADAT
In article <576t19$n...@news.inforamp.net>, Mili <Mi...@rangeela.net> wrote:
>
>u are not the only one who has felt that after reading sadat's mail u know...;)
I don't know what was so confusing about my post, Mili. I maintained
my position that SRK is a better actor than Aamir, but that Aamir did a
great job in Raja Hindustani. Now what's to be confused about? Either
you are confused to see someone *compromise*, because you are incapable
of doing it yourself, OR you really can't believe that someone is
agreeing tha tAamir is a good actor. Now which one is it?
amar joshi
e0fp...@erin.utoronto.ca (ANWAR SADAT) wrote:
>
> I don't see how the portrayal of Karishma's step-mother goes against
>stereotypes. Remember, she is shown as an evil scheming person who
>doesn't care for her step-daughter's life one bit. She only married
>Karishma's dad for the money. I would think that this *reinforces* the
>stereotype that people have of step-mothers being evil and heartless.
>
I was just commenting on Archana Singh's looks . She
outdazzles Karishma in many scenes. Its good that Indian cinema
producers are starting to protray mothers as glamorous thinking
figures rather than the usual helpless ones dependent on a doting son.
These messages can have a big impact on society , hopefully
mothers will now copy her and look after themselves.
The song 'Aap aye meri zindagi mein ' and 'Poocho nna' are
one of the best emotion stirrers for a long time.
amar joshi
amar joshi
Excellent post Baburam. i have put it on ukindia in the film page. Any
others you have on films or any other topic please let us have them
www.ukindia.com
On 23 Nov 1996 21:41:09 GMT, you wrote:
> " The women who copies western dresses and thinking is villainish
>and the women who is real heroine material who deserved to be loved and
http://www.ukindia.com
http://www.innotts.co.uk/~ukindia
email uki...@innotts.co.uk
PO Box 346 Nottingham NG8 5FX
UK
amar joshi
These movies are meant for Indian audiences especially those
in the rural areas and naturally the Westerners or those who imitate
Westerners are villains ( just as Indiana Jones makes Asians as the
bad guys ) .
The people are bright enough to take it in their stride . As
Westerners who go India relate they feel completely at home and are
not looked at with suspicion.
Mili
In article <57848j$i...@tuzo.erin> e0fp...@erin.utoronto.ca (ANWAR SADAT) writes:
>From: e0fp...@erin.utoronto.ca (ANWAR SADAT)
>Subject: Re: Raja Hindustani- a review
sadat, i haven't yet seen RH...but I can tell you one thing for sure...atleast
at Albion Hills Aamir is more talked about at this instant than SRK. Point
is...even if Srk is/was a good actor public is losing interest in
him...because after his fluke at DDLJ he hasn't come up with one reasonable
piece of work which is worthy of being called acting. Chahat, EBDM, Army were
all miserable. Aamir on the other hand has continued to give performances
which makes the public sit up and take notice of him. Even if he was nothing
big during SRK's DDLJ days, he was never evry far from the audience...unlike
SRK right now.
Mili
In article <57848j$i...@tuzo.erin> e0fp...@erin.utoronto.ca (ANWAR SADAT) writes:
>From: e0fp...@erin.utoronto.ca (ANWAR SADAT)
>Subject: Re: Raja Hindustani- a review
>Date: 23 Nov 1996 19:18:27 -0500
>In article <576t19$n...@news.inforamp.net>, Mili <Mi...@rangeela.net> wrote:
>>
>>u are not the only one who has felt that after reading sadat's mail u know...;)
> I don't know what was so confusing about my post, Mili. I maintained
>my position that SRK is a better actor than Aamir, but that Aamir did a
>great job in Raja Hindustani. Now what's to be confused about? Either
>you are confused to see someone *compromise*, because you are incapable
>of doing it yourself, OR you really can't believe that someone is
>agreeing tha tAamir is a good actor. Now which one is it?
I am not incapable of compromising...i just don't see it as a necessary thing
to do in the Aamir-SRK discussions. Anyways, the thing is Sadat...u _know_
Aamir did an awesome job in RH; you _know_ SRK couldn't have done it...it's
just that you don't want to admit it to yourself which is why; though you say
Aamir has done a great job u refute your point by saying but SRK isn't bad
either. You just don't know whether to go with your conscience or keep RAMLI
alive by fuelling the Aamir-SRK discussion. Because, honestly face it if the
Aamir-SRK discussions die and Antakshri is stopped, discussions about Miss
India, TV serials etc. are stopped what the hell is left?
Peeyush Ranjan
d...@acsu.buffalo.edu wrote:
: Over-acting is an art , too. If u do it and are not ridiculed but instead
: are successful , that tells something about yr stardom and yr dominance in
: the industry.
I am fed up of this debate.. since you agree that SRK overacts (may he be as damn
good at it as you please) I think this ends the debate since the debate was about
Aamir's acting and SRK's overacting, not about their popularity.. of course SRK is
more popular.
-Peeyush
ANWAR SADAT
Mili,
Each time I think you've said the dumbest thing I've ever heard, you
always manage to somehow outdo yourself. Let's take a look...
In article <57acti$l...@news.inforamp.net>, Mili <Mi...@rangeela.net> wrote:
>sadat, i haven't yet seen RH...but I can tell you one thing for sure...atleast
>at Albion Hills Aamir is more talked about at this instant than SRK.
Do you think that has *anything* at all to do with the fact that there
has not been an SRK film playing at Albion for the past month and a half,
while a new Aamir film was just released one week ago...??? Nah!!!
>Point is...even if Srk is/was a good actor public is losing interest in
>him...
Hardly so. As I said, he has not come out with a release since Army,
and even that was a "guest appearance." His last main release was
Chaahat, and his performance was appreciated by the Indian public, even
if not by the majority of RAMLIERS.
>...because after his fluke at DDLJ he hasn't come up with one reasonable
>piece of work which is worthy of being called acting.
Really? Some people would argue that Shah Rukh accomplished more in
Ram Jaane than Aamir will probably accomplish in his entire career. But
anyways, moving on here, how do you get off calling DDLJ a "fluke hit"??
I want to know your criteria for what a "fluke" is. DDLJ has great
direction, a good story, excellent songs, EXCELLENT performances, and
basically everything else that a superhit needs. It is *far* from being
a fluke. You know, Mili, I *may* have even agreed with you to some
extent if you had called Karan Arjun or Ram Jaane flukes, but DDLJ?? I
think not. The majority of Yashraj banner films are successful, so DDLJ
being a hit was no surprise, although it was definitely a bigger hit than
expected.
>Aamir on the other hand has continued to give performances
>which makes the public sit up and take notice of him.
I admit that. Singing "Why did you breaaaak my heaaaart" and a
10-minute scene with his face stuck to Karishma's sure did catch my
attention.
>Even if he was nothing big during SRK's DDLJ days, he was never evry far
>from the audience...unlike SRK right now.
More wishful thinking on your part. The fact is, SRK has consistently
been a major player in Bollywood ever since Deewana. What you said is
false. The opposite is true. When SRK's Zamaana Deewana, Guddu, and O
Darling Yeh Hai India flopped, he was still a major player. He was never
once far away from the top spot. Compare that to Aamir in 1993 and
1994. NO ONE CARED. Even the Aamirites here probably didn't give two
hoots about where Aamir was and what he was doing. He was practically
forgotten by everyone until Rangeela came out. So let's face it, if
anyone had a fluke hit, it was Aamir. Aamir's career desperately needed
the success that was Rangeela. SRK, on the other hand, did not really
need DDLJ (although this may be contrary to what people would have you
believe). Hypothetically speaking, even if DDLJ had not come out, or it
had flopped, 1995's biggest hit would still have been an SRK starrer,
Karan Arjun.
ANWAR SADAT
>I am not incapable of compromising...i just don't see it as a necessary thing
>to do in the Aamir-SRK discussions. Anyways, the thing is Sadat...u _know_
>Aamir did an awesome job in RH; you _know_ SRK couldn't have done it...it's
>just that you don't want to admit it to yourself which is why; though you say
>Aamir has done a great job u refute your point by saying but SRK isn't bad
>either. You just don't know whether to go with your conscience or keep RAMLI
>alive by fuelling the Aamir-SRK discussion. Because, honestly face it if the
>Aamir-SRK discussions die and Antakshri is stopped, discussions about Miss
>India, TV serials etc. are stopped what the hell is left?
Why would I care about the SRK-Aamir war anymore than anyone else? I
am sick of it myself now. Yes, it was entertaining at first, but now I'm
pretty tired of it. Until now, I don't think I directly participated in
it for atleast a month now. YOU were the one that said some garbage
about how Dushman Duniya Ka and Raja Hindustani will be pitting SRK
against Aamir again. Some stupidity like that. Never mind that SRK is
in DDK for a full three minutes. You may as well compare Aamir's Raja
Hindustani to SRK's Pepsi t.v. commercial!
And besides being guilty of continuing to add fire to the SRK-Aamir
war, you are also guilty of being incapable of compromising. YES, you
are incapable of compromising. *I* was the one that came out, took the
initiative and commended Aamir's performance in Raja Hindustani even
before the traditional Aamirites did! How is that adding fuel to the
fire? I was taking my hats off to Aamir. But as is typical of most
desis, you probably don't understand what it means to be mature,
objective, and compromising, and so when you saw me do it, you got
confused yourself. What else would lead you to this foolishness of
performing some type of Freudian psychoanalysis on me telling me about
how it's really my inner conscious which is driving me to admit that SRK
sucks and Aamir rules... Sheesh, get a grip of yourself. I am an
objective person. I came out and commended Aamir's performance in RH,
but I maintained my basic position which is that SRK is still a superior
actor. Now if you want to see this as a sign of my weakness or
"confusion", go right on ahead. I'm not doing anything except trying to
be objective and give credit where it's due. I've always tried to do
that since day one. Unfortunately, most desis are so dumb that they see
a compromise or an apology as a sign of weakness... Grow up.
Toronto girls are so stupid....
Peeyush Ranjan
ANWAR SADAT (e0fp...@erin.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: Hardly so. As I said, he has not come out with a release since Army,
: and even that was a "guest appearance." His last main release was
: Chaahat, and his performance was appreciated by the Indian public, even
: if not by the majority of RAMLIERS.
Well.. as always, RAMLIERS know the distinction between good and bad.. unlike
Indian public which made Sanam Bewafa also a great hit!
: Really? Some people would argue that Shah Rukh accomplished more in
: Ram Jaane than Aamir will probably accomplish in his entire career. But
Come on Sadat, you cant mean it. You must be desperately defensive to say that
(offense is the best defense, right). I think rather Aamir accompolished more in
Rangeela than SRK's till date (and possible entire career). And this in terms of
acting performance, and not box office collection.. performance wise I think any
piece of acting by Aamir is beyond comparison with any of SRK's work (may be not
Chamatkar, one movie where he was normal).
: anyways, moving on here, how do you get off calling DDLJ a "fluke hit"??
: I want to know your criteria for what a "fluke" is. DDLJ has great
: direction, a good story, excellent songs, EXCELLENT performances, and
EXCELLENT performances? Surely Amrish Puri did a wonderful job, and so did I
think Farida Jalal. Kajol's and Shahrukh's performances were average. Kajol's
"mujhe ek baar apni jindagi jee lene dijiye babuji, fir aap jisse kahenge main
shaadi kar lungi" sounded so corny.. and SRK's overdoing the happy and energetic
character at the time of marriage (with the buaji choosing her sari episode)
were reminder of his calibre in overacting. And the face he made in the end
while fighting and all was seen too many times before, irrespective of the
movie, his expressions remain the same.. I can hardly term that an excellent
performance. As for the story, songs etc they were good. And I liked the
character SRK portraid, but he over did it..
: >Aamir on the other hand has continued to give performances
: >which makes the public sit up and take notice of him.
: I admit that. Singing "Why did you breaaaak my heaaaart" and a
: 10-minute scene with his face stuck to Karishma's sure did catch my
: attention.
Come on sir.. you surely dont mean someone's acting calibre should be judged
by a kissing scene done for the front stall (if you know what is the concept of
the "front stall"). I already reminded of the sex scene of Deepa Shahi and
Shah Rukh Khan.. now dont tell me that scene qualifies his acting in any manner.
: 1994. NO ONE CARED. Even the Aamirites here probably didn't give two
: hoots about where Aamir was and what he was doing. He was practically
: forgotten by everyone until Rangeela came out. So let's face it, if
DHKMN? HHRPK? I assume you never heard of these movies.
: anyone had a fluke hit, it was Aamir. Aamir's career desperately needed
: the success that was Rangeela. SRK, on the other hand, did not really
: need DDLJ (although this may be contrary to what people would have you
: believe). Hypothetically speaking, even if DDLJ had not come out, or it
: had flopped, 1995's biggest hit would still have been an SRK starrer,
: Karan Arjun.
Man!!! This is too much.. I quit debating with you. You think karan Arjun was
the greatest hit of 95 after DDLJ..
-Peeyush
Anand Tiwari
In article <19961127000...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, nm...@aol.com says...
>
Hi,
It was interesting to read the article merely because it contained
the views of some noted (at least by today's standards) film makers.
However in my strictly personal opinion stardust is not even worth a
paisa. It is the worst film magazine, has little informative value
and thrives on concoted scandals. Once again i repeat this is strictly
personal. I would not even care to think what "Rags" in the garb of
a film magazine like stardust write and that goes for other publications
like Cineblitz and Show time. Once again people may differ but Stardust
is the worst of the lot.
regards
Anand
> This article’s from the Jan Stardust. It’s a little old, but
>brings up some interesting points. The article was written pre-Trimurti.
>
> "Twin orbs orbiting the sun of success, each one vying for more
>luminescence and warmth. One, mercurial and brilliant, the other, earthy,
>consistently skillful and equally brilliant.
>
> They are the King Khans of Bollywood marquee: Shah Rukh and
>Aamir. As disparate as chalk and cheese, yet traveling the same road to
>fame and fortune, they have attained prize status in different ways.
>While Shah Rukh exploded onto the scene in a flash of blinding talent,
>Aamir has steadily worked his way to the pinnacle. Yet, three months ago,
>neither was considered a serious threat to the big-time action stars.
>
> Aamir was floundering in career doldrums after several of his
>favorite projects bit the Bollywood dust. And even more unexpectedly,
>Shah Rukh had spewed a hat-trick of turkeys after a huge hit. Suddenly,
>these two weren’t being included in trade conversations about the best
>box-office draws. And then, a visual superfeast named ‘Rangeela’ arrived.
> Aamir’s contribution to the film was easily reckoned as superior to those
>of the director, Urmila, Jackie and even his own past feats-no small
>achievement. His tapori-with-a-heart character captured the country’s
>imagination like no other in recent times. Aamir’s popularity surged to
>phenomenal heights. Barely a month later, it was Shah Rukh’s turn to ride
>the crest. ‘Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge’ was no pathbreaking classic, but
>Khan’s superbly endearing performance gave the film cult-status within no
>time. Today, it is the film to give ‘Hum Aapke Hain Koun’ a scare for the
>top slot. Thus, thanks to these two actors, the sun was shining on
>Bollywood all over again. The movie-going public was divided in their
>opinions about their individual performances; everyone had a favorite,
>either Aamir or Shah Rukh.
>
> Then, on the first of December, another chapter in movie history
>was born, as a couple of milestone films featuring the actor were released
>simultaneously. ‘Ram Jaane’ and ‘Akele Hum Akele Tum’ suddenly pitted the
>two stars against each other blatantly. Where an intense rivalry between
>them had previously been mere speculation, here was a classic case of a
>movie star contest being sparked off. How, it was totally evident that the
>current season had only two actors holding the turnstiles in thrall, and
>all of a sudden, they were neck-to-neck as far as success went. Aamir, it
>was said, had given his most mature performance ever, one that would be
>worthy of an Oscar consideration, if possible. On the other hand, Shah
>Rukh had usurped Aamir’s previous street character and spun in into a
>dimension of its own.
>
> So the stage is now set for the most intriguing competition in
>years: the battle of Khans. This is a full-blown conflict that has taken
>precedence over most other tinseltown activities; trade circles; the
>riffraff, critics, the entire Hindi filmgoing pageant is abuzz with
>excitement over the prospect of the duel of the decade. The next show of
>strength from both sides: Shah Rukh’s trump card of the year ‘Trimurti’,
>a mega-production, that seems a sureshot winner; and a less trumpeted, but
>equally-awaited film featuring Aamir, ‘Raja Hindustani’. Who will win the
>last clash of the year? How is more saleable presently? Is this
>simultaneous release of the tow actors’ films a heady coincidence or a
>deliberately engineered game play? And once and for all, who is the
>better actor? These, and a bevy of other questions have been tackled by
>those who know best-the most prominent filmmakers in Bollywood. Discover
>yourself, what makes Aamir and Shah Rukh the most sought-after performers
>to hit the industry after a long drought. The thrills and spills have
>just begun, as the show goes into decisive make-or-break stage. may the
>best Khan win. The prize is only top-position after all. No wonder a Khan
>quake has already begun.
>
>Mansoor Khan: “I don’t think there is anything such as a perfect actor.
>Every actor has his limitations. Aamir is definitely a professional to
>the core. He understands the film medium complete. his active
>participation in every department of film making is certainly a boon to
>any director who’s working with him. But when his stubbornness gets in
>the way, things do look sour. That’s his major drawback. As far as Shah
>Rukh is concerned, he has commendable versatility. He’s like fire on
>screen. Since I haven’t worked with him, I can’t really pinpoint any of
>his weaknesses or negative traits. But I surely do salute his immense
>talent. One thing that’s common between Aamir and Shah Rukh is that they
>represent the new breed of ‘actors’ and I feel they tend to think about
>cinema, which is not the case with their contemporaries. They both have
>succeeded in gaining ground in terms of popularity and fame. Right now, I
>would say that they are equal in terms of star-status. “I know Shah Rukh
>charges a crore for a film these days, but then I think he is justified in
>asking for that much. His films so well, he has a mammoth fan-following
>and he is a deserving case. About Aamir, I will say that he doesn’t have
>the charisma to rise above the script. He fails on that score. But both
>of them can create wonders if they have a strong script and powerful
>characterisations.”
>
>Ram Gopal Verma: “An actor’s perfection can never be measured. See, it’s
>like this. If a director has planned a certain shot with a certain view
>in mind, he cannot expect the actor to meet his requirements at all times.
> Sometimes, the actor may fail while at other times, he might just do the
>scene better than what the director has actually conceived. What I’m
>trying to say is that when you talk about actors like Aamir and Shah Rukh,
>it’s very difficult to try and gauge what they can do and what they
>cannot. I have worked with Aamir in ‘Rangeela’ and I must say that he’s
>one of the most dedicated actors we have in the industry. When we were
>shooting, he would often go into his deep thoughts, trying to evolve his
>role in the best manner possible. And at the end of it, he would put so
>much life into his character. I can’t say much about Shah Rukh except
>that I always thought he wasn’t a good actor at all. Until I saw ‘Dilwale
>Dulhania Le Jayenge’ and he really stumped me. He was mind-blowing in the
>movie."
>
>Boney Kapoor: "When you talk of perfect actors, the only three names that
>come to your mind are Dilip Kumar, Amitabh Bachchan and Sanjeev Kumar.
>They were the masters as fas as acting was concerned. Nobody can even
>come close to them. Of course, in today's times as well, there are a few
>good actors like Naseeruddin Shah, Kamal Hassan, Anil and of course, Aamir
>and Shah Rukh. Aamir, I personally feell, is too good as an actor. But
>since I haven't got the oppurtunity to work with him, I cannot say
>anything about his positive or negative traits. However, one thing that's
>for sure is that he does stand apart from the current breed of actors.
>Shah Rukh can certainly do better than what he's doing at present. Of
>course, you can't write him off and his versatility cannot be doubted
>either. But the fact remains that he has to be extremely careful to see
>to it that he does not become repetitve in his performances. This year, I
>agree that both Aamir and Shah Rukh have made a mark, but it all depends
>on how long they can hold their positions. Aamir did try to project
>himself as an action hero but the script of 'Baazi' didn't help him at
>all. On the other hand, when Shah Rukh took the risk of playing the
>character of an anti-hero, it did wonders to his career. But then, I also
>feel that had Aamir done 'Baazigar' or 'Darr', he would've succeeded too.
>Both Aamir and Shah Rukh are superstars in their own field but now, one
>has to wait and watch their future moves. People have a lot of
>expectations, they'll be doomed because no actor can rise above a script.
>And as fas as saleability is concerned, well, you cannot really measure
>that on the basis of popularity. Because there are a lot of other factors
>as well that have to be taken into consideration. Let me tell you that
>Aamir fetches a very good price in the North and Shah Rukh, in the South."
>
>
>I’ll post the rest later.
>
nm...@aol.com
amar joshi
Mi...@rangeela.net (Mili) wrote:
> I am not sure how much of a hit
Raja Hindustani is going to be.<
Initial reports say it has broken all records.Its made on similar
lines i think to HAHK and DDLJ . Love and marriage songs , simple
story line , few fights , excellent music - Ishq may nachenge and Aai
mere zindagi mein were good.
I am sure in the villages many women will frown with disapproval but
the men will enjoy immensely comedy touches like the scene where
Archana Puransingh who looks a peach in her tennis shorts has to fend
off the molestations with his hands in all the wrong places of the
villager come to town who cannot believe an 'Amma' can look so good !
Mili
In article <57fhvk$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> pee...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Peeyush Ranjan) writes:
>From: pee...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Peeyush Ranjan)
>Subject: Re: Raja Hindustani- a review
>Date: 26 Nov 1996 19:55:32 GMT
>ANWAR SADAT (e0fp...@erin.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>:
>: >Aamir on the other hand has continued to give performances
>: >which makes the public sit up and take notice of him.
>: I admit that. Singing "Why did you breaaaak my heaaaart" and a
>: 10-minute scene with his face stuck to Karishma's sure did catch my
>: attention.
What is it with Aamir's detratctors? if he does soemthing different in a movie
it si an explosive sex-scene but if he doesn't then he is not versatile
enuf?!?! Make up your minds already.
>
>: 1994. NO ONE CARED. Even the Aamirites here probably didn't give two
>: hoots about where Aamir was and what he was doing. He was practically
>: forgotten by everyone until Rangeela came out. So let's face it, if
>You really should see more movies besides just SRK. have u even heard of
JJWS?DHKMN?HHRPK?
>: anyone had a fluke hit, it was Aamir. Aamir's career desperately needed
>: the success that was Rangeela. SRK, on the other hand, did not really
>: need DDLJ (although this may be contrary to what people would have you
>: believe). Hypothetically speaking, even if DDLJ had not come out, or it
>: had flopped, 1995's biggest hit would still have been an SRK starrer,
>: Karan Arjun.
>Aamir's Rangeela role had a lot more effort put into it by Aamir than SRK in
his DDLJ role. If SRK had been given the role of Munna Bhai it won't be
remembered as a classic performance unlike most of Aamir's roles, Raj (QSQT),
Sunny(JJWS), Raghy Jaitly(DDLJ), Rohit(AHAT) and ofcourse Munna Bhai(Rangeela).
Although I am a true blood Aamir fan _even_ I am not sure how much of a hit
Raja Hindustani is going to be.
There Sadat, me who is *incapable* of compromising has done just that. I admit
I was a tad bit disappointed by RH.
Mili
ANWAR SADAT
In article <57hl7m$7...@mapperley.innotts.co.uk>,
This *must* be a joke! But then again, if KKK could be a superhit,
who knows..... Maybe all the horny male teens are rushing to see Aamir
kiss Karishma.... :)
michael strug
Just a small question, which "KKK" film are you talking about as
superhit? I can't recal any with the abbreviation KKK or so. Thanks.
Peeyush Ranjan
ANWAR SADAT (e0fp...@erin.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: In article <57hl7m$7...@mapperley.innotts.co.uk>,
: amar joshi <uki...@innotts.co.uk> wrote:
: >
: > Initial reports say it has broken all records.
: This *must* be a joke! But then again, if KKK could be a superhit,
: who knows..... Maybe all the horny male teens are rushing to see Aamir
: kiss Karishma.... :)
What are you talking about man.. may be it is a joke.. but why would people
flock to see anyone kiss Karishma?!!
-Peeyush
Peeyush Ranjan
michael strug (mst...@None.None.EDU) wrote:
: Just a small question, which "KKK" film are you talking about as
I think he means Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi (in which they showed Canada all the
time calling it US.. god knows why they did that).
-Peeyush
Akash Shringi
:who gives a shit about sharukh and amir...fucken east or west AMITABH IS
:THE BEST!
:akash from GUam usa
:shr...@saba.kuentos.guam.net
Peeyush Ranjan (pee...@expert.cc.purdue.edu)
: : >Aamir on the other hand has continued to give performances
: : >which makes the public sit up and take notice of him.
: : I admit that. Singing "Why did you breaaaak my heaaaart" and a
: : 10-minute scene with his face stuck to Karishma's sure did catch my
: : attention.
: Come on sir.. you surely dont mean someone's acting calibre should be judged
: by a kissing scene done for the front stall (if you know what is the concept of
: the "front stall"). I already reminded of the sex scene of Deepa Shahi and
: Shah Rukh Khan.. now dont tell me that scene qualifies his acting in any manner.
: : 1994. NO ONE CARED. Even the Aamirites here probably didn't give two
: : hoots about where Aamir was and what he was doing. He was practically
: : forgotten by everyone until Rangeela came out. So let's face it, if
: DHKMN? HHRPK? I assume you never heard of these movies.
: : anyone had a fluke hit, it was Aamir. Aamir's career desperately needed
: : the success that was Rangeela. SRK, on the other hand, did not really
: : need DDLJ (although this may be contrary to what people would have you
: : believe). Hypothetically speaking, even if DDLJ had not come out, or it
: : had flopped, 1995's biggest hit would still have been an SRK starrer,
: : Karan Arjun.
: Man!!! This is too much.. I quit debating with you. You think karan Arjun was
nm...@aol.com
Balkrishna Shroff (Film Distributor- Shringar Films): "A perfect actor
should know what makes him rise above the others and besides that, he
should also be sincere in his work. He should also work only in a limited
number of films in order to avoid overexposure. I would certainly rate
Aamir and Shah Rukh as the two most perfect actors in the industry. Aamir
is excellent in his performances, he is even hard-working and knows the
medium of film-making thoroughly. He even knows his own limitations,
that's why he is so choosy aobut his roles. Somehow, I feel that Shah
Rukh's versatility is different from Aamir's. Aamir may not take the kind
of risks that Shah Rukh does. He tries out something new everytime and
that's what the audience likes. Aamir and Shah Rukh are definitely better
than all their contemporaries put together. But mind you, it's only the
makers who have helped them reach this position. Aamir's only weak point
is that he is too much into his own world. He has his own beliefs and is
not willing to experiment beyond the expected. But he more than makes up
for it with his talent. In distribution circles, I don't think any star
sells anymore, why only Aamir and Shah Rukh? These days, only the makers
sell. But I don't understand one thing about Shah Rukh. Why has he hiked
his price to a crore? Doesn't he know that he more he asks for, the
higher
his films will sell. And the lesser will be the chances of recovery. I
think he's asking for too much and this will definitely hamper his career
in the long run."
Rajiv Rai: "A perfect actor is one who is a director's delight. He
should understand the character he is portraying and trust his director,
without interfering too much in the script. Jeetendra, I would say, is a
perfect actor becasue he had always been in the good books of his makers.
He knows his job is to act, not direct. I'm not saying that Aamir and
Shah Rukh are not good actors. But they should take a tip or two from
Jeetendra on survival in the industry. Aamir Khan, since the day he
entered the industry, has been doing decent films. Even when he went
through a low in his career, he never became desperate and signed wrong
films. Also, what seems to have gone his favor is underplayed act. He
has neve got involved in his controcersies, he has never said that he is
the best, he has worked with his own convictions. And look where he is
today. I think it's really unfair to compare him with Shah Rukh because
both of them are like two different identities. They always want to try
out something new all the time. And I don't think any of them has a fixed
image either. They have succeeded in portraying all kinds of roles. Shah
Rukh is a man of moods and he'll remain like that. Aamir doesn't take
risks. Shah Rukh does and he gets away with it all the time. Both of
them are actually competing with themselves and not with each other. They
are so good that they have to better themselves everytime.
Dharmesh Darshan: "A perfect actor is one who does not intimidate the
director at any level. If he delivers the goods from the director's
viewpoint then even the director can help the actor realize his full
potential. Aamir is a prefect actor no doubt. Even Dunny is one
according to me, but he is not a thinking actor like Aamir. However, I
know that Aamir would not like to be called a perfect actor. Because he
wants to better himself all the time. One aspect that Aamir scores ober
other actors is that he always respects his director's intellect. He may
not agree to a particular scene but he will do it eventually if the
director asks him to. Also, unlike some other actors, Aamir is not
somebody who talks about quality and then does fifty films alongside.
When he says that he is going to do selected films, he means it. Shah
Rukh is someone I haven't worked with, but I find him as brilliant as
Aamir. I think he is also versatile but I cannot compare them. Because
they both have done very diverse kind of films. That's the reason why I
feel that neither can score over the other. Like Shah Rukh, Aamir also
believes in doing different kind of roles. I don't think he rejected
'Darr' because he was scared or something; it must have been some other
reason. Aamir is not intimidated by any challenge. He is far too
talented an actor to feel threatened. And I don't think that playing the
anti-hero is teh only definition of versatility.
Tolu Bajaj (Film Distributor- Metro Films): "Aamir should keep away from
action, that's his only drawback. Aamir can qualify for a perfect actor
status keeping aside his flagging action image. Shah Rukh has also come
near to achieving that status. He is doing the right kind of films for
the right kind of people like Yash Chopra, Mahesh Bhatt, and Subhash Ghai.
He has realized that arty kind of films are not his cup of tea. If he
keeps on this trend, he will certainly be the next superstar. Akshay and
Sanjay Dutt are his only rivals. Otherwise there is nobody quite worth
his match. Shah Rukh and Aamir, both have their individual styles of
working but they are absolutely on par with each other. And I don't think
they are in any better positions than their contemporaries. In fact, I
find Akshay and Sanjay to be superior to them. But if you talk about
performance-oriented films then yes, theses two certainly have an edge.
Shah Rukh has the guts to accept any kind of roles. He has taken chances
while Aamir has not. As of now, between the two, Shah Rukh has shown a
tremendous amount of versatility. He has an edge because he has the
capacity to pull in the crowds. But Shah Rukh should stop doing those
semi-arty films like 'Oh Darling Yeh Hai India'."
Pahlaj Nihalani: "Aamir is an excellent ctor, he did a wonderful job as a
'tapori' in 'Rangeela'. But Shah Rukh is definitely different and his
style has been appreciated by the audiences. People liked him immensely
in 'Darr', a role which Aamir had refused. Aamir probably thought that it
wouldn't have worked but the same role did wonders to Shah Rukh's career.
Today, people have become very quality-conscious;
that's why when Shah Rukh performed his part with so much conviction,
everyone stood up and gave him thunderous applause. No one can become a
threat to the tow of them if Shah Rukh and Aamir continue doing good films
with the right makers. Average-wise, Aamir has done a lesser number of
films compared to Shah Rukh. But in a short span of time, Shah Rukh too
has given an equal amount of hits which have got him where he is today.
Shah Rukh is worth two crores today so I think he deserves his price."
Mili
In article <581gd0$m...@lehi.kuentos.guam.net> shr...@saba.kuentos.guam.net (Akash Shringi) writes:
>From: shr...@saba.kuentos.guam.net (Akash Shringi)
>Subject: Re: Raja Hindustani- a review
>Date: 3 Dec 1996 15:18:55 GMT
>
>: : >Aamir on the other hand has continued to give performances
>: : >which makes the public sit up and take notice of him.
>: : I admit that. Singing "Why did you breaaaak my heaaaart" and a
>: : 10-minute scene with his face stuck to Karishma's sure did catch my
>: : attention.
**Whatever...if he does soemthing different in a movie all the aamir
detractors call it an explosive sex scene. and if he doesn't he is boring
and not versatile enough?!?!?!!? Come on you guys make up your minds**
>
>: : 1994. NO ONE CARED. Even the Aamirites here probably didn't give two
>: : hoots about where Aamir was and what he was doing. He was practically
>: : forgotten by everyone until Rangeela came out. So let's face it, if
>do you even remember JJWS?HHRPK?DHKMN? just ignoring his excellent
performances isn't going to make them go away you know?
>Mili